The Legislature is messing with local transportation planning. What is their goal? | Opinion

Once again, someone thinks it’s time to revamp the Ada County Highway District. When I moved here in 1996, ACHD had a three-member board. After some consternation that a bicyclist was elected, the board was expanded to five commissioners in 1998. Now we have House Bill 637 introduced by an Eagle legislator seeking to increase the commission to seven members to have “better representation.” (A similar bill to increase the commission to seven members was also introduced in 1998 but didn’t pass.)

My various positions in the public sector after a 37-year career in land use and transportation planning had a common responsibility — to ensure decision-makers had good information on which to base their decisions. It was my job to recognize the potential for unforeseen consequences of well-intended policies and offer alternative options to achieve the desired goals for the jurisdiction. In that spirit, I recommend the Idaho Legislature reject the latest bill for the following reasons.

The perceived inequity of representation is a false equivalence. The sponsor (Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle) believes each city needs a unique representative, but in reality, more than 50% of all trips in Ada County begin or end in Boise. Here is data that shows the percent internal vs. external trips for each city in Ada County as presented at the Nov. 13, ACHD impact fee committee meeting:

It can be derived that dollars expended in a jurisdiction benefit roadway users from other jurisdictions, especially dollars expended in Boise. That is why districts in a countywide highway district are more rationally drawn from traffic sheds rather than strict jurisdictional boundaries.

I have heard arguments that the smaller cities feel there is an imbalance in the revenues they generate compared to the expenditures in their jurisdiction when looking at a five-year history. Transportation funding programs represent at least a five-year investment plan. Projects are included in the funding plan based on available revenue, the need to address cost overruns (especially after asphalt and concrete prices increased dramatically), the need for a logical sequencing of projects, the need to use impact fees within the statutory deadline and use general funds to cover non-impact fee eligible project costs.

This is a difficult balancing act for all highway districts and is amplified by the geographic scope of Ada County. A better picture would be a review of a longer period of time, which ACHD provides on their website. Their review of revenue and expenditures by jurisdiction from 2007-2021 reveals a balanced program.

Where is the inequity? The 2% difference in Eagle is easily resolved if you add in the ITD expenditures over the last 15 years on improvements to State Street, Highway 55 and Highway 16.

I read a quote from the sponsor saying: “The frustration part right now in ACHD is no one knows what they’re doing. We just pay a lot of taxes and everything’s congested.”

I “know what they’re doing” by reading the detailed project and funding reports on their website and by attending project open houses and viewing Commission meetings online. If he thinks that ACHD can eliminate congestion then he should take time to read the region’s long-range transportation plan and congestion mitigation plan on the COMPASS website.

Finally, as the daughter of a math instructor, the bill contains a requirement that will be impossible to implement. There is no scenario where seven districts can include one city and have proportional representation.

If there truly is a need to redraw the governance structure of ACHD, the voters of Ada County should be the first ones to ask, not the Idaho Legislature.