An adequate transportation system is very important to the balance of economic growth, equality of opportunity, environmental preservation, and value of life objectives. The present situation of state infrastructure emphasizes the want for a more systematic methodology. Careful preparation is required to direct a new state and local investments. But as of now, the state government currently lacks an incorporated set growth policy goals and purposes to guide or direct its planning and investment evaluations.
The product of this produces an inefficient development that grind downs the states quality of life and promotes unequal chance across municipalities. Regions are the proper scales for many critical decisions associated to growth and development. Many infrastructure investments for transportation are also regional in scale. The planning and regulatory efforts carried out by the federal, state and local governments at the regional level have been restricted in effect
As cited by Lewis and Sprague metropolitan’s function as something of a counterweight to state and local governments. This is important because different levels of government have different incentives in spending federal transportation funds. Regional units may be expected to worry primarily about the region’s competitiveness with other metropolitan areas, which suggests an emphasis on systematic approaches to travel, congestion, and goods movement.
Local levels of government have a narrower frame of reference in making infrastructure decisions, focusing on the traffic level, economic growth, and tax base of smaller area. At the state level, the emphasis has typically been on knitting together the state through a network of state highways. The legacy of highway-building has shaped the organizational culture of state departments of transportation (1997).
