We have no doubt that this is true (though for how long, we're not sure), but the deterioration of our bridges says something about our transportation priorities.

Photo by {ryan}

Let's face it. Politicians are lousy transportation planners. They are focused with delivering big, high-profile projects to their constituents such as the bevy of new transportation toys scheduled to come on line in the D.C. area over the next several years. Between all the ribbon-cutting and silver shovel theatrics, it's easy to overlook that fact that the flashy new projects they deliver aren't always the best use of public money. New construction paid for with limited transportation dollars often comes at the expense of maintaining existing structures. Deferring this maintenance might be an easy way to scare up a few million dollars for a road widening project or a new interchange, but like avoiding annual dental cleanings, the costs of fixing the problem is almost always far more costly than preventing it.

Even the District, which has kept up with bridge maintenance better than its neighbors, would need a "major infusion of funds" to pay for the maintenance needed to keep deteriorating Potomac bridges safe over the next 20 years. Some in Congress are calling for increased gas taxes to fund a nationwide maintenance program. President Bush has responded by telling Congress it should be more careful with how it spends its existing money before it asks for more. We don't always agree with the Engineer-in-Chief, but on this, he's got a point. Dedicating consistent resources to maintaining infrastructure like bridges might not be as sexy as building another lane or a new interchange. But it keeps our municipal investments sound, and it keeps people safe.

That's why several states, including Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania, have adopted a so-called "Fix-It First" policy. These states have committed to prioritizing annual maintenance needs over new transportation construction. Funding maintenance first on the budget sheet not only ensures that infrastructure is safe, it also gives transportation planners and politicians a better idea of how much money they really have to work with. This allows officials to identify gaps between revenue and needs sooner rather than later, and plan ways to address them without all the acrimony of a "funding crisis," such as the one we saw in Virginia earlier this year.

Fix-It First has less tangible benefits as well. Such a policy helps to tone down the over-development led by politicians eager to play an oversize game of Legos on the public's dime. Many a suburban subdivision only exists because a member of Congress earmarked money for a road, and the traffic on that road comes only from that particular development. By focusing money and staff time on infrastructure that already exists, we discourage growth and development at the edges of metropolitan areas, helping to reign in sprawl, meanwhile improving urban and neighborhood cores and encouraging further investment.

In light of the congestion issues in both Virginia and Maryland, implementing a Fix-It First policy is not something that would be popular in state houses. Not only would it prevent many of the pet projects lawmakers trade like so much political currency, it would offer a sobering look at the true rehab and maintenance needs of our areas vast, aging transportation network. But when our bridges are literally falling down around us, a little sobriety could go a long way.