Imagine, if you will, that you share a group house with five other people. One day, the house decides to throw a party, at which you’ll happily provide your guests with food and beverages. Rather than plan the party together, however, you just decide that each housemember can handle a portion of the preparation by him or herself.

The day of the party comes, and everything is a mess. Some housemembers brought what they thought was a fair share of the supplies, some brought just enough for themselves, and some brought nothing, thinking they weren’t about to shell out their hard earned cash without knowing whether everyone else was going to as well. Nobody went out and bought everything that was needed. Now all your friends are sitting around hungry and sober; nice work, group house.

That’s a coordination problem, and a similar one is looming large in discussions of planning for growth in the Washington area. Some observers, myself included, feel that it’s important for leaders here to address growth issues from a regional standpoint, but others don’t always understand why a regional perspective might be preferable to uncoordinated local government action. As fortune would have it, however, a convenient coincidence of recent stories makes the advantage of a regional approach crystal clear. It seems we’re looking at a future that’s a party with no drinks, and nobody likes a party with no drinks.

Consider this: the Washington metropolitan area, currently home to nearly 5 million people, is expected to add (PDF) another 1.5 to 2 million people over the next 25 years, according to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. While job creation and population growth are expected to increase substantially throughout the area, the largest percentage gains are predicted for the area’s outer suburbs, including a number of counties where population and employment are expected to double over that time period. How should local leadership react?

Picture taken by Jon-Miles.