Local opinion: The “R” in RTA Matters: Why regional transportation requires balance

The “R” in RTA stands for regional — and that distinction matters now more than ever.

Regional transportation, by definition, requires consensus. It means recognizing that no single city, town or constituency will get everything it wants, and that no single perspective should dominate. That isn’t a weakness. It’s good governance.

Propositions 418 and 419, together known as RTA Next, are not a perfect plan. A regional plan requires consensus between the regional partners because funding limitations exist. The priority needs for each partner and the region as a whole are reflected in this plan.

RTA Next represents a deliberate, regionally balanced investment in safety, mobility and economic opportunity across Pima County. It reflects the reality that people may live in one jurisdiction, work in another, shop in a third, and travel across city limits every day. Our transportation system must reflect that interconnected truth. To disregard our shared interest in the county's success is short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating. The arguments for the "No" rest on that inward-looking premise.

Opposition to RTA Next generally falls into two camps.

The first, often framed as “Tucson Deserves Better,” argues for a narrower, city-only focus. At its core, that argument overlooks the broader region. A county spanning more than 9,000 square miles with rural communities, growing suburbs, freight corridors and major employment centers cannot function on a single-city transportation philosophy. What may sound compelling within one set of boundaries does not scale across an interconnected region.

The second camp argues from mistrust, often using slogans like “Broken Roads, Broken Trust.” But slogans are not analysis. There are seven unfinished projects from RTA1 because the collected tax revenue fell over 25% below the plan’s 20-year estimate. In addition, much has been made of the fact that five of the seven unfinished RTA 1 projects are in the City of Tucson. What is often left out is that the city itself requested that several of those projects be scheduled later in the original RTA. That was a local sequencing decision, not a failure of the regional framework.

Equally overlooked are the safeguards built into the RTA structure: independent oversight committees, public reporting, voter-approved project lists, and municipal representation, as well as required audits by the State Auditor General. These are not cosmetic features. They are real accountability mechanisms that provide transparency and coordination across jurisdictions. Fragmentation would not strengthen accountability; it would weaken it. RTA provides vital checks and balances.

Some critics claim RTA Next will drive sprawl or diminish quality of life. In reality, coordinated regional planning allows growth to be managed responsibly, improves safety along existing corridors, and reduces congestion through smarter investment. Disconnected, city-by-city approaches are far more likely to produce inefficiency and duplication.

What is notably absent from most serious critiques is a viable alternative. Ending the RTA does not eliminate the need for transportation funding. It eliminates the most efficient, voter-approved, and accountable mechanism we have to deliver it. Without it, communities would compete instead of coordinate, duplicate instead of align, and operate with fewer to no oversight safeguards.

At the end of the day, the choice is clear. We can reject a good, workable regional plan because it is not perfect. Or we can recognize that in a diverse and interconnected region, coordination is how progress happens.

The “R” in RTA stands for regional. Supporting RTA Next means embracing that responsibility and choosing practical results over the illusion of perfection. I urge you to vote yes on both Props 418 and 419.