Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Addressing the Irrational Fear of Density

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

The biggest obstacle to the re-development of decaying “inner suburbs” built in the 1950s, ’60s and and ’70s is the irrational fear of density. Any developer asking to re-zone land at greater density will run into a buzz saw of neighborhood opposition. The inevitable complaint: Density = congestion.

Sometimes poorly planned re-development at higher densities can aggravate traffic conditions. But well-executed projects can reduce the number and distance of automobile trips. And well-executed projects in localities served by mass transit can accommodate growth with very little increase in the number of cars on the road at all. A case in point: Arlington County.

Arlington is one of the few urban-core jurisdictions in Virginia to be gaining population and increasing employment. Since 1970, the square footage of office space in the Ballston-Rosslyn corridor alone has increased from 5.5 million square feet to 20.5 million, the number of jobs from 22,000 to 90,000 and the number of residential units from 7,000 to 26,200.

According to the conventional thinking, that density should have translated into more congestion. But it hasn’t. The key, as I explain in this week’s column, “Vanquishing the Density Demon,” is the three-fold set of policies that Arlington has pursued consistently over more than three decades: (1) Invest in mass transit, both rail and buses, (2) encourage walkable, high-density, mixed-use projects around transportation nodes, and (3) market the “one-car lifestyle” to residents.

The Arlington model works. It’s not inexpensive, costing roughly $120 per resident per year. But compare that to the Business As Usual alternative, which, according to proponents, will only slow the rate at which congestion gets worse. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has just approved regional tax increases of $400 million a year — or $200 for each of the region’s two million inhabitants.

Density is not the problem. Poor planning is the problem. Re-developing decaying neighborhoods at higher density, with detailed attention to limiting transportation demand, is part of the solution.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

55 responses to “Addressing the Irrational Fear of Density”

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Some astute readers will observe a contradiction in my writings. Bacon, you scurvy dog, they will say, you extol the virtues of the Arlington model which subsidizes mass transit. But in your writings about the Rail-to-Dulles project, you say that mass transit should pay its own way, just as roads should.

    You are right. I am conflicted. I admit it, OK?

    I think the answer can be found in Return on Investment analysis. We should fund those transportation projects of whatever stripe — roads, rail, buses, monorails, whatever — that offer the highest Return on Investment, in which the “return” is defined as traffic congested mitigated.

    In an ideal world, we should fund all transport modes according to a user/beneficiary-pays principle. In the real world, we may find sometimes that the public expenditure of money offers high rates of social return. In the case of Arlington, the social return on taxpayer dollars invested is high. In the Rail-to-Dulles project, the social return on investment appears to be modest, at best.

    Clear? Yes? No? I’m still working it out.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Arlington boomed because I-66 was finally completed from the Beltway to DC.

    Without I-66, the Rosslyn Ballston corridor would be a traffic disaster.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I-66 is a three edged sword for Arlington.

    I-66 does carry a substantial protion of Arlington workers. By being restricted to HOV it both reduces traffic (in Arlington) and encourages use of Metro.

    But now that congestion has moved to the Vienna metro station, in order to take advantage of the (more or less forced) use of Metro.

    Has Arlington reduced congestion, or just exported it? Without the I-66 restrictions (and the promise that it will never be widened) what would the congestion situation look like in Arlington?

    RH

  4. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Jim, with all due respect, there is also a very rational fear of density. Take a look at the Base Case and three test scenarios that were submitted by the Tysons Corner Task Force. While these scenarios have been referred to as “crash dummies” and not final proposals, they show potential devistating impacts on Tysons Corner and nearby communities. Here is a link to one of the documents. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/outreach/jul07newsletter.pdf

    Tysons Corner cannot handle its current level of development. Adding more development, even with rail to Dulles, makes traffic and everything else worse.

    Anyone who examines the Task Force’s data that does not fear more density is irrational, IMO.

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The Road Gang never rests!

    Anon 10:41 is quick to point out that all the good things are due to I-66.

    Bull Pucky.

    The RB Corridor is 14,000 feet long and has 5 METRO stations.

    The rest of I-66 inside the Beltway 40,000 feet and there are two METRO station. If I-66 is the answer, why is not “the boom” spread along the rest of I-66?

    I-66 played a role but so did Geo. Mason Drive, Gleeb Road, Washington Blvd, Wilson Blvd, Clarendon Blvd.

    The “But for” in Greater North Alrlington is METRO and the plans and policies put in place to support shared-vehicle system land uses.

    EMR

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think Arlington works because its mostly made up of empty nesters and singles

    This is the only way Tysons will work as well. The recent correction in the real estate market not withstanding most people still can’t afford Tysons or Arlington so I think Tysons will be fine.

    The real congestion issues today are out in Loudoun County and Prince William because this is where the families are located.

    This situation is compounded by the fact that many people don’t have jobs where they live and they must commute over roads which are not designed to handle the additional capacity which is the root cause of our rush hour crazyness.

    NMM

  7. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim B:

    There is ne other element on the path to functional human settlment pattern:

    A mix of uses and more intensity are a start but without a overarching conceptual framework and an understanding of how the Village scale station areas aggregate to create a Balanced Community in Greater North Arlington, the goals of reducing travel demand (among others) cannot be achieved to the extent they would with Balance.

    EMR

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Too Many Taxes, I’m not saying that *all* density is good — only that density does not inevitably and necessarily need to lead to congestion. Density works in Arlington because Arlington has worked on it consistently for more than 30 years.

    The situation in Tysons is very different. One of the things they do in Arlington is demand a lot of their developers — perhaps a lot more than Fairfax is willing to extract from its developers — in exchange for higher density.

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT:

    The “crash dummy” is the person who put together those scenariors.

    They are, as we have pointed out before, not worth the bytes they were created with.

    See 11:53 post on the need for an overarching conceptual framework.

    Greater Tysons Corner could be a Balanced Community with five high capacity shared vehicle system served Villages and two lower capacity shared vehicle and Autonomobile served Villages (McLean and Vienna). It could have a population from 600,000 to 800,000, less traffic congestion and less pollution than today and be populated by safe, happy citizens. It would require Balance and everyone would be a winner, not just a few.

    See All Aboard for what the station areas would look like.

    EMR

  10. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    It’s quite scary actually. I’ve talked with a number of Tysons Corner Task Force members. These are decent individuals, regardless of their motivation in serving. Several of them have told me (and others) that the Task Force has not even looked into public facility issues beyond the concept stage. There are only a few months before final proposals will be made and selected.

    This is a farce. This is not Arlington, where honest to goodness discussions took place among stakeholders. In fact, Fairfax County held meetings on the proposed scenarios, but did not design the process for any citizen input on them.

    As I’ve written several times, things might work with an open and honest government, but that does not exist in Fairfax County.

    NMM — I hear you, but Fairfax County predicts that there will be thousands of children residing in Fairfax County. One plan would require two new grade schools, one-half of a new middle school and one-half of a new high school.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Among 205 large counties, Loudoun and Fairfax Counties in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington rank as the top two counties for the highest median household income areas in 2005, according to the US Census Bureau. However, when factoring in the cost of living, Forsyth County , Georgia in greater Atlanta and Williamson County, Tennessee south of Nashville rank highest in median household income areas, based on an analysis of the most recent ACCRA Cost of Living Index data.

    Policy makers who are using the median household income data should pay more attention to the effects of cost of living adjustment. In areas with higher cost of living, the current median household income report overstates the buying power of household incomes. At the same time, households in areas with a lower cost of living frequently do better than their ranking might suggest. As the following table shows, the ranking of the nation’s wealthiest counties changes considerably when adjusted for the ACCRA Cost of Living Index.”

    http://www.coli.org/COLIAdjustedMHI.asp

    Based on this kind of analysis, Arlington doesn’t look as good as Loudoun, based on how well you can live with what you are likely to earn.

    Then maybe we need another level of analysis on top of this, which considers how much time you spend traveling.

    I have other studies which considers the costs of living in rural areas vs urban areas in PA and MD. Rural areas win hands down. Of particular interest is the notation that the efficiency of local government often has a large impact on costs of living.

    Therefore, it isn’t a question of how much you earn or what it costs to live, or how much tax you pay only. Those things feed off each other, and the ROI you get for taxes paid is a big piece of the equation.

    Arlington is largely empty nesters, (71% on or two person homes) and based on the planned trends of housing to be developed it will become more so rather than less. Arlington can therefore plan on spending much less on schools than other areas, even if their per student costs are high.

    Such a plan is one way to reduce costs and make the ROI look better than it is.

    I don’t doubt that what EMR says about Tyson’s could be true: if you had unlimited money and time, and didn’t care about ROI. But, high capacity shared vehicle systems cost a lot of money that has to be paid for by all and winds up being used by few.

    I suspect that when you take in all the costs and all the advantages, that the results of the study posted above are more realistic than EMR’s proposals. I suspect that he has allowed no where near enough costs to be allocated for the complexity that such density requires.

    As for congestion being where the houses are, I don’t think so. PW and Loudoun have problems, but the real congestion problems are where the jobs are, or where the job access is, as in the case of Vienna Metro, VRE Parking lots, etc.

    RH

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Best string of posts in many a moon.

    Jim Bacon admits both inconsistencies in his views and finds a spot in NOVA that he thinks is an example to others.

    Anon and RH remind everybody that a road (I-66) played a big role in Arlington’s success. I was living in Arlington when that section of I-66 opened. It did play a big role.

    NMM checks in with the entirely correct point that Arlington is heavily populated by singles and empty nesters.

    TMT correctly says that government in Arlington is open and honest as opposed to the fiasco that is Fairfax County government.

    Finally, Ray comes back with the crucial issue of cost of living as opposed to raw per capita numbers and finishes with the absolute truth that’s it’s the employment which causes the congestion.

    EMR puts forth some specific numbers for Tyson’s Corner.

    I’ll now try to add my own points to this august line up of comments.

    1. Arlington is well run. I have lived in Arlington and Fairfax Counties. Arlington is better run.

    2. I believe that Arlington is also generally a higher tax location. I’ll look for numbers but that’s the general consensus up here.

    3. Arlington is very liberal and very Democratic. The People’s Republic of Arlington as it is sometimes called. Jim – are you now admitting that the Democrats have a better plan? 🙂

    4. However, most of all, Arlington is ,much, much smaller than Fairfax County. Arlington has a land area of about 26 sq mi and a population of about 200,000. Fairfax has a land area of about 1M people and a land area of 407 sq mi. So, Fairfax is 15X bigger and gas 5 times as many people.

    Fairfax County is too big.

    It needs to be broken into autonomous pieces.

    It is caught in that “dead man’s zone” between being a county and being a city. Arlington is a county. Spotsylvania, for example, is a county.

    Fairfax needs to be split into about 5 different pieces. The eastern 3 would be managed with an Arlington-like city mentality. The western 2 would be managed with a Spotsy-like county mentality.

    Trying to tie this whole county into one cohesive governing entity neither works nor is necessary.

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Sorry – correction / amplification

    “Arlington is a city (in action if not legally). Spotsylvania, for example, is a county (in action and legally)”.

  14. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Groveton, I agree that Fairfax County is probably too big for its current form of government. I’m not sure what the answer is though.

    I disagree that partisan politics can explain the differences between Fairfax and Arlington. The last time I looked, Democrats were in charge of both BoS.

    I’ve been told that Arlington did not initially reach consensus on the Rosslyn to Ballston corridor. But rather, there was a citizens revolt against density until the BoS limited density to one-quarter mile of the rail stations and those stations were put underground. I may be wrong, as this is hearsay.

    Perhaps, the 2007 election in Fairfax County if Connolly and a few other incumbents were to be defeated might serve as the trigger for Fairfax County to come together to create a plan for Tysons that make sense. (I’m giving this the benefit of the doubt. I personally think that Tysons is so screwed up and that the costs for fixing it are so steep, we’be better off just making sure it got no worse and then devoting resources to Reston, Herdon and Fort Belvoir-Springfield.) But don’t hold your breath, decisions on Tysons are being made by campaign contribution. Those who own land at Tysons would fight tooth and nail to prevent public resources from being diverted to other areas of the county.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As I recall, TMT has a reasonably correct analysis of what happened in Arlington. However, some people may have changed their minds by now. My brother’s home is just outside the quarter mile ring. I’m sure he is drooling for the day the ring is expanded.

    The real interesting thing is what happens next. For now, arlington is still planning on building out the density around the Metro stops. They are still planning on almost all of their new housing stock to be multi-unit places, populated by singles or couples.

    What then?

    If Arlington is ever completely built out, then the trick will be to see if they can still have a healthy economy that is NOT based on growth.

    That’s going to be a hard one to pull off.

    RH

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    2004

    Arlington – 67% for Kerry.
    Fairfax County – 53% for Kerry.

    There are democrats and DEMOCRATS.

    Plus, the size of Fairfax makes gaining political consensus very hard. People in Clifton just don’t care about Mt Vernon’s issues. In Arlington everyone lives close enough to Clarendon to care what happens there.

    2007 Fairfax County elections will be interesting but I am not holding my breath.

    It will take a full blown crisis before there is any real reform in Fairfax County.

    2009 or (more likely) 2011 will be the real crisis driven elections.

    By then the real estate (and mortgage) markets will really have burst, the Dems will have the White House, Defense spending will have been cut to the bone and the commercial real estate in Fairfax County will be officially back in “glut” status. The intra-state subsidies will be front and center as the Fairfax (and Loudoun and Alexandria, etc) politicians explain the economic fiasco in terms of state legislature abuses under the Dillon Rule.

    At that time I believe it might (repeat might) be possible to either split the Virginia Democratic / Republican Parties into northern v. southern factions or start a viable state independent party.

    Then, and only then, will real change start.

  17. Bull Pucky to You2 Avatar
    Bull Pucky to You2

    E M Risse should be more careful before shouting “Bull Pucky”.

    Risse asks: ” If I-66 is the answer, why is not “the boom” spread along the rest of I-66?”

    Duh!

    It’s the government’s anti-density zoning rules stupid.

    Everyone knows Arlington would not allow Rosslyn Ballston densities and redevelopment around the East Falls Church Metro Station.

    And surely Risse knows that the Fairfax County BOS turned down a great mixed use proposal on the north side of the Vienna Metro Station proposed by his former employer.

    Get the government off our backs, build a reasonable road grid, of which I-66 was part, and the rest will fall in place.

    You won’t even need a “TRILO-G” to make it happen.

  18. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Sorry to be late in getting to several important point on this important topic. You do not want to hear all the reasons…

    First on Jim B first “comment.”

    He is not conflicted, he just has not had time to fully adsorb the New Urban Regions Conceptual Framework.

    There is a fundamental difference between the R-B Corridor and the Dulles Corridor. It is the difference between R=1 to R=4 and R=12 to R=24.

    Location, location, location.

    It is the difference between open heart surgery and adding a whole new organ to the end of the lower left leg.

    Return on Investment is important.

    But even more important are:

    Station-area design to maximize Blance at the Village scale

    Corridor Balance to create Balanced Ridership on the Shared Vehicle system

    Shared-Vehicle System-wide Balance between system capacity and station-area travel demand to create a functional New Urban Region Core.

    Of these station-area design is perhaps the most important. See our All Aboard column.

    EMR

  19. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    One quick note on the original post.

    Jim gets off to a bad start in the first sentence. He uses the phrase “inner suburb.”

    R=1 to R=4 nails down what he is taking about.

    You will note that after much work by several people, including Jim who had to work around our cable being cut and a dead hard drive got up the GLOSSARY.

    That will help.

    EMR

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One of the keys to finally solving this debate is to decide where the Arlington mass transit model ceases to become cost effective. So EMR where do you draw the line at R4? or maybe only with fully developed Alpha communities and just having VRE or bus service or some other single mass transit component out to the Betas

    $120 bucks looks better than $400 per person until you factor in that providing the arlington model across fairfax would be a truly astronomical sum per person

    As has been stated by others Fairfax County is simply too big to become totally urbanized

    The question then becomes why was the Dulles corridor selected in the first place as opposed to the I-66 corridor or the Route 1 corridor or the Route 28 corridor. I think the only answer there is more cynicism and money talks

    Of course the other guerrilla in the room is the capacity of Metro. The orange line is already at the breaking point so where are all of these new silver liners supposed to fix exactly. And thats before the single tracking issue/sharing with the Blue line problem at the Rosslyn tunnel

    And to echo others you do need ROADS along with transit for this to work. Hopefully Tysons will fully implement a city grid to help people get around better.

    NMM

  21. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 10:41 — the Road Gang Staffer / Consultant or road gang slave depending on if he / she is being paid) was so anxious to dispute our 11:48 post that he / she fialed to read our post.

    We acknowledged the role of policies and programs.

    The 95% – 5% Guideline Two make it clear why it is the R-B Corridor, not the R-West Falls Church Corridor.

    We said the “But for” was METRO, would it help to say it was the Sine Qua Non?

    EMR

  22. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton did a nice job of pointing out that Fundamental Change is governace structure is required before there is a chance of Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns.

    Jim B is getting the discussion started.

    EMR

  23. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 12:33 makes it clear that the use of county scale data is worth than a waste of time.

    Human settlement patterns are organic systems and one must use data based on the organic structure dictated by 21st centruy economic, social and physical reality.

    Reaggregating Census data from the smallest cells can be very powerful as Lucy and Phillips have proven.

    It is also very expensive and time consuming.

    There is also the need for a generally agreed to, overarching Conceptual Framework.

    We will continue to use the New Urban Region Conceptual Framework until someone comes up with a more robust one.

    EMR

  24. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    NMM:

    A lot of good observations in your 5:41 comments. (By the way Blogspot time stamp is off by an hour)

    The way I figure it, there are 9 Beta Communities that are all or part in Fairfax County. (Two in Arlington County)

    All Communites would have different configurations as they evolve from Beta and become Alphas.

    Betas are not stable and need to evolve, each with its own Balance and its signature shared vehicle systems. More on this in “The Problem With Cars.”

    The basic parameters are:

    The mass of the New Urban Region,

    The distance the Zentrum of the Community is from the Centriod of the New Urban Region, and

    Pre-existing economic, social and physical realities.

    Forget existing municipal borders.

    There are even Balanced Communities outside the Clear Edge in the Countryside. They are “Disaggregated But Balanced.”

    (I am so happy that the GLOSSARY is finally up and I can use words with clear meanings that relate to the way citizens actually act in the market and in the voting booth.)

    By the way the focus is on the Dulles Corridor is “Dulles.”

    That may or may not be smart as ecological reality evolves new constraints on flight, but for now that is the reason.

    EMR

  25. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    One more point:

    The 5.5 million to 20.5 million nonresidential growth from 1970 to 2007 is far more dramatic than it seems. Almost all of that 5.5 million was in Rosslyn and as those who were here at the time know, it was pretty well maxed out.

    But for METRO and the ideas from the Grerman Marshall Fund trip…

    EMR

  26. Richard Layman Avatar
    Richard Layman

    Re your first comment, roads don’t pay their own way. Registration and excise taxes only cover about 50% of the cost of roads. And not much of the cost of military protection of access to oil. WHy should transit be held to a different standard? Plus, given this, especially in DC and Arlington given your example, it is worth subsidizing transit in order to reduce further road demand, thereby reducing the necessity of providing even more miles of subsidized roads.

    Otherwise, a great piece.

  27. Gang Slave to You2 Avatar
    Gang Slave to You2

    E M Risse, former Hazel gang slave, claims, “We said the “But for” was METRO, would it help to say it was the Sine Qua Non?”

    Wrong again.

    Tysons Corner and Reston Herndon are the number one and number two employment centers/corridors in the Commonwealth.

    They did it without METRO.

    Reston Town Center is more balanced in terms of residential because of more flexible zoning regulations than at Tysons Corner.

    The 5 billion dollar subsidy needed to get METRO to Dulles is a bad ROI.

    Reality bites sometimes.

    Come to think of it, DC had a far higher population before METRO was ever built!

    Guess you don’t need METRO to build a great city either!

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There is a fundamental difference between the R-B Corridor and the Dulles Corridor. It is the difference between R=1 to R=4 and R=12 to R=24.”

    That sort of depends on where you select for R-1, doesn’t it? Considering the amount of office space in Tyson’s maybe it makes more sense as R-1 than the foot of Memorial Bridge.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It is the difference between open heart surgery and adding a whole new organ to the end of the lower left leg.”

    I like that analogy.

    But, when you consider the costs and long term success of open heart surgery, the overall prognosis isn’t that good. consideing the congestion we now have near the heart, it may very well be time to consider adding not just one new organ on the lower left leg, but multiple, brand new organs located at more of the extremities.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Re your first comment, roads don’t pay their own way. Registration and excise taxes only cover about 50% of the cost of roads.”

    I just can’t buy this argument. One way or another, all the roads we have get paid for. By someone, somehow, some way. To say that registration and excise taxes don’t cover it simply means that we have not determined where all the money comes from, but one way or another, it comes from all of us.

    Just about all of us use or depend on road services, and as long as both those things are true, I don’t see how you can say that roads don’t pay their own way.

    By contrast, you cannot make the same satement about Metro, because just about all of us pay for it, and only a very few use it. And they, also depend on roads as well.

    In order to make the statement that roads don’t pay stick, you would have to subtract out from the funding for roads that is not road related, but you would also have to subtract out all the benefits people get that are “not paid for”. Once the ramaining funding sources are identified, and once the “unpaid for” benefits are paid for, the statement still won’t stick.

    Winston and Shirley did an analysis that considers all the priced and unpriced costs and benefits of auto use, compared to rail and bus. What they showed was that, contrary to popular belief, auto drivers actually pay a higher percentage of their full social costs than transit riders.

    Whether they are right or wrong is subject to debate and analysis, but, IF theya are correct, then we can only expect to make wrong decisions if we operate on the assumption that roads do not pay their full costs.

    At the very least, we should expect to hold alternative transportation to the exact same level of scrutiny.

    We don’t know what all the details of cause and effect are, but we do know there is a direct correlation between road travel and the economy. What Winston and Shirley showed, was that even accounting for unpriced costs, autos still come out ahead, except for a very few specialized circumstances, like Arlington.

    RH

  31. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    For once, I find myself agreeing with Ray. Traditionally, roads *did* pay for themselves, in the sense that they were funded overwhelmingly by automobile-related taxes: federal gas taxes, state gas taxes, tolls, car registration fees, auto sales taxes, etc.

    The problem is that many of those taxes are not transparent, i.e., they are hidden, split up and spread across numerous miscellaneous taxes and fees that the payer doesn’t focus on. Therefore, they don’t change behavior, as in, encourage people to drive less.

    But Richard Layman has a point: In recent years Virginia has started dipping into General Funds to start paying for roads. That policy was enshrined as public policy this year. Thus, it is now the official public policy of Virginia to subsidize automobility with general taxpayer dollars.

  32. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Upon reflection, I have to concede that Richard Layman makes another valid point: Gasoline taxes, tolls and other revenues do not pay the *exogenous* cost of roads: the pollution caused by burning gasoline and, as he specifically noted, the cost of protecting overseas oil supplies.

  33. Richard Layman Avatar
    Richard Layman

    I’ll have to check out the Winston and Shirley cite. But where you call places like Arlington exceptional, that is the point. Sprawl isn’t sustainable economically, except at huge energy costs. If you believe in peak oil, you see this whole way of life tumbling down.

    So transit is + economically, I would gather, in the places where transportation and land use planning are optimized.

    The issue is that this isn’t optimized in most places. As long as gas is cheap it kind of works, except for the continual need to construct new infrastructure and the cost of maintaining it.

    Certainly the energy use per capita in denser places, sure such as certain places in Arlington, DC, or of course Manhattan (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/107880025/ and http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/newswire/newswire_11_04GreenManhattan.pdf) likely indicates a positive for transit.

    But then, I bicycle for the most part, which likely limits the costs I impose on others.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Therefore, they don’t change behavior, as in, encourage people to drive less.”

    Agreed. Good point. Also a reason I oppose straight mileage based fees: they don’t encourage “good” behavior. If I’m going to pay x amount per mile, then I might as well drive a tank, if I think that my personal safety is more important than pollution.

    I’m not sure I understand how general fund fees are subsidizing automotive use all that much. Almost everyone uses or depends on the roads. While it might be more succinct to have all road funds come from road users, I doubt very much it would make very much difference in how much each of us actually pay in the end. The real difference would be that you could easily see where the funds were coming from, geographically speaking. By itself, that maigh make it more difficult for Richmond to re-direct the expenditures.

    As for exogenous costs, maybe. The Winston and Shirley study did not include these costs and it was conducted before the current war. To that extent my comments about “total social costs” are now partially incorrect. However, the social costs of pollution were included in the study, both for autos, rail, and buses.

    The problem with that argument is that it only takes a small shortage to drive big queues and price hikes, as we saw in the 70’s. We would need to see really enormous drops in oil consumption before we could afford to avoid the costs of protecting overseas supplies.

    We do have some evidence of what higher fuel prices will mean. General aviation gas is now around $4.50 a gallon, and it has resulted in nearly a 50% decrease in aviation flying. That decrease in flying has rippled throughout the general aviation industry, affecting aircraft prices, flying schools, maintenance, inspection, and repair, etc.

    Now, a good bit of general aviation flying is either elective, recreational, or thinly disguised as other purposes: you don’t fly to the store for milk. Therefore the elasticity in driving might be less, for quite a while, or until prices get really high.

    But, looking at the general aviation industry, we might also get a clue as to what similar events would mean to the general, non-aviation economy. If you are starving, then pollution and war look a lot more economical.

    A clean environment is a luxury that depends on a healthy economy: if we destroy the economy in a search for ultimate cleanliness then most of us won’t like the result. It will be great for the survivors: those wealthy enough or poor enough to live in a sustainable manner.

    RH

  35. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Let me try my simpleton’s explanation:

    Expanding roads is a poor way to solve congestion problems in densely populated areas.

    This is because the dense polulation occurs along roads and it occurs in buildings.

    Therefore, densely populated areas have lots of buildings lining the roads. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be densely populated.

    Roads are expanded by making them wider.

    In order to expand a road lined by buildings wider you have to knock down the buildings. Then you have to re-build the buildings at the new edge of the road. When you expand the road again you have to do the same thing.

    This is expensive and only gets more expensive as areas get more densely populated with more buildings lining more roads.

    Therefore, the question isn’t the cost of various forms of transit or resettlement now but the cost of various forms of transit or resettlement as densities continue to increase.

    Arlington (alone in Northern Virginia) seems to have figured this out.

  36. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    At 7:29 AM, Gang Slave to You2 said…

    E M Risse, former Hazel gang slave,

    WRONG AGAIN. YOU DID NOT READ OUR STATEMENT WITH CARE.

    I WAS A CONSULTANT TO HAZEL PETERSON FOR MOST OF THE TWO PLUS DECADES I WORKED WITH THEM. I WAS ALWAYS WELL COMPENSATED, NOT A SLAVE.

    OUR BILLINGS OVER THAT TIME SHOW THAT THE TRANSPORT PROJECTS WE WORKED ON MOST WERE VRE, FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY, DULLES TOLL ROAD AND IMPORVING ACCESS TO EXPRESSWAYS. AMOST ALL OF IT EXCEPT FOR VRE AND THE OUTBOARD END OF DTR WERE WITHIN R=15 AND ALL WOULD BE PART OF A NATIONAL CAPITAL SUBREGION TRANSPORT PLAN THAT BALANCED LAND USE AND TRANSPORT.

    “We said the “But for” was METRO, would it help to say it was the Sine Qua Non?”

    Wrong again.

    Tysons Corner and Reston Herndon are the number one and number two employment centers/corridors in the Commonwealth.

    EXCUSE ME? TYSONS CORNER? WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FUNCTIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS THAT COULD EVOLVE INTO ALPHA COMMUNITIES NOT EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. IF THERE IS A KNOCK ON GREATER NORTH ARLINGTON OR GREATER SOUTH ARLINGTON IT IS THAT THERE IS AN IMBALANCE OF JOBS TO HOUSING.

    RESTON IS A SPECIAL CASE WITH VARIABLES TO COMPLEX TO DISCUSS HERE.

    SUFICE IT TO SAY THAT BIGGER EMPLOYMENT CONCENTRATIONS
    ARE NOT BETTER.

    They did it without METRO.

    WHAT IS “IT?” THERE IS LITTLE THAT IS SIMILAR IN THE TWO EXCEPT THAT THEY BOTH TOOK ADVANTAGE OF MASSIVE FEDERAL SPENDING, LIMITATIONS ON REDEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO THE CENTROID OF THE SUBREGION AND THE LOCATION OF DULLES AIRPORT.

    Reston Town Center is more balanced in terms of residential because of more flexible zoning regulations than at Tysons Corner.

    RESTON TOWN CENTER IS THE ZENTRUM OF GREATER RESTON, IT IS THE WHOLE COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS TO BE BALANCED.

    The 5 billion dollar subsidy needed to get METRO to Dulles is a bad ROI.

    TRUE BUT THERE IS A WAY TO PROVIDE A SHARED VEHICLE SYSTEM WITHOUT SUBSIDY. SEE “ALL ABOARD.”

    Reality bites sometimes.

    VERY TRUE

    Come to think of it, DC had a far higher population before METRO was ever built!

    WHAT HAS TOTAL POPULATION OF PARTS OF SEVERAL BETA COMMUNITIES INSIDE AN ARBITRAY LINE HAVE TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION OF FUNCTIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS?

    Guess you don’t need METRO to build a great city either!

    DEFINE “CITY” NONE OF THE PLACES CITED BY ??? — THE FEDERAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR TWO UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY — MEET ANY OF THE FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF “CITY.”

    EMR

  37. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    Good sketch!!

    Now add the impact of disaggregating the origins and destinations of travel and the resulting need for more and longer trips and you have Autonomobilty.

    See “The Problem with Cars”

    EMR

  38. Bull Pucky to You2 Avatar
    Bull Pucky to You2

    E M Risse, how much money were you paid to plan such a dysfunctional road as the Fairfax County Parkway?

    How much money did Hazel make off the back of future taxpayers in Fairfax County with his dysfunctional developments along the Fairfax County Parkway?

    How much is it going to cost taxpayers to retrofit a grade separated interchange at Fair Lakes? I’ve heard a figure of at least $50 million.

    No wonder Hazel and his cronies are holding a $500 a ticket fundraiser for Delegate Tom Rust at the Palm in a few weeks. They want to thank him for raising taxes to pay for that new interchange.

    And why did Hazel add another intersection on the Parkway just to get a few more quick bucks from a little disconnected cul de sac of housing. You know what I am talking about, because you used to live in one of those units. The only access is from the Fairfax County Parkway.

    Are we going to have to pay for another $50 million overpass there too? Or will tens of thousands of motorists have to sit at a light forever on the way to shop at Hazels Big Box agglomeration at Fair Lakes?

    Everyone knew the Fairfax County Parkway was largely the route of the Outer Beltway. You should have at least insisted on reserving adequate right of way to upgrade it later to a full limited access roadway, and you should have minimized unnecessary intersections with Hazel’s developments.

    Perhaps TRILO-G is your atonement.

  39. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Mr. Risse:

    You were once a developer? Hmmmm…. Now I know why you got so mad at me for railing at that lady who used to be a developer until she moved to Western Loudoun and swore to fight suburban sprawl. I always wondered why you pitched such a hissy fit over that. Maybe The Journey Through a Hollowed Out Economy was her atonement.

    I’ll light a votive candle in my parish for you tomorrow. I asked the monsignor once if I could light a separate votve candle for the soul of every developer in Northern Virginia. He assuremd me that so many candles would certainly burn down the church and it would also assume that developers actually had souls. 🙂

    Thanks for the glossary. It will help me better understand your positions. You seem genuinely interested in improving things but man there’s a lot of lingo to grasp.

    Zentrum?

    It’s been a while but isn’t zentrum the German word for center?

    Wouldn’t “center” have worked just as well?

    bull pucky to you2 –

    You sure have a lot of details on Mr. Risse. You’re not employed over in the Ft. Meade area are you?

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In order to expand a road lined by buildings wider you have to knock down the buildings. Then you have to re-build the buildings at the new edge of the road.”

    Sounds like bad planning, doesn’t it? Especially sine the new buildings at the new edges will be smaller, and therefore, less dense.
    Could have just limited the density to begin with, and avoided the congestion problem.

    “Therefore, the question isn’t the cost of various forms of transit or resettlement now but the cost of various forms of transit or resettlement as densities continue to increase.

    Arlington (alone in Northern Virginia) seems to have figured this out.”

    But Arlington alone has the densities that make it feasible to consider any other approach, and even then, it is only feasible by a) exporting a big chunk of their traffic problem to Vienna Metro and b) having a bunch of people outside Arlington help pay for it.

    I’d like to get some outside help paying for my problems, too.

    “Expanding roads is a poor way to solve congestion problems in densely populated areas.” Agreed, but expanding Metro or other public transit hasn’t been shown to reduce congestion either. Maybe those other options are just as poor, IF REDUCING CONGESTION IS THE GOAL.

    If the goal is really something else, like more money, or more open space someplace else, then let’s just say so.

    RH

  41. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    A NOTE TO “BULL PUCKY IS ME”

    SINCE SOME MAY BE MISLED BY YOUR POST, I WILL PROVIDE A FEW FACTS.

    A LITTLE INFORMATION, SOME OF IT WRONG, IS A DANGEROUS THING IN A COMPLEX SOCIETY, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.

    At 7:34 PM, Bull Pucky to You2 said…

    E M Risse, how much money were you paid to plan such a dysfunctional road as the Fairfax County Parkway?

    YOU WILL NEED TO DOCUMENT WHY FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY IS “DYSFUNCTIONAL.” A ROADWAY IN THIS LOCAITON WAS AS PART OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL SUBRION’S PLANS FROM THE 50s.

    BEING CALLED ON TO CARRY MORE TRAFFIC THAN IT WAS DESIGNED FOR DUE TO DYSFUNCTINAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND A DYSFUNCTIOAL GOVERNACE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MAKE THE ROADWAY “DYSFUNCTIONAL.”

    WE WERE FAIRLY COMPENSATED FOR OUR WORK.

    How much money did Hazel make off the back of future taxpayers in Fairfax County with his dysfunctional developments along the Fairfax County Parkway?

    OF THE PROJECTS COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY ONLY RESTON HAS WON MORE AWARDS FOR DESIGN AND FUNCTION THAN BURKE CENTRE AND FAIR LAKES.

    BUT FOR SEVERAL OTHER HP PROJECTS FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY WOULD NOT EXIST. RIGHT-OR-WAY WAS PROVIDED FOR FUTURE NEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY ADJACENT PROJECTS THROUGH BUILDOUT.

    MR. HAZEL AND HIS PARTNERS MADE A FAIR RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

    How much is it going to cost taxpayers to retrofit a grade separated interchange at Fair Lakes? I’ve heard a figure of at least $50 million.

    ACTUALLY, THAT INTERCHANGE WILL COST FAR LESS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HP DESIGNED THE INTERCHANGE AND PROVIDED ALL THE NEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY BEFORE FAIR LAKES WAS STARTED.

    HP PAID FOR THE I-66 INTERCHANGE AT NO COST TO THE PUBLIC AND INCLUDED THE EXPANSION BRIDGES.

    HAD THE INTERCHAGE AT MONUMENT / FAIRLAKES PARKWAY BEEN REQUIRED FOR FAIR LAKES RELATED TRAFFIC THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TOO. IT WAS NOT.

    No wonder Hazel and his cronies are holding a $500 a ticket fundraiser for Delegate Tom Rust at the Palm in a few weeks. They want to thank him for raising taxes to pay for that new interchange.

    I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF MR HAZELS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

    IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NEW INTERCHANGE IS A MIXED BLESSING FOR FAIR LAKES AND ITS CITIZENS. WHEN THE TREES COME DOWN ON THE LAND HP DONATED FOR THE ROADS THERE WILL BE SCREAMING YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR IN YOUR BUNKER.

    And why did Hazel add another intersection on the Parkway just to get a few more quick bucks from a little disconnected cul de sac of housing. You know what I am talking about, because you used to live in one of those units. The only access is from the Fairfax County Parkway.

    THIS IS WHERE “BULL PUCKY IS ME’S” LACK OF KNOWLEDGE GETS HIM IN TROUBLE.

    THAT INTERSECTION WAS WHEN IT WAS DESIGNED TEMPORARY. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BACK DOOR THAT WOULD BE OPENED WHEN THE INTERCHANGES WENT IN AND FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY BECOMES LIMITED ACCESS BETWEEN US ROUTE 50 AND US ROUTE 29.

    THE INTERESTING QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MORE IT WOULD HAVE COST HAD MY NEIGHBORS AND I NOT THWATED KATE HANLEY’S SCHEME TO REMOVE THAT BACK DOOR.

    Are we going to have to pay for another $50 million overpass there too? Or will tens of thousands of motorists have to sit at a light forever on the way to shop at Hazels Big Box agglomeration at Fair Lakes?

    I WILL STOP BEATING MY DOG WHEN YOU STOP ASKING FOOLISH QUESTIONS. HAVE THE COMMON CURTESY TO GO LOOK AT THE PLANS BEFORE YOU MAKE UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS.

    Everyone knew the Fairfax County Parkway was largely the route of the Outer Beltway. You should have at least insisted on reserving adequate right of way to upgrade it later to a full limited access roadway, and you should have minimized unnecessary intersections with Hazel’s developments.

    AS NOTED EARLIER, THAT WAS DONE IN EVERY PROJECT IN WHICH I WAS INVOLVED AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE EVERY PROJECT IN WHICH HP WAS INVOLVED UP TO THE TIME I LEFT TO WORK ON The Shape of the Future.

    Perhaps TRILO-G is your atonement.

    TRILO-G IS A WRAP-UP NOT AN ATONEMENT. YOU WILL FIND IT GOOD READING.

    I SUSPECT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, “BULL PUCKY IS ME” BUT YOU INFORMATION IS ROTTEN.

    EMR

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT BIGGER EMPLOYMENT CONCENTRATIONS
    ARE NOT BETTER.”

    It’s all I have been trying to say, for two years. By itself, it may be the solution to much, but not all of our congestion problems.

    RH

  43. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    Thank you for the note.

    Zentrum is German for “center.” Why not just call it “center?”

    The very same reason that all of the words and phrases have been included in GLOSSARY.

    To use the existing terms compounds misunderstandings.

    center / town center / shopping center …

    Zentrum causes one to stop and think, “Wait what is this fellow talking about… “

    The inspiration for using Zentrum came from visiting Nordvest Zentrum in Frankfurt AM years ago. See reference in All Aboard.

    Keep up the good work and good luck with the new intdependent party.

    EMR

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don’t see any point in beating up on the Hazel’s of the world.

    It won’t make any difference to them, and it ignores the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of other people have also made their (smaller) fortunes as a result of investments in, and business generated by, Hazel projects.

    If some of them have to pay taxes as a result of the increased value and cash flow, what’s wrong with that?

    Even if we can agree that we need a better system, what it should be, and how to pay for it, villifying such people does nothing to promote the needed change. To get that kind of change, we will need the people who know how to get things done, better to figure out how to get them our our side (fair profits might help), than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    RH

  45. Bull Pucky to You2 Avatar
    Bull Pucky to You2

    E M Risse claims, “OF THE PROJECTS COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY ONLY RESTON HAS WON MORE AWARDS FOR DESIGN AND FUNCTION THAN BURKE CENTRE AND FAIR LAKES.

    BUT FOR SEVERAL OTHER HP PROJECTS FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY WOULD NOT EXIST. RIGHT-OR-WAY WAS PROVIDED FOR FUTURE NEEDS…”

    Are you serious, awards for the largest agglomeration of Big Boxes in Fairfax County? The Big Boxes you like to rail against elsewhere on this blog.

    And just where is the Right-Of-Way reservation at Franklin Farms and the Fairfax County Parkway?

    It will cost the taxpayers a lot to put in a grade separated interchange there.

    Or are you going to tell me that was after your time?

    Thanks for the explanation on leaving a potential back door to the community you used to live in. Congratulations on that. It sounds like Kate Hanley messed you guys up a lot.

    I am not against Hazel or anyone else making money. I am against developers going along with the anti-road crowd just to get their projects approved.

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I am not against Hazel or anyone else making money. I am against developers going along with the anti-road crowd just to get their projects approved.”

    Huh? I don’t understand. Don’t the developers usually go along with the pro road crowds?

    Are you saying that you’re not against them making money as long as they have topay for so much public infrastructure that they can’t make any money?

    Are you saying that they ganged up with the anti-road crowd just to get approval? That seems a stretch.

    It is true that developers love conservaation and other building restrictions. An article last year on Toll Brothers points out that such restirictions raise prices and make their products more valuable.

    I don’t understand.

    RH

  47. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    BULL PUCKY DIGS HIMSELF IN DEEPER

    At 8:13 PM, Bull Pucky to You2 said…

    E M Risse claims,

    “OF THE PROJECTS COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY ONLY RESTON HAS WON MORE AWARDS FOR DESIGN AND FUNCTION THAN BURKE CENTRE AND FAIR LAKES.

    BUT FOR SEVERAL OTHER HP PROJECTS FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY WOULD NOT EXIST. RIGHT-OR-WAY WAS PROVIDED FOR FUTURE NEEDS…”

    Are you serious, awards for the largest agglomeration of Big Boxes in Fairfax County?

    DO YOU HOMEWORK, THE STATEMENT RE AWARDS IS A TRUE STATEMEMENT.

    THERE IS FAR MORE TO FAIR LAKES THAN TWO BIG BOX CENTERS. ONE WAS DESIGNED AFTER I LEFT AND ONE I DID NOT FAVOR AS AN ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN (A “GALLERIA”)TURNED OUT TO BE UNMARKETABLE.

    GIVEN THE UNINFORMED MARKET AND THE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE LAND USE CONTROL ENVIRONMENT HP DID AS WELL AS THEY COULD.

    THE FAIRFAX TOWN CORNER AND EAST MARKET (WHOLE FOODS ETC) ARE BETTER THAN MOST. THEY WERE ALSO DONE AFTER I WAS NO LONGER INVOLVED IN HP PROJECTS.

    The Big Boxes you like to rail against elsewhere on this blog.

    YOU ARE RIGHT, BIG BOXES ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL LAND USES AS YOU WILL FIND FROM READING “THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.”

    WHEN I LEARNED OF THE FIRST BIG BOX PLAN I NOTED THAT THE BUILDINGS WERE CHEAP AND WHEN THERE WAS A MARKET FOR SOMETHING BETTER THEY COULD BE BULLDOZED. THAT IS HAPPENING IN R=5 TO 7 AREAS AS YOU KNOW.

    And just where is the Right-Of-Way reservation at Franklin Farms and the Fairfax County Parkway?

    YOU MAY RECALL THAT WHEN FOX MILL, FRANKLIN FARMS, BURKE STATION AND OTHER HP PROJECTS WERE PLANNED, FAIRFAX COUNTY HAD TAKEN A CIRCUMPHRENTIAL IN THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE EVENTUAL FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY OFF THE “COMPREHENSIVE” PLAN. THE PARTNERS IN HP BELIEVED THAT SUCH A ROAD WAS NECESSARY AND RESERVED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THEIR OWN.

    AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO NEED FOR MORE RIGHT OF WAY.

    THERE IS MORE: TODAY, AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WITH INTELLIGENT DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USES IN THE NORTHERN PART OF VIRIGINIA AND WITH BALANCED COMMUNTIES IN GREATER RESTON, GREATER FAIRFAX CENTER, GREATER CENTREVILLE, GREATER CHANTILLY, GREATER TYSONS CORNER, ETC., THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A SIX, EIGHT OR TEN LANE FAIRFAX COUNTY PARKWAY. IT COULD BE A PARKWAY AS PLANNED.

    It will cost the taxpayers a lot to put in a grade separated interchange there.

    IT WILL COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IF GOVRNANCE PRATITIONERS EGGED ON BY MISINFORMED AND UNINFORMED FOLKS LIKE “BULL PUCKY” CONTINUE TO BUILD MORE OF THE VERY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS CAUSING THE MOBILITY AND ACCESS CRISIS.

    Or are you going to tell me that was after your time?

    I HAVE TRIED TO PUT THE TIME FACTOR IN EACH NOTE.

    IT IS SILLY TO GO LOOKING FOR VILLAINS. IT IS ACTIONS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION IN THE MARKET PLACE AND IN THE VOTING BOOTH THAT ESTABLISH THE CONTEXT IN WHICH “DEVELOPERS” ACT.

    IF YOU WANT VILLAINS, LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND AT THE FOLKS IN YOUR DOORYARD, CLUSTER AND NEIGHBORHOOD.

    Thanks for the explanation on leaving a potential back door to the community you used to live in. Congratulations on that. It sounds like Kate Hanley messed you guys up a lot.

    MORE THAN ANYONE WILL EVERY KNOW

    I am not against Hazel or anyone else making money. I am against developers going along with the anti-road crowd just to get their projects approved.

    I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS. PERHAPS THAT THEY CAVE IN TO THE AUDRY MOORE’S OF THE WORLD (THERE ARE MANY) WHO CUT OFF INTERCONNECTIONS BETWEEN WHAT JIM BACON CALLS “PODS?”

    EMR

  48. Bull Pucky to You2 Avatar
    Bull Pucky to You2

    RH asks, “Are you saying that they ganged up with the anti-road crowd just to get approval? That seems a stretch.”

    Yes, they do it all the time. What do you think the Metro extension to Dulles is all about?

    In terms of ROI, it is an absurdly inefficient use of tax dollars. But it will give politicians the cover they need from anti-road environmentalist activists to massively increase densities in Tysons Corner, Reston, and Herndon.

    My earlier point in an earlier post (for which I was called Bull Pucky) is that Tysons Corner could redevelop into a walkable mixed use balanced community without the expensive Metro Rail extension. Of course that presumes the politicians would get out of the way.

    So even though Metro will suck up $5 billion that could otherwise be spent on relieving congestion with real road improvements, the developers go along because they see it as the only way to get approval. Traffic will only get worse, options are lost, and the fixes get more expensive, but by then the developers have moved on.

  49. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    ONE MORE FOR BULL PUCKY:

    NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE AND GETTING BACK TO THE FOCUS OF THE ORIGINAL POST.

    AT 10:10 AM, Bull Pucky said…

    My earlier point in an earlier post (for which I was called Bull Pucky) is that Tysons Corner could redevelop into a walkable mixed use balanced community without the expensive Metro Rail extension.

    THAT IS TECHNICALLY TRUE BECAUSE OF THE LAST PHASE.

    GREATER TYSONS CORNER COULD EVOLVE TO A BALANCED COMMUNITY WITHOUT AN “EXPENSIVE” — IT NEED NOT BE EXPENSIVE, SEE ALL ABOARD — “METRO” EXTENSION.

    IT NEED NOT BE “METRO” BUT WHAT IS BULL PUCKY IS THAT IT COULD BE A BALANCED COMMUNITY WITHOUT EXTENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME FORM OF SHARED-VEHICLE SYSTEM.

    GIVEN THE $12 BILLION INVESTMENT IN METRO, METRO PROBABLY HAS THE BEST ROI. WHAT EVER THE SYSTEM AND WHAT EVER THE COST IT HAS TO BE BUILT IN THE RIGHT WAY AND WITH THE RIGHT STATION AREA PATTERNS AND DENSITIES.

    Of course that presumes the politicians would get out of the way.

    AND THE LAND OWNERS. IT IS THE LAND OWNERS, LAND SPECULATORS, THOSE WHO WANT TO BUILD THE RAILROAD AND THEIR AGENTS WHO ARE DRIVING THE $5 BILLION METRO EXPANSION PLANS.

    SOME ARE CORPORATIONS THAT ARE ALSO DEVELOPERS BUT IT IS THE LAND OWNER HAT THEY ARE WEARING.

    YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED A SHIFT IN GLOBAL FINANCIAL MARKETS? IT IS NOT JUST BIG BUYOUTS AND SHAKY HOME MORTGAGES THAT WILL WITHER WITH TIGHT MONEY. SO WILL BIG “PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS” THAT RUN ON BORROWED MONEY.

    So even though Metro will suck up $5 billion that could otherwise be spent on relieving congestion with real road improvements,

    THERE IS THE HEART OF THE BULL PUCKY THINKING. NO AMOUNT OF ROAD BUILDING, REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS WILL RELEIVE CONGESTION ON A SUBREGIONAL OR REGIONAL SCALE.

    the developers go along because they see it as the only way to get approval.

    AS NOTED ABOVE “DEVELOPERS” ARE NOT THE VILLAINS

    Traffic will only get worse,

    YES UNTIL CITIZENS STOP THINKING THAT AUTONOMOBILES WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM

    options are lost,

    TURE BUT THAT IS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO RESOURCES TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

    and the fixes get more expensive, but by then the developers have moved on.

    YOU NEED TO GET OVER THE PERCEPTION THAT “DEVELOPERS” ARE VILLAINS. THE PROBLEM IS BIGGER.

  50. Bull Pucky to You2 Avatar
    Bull Pucky to You2

    Fortunately, Risse, voters are revolting against wasteful transit systems.

    Here is the latest on Portland, Oregon.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa-596/pa-596index.html

    Sorry to hear you want to throw good money after bad with Heavy Rail to Dulles.

    Of course, one of your old employers is developing a Big Box retail center at the last Metro stop in Loudoun on the Dulles Rail line.

  51. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    RH:

    Manhattan, Chicago, Paris, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Atlanta, SanFrancisco and on and on …

    Isn’t rail the answer that everybody eventually discovers once their densities reach a certain point?

    The streets in the zentrum get too crowded, there is no room for parking, expanding the streets requires knocking down tall buildings so you …. build rail.

    I guess you could try to break up the zentrum but bricks and mortar live long lives – from an accounting point of view.

    Or, you could go the route of Brazil and declare a new city built from scratch out of the wilderness (Brasilia).

    Maybe Portland doesn’t have high enough density to justify rail … yet. Neither does Charlottesville. But for major urban areas – isn’t rail always the answer?

    Is everybody wrong?

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Isn’t rail the answer that everybody eventually discovers once their densities reach a certain point?”

    It depends on whether you think the “answer” actually works.

    There are places where rail makes sense, but then the question is whether the places make sense. There is a huge difference between installing rail to supply additional tranportation capacity where it is needed, and creating a place which such density just to justify rail.

    Whether everybody is “wrong” or not depends on whther you believe that rail in the places you mention has actually reduced congestion there. It MIGHT actully make sense to tear down some buildings, but I doubt if anyone ever seriously considers that option.

    I’m not oppposed to rail, I’m just opposed to thinking that rail is always the answer without applying the same measures we would apply to road usage. The Winston and Shirley report says that we can economically rationalize a rail system that transports about 2% of our needs. If that’s the case, then it is hard to rationalize spending 40% of our transportation budget on rail, as some places do. And it raises the question of who you mean by “everybody”.

    All of the places you mention have high general subsidies to support the rail system and make it pay. It might be true that rail generates enough additional business (over and above what auto traffic could support) to make it ruly worthwhile, but if that is the case, then it should be supported by narrowly targeted taxes and not general ones.

    Finally, studies have shown that it takes two metro trips to eliminate one auto trip. Therefore the benefits to traffic congestion reduction are far lower than assumed. To the extent that rail actually benefits auto drivers, (as opposed to supposedly) then auto drivers ought to be willing to lend some support.

    To me, it seems like the much more economical answer, and probably the more socially sensible and probably the environmentally friendly answer, is simply to not allow the density that causes all these problems. I recognize that is an unpopular position

    At the other end of the spectrum, we ought not require the ridiculously low densities that a) cause other problems, and b) promote the core densities that create the need for heroic measures like rail transport.

    It seems patenetly obvious to me that there is a U shaped cost curve with respect to densities. Instead of pushing for one extreme or the other, we ought to try to find out where the bottom of that curve is, and then plan to achieve it. That might mean you have to tear down buildings in some places and allw more building in others.

    Having said all that, if you take the density of some places as a given, then yes, rail might make some sense.bgfxct

    RH

  53. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I agree with the overall goal of trying to plan for densities that make sense.

    However, in places like Tyson’s, I think the horse has left the barn on that.

    Rail just seems to be the “textbook answer” at certain densities.

    And I wonder about your point regarding support by narrowly targeted taxes vs. general taxes.

    If rail allows economic growth that could not be achieved with roads alone it helps to create jobs. The people who hold those jobs pay a general tax called a state income tax. Why shouldn’t some of the general tax base be used by people who pay general taxes in jobs served by rail?

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And I wonder about your point regarding support by narrowly targeted taxes vs. general taxes.

    “If rail allows economic growth that could not be achieved with roads alone it helps to create jobs. The people who hold those jobs pay a general tax called a state income tax. Why shouldn’t some of the general tax base be used by people who pay general taxes in jobs served by rail?”

    Now that, is an excellent point, and an excellent question.

    Larry is on vacation, but he would be one vehemently opposed to taking money out of a black box for various purposes. He doesn’t trust the people who make the decisons. There is insufficient transparency. We don’t have enough info to make good decisions, and we would rather make political ones.

    I think a kew word in your question is “some”. If Winston and Shirley are correct, and we can only economically justify rail transport for 2% of our needs, then I wouldn’t object to 2% of our transportation (and maybe economic development) funds being used for that purpose.

    At the same time, if they are correct, then we might have a hard time proving that the economic growth “allowed” or encouraged by rail justifies a much bigger expenditure. We might have a hard time proving that the growth wasn’t really stolen from someplace else, where it would have occured naturally without any investment.

    The other problem is in your premise, “If rail allows economic growth that could not be achieved other wise…”

    Do we mean, could not be achieved, or could not be achieved “in that location?” If it is “not in that location” then it is a good argument for locally targeted taxes. Otherwise, even if you use only “some” of the general tax funds, it still amounts to a geographic redistribution of wealth.

    And, until we know what it is we are buying, even that might be a bad deal, based or ROI. I think it is pretty clear that with Rail to Tysons we will NOT be buying any congestion relief. I don’t have a problem with speding on rail, I have a problem with spending and lying to me about it.

    We hear a lot on this site about “user pays”. I have argued that this makes sense only if it is universally applied, other wise it turns out to be merely a conveneint way to target your enemies. Even then, it doesn’t pay to be stupid about it. If we niggle over EVERY redistribution of wealth, we’ll go broke keeping track of the transaction costs. At some level it does pay to just make investments, as some Korean communities do.

    But, lets say that the horse is out of the barn, that congestion and density in Tysons is a given.

    What should we do?

    I’d say, lets take a look at where people who go to work or conduct business in Tysons come from, and try to make it easier on them.

    Of all the people that go to and from Tysons every day, how many come from West Falls Church? And where is the rail going to? West Falls Church. What protion of the money is going to come from West Falls Church vs everyplace else?

    Yes, I think there is a place for general or broad based revenue to be used for transportation. But I also think it should be used for general or broad based transportation.

    I’m not opposed to it being used for more narrowly focused systems, but then we ought to consider very carefully what the ROI to the broad base is compared to their contributions.

    I’m not even opposed to using somewhat more from broad based revenues than we can economically support, as a matter of promoting a certain policy or behavior. I’m not sure how much more, though. After all, the whole point of using broad based funds is so you can focus economic energy on one point, and achieve some things you wouldn’t otherwise.

    But, as soon as you do, you have created a geographic lottery of sorts. So then we need some way of ensuring that everyone else to get their chance at winning the lottery. And, we have to do that with out violating our own ROI rules: no bridges to nowhere, and no 500 pound gorrillas hogging all the bananas.

    On the flip side, “user pays” does have some salubrious effects. It allows us to see what people will and won’t willingly pay for. It takes some of the politics out of the equation. Properly done, it gives insight as to how the “black box” money can be spent with the least controversy.

    Again, I think it is a U-shaped curve with advantages and disadvantages at both extremes.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So, here is the latest word on ROI and transportation projects, ccording to this week’s Time magazine, in an article about America’s failing infrastructure.

    “…Sir Ron Eddington, former head of British Airways, completed a study on transport for the U.K. He evaluated all kinds of projects — from fancy high speed trains, to simple bike paths — and calculated the returnon inestment. What he found was surprising “Small can be beautiful”. Large projects like new rail lines tended to be less beneficial for the money than modest ones, like widening an old road. The British government is now evaluating and funding more projects on the basis of this more rational notion of overall value.”

    SURPRISE!!!

    ————————-

    The article also noted the number of deaths in recent weeks from failing infrastructure, and noted the number of times that officials responded to disaster by noting there was no evidence of terrorism at play.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More