Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Bacon’s Rebellion: The Thinking Man’s Blog

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

It’s time to don the smoking jacket and settle down with the pipe, a glass of sherry and the latest edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. You can be confident in the knowledge that you will not embarrass yourself when friends ask you which publication you read each morning. “Me? Why, I read Bacon’s Rebellion!”

According to the Critic’s Rant “Blog Readability Test,” the Bacon’s Rebellion blog reading level rates “college level.” That compares to high school level for The Washington Post, The Times-Dispatch and junior high school (snicker!) for the New York Times. As for leading Virginia blogs, look who else ranks “junior high school” — the lofty Not Larry Sabato and the rollicking Raising Kaine. Even the esoteric Barticles and the edifying Bearing Drift score only a “high school” rating.

I’m not saying we’re better than those blogs — just snootier.

Like clockwork, we have published the Nov. 26, 2007, edition of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. Make sure you never miss an issue — click here for a free subscription that delivers the e-zine directly to your in-box. Here is what we offer for your enlightenment this week:

Vision Impaired
Jim Crupi is right about one thing: Richmond’s regional leaders lack strategic vision. They can correct that deficiency by throwing out Crupi’s policy prescriptions and doing their own thinking. by James A. Bacon

Giving Thanks for Times Shared
Those missing remain a part of Thanksgiving
by Doug Koelemay

Introduction to “The Estates Matrix”
by EM Risse

The Morphed Estate
The Fourth Estate has abdicated its responsibilities. Citizens can no longer rely upon the MainStream Media to provide the news they need to participate in a democratic polity and market economy.
by EM Risse

Gold Stars for Virginia
Virginia, with Fairfax County leading the way, has one of the highest rates in the country of students who take advanced high school courses — and score well on exams.
by Chris Braunlich

The Invisible Working Class
Blogger Bageant reveals the bleak prospects for Virginia’s working class, using Winchester as his laboratory. Why don’t elites care?
by Peter Galuszka

Turning Capitalism Loose on Roads
Government can barely maintain the roads it has. To expand highway infrastructure, the nation is turning by default to tolls and private investment.
by Kenneth Orski

Transmission Travesty
Virginia regulators are taking a go-slow approach to Dominion’s proposed high-voltage transmission line. But the feds are creating a mechanism that could bypass state authority.
by Barbara Kessinger

Nice & Curious Questions
Haunted Virginia: Ghosts in the Old Dominion
by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

63 responses to “Bacon’s Rebellion: The Thinking Man’s Blog”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Capitalism has not been turned loose on roads. Road building and decision making are firmly within control of anti-capitalist forces. Asphalt placement is not allowed to respond to demand out of fear of loosing the last perfect chance to build the utopian urban space.
    Toll roads are evidence of the escape from the artificial constraints imposed by the government. There is no reason the government could not operate a utilitarian road or other transportaton system with taxes.
    Government operated systems of transportation and private systems have a certatin minimum requirement for sustainability. The government system has fallen below that sustainable level. Most government road systems will cost below 2.5 cents per vehicle mile.

    A toll road will take in about 15 cents per vehicle mile. The toll road needs more income because it can not depend upon other income outside of its own borders. Government operated systems have fallen into a pattern of toxic and financially disasterous income transfers that have created congestion and poor maintenance practices.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear EMR,
    Thanks for the kudos and sorry I fall flat in media solutions.
    I do offer a warning, however. Much of what you talk about in creating some kind of
    context” for media missions sounds dangerously like the “Public Journalism” nonsense that was big in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Some local papers, notably The Virginian-Pilot, really jumped in whole hog. It proved nothing more than a fad by getting all touchy feely with the “public.” The solution, I still contend, is for strong and smart editors to report and present the news in a critical way and for strong and smart publishers to let them do so.
    The cloying by the business side to Wall Street and the insane obsession with operating margins are still the media’s biggest problems. Getting some kind of academic “context” may sound okay, but it’s just more window dressing. If it’s a throwback to “Public Journalism” dump it right away.

    Peter Galuszka

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Kudos on Kenneth Orski’s
    “Turning Capitalism Loose on Roads”

    regarding annon 1:49’s comments.

    It’s absolutely true that the State DOTs could design, build and operate TOLL roads.

    They’ve had that opportunity from the get go – no?

    In fact, did not VDOT had a run at Rt 288 in Richmond?

    what happened?

    From what I hear, the long and short of it is that VDOT badly messed up the traffic projections part of the equation as well as how long it would take to pay off the debt.

    VDOT could have proposed to design, own and operate I-81 or the HOT lanes project in NoVa.

    Why did they not?

    My view is that VDOT has never been very good at looking at true need and demand and that their answer to most all proposed roads is more funding from the GA – i.e. raise the gas tax or other taxes to fund more roads.

    Even now.. VDOT could contract out the part of the equation that they obviously do not have expertise in – and that is figuring out if a section of road can be tolled and if so.. what the anticipated toll revenue will be.

    But here’s the big difference. If VDOT get’s it wrong – what happens?

    If a private entity gets it wrong, what happens?

    VDOT is currently screwing up the US 460 issue.. by insisting that a brand new corridor be built – with tolls that will compete directly against an untolled I-64 – as opposed to adding toll lanes on I-64 which is exactly what the private sector folks want to do.

    Government agencies, like VDOT, simply do not look at life the way that a profit-making company does.

    If the pensions of the VDOT employees who might work on tolling proposals was dependent on the success or failure of such proposals – I’d bet money that their recommendations would be markedly different than those that were based on taxes.

    I don’t want to take VDOT employees pensions – but on the other hand.. I don’t want them making decisions based on real-life traffic projections either.

    We just got done cutting between and 1/3 and a 1/2 of the “wish” list projects that they had been promising people for decades – a shell game.

    Guess what happens to Private Entity shell games and pyramid schemes?

    well.. the principles go to jail – at least sometimes…

    when you do that and you work for the government – it just becomes yet another “oops” moment.

    I don’t think we’ll get nirvana with private sector tolls.

    We’ll probably see their share of bad stuff – but here’s the deal: If you pay a toll and the service ..sucks… you have a choice that IS going to affect the investors of that project.

    If it were a VDOT road.. some serious shoulder shrugging would be the result.

    Could VDOT do this right?

    YES! and they have the opportunity to.. just pick a new road.. and dip their toes into it on a pilot basis.. and if they “ace” it.. more power to all of us.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter G:

    Thank you for the note.

    I agree about the need for editors.

    The question is who pays them and where does the money come from to do it.

    Stay tuned, you come up again in PART III.

    I think you will be surprised by where the Estate Matrix leads, I was.

    Keep up the good work.

    EMR

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TRILO-G?

    Estate Matrix?

    Stay tuned!

    In Part BS, Risse comes up again!

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Turning Capitalism Loose on the Roads should be renamed Turning contractors loose on the taxpayers. Capitalism requires competition in order to work. There will be no effective competition – just the outsourcing of relatively mundane government processes to private sector contractors. VDOT should be able to execute these processes themselves. The fact that they can’t is evidence of VDOT’s incompetence.

    The Invisible Working Class – Wow! Really well written. I’ll have to tune in to that blog. Income / wealth disparity is a problem for every society. When it grows, the society suffers. German unemployment varies between 8 and 12 % while US unemployment is currently 4.7%. Needless to say, the Germans have had to adopt a kind of permanent welfare state for the permanently unemployed. When the Rubbermaid plants finally move to Mexico – what are the Winchester residents going to do? Hit the unemployment lines. ANd who’s going to pay? The “creative class” / elites that Jim Bacon keeps talking about. On present course, the US future can be seen now, every day, in Germany and France.

    We must work to more fairly distribute income.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Just short post to dumb-down this blog’s rating…you may be rated high-school level next time! (Assuming the ratings are done by length of comments?)

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reader Frederick Costello, of Oak Hill, has the following response to Peter Galuszka’s story about Joe Bageant. –Jim Bacon:

    For the sake of the Winchester working class and in writing favorably about Blogger Bageant, Peter Galuszka is apparently against free trade (e.g., NAFTA) because it exports jobs or lowers local wages to be competitive with world trade; against the unfairness of the person in the Social Security office but wants the government to handle health care; against executives making so much money; for having many wives in succession; and possibly against religion because it makes people, rich and poor, complacent. It seems, rather, that he complains about everything that exists and longs for his idea of the perfect system – an isolated country with the economy controlled by the government, perhaps behind an Iron Curtain, where only government executives live so richly. Complaining about what exists is easy because nothing is perfect, but Bageant’s paradise has already proven to be an even greater disaster for the working class, especially those sent to Siberia. We need deeper thinking than Bageant offers. We might start with returning to the educational and moral standards of the 1950’s, applying them first in Winchester.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, I do not worship at the altar of the “creative class.” I call for creating a culture of productivity and innovation at all levels of society. We do need smart people to help us do that. The Winchester working class is not going to figure out how to stay competitive in the 21st century economy by itself.

    Short of dismantling our system of (somewhat) free trade, the only way to keep the Rubbermaid plant in Winchester running, and the working class employed, is by increasing manufacturing productivity. That requires a lot of things, starting with a more progressive management that’s willing to invest in new technology and embrace new management methods. It also requires workers willing to upgrade their skills the enable them to use the new technology and management methods. I would argue that the entire Winchester region needs to embrace the culture of productivity by creating the educational, training and other supporting institutions required to make the change.

    Joe Bageant is a very penetrating, very amusing observer of the human condition. But exposing flaws and weaknesses in individuals and society does not, by itself, provide any useful solutions.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Mr. Costello,
    You are cetainly putting a lot of ideas in my head amd words in my mouth. I am merely noting Bageant’s views which are atypical for the usual readers and writers on this blog. I have nothing against many wives. Nor do I have some “ideal” of society. I have heard so much conventional justification over time for global trade, going back at least 20 years, that my head swims. But when it affects people right here, right now, in Virginia or elsewhere, we are supposed to just say, well, gee, that’s OK, that’s the way it goes. Ditto corporate managements’ decision to screw people over so they can get the best production efficiency. The view, (Protestant self-worthlessness in Bageant’s words) is simply to say, well, if management thinks so, I guess that it is right. Very few people on this blog ever question Corporate America’s decisions or hubris. I guess that comes from most participants’ upper middle class bias, but that, to, may change when global trade jeopardizes their jobs as well.
    My intention is merely to give voice to Joe Bageant’s perspective. That’s all. And please don’t subscribe some police state nonsense to me. I have actually lived and worked in a police state — the very one you are alluding to. Have you? If not, please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. And please don’t come at me with some all-knowing attitude. I have actually lived that experience and have some rather strong views about it and they are not what you probably imagine.
    Thank you.
    Peter Galuszka

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: capitalism vs government

    There are localities that “do” their own roads. There are localities that “do” their own schools.

    There ARE government rules and regs about how to contract and how to monitor such contracts.

    It is not a perfect system but I doubt seriously that taking away the ability to contract work out and instead.. have permanent government employees do that work – is the answer.

    or perhaps I’m wrong and that is the answer…

    explain further…

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: rubbermaid and Winchester

    the problem is that whatever improvements you can make to the equipment in Winchester can probably be duplicated elsewhere and there is no way you’re gonna meet much less beat the salary challenges so other factors such as location, environment,suppliers, infrastructure probably affect Rubbermaid’s decision.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: the “futility” of contracting out

    sorry.. I’m not buying it.

    Virtually ever private enterprise contracts for services, products, and capital facilities vice doing the work themselves.

    And they get the lowest price they can either by bid or other methods.

    What works for private enterprise – should work for VDOT.

    This goes to the heart of what VDOTs Mission is.

    And the long and short of it is that there is a reason why the word Transportation is not the phrase “Road Building” or just plain roads.

    If the idea is that one does not have confidence that VDOT can do their job – then what is the answer?

    The FUNCTION of transportation planning is not optional.

    We know what the bottom line is for private industry… basically survive your competition and produce a profit.

    what is the bottom line for VDOT or any Govt Agency?

    This is why I feel that Performance Standards and metrics are the key to well functioning government.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If a private entity gets it wrong, what happens?

    The same thing as if VDOT get’s it wrong: the public will pay. Only with private enterprise and lawyers in the middle, we will pay a lot more.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There are two issues here on transportation that are being meshed together, but need to be separated. The first is private or public ownership/control and the 2nd is private or public operations/building/maintenance. I think the second is pretty clear that there are a number of contractors that can compete for the business providing a decent price for the owner.

    Ownership/Control is a whole different apple. Whomever has control will have a monopoly on a corridor. If it’s a for-profit company the ownership’s goal will be to maximize profits not quantity served, i.e. price * quantity is a parabola with a maximizing point. A non-profit entity will have the goal of maximizing quantity with a price that covers costs and maintains traffic flow.

    Does that mean having VDOT running the new HOT lanes is a good idea. Probably not, since VDOT is not very competent. A better solution might be a regional toll road authority that controls the HOT lanes and has a locally elected board. Give them the ability to source resources how they want. VDOT can then compete for work with private companies.

    As has been pointed out before there are going to be no magical savings from a private company taking control of roads vs the state, it just changes the funding stream. There will still be a monopoly owner and service will reflect as such, think Comcast. Like with any monopoly it’s a matter of how to balance the needs of the customers with the operations of the entity.

    ZS

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    Contracting out certain processes at VDOT will probably do no harm. It will probably do no good. I object to the belief that “bringing private enterprise to VDOT” is a cure-all. I doubt it will make much of a difference at all. Now, if you could somehow bring real competition to transportation – that would be something! I just don’t see how to do that with today’s transportation system.

    Jim:

    While you may not worship at the altar of the creative class I suspect you may have some rosary beads with CC imprinted on them in your pocket. Somewhat more seriously – I hear what you say about manufacturing productivity, etc. Isn’t that exactly what Gov. Kaine was trying to catalyze with the Rolls Royce deal? At the end of the day, Americans who are “surplused” by a combination of free trade, low levels of local opportunity and poor educational choices will be on the dole. And the dole itself will decrease American productivity making the problem worse.

    Excess income disparity is the mistress of high taxes and high social costs. Ask the French. They know something about mistresses, high taxes and high social costs.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter you wrote a good article that definitely points out well the difficulties facing our country’s less skilled and educated. The problem as I see it from a theoretical point is that we’ve essentially set up a partial free trade system where products trade freely between countries, but labor cannot and the standards (environmental, health, labor, etc.) between the trading partners are not equal. This creates a biased trading system that reflects transfer of unpriced external costs from one partner to the other.

    I thought you brought out a good local view at the losers of globalization. The question is how to come up with something representing a solution to this very complicated issue that is more than just rhetoric and simplification. Merely saying we need more education, trade barriers, subsidization, people will have to learn new jobs, etc. doesn’t address the fundamental issue that a good percentage of the US population is just not that skilled/talented, for whatever reason, and is unlikely to ever be. Throw on top of that major metropolitans siphoning the talent there is from smaller areas and the problem becomes amplified to what Peter pointed out.

    ZS

    ZS

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If it’s a for-profit company the ownership’s goal will be to maximize profits not quantity served, i.e. price * quantity is a parabola with a maximizing point. A non-profit entity will have the goal of maximizing quantity with a price that covers costs and maintains traffic flow.”

    Thank you ZS.

    I have asked Larry several times if HOT lanes should be managed for maximum profit or maximum throughput, but he has studiously avoided answering this question.

    I think the answer has serious implications as to how we manage other resources with similar problems.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The problem as I see it from a theoretical point is that we’ve essentially set up a partial free trade system where products trade freely between countries, but labor cannot and the standards (environmental, health, labor, etc.) between the trading partners are not equal. This creates a biased trading system that reflects transfer of unpriced external costs from one partner to the other.”

    GOAALLL for ZS.

    Precisely. This is why I have argued so strenuously with Larry. While he is technically correct about all his legal requirements, he doesn’t seem to understand that transferring unpriced external costs cuts both ways. Any biased trading system affects everybody eventually, and your (correct) global assessment just brings the matter home.

    Larry seems to prefer a biased system based on the premise that no one has the right to cause him (or any one else) costs, not realizing that such a premise will necessaraily cause external costs to others, and so break the initial premise.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ZS,

    Thanks,but you really should thank Joe Bageant who was the origin of these ideas.

    You raise the dirty little secret of global trade. It ain’t free at all. Consider China. It still is by and large a Communist police state, so the manages control dissent. Workers can’t complain about low wages as their expectations rise. The long-time policy of pegging the yuan to the dollar has given them an automatic advantage in currency exchange rates. Safety regs are lax. Their coal mines lose upwards of 50,000 workers a year. We lose maybe 100. And, last night I attended a lecture where I learned that 40 percent of the air pollution in California now comes from, guess? China.

    These are things the free market, One World, World is Flatters, Too Bad if You Lose Your Job, Get Off the Liberal Plantation types do not tell you when they praise the likes of David Ricardo, the Council on Foreign Affairs and Wal-Mart.

    Peter Galuszka

  21. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton, ZS and Peter are all on the right wave lengths here.

    If the Globe is going to be “flat” it has to be flat for all with no unallocated costs or hidden externalities.

    Survival of Democracy and Market Economies make this an absolute necessity.

    Peter:

    On your earlier note re managing the news, see today’s WaPo “Storming the News Gatekeepers.” Now we just need a comprehensive understanding and a “solution”…

    Perhaps The Estates Matrix will help.

    EMR

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “I have asked Larry several times if HOT lanes should be managed for maximum profit or maximum throughput, but he has studiously avoided answering this question.”

    It’s a dumb scenario folks.

    If you contract with someone to do a service for you – what are the 3 most important things that are (if you are smart) absolutely hard wired?

    1. – cost
    2. – quantity
    3. – quality

    Sure the guy doing the work wants to maximize his profit with the least amount of actual time/work but you set performance standards.

    With HOT lanes – you specify a level of service – the number of cars per hour that must be accommodated AND you cap the tolls also.

    Have you ever heard the phrase: “built to VDOT standards”?

    Have you ever heard the phrase that a competitive bid can build a road cheaper than VDOT can?

    What’s the alternative to this? You put VDOT in charge and you get what? Would you be so bold as to ask that very same profits vs throughput question with regard to VDOT?

    What needs to be focused on is HOW you want the HOT lanes to function – no matter whether it is done by VDOT or contractor.

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Precisely. This is why I have argued so strenuously with Larry. While he is technically correct about all his legal requirements, he doesn’t seem to understand that transferring unpriced external costs cuts both ways. Any biased trading system affects everybody eventually, and your (correct) global assessment just brings the matter home.”

    Absolutely not.

    The context of most of our discussions has to do with Domestic issues that affect the environment where you have insisted that if not legally, then morally, every individual and company should have the inherent right to pollute even if the result is terrible pollution if the profits gained are considered better than the pollution,.

    If we want to expand the discussion to beyond Domestic issues – then I’m prepared to deal with that also.

    But let’s me clear, as challenging as our situation is with regard to our environmental laws verses other countries, the people in this country will never find acceptable your century-old discredited and rejected attitudes about pollution.

    The strict pollution laws are supported by virtually all people and industries in this country.

    They don’t want to go back.

    The only ones who do not agree are considered renegades… who, if caught, should be severely punished.

    Now.. how we deal with this issue on a NAFTA basis – IS an issue – but most Americans are never going to agree to gut our environmental laws so that we can be competitive with countries that won’t protect their own environments.

  24. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter:

    Just had a chance to read “The Invisible Working Class.”

    Good job!

    You do not have to go to Greater Winchester (R=60 from the Centroid) to find good stories. There are a lot “rat here in Warington.”

    A lot of Households would have a much different life if they did not have “deer hunting with Jesus” folks to do a lot of the things they do not want to do.

    I suspect you are going to say that the 2008 Column for the No Estate Row has more than 19% of the population. You may be right.

    EMR

  25. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    Risse – what are you talking about?

    “”deer hunting with Jesus” folks”

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    GOOGLE the phrase…

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, you still sidestepped the question by saying VDOT will set the standards.

    The question remains: do you manage for max dollars or max throughput?

    “With HOT lanes – you specify a level of service – the number of cars per hour that must be accommodated AND you cap the tolls also.”

    How can you cap the tolls and specify the number of cars per hour? Why not cap the tolls at FREE and be done with it? Because if it is free, too many people will want to use the service. Likewise if the price is capped too low.

    So then, how do you specify the number of cars or decide who travels, have a queue? Isn’t that the congestion HOT lanes are supposed to solve?

    “you have insisted that if not legally, then morally, every individual and company should have the inherent right to pollute even if the result is terrible pollution if the profits gained are considered better than the pollution”

    I have never said any such thing. Or anything remotely like that. Please don’t put such words in my mouth.

    All I have said is that it is possible to set pollution standards that are too strict: to the point where the standards cost more than the pollution they were supposed to prevent. If, I said IF, that happens, then the pollution standards are most likely causing more pollution than they prevent, because money is a good proxy for resources and energy. IF, I said IF, that turns out to be the case, then those that support such regulation are causing others to bear costs imoposed on them, by others, unfairly.

    What I have said is that it is impossible to do anything without some form of “pollution”. Given that it is impossible, we cannot say that no one has the right to pollute without condemning everyone to death. We cannot undo the impossible, much as we might like.

    So, the environment (domestic or global, it makes no difference) is exactly like the HOT lane. It has a limited capacity. We have to agree on how to manage that capacity. We need to use some of the capacity to live.

    Do we do it to maximize profit, or maximize throughput? We could of course ban the use of the road / environment entirely (you have no right to use it / pollute) in order to minimize our maintenance costs.

    But then the question boils down to who do we put in the queue / kill first?

    So the question remains: do you manage for profit, or throughput? It doesn’t matter if you slough the problem off on VDOT. We have met the enemy and they is us.

    Which is it?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is an example. We could require that all individual septic fields be upgraded to best avaialable technology. Such a regulation would require that we each obtain and operate a miniature Nitrogen removing facility.

    In my case, it might not make a lot of sense to spend a bunch of money and engage in ongoing operations and maintenance to eliminate one pound of nitrogen when my neighbors cows are spewing 150 lbs., but that’s a diffierent issue.

    The real issue is that the electricity those plants would require woud cause more nitrogen pollution than the plants remove. But, according to your view of things, I have no right to pollute, and you have every right to demand that I apply BAT, ,at my expense.

    Even if it makes us both worse off.

    Frankly, I think that would be crazy.

    So, which is it, profit or throughput?

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I got a guy who hunts deer here and gives the meat to the soup kitchens. I suppose that could be Deer hunting with Jesus.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: NAFTA, world trade, environment.

    Many years ago, we had major polluters telling one state that they’d just go to another State if they did not let them pollute.

    That worked until the EPA came on the scene.

    Now.. we are told that these same polluters are playing off one country against another and that the countries with the toughest pollution laws will lose the industry and the jobs.

    Not true.

    Take a look at the European Union which has much tougher laws than we do AND they will no allow a product to be imported if it does not meet their own standards.

    And that is where the US is headed in my view.

    The environmental rules are not our biggest challenge. it’s the salaries.

    You can have the same exact plant with the same exact pollution restrictions but if the folks who work at one plant make 1/2 the salary – then the pollution laws don’t matter.

    The area where this country can excel is in the manufacturer of high-tech pollution abatement widgets – that ultimately most countries are going to want – as they inevitably go through the same process that we did.. at first pretending that pollution did not matter and then realizing that it did and that many manufacturing processes can be much cleaner if so designed.

    We keep talking about how expensive it is going to be to “clean up the Bay”.

    Ultimately we are not going to “clean it”. We’re not going to have giant purification plants up and down the rivers to remove the nitrogen. Instead, we’re going to stop putting them in at the sources.

    That means environmental widgets.

    That Power Plant in Ohio is going to have to install environmental widgets to capture the NOx BEFORE it gets airborne and then deposits in the Chesapeake Bay.

    The result will be not only a cleaner bay – but jobs for people who make the environmental widgets.

    We’ll be spending the same or LESS money – not on cleanup – but on widgets that capture the pollution BEFORE it needs to be cleaned up.

    This same technology is going to be wanted – on a worldwide basis – as time goes by.

    and it means jobs for the companies and countries that make these widgets.

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The question remains: do you manage for max dollars or max throughput?

    “With HOT lanes – you specify a level of service – the number of cars per hour that must be accommodated AND you cap the tolls also.”

    How can you cap the tolls and specify the number of cars per hour?”

    Because you put that in the contract guy.

    RH – have you ever contracted work?

    You say.. for this amount of service – on a regular basis – I will pay you this amount of money.

    a specified service for a specified amount of money.

    If the company cannot make a profit with such restrictions they won’t agree.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    and RH.. you have advocated the right to pollute – in chapter and verse – and it’s on the record – voluminously.

    You’ve insisted from the get go that it’s the moral and legal right of the individual to pollute and that others have to prove his ROI wrong to stop him. You finally relented on the legal part. I have not heard you agree with the moral part.

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …Even if it makes us both worse off.

    the trouble is – you don’t consider how your actions might affect others downstream.

    you think of it purely in terms of your own ROI…

    and you say.. that the ROI is what you say it is unless someone else can prove you wrong.

    and you’re wrong.

    that’s why others decide if you have to upgrade your septic and not you.

    It’s “crazy” only in the sense that any polluter thinks that “restrictions” reduce his/her profits – and he/she thinks that is “crazy”.

    🙂

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I have no right to pollute, and you have every right to demand that I apply BAT, ,at my expense”

    see .. “your expense” is.. YOUR responsibility to not pollute to start with.

    Yes.. I DO have the right to say that you cannot pollute.

    I’m actually giving you a break by allowing you to use BAT since to do otherwise would put you totally out of business – right?

    You still do not get it.

    You .. do not have the right to pollute and the expense incurred in not polluting is not “imposed” on you – it is, in fact, your responsibility because your pollution imposes costs on others who have to clean it up.

    Your argument is essentially that the guy next door to you who tells you that you cannot spray manure on his field is ‘imposing’ costs on you by preventing you from doing that.

    where do you get this logic?

    You never..had that right RH to start with RH.

    What makes you think that you can dispose of waste off of your property onto others property to start with?

    Your ideas are the ideas that polluters had 100 years ago.

    Your ideas are why we have PCBs in the Shenandoah River and Kepone in the James River and hundreds of other cases across Virginia.

    Both these companies thought that they had the right to dispose of that waste and that it was wrong for laws to restrict them from doing it – so they did it anyhow and look what has happened.

    NOW the taxpayers, ALL of us have to pay to clean up the pollution. The polluters IMPOSED costs on us.

    got it? 🙂

  35. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Gentlemen, FYI: “Deer Hunting with Jesus” is the name of Joe Bageant’s book. Joe Bageant was profiled by Peter Galuszka in “THe Invisible Working Class.”

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “How can you cap the tolls and specify the number of cars per hour?”

    Because you put that in the contract guy.”

    You missed the point. If the tolls are too low, you won’t be able to cap the number of cars, no matter how you write the contract, without violating the entire premise of HOT lanes to begin with. If the price is too low cars will want to flodd the system. you will have to start a Queue, and that amounts to exactly the congestion HOT lanes are supposed to avoid.

    When I contract work, I’m smart enough to let a contract that can succeed.

    You still won’t answer the question. Maximize revenue or maximize throughput? Maximum through put means the most immediate benefit to the users paying the tolls (and their employers and the economy). But it means more VMT and more pollution.

    Maximum revenue reduces VMT and pollution, and it provides a benefit to everyone who DOESN’T pay the tolls.

    Which strategy produces the most benefit for the most people at the lowest cost?

    I’m asking for an opinion that you can’t give, because either way it undermines all of the rest of your arguments.

    You have danced and changed the subject and hemmed and hawed and dissembled.

    Which is it? Max throughput, or max revenue?

    ——————————–

    I have never advocated the right to pollute. I defy you to find such a quote from me. Continuing to misconstrue my position is unworthy of you, not to say a blatant falsehood.

    __________________________________

    What I have said is that NOTHING is possible without some pollution. You pollute. I pollute. Every business pollutes. Claiming that we do not have the right does not in any way change the facts. I just think that claim is silly and stupid.

    Unless you are willing to actually enforce that claim, starting with yourself. When you reach zero pollution, let me know. I’ll be happy to send you a check for the measurable value of the benefits I receive through your sacrifice.

    ———————————-

    We can, and have passed laws that say you cannot pollute without a permit. We can and have turned off some polluters entirely, when the costs are just too high too bear. What we CANNOT do, law or no law, is prevent all pollution. Therefore to claim that no one has the “right” to pollute is an empty claim unless you are willing to play God over who lives and who dies.

    We will always make some accomodation to pollution so that some people can live. Now it is just a question of at what level, who, and at what price.

    That price has legal and moral and financial dimensions, rights or no rights.

    ————————-

    In the example given, if the widgets produce more nitrogen because of the energy they consume than they remove, then EVERYBODY is worse off, you and I and the people downstream. Those that have to buy the widgets through court order are even worse off, because they get the pollution AND the expense of futilely trying to prevent it with an uneconomic solution.

    ——————————–

    That said, not all environmental widgets are economic and environmental failures. The market for environmental widgets in England is $50 billion a year. The biodomes in Cornwall are one of Englands biggest attractions. That is all well and good. I support any environmental initiative that makes sense economically: if it doesn’t make sense economically, then there is a very strong likleihood it makes no sense environmentally, either.

    ——————————-

    My only observation and one that you continually misconstrue, misstate and obfuscate is that we need to consider carefully what makes sense and what doesn’t. That there ARE environmental activities that do not make sense. There ARE some environmental activities that amount to unfair and unwarranted wealth transfer. There ARE other agendas that we have allowed to be cloaked in environmental jargon: even Jim Bacon has referred to such. Frankly, some of these are race and class based, if you look carefully enough, or at least they have strong negative consequences for some.

    I am NOT saying that we do not have the right to impose BAT, only that it is stupid and environmentally irresponsible to do so IF, I said IF, it actually results in MORE pollution.

    THAT is the sum total of all my comments: you cannot twist that into something it isn’t without being untruthful.

    ———————————-

    “Your argument is essentially that the guy next door to you who tells you that you cannot spray manure on his field is ‘imposing’ costs on you by preventing you from doing that.”

    I never said any such thing.

    But, anything I do on my property will cause some pollution that will eventually leave my property. There is NOTHING that either I or my neighbor or the law can do about it without stopping all activity, even life itself.

    That has nothing to do with “rights” or law. It is a physical fact that we have to live with.

    We can slow it down, we can reduce the amount, but that’s it. Unless we are willing to deny life itself. Last I knew, I still had the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines. Your claim that I have no right to pollute would deny that, and I think it is un-American.

    We can stop some activities, but not all activities. Therefore some pollution is going to happen. What the law has done is make you get a permit to validate your “right” to pollute.

    ——————————-

    But, suppose I’m spraying manure on my property, have done so for decades, and so have all my neighbors. We all know it hurts each other equally, but we live with it. Comes a time a new person buys up one of those properties. He now claims that my manure spraying is causing HIM damage in the amount of ten dollars. He sues to make me install BAT that costs 100,000 dollars.

    In my opinion, he is the polluter, because his unreasonable demand will cause more pollution damage that it cures, never mind the cost to me.

    In case you haven’t figured it out yet, that is different from saying I have the right to pollute. It is merely to say that he does not have an unlimited right to prevent pollution or what he sees as environmental damage, IF, I said IF, it causes more damage than it prevents.

    This is what the bird deaths and wind farm controversy is all about, among many others.

    We as a community have no right and no reason to demand pollution or environmental controls that will make us ALL worse off, environmentally. To do so, or claim that we have the right to do so is simply stupid.

    If we are lucky enough to find an environmental widget that does work, and does makes us all better off, then we as users and beneficiaries ought to be willing to help pay the costs.

    If we are not willing to do that, then we are geting something for nothing, at someone else’s expense, and that amounts to stealing.

    When you are claim that OTHERS have no right to pollute (while conveneiently ignoring your own pollution), all you are doing is setting up a scenario for legalized stealing. You are making a wrong out of a so-called “right”.

    ——————————-

    “you think of it purely in terms of your own ROI… “

    That is utterly untrue. ALL of my arguments are made in terms of the overall ROI to the public, including ALL the costs of pollution and ALL the costs of preventing pollution.

    It is your argument that is one-sided. You apparently think that ANY costs imposed on ANYONE else that reduce YOUR exposure and YOUR costs, (however little or much) are justified, even if such a position damages both the economy and the environment for all.

    I think such a position is unethical and wrong. I think it is stealing. It is economically unsustainable: we cannot afford to spend an infinite amount (even if it is someone else’s money) in order to prevent every perceived slight. Fundamentally, your position says I have no right to live, and I think that is un-American. Your position is one that CANNOT be squared with the real world we live in, and consequently it is irrational.

    That does not mean that I wish to be a polluter, that I wish to profit at your expense, or that I think I have the “right” to pollute indiscriminately. Just that you have neither the right or the ability to prevent it absolutely.

    Those are two entirely different, things, but they can be reconciled in such a way that leads to the best overall condition for everyone. Your position leaves no room for reconciliation, and therefore it is doomed to fail.

    So, which is it? Max throughput, or max revenue?

    RH

  37. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    At 7:50 PM, Jim Bacon said…
    Gentlemen, FYI: “Deer Hunting with Jesus” is the name of Joe Bageant’s book. Joe Bageant was profiled by Peter Galuszka in “THe Invisible Working Class.”

    Jim,

    FYI, I asked the question to point out the bias against taking the Christian religion seriously in EM Risse’s post.

    If you take Risse’s comment at face value, faith makes you poor and stupid.

    I read Peter Galuszka’s article about Joe Bageant, and it is hard to know where to start.

    The last time I checked, the Good Book was still full of warnings against gluttony and debt.

    Anyone who allows their weight to reach 300 pounds is going to get “heart trouble, diabetes, and several other diseases” regardless of their income level or their faith.

    Nor is a lack of “economic savvy” related to income. The high paid executives on Wall Street have lost billions on their sub prime mortgage gamble.

    “As their circumstances deteriorate, they grasp fundamentalist religion, or, more incomprehensibly, George W. Bush.”

    So which is it? Are they poor and stupid because they believe, or do they believe because they are poor and stupid?

    You could just as easily write about how many obese unemployed women are Hillary Clinton worshippers.

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray Larry et all,

    I would make the argument that its both max revenue and max throughput

    The ultimate goal of the HOT lanes is full capacity running at 55 MPH (MAX Throughput)

    To ensure the maximum level of service a supply and demand market rate is set based on the current level of capacity on the roadway (MAX Profit)

    Now some more questions

    The question I want to know is who decides what the toll level is for each level of capacity

    For example say max capacity is 1000 cars.

    If 250 cars are on the road you pay a buck. Does that mean if there are 500 cars do you pay 4 bucks does car 1000 pay 8 bucks?

    I would think the scale would have to slide higher because you want less and less people going onto the highway as you reach capcity so lets say

    8 bucks at car 500
    20 bucks at car 750
    40 bucks at car 900
    100 bucks ar car 950

    What happens when car 1,000 rolls onto the highway paying 200 bucks. How do you limit more cars from entering the HOT lane to guarantee quality of service. What about the carpoolers who ride the highway for free and cant be dissuaded from riding the lanes

    Finally to bring this full circle
    Who sets the minimum rate? That is very important. I think the debate between throughput and max revenue still rages here.

    -NMM

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “In my opinion, he is the polluter, because his unreasonable demand will cause more pollution damage that it cures, never mind the cost to me.”

    It’s not an unreasonable demand.

    It’s only your opinion about what pollutes more – your own idea of ROI.

    This is the classic polluter arguement which is … “MY ROI shows that this is a good deal for all involved so I need to pollute”

    It’s not your opinion or your assertion that determine the “rightness” of your own ability to pollute.

    That’s called a conflict of interest and it is the reason why we have PCBs and KEpone in the rivers.

    “In case you haven’t figured it out yet, that is different from saying I have the right to pollute. It is merely to say that he does not have an unlimited right to prevent pollution or what he sees as environmental damage, IF, I said IF, it causes more damage than it prevents.”

    He does indeed have the unlimited right – because you have no right to start with.

    The determination of how much damage is caused, and the value of it – is not determined by the polluter – again – because in virtually every case the polluter’s idea of ROI is tipped towards his own benefit.

    You’ve said before that the polluter is entitled unless others prove his ROI wrong – and you’ve got it wrong.

    Neither legally nor morally is he entitled – to start with.

    He REQUESTS permission (a permit) and whether or not it is granted is based on criteria established by those who would be affected by the pollution – not the polluter.

    the polluter is one right – and that is the right to ask permission.

    And he cannot pollute because he has no choice either unless the approval agency determines he has no choice.

    Again.. you treat ROI and “choice” from the point of view of the polluter. The polluter does not get to determine the ROI nor does he get to determine if he has “no choice”.

    I’ve maintained this from the very start of this dialogue:

    “no one has the inherent right to pollute” “The public (other property owners) are represented by State and Federal pollution agencies who determine if a permit will be granted (or not) based on THEIR evaluation of ROI – and even if their evaluation of ROI is totally wrong in the eyes of the guy who wants to pollute. The decision rests with that agency not the polluter.

    The above paragraph is based on the simple concept that each property owner has the right to enjoy his property – without other property owners taking that right by polluting that property.

    This philosophy is essentially that each property owner has the same rights and that no property owner has a right to pollute others properties.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The ultimate goal of the HOT lanes is full capacity running at 55 MPH (MAX Throughput)”

    Actually, max throughput will occour at around 35 MPH and with 3 lengths between cars.

    It is possible that max revenue and max throughput coincide, but it is unlikely.

    As I understand it, the idea is to use instantly adjustable tolls, so that the price sets the level of flow (which is different from the speed). But people are going to be willing to pay according to the time the trip saves.

    I think you wind up with two curves. One is an upside down U that plots throughput vs speed. If the traffic is gridlocked you get no throughput and no speed. At around 35 MPH you get maximum throughput, and after that it delines because at higher speed the cars need more space. (At infinite velocity one vehicle would use all the space all at once, oddly enough.)

    The other curve relates the cost a user is willing to pay with the speed (which is associated with the time saved). I think that traffic engineers figure a drivers time at being worth around $15 an hour. There is some discussion as to how this figure is reached, and maybe HOT lane users figure their time is worth more than that. Call it 20 an hour.

    Now say a normal trip on the ongested roads is 20 miles and takes an hour. On that basis you ought to be willing to pay $4 for a 25 mph trip, $10, for a 40 mph trip, $12 for a 50 mph trip and almost $14 for a 65 mph trip.

    The figures I used suggest that max revenue is at around 45 mph, but that would require denying service to around 800 cars per hour over the maximum possible throughput.

    The cost to those 500 drivers is the difference between what the might have traveled at and driving on the congested road.

    In my example that worked out to $5000 in costs to them. The max revenue is $25,000, in my example, but now you need to subtract out the costs to those denied service, and you come up with $20,000 as the actual value of the service.

    But, if you had allowed those people to travel, had more throughput and a lower toll, the revenue would have been $24,000, with no negative (externalized) costs.

    In this case, the higher throughput has an externalized cost that exeeds the additional value. Society (the road users) as a whole is worse off, but the toll taker is better off.

    If you think the proper goal is 55 MPH then the situation is much worse (considering everyone involved).

    RH

  41. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re “max throughput verses maximum revenue”.

    First, I’ve never weaseled on this at all.

    I’ve maintained that the either/or proposition is a dumb proposition.

    It’s like asking if we choose butter over guns… we don’t choose one of these – we modulate.

    We’re managing for a MINIMAL acceptable throughput – which is NEITHER of the two extremes.

    The goal is to maintain an acceptable level of service which explicitly denies max revenues or max throughput – but apparently this concept is hard to understand for some folks.

    the best ways for a HOT lane operator increase his profit is:

    1. – lower costs
    2. – pay attention to what the customers want (and don’t want)

    and the above is the same thing that I’ve said many times – and does not constitute “evading” at all.

    AND more important – what I am saying is exactly and precisely consistent with what FHWA and most principles associated with HOT lanes are also saying – so RH must consider them “evading” this issue also.

    RH – go find in the HOT lane literature from pro or con folks- your phrase and post it here .. and make me eat my hat.

    There’s no shortage of critics so go to their websites and glean them for this issue.

    Provide us with some “meat” that backs up what you’re advocating.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If 250 cars are on the road you pay a buck. Does that mean if there are 500 cars do you pay 4 bucks does car 1000 pay 8 bucks? “

    Obviously, the guy paying 4 bucks and sharing the road with 250 others is getting better service than the guy who pays 8 bucks to share with a thousand others.

    Shouldn’t the pricing be the other way around?

    RH

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “45 mph, but that would require denying service to around 800 “

    this is totally bizarre

    using your analogy.. we’re “denying” milk to people who don’t want to pay a higher price for it at the 7-11 than what they charge at WalMart.

    HOT lanes are trying to do with roads what our normal supply and demand economy does with milk.

    You charge what it takes to maintain the specified levels of service.

    You’re not denying service as each person has a choice.

    You’re saying that if the price is too high in the eyes of the customer that they have been “denied” service.

    what a LOAD – RH… bullfeathers

    you’re basically saying the supply and demand “denies” people…of what they want but are unwilling to pay for.

    come on RH… give it up guy.. the more you talk the crazier the idea becomes.

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We’re managing for a MINIMAL acceptable throughput – which is NEITHER of the two extremes.”

    OK, how do you decide what is acceptable? You could just let the road be free, and then congestion would decide what is acceptable, and you would certainly have minimal through put.

    I submit you set the throughput which results in the lowest overall cost, as in the example above.

    If you vary from that (in either direction) you cause somebody additional and unjustifiable costs. THEY are going to find that unacceptable. SOMEONE is causing them to endure costs that they shouldn’t have, and have no “right” to impose.

    Sure enough, just as you say, the answer under this rule is NEITHER of the two extremes.

    And it is exactly the same with any other scarce resource.

    You can start with the precept that no one has the “right” to use the road (resource). In the case of the road, it is pretty clear because of property rights, he owns the road, he can close it if he wants.

    Of course he gets nothing in return, so claiming his right to prevent the use doesn’t get him very much. So, he auctions off the rights.

    With natural resources it is a little more complicated. Either nobody owns them or we all own them. If we all own them then we all have an equal claim to share in the benefits, and no one has the right to take excess benefits at the expense of others.

    It all comes down to property rights, because with out that, we have no way of knowing what anything is worth.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “this is totally bizarre”

    Really? Why should the toll taker be allowed to make “extra” profits by forcing costs off on other people? It is exactly analogous to a polluter making “extra” profits by forcing (pollution) costs off on others.

    It is exactly because they are unwilling to pay that it becomes a problem.

    You might think this is bizarre, but it is commonly accepted practice, not just theory. It is used in cap and trade schemes (promoted by the EPA), “green” banking, and some kinds of auctions.

    Check it out.

    “The world environmental commodities markets are approaching $1 trillion in �market capitalization.� This includes both global and local markets as well as compliance and voluntary markets.

    According to Gareth Phillips and Assaad Razzouk of Sindicatum Carbon Capital, �this figure is derived from a top-down analysis of the current value of emissions markets around the world to the end of 2012, based on volume and price data drawn from third-party sources.”

    http://www.carbonfarmers.com

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You’re not denying service as each person has a choice.”

    The people who are denied service don’t have a choice. The way you set the throughput is by raising the price – to deny service.

    There is nothing wrong with that, by itself. But, if you set the price too high, then you create a condition where you make “excess” profits by making others worse off than need be.

    Even you should be able to see that this is wrong, because it forces those who don’t use your service to contribute their money (in terms of excess costs to themselves) to support your “excess” profits.

    RH

  47. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “OK, how do you decide what is acceptable?”

    You pick a number that is considered acceptable by those who will pay – roughly an urban level of service “C”.

    What they are paying for is not so much a specified speed – but a RELIABLE trip where they can plan on a trip that takes about the same amount of time everyday.

    If not mistaken, the number is 45mph and it’s a minimum average number.

    The trip COULD be faster but what is guaranteed is the 45 average speed.

    It’s a benchmark – a performance standard – written into the contract.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Why should the toll taker be allowed to make “extra” profits by forcing costs off on other people? It is exactly analogous to a polluter making “extra” profits by forcing (pollution) costs off on others.”

    this is like asking why 7-11 is forcing costs off on people by selling milk a a market price.

    The “toll taker” is no different than the guy who runs the 7-11.

    Do you worry that WalMart is making “unfair” profits?

    Why should you care what their profits are – if hey are providing a service that people are willing to pay for?

    and we’re off to the races again – claiming that .. somehow.. “cap & trade” has something to do with HOT lanes.

    Cap & trade has absolutely nothing to do with HOT lanes.

    How exactly would you actually implement a “cap & trade” traffic system?

  49. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You’re not denying service as each person has a choice.”

    The people who are denied service don’t have a choice. The way you set the throughput is by raising the price – to deny service.”

    Using your logic, when United Airlines raises their prices for peak hour – they are denying people air service – as if folks have absolutely no other options other than that one binary option.

    That’s why I say that such views are bizarre.

    You see to think that United must offer you the cheapest fare whenever you choose to fly and if they don’t they’re denying you service and if you go ahead and pay the higher price – they’re making unfair profits.

    Using your logic – you should be able to pay the same price for a stadium seat – no matter where it is and no matter who is playing – and if they charge more for the seats – they are … “denying” you the seat you want.

    come on Ray… geeze…

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The “toll taker” is no different than the guy who runs the 7-11.”

    Come on.

    They guy who runs the seven eleven does not have a guaranteed government franchise and a captive market.

    The government is contracting with the toll taker. We have every right to expect, and demand, that the government won’t screw us by making some endure higher costs when and if it isn’t necessary. That the government will attempt to get the “best value”.

    If the government sets a price to get the toll taker the most money, then some people will not be able to use the road, and there is a cost associated with that number of people and the alternate use.

    Over all (for everybody involved, not me) the net value of that situation may be less than another solution that lets more people travel at a slower speed and lower price, which happens to not get the toll taker as much money.

    There could be another solution at a yet slower speed that serves more people, but turns out to be a worse situation (for everybody).

    Why would you EVER pick the first or third solution over the second?

    ——————————-

    It is very similar to a cap and trade. You cap the road usage at some level say the level that allows travel at 45 mph. The way you do that is regulate the price. The people using the road make a trade between paying the cash price or paying the congestion price.

    Everyone who opts to pay the congestion price makes it more possible for one more person to pay the cash price. Just because it was their choice to pay one price vs the other does not mean they did not still pay a price. In that, they had no choice.

    Therefore, it is not only the road operator that is providing the service, or enduring costs, and it is not only the road operator that should have his costs considered when trying to figure out how to run this thing.

    Especially since it is run under government contract. The government has an obligation to look out for ALL of us, as best it can.

    Walmart can make all the money they want. They don’t work for me, but the government does. Walmart has an unlimited supply of goods, and the HOT lane doeesn’t.

    And anyway, how does Walmart make their money? Ther are VERY adept at matching the amount of product they sell to the price. Too much product at too low a price and they lose money, too little product at too high a price, and they lose money. But, in the first case, it only hurts Walmart (and the environment from excess overconsumption). In the second case it hurts Walmart AND all the customers that could not buy, but might have at the “correct” price.

    Replace Walmart with the tolltaker and Hotwheels with HOT lanes, and we are right bask to square one:
    The government has an interest and and an obligation to see that “Walmart/tolltaker” neither sells too much (excess pollution) nor too little (excess costs).

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    United Airlines can run their business any way they want. They can put in fewer and more comfortable seats and charge more for them. If they do that some people won’t be able to fly that service.

    United airlines is not contracted to the government. On the other hand, United Airlines is highly regulated by the FAA for safety reasons. Just like the EPA, the FAA has an obligation to provide safety, but they simply cannot charge or demand the airlines pay any price at all to get it.

    The FAA sets a rule, but if an airline doesn’t like it or thinks it does not apply to their situation, they compile their own data, and apply for a waiver of that rule. Just like the EPA, the FAA can reject that data and enforce the rule. Usually, the FAA can be persuaded if you come with a good argument, and data.

    Here is a cost and safety trade-off. Is it better to load a plane full of fuel and fly direct, or is it better to carry less fuel, but make a stop on the way, descending from 35,000 feet, and then climbing back up after the stop?

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    started reading risse’s the estate matrix

    sooo much hot air

    sooo little substance

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    anonymous 7:54:

    want to start a new blog? contact me.

    EMR is nor ALL wrong, but he needs some help.

    RH

  54. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: cap & trade vs HOT

    tell me again how this works – especially the “trade” part?

    Do you really understand how cap & trade really works? HINT – it has nothing to do with HOT lanes.

    re: “The government is contracting with the toll taker. We have every right to expect, and demand, that the government won’t screw us by making some endure higher costs when and if it isn’t necessary. That the government will attempt to get the “best value”.

    you have that expectation with EVERYTHING the government contracts for – do you not?

    Don’t you have that same expectation if VDOT operated TOLLs like the already do for some roads and bridges?

    Is your concern that VDOT will screw up the HOT lane contract or is your concern with the HOT lane concept?

    Which is it?

    Don’t mix the two… explain your concern with each aspect.

    re: airline comparisons

    I just love the way that you rope-a-dope your way through these things.

    Congestion Pricing for Airlines is very equivalent for Congestion Pricing for roads – in conceptual terms – much more so than Cap & Trade.

    You say the government gets involved in safety… indeed they get involved in how many planes can take off and land – which RH – is a performance standard to balance throughput with profit.

    sound familiar?

    I’m coming to the conclusion that you just do not like change and further if there is going to be change.. surely someone is trying to steal from you and should owe you money.. if you can figure out what it is they owe you!!!

    🙂 just tweakin you…

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’d suggest you go read

    http://www.env-econ.net/2005/07/costbenefit_ana_1.html

    and

    http://www.env-econ.net/2005/07/costbenefit_ana.html

    RH

  56. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well .. I went to these sites…

    and they are … BLOGs….

    it’s a couple of economics professors spouting their own view of how the environmental world should work.

    They don’t use references and they don’t cite peer-reviewed literature.

    How about listing a couple of peer-reviewed papers these guys have done….?

    how about a paper they’ve done on HOT lanes?

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I guess we shouldn’t have any respect for people who write on blogs. Did you read the stuff, or just blow it off the way you do me?

    You can find Whitehead’s CV at

    http://axp.appstate.edu/~whiteheadjc/vita.pdf

    or

    http://www.appstate.edu/~whiteheadjc/

    It lists the professional journarnals he edits anf revies as well as papers and reports he has written.

    Apparently his view of how environemtnal analysis is done has been valuable enough to be purchased by NOAA, EPA, The Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries, The National Science Foudation, and Ducks Unlimited, among others.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No HOT lane stuff yet, I’m still working on it.

    “Are HOV lanes efficient?
    The major issue concerning the efficiency of HOV lanes is how often they function properly. Joy Dahlgren’s research has shown that HOV lanes operate efficiently within a relatively narrow window.

    On one hand, the number of HOV drivers should be high enough to avoid underutilization of the reserved lane. If there are too few HOV drivers, traffic flows could be improved by converting the HOV lane to a general-purpose lane. On the other hand, the number of vehicles using the HOV lanes should stay below a certain limit, since overcrowding of the HOV lane erodes potential timesavings and decreases the incentive for ride sharing.

    Ultimately, HOV priority treatment may be a flawed strategy because it is ineffective in lessening overall travel delays beyond a self-limiting threshold, leading to chronic underutilization of HOV lanes. This chronic underutilization tends to be a consequence of the “lumpiness” of HOV lanes: HOV lanes must be allocated a whole number of lanes (e.g. 1 lane, 2 lanes, etc) and must be reserved for particular numbers of passengers per car (e.g., HOV-2, HOV-3), but to be efficient, the number of potential carpoolers may call for an intermediate degree of HOV restrictions. Thus, it is often not possible to redistribute road capacity optimally, usually resulting in too much capacity devoted to HOV lanes. “

    In this context efficient has a specific technical meaning. Efficient means it provides an overall social benefit, according to the notions I have previously explained. You can see the rest of this at

    http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-IB-03-03.pdf

    This is not exactly the same as my analysis but this section is close enough to sound familiar: “…the number of HOV drivers should be high enough to avoid underutilization of the reserved lane. If there are too few HOV drivers, traffic flows could be improved by converting the HOV lane to a general-purpose lane. On the other hand, the number of vehicles using the HOV lanes should stay below a certain limit, since overcrowding of the HOV lane erodes potential timesavings and decreases the incentive for ride sharing.”

    The article goes on to discuss HOT lanes. Ther is no discussion of how the HOT lanes should be managed, but it does contain this statement:

    “The proponents of HOT lanes contend that even if users of HOT lanes tend to be wealthier, the proceeds from toll collection can be used to mitigate any inequities. For example, the revenues could be directed to finance public transit, which tends to be used more by poorer households. However, to properly design a mitigation scheme, one first needs to establish the gains and losses and determine exactly how population strata are affected.

    In addition to considering the effect of a HOT lane policy on the well-being of people of
    different incomes who travel the highway, policymakers should examine network effects—the
    consequences for those whose travel choices are affected even if they don’t use the highway
    itself—when estimating aggregate costs and benefits of a new policy.”

    Which is pretty much what I have been saying about system level analyses. Their analysis is based only on one price point, so it cannot be compared to my analysis.

    Their conclusions are that SLUGS and current carpool users will be the losers when HOT lanes are implemented. HOT lanes will result in MORE single occupant vehicle trips. One confusing thing to me was this: by their analysis everyone will be better off because the regular lanes will flow slightly faster, (times a lot of users) and the HOT lanes will flow slightly slower (because of more users). Overall traffic congestion will be reduced and, guess what, less congestion encourages more people to travel. so there will be around 2000 more trips taken, and mostly during the peak hours.

    The authors claim to have done a cost benefit analysis but they present only the gross results, so we cannot see how they reached their conclusion. By their calculations the top quarter in income will get $30 million a year in benefits and the bottom quarter will get $1.1 million in benefits.

    It seems a little fishy to me because everyone benefits (except current car poolers). There are no costs to this identified. But they do discuss ways in which the benefits could be better distributed (Winners pay the losers, and are still better off, remember?)

    More later.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “re: “The government is contracting with the toll taker. We have every right to expect, and demand, that the government won’t screw us by making some endure higher costs when and if it isn’t necessary. That the government will attempt to get the “best value”.

    you have that expectation with EVERYTHING the government contracts for – do you not?”

    OK we found one thing we agree on.

    How do you find the “best value” for society at large if you do not consider both the winners and losers from a proposed policy? Just because the “losers” in some cases are the perceived “bad guys” (polluters and profit makers), makes no difference.

    RH

  60. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: blog economists –

    if they’ve done credible work for the government… or others.. I’ll read it.

    but folks who make statements without providing references and they also don’t generate community-reviewed literature are not very credible in my view.

    they’re certainly entitled to their opinion but that opinion is more of a personal one than an economist community view if they are freelancing.

    Have these guys done work for the EPA and/or State DEQs with regard to environmental policy and regulations?

    re: HOT Lanes .. nitty gritty details – TBD. It IS, after all a PILOT project where part of this effort is to better understand things that cannot be predicted with certainty.

    And the whole thing can (and will) be trashed if it goes south.

    re: bad guys, profits, polluters, winners, losers.

    I don’t see a problem with profits made as the result of hard work and in the context of competition.

    “Best Value” – you need to define that term.

    Ever since I saw a large size of a product with that “best value” label on it – and the cost per ounce was higher than the smaller size – I’ve been wondering…

    🙂

    But what is best for society is not going to be what is best for you.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But what is best for society is not going to be what is best for you.”

    Why not?

    The only way that can happen if “what is best for society” entails a big wealth transfer.

    If it is actually better for society, then there MUST be enough money in it for the winners to pay the losers and still come out ahead. In my opinion there is NO EXCUSE for creating something that is “better for society” and having any “losers” in the process.

    Whether it is me, or anybody else.

    With manufactuing and pollution this happens because we pay more for the products, but we get cleaner air or water.

    But in many other areas it just boils down to stealing, unless we make a consious effort to make sure that when society uses or creates a new product, that the “the users pay”.

    I think downzoning works this way. Had the new zoning been in place originally, each current landowner wopuld have had to buy more property along with his current home. But buy buying smaller lots, building, and then downzoning, the exisitng homeowners claim the benefits associated with open space that they never paid for.

    When they originally purchased their homes they understood, or should have understood, that they did not own the surrounding properties, and more development would occur someday. By downzoning the surrounding land they have changed the nature of their purchase agreements as well as the purchase agreements of the landowners who have not developed.

    We may actually get something that is “better for society”, but unfortunately, societty isn’t paying for it. And if we are not willing to pay for what we get, then we are stealing.

    RH

    PS Those guys have plenty of public work to thier credit, including one of your favorites, involving the social cost of Pfisteria in fish.

  62. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: not better for you

    If you were benefiting from a subsidy to start with and that subsidy is removed then it would be good for society and not good for you.

    right?

    and more to the point. You enjoyed a road subsidy until we got to the point where the subsidy would no longer work without an increase in taxes and so the choice was made to not increase taxes but to go to user-pays tolls.

    for all those folks who paid gas taxes that went for infrastructure that they did not use – this change is a benefit to them.

    for those who depending on infrastructure paid for by others, going to a toll system is not a benefit – but it is good for those folks who don’t have to pay increased taxes to continue the subsidies.

    capische?

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You enjoyed a road subsidy…”

    That is your opinion.

    My opinion is that we once had a tax structure that adewquately supported roads. That structure was faulty because it was based on a per gallon tax instead of a per dollar tax. Had the basis been correct, very little “additional tax” would have been needed.

    This opinion is backed up by a study by the National Science Foundation.

    If a subsidy exists, it is because the basis has not kept up with reality. The per gallon tax has not been allowed to increase along with the price of everyting else. WE are NOT going to have tolls on all roads, and this is going to result in some people being subsidized by others. On the other hand, it is hard to use ANY road without paying a gas tax.

    Look at it this way. The farm gave up 60 acres for the sake of route 66. Those 60 acres were paid for in 1967 dollars. The value of the highway today, is much more than it was then. So, would be the value of the land. But the farm has recieved nothing for this. The difference in value is what the farm has contributed over the years to “subsidizing” the state’s roadway.

    How, exactly, did all those people pay gas taxes for infrastructure that they did not use? They were driving weren’t they? What is more true, is that they did not pay enough gas taxes. And now, they are asking to be subsidized in retrospect for failing to keep up the highwya system adequately.

    When my father-in-law handed over land to the state, he might have at least thought that someday the reaminder of his land would be worth more, because of the exchange.

    But now the people who actually do use the highway, the ones who are subsidized by his previous loss, expect to collect still more if the roads are actually used.

    Your argument that some are using infrastructure paid for by others is unproven at best, and BOGUS at worst.

    “the choice was made to not increase taxes but to go to user-pays tolls.”

    Please explain the differnce between user pays gas taxes and user pays tolls, other than the fact taht some will pay the tolls, and most won’t?

    Let me put it this way. Give me back the land where the highway is, and let me collect the tolls. THEN, I’m all on your side. I’ll even pay back the money used to build the highway, and I’ll maintain it.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More