Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Billions for Transportation — but How Much for Congestion Relief?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Hampton Roads chapter of the Axis of Taxes is riding the wave of public frustration with traffic congestion to generate public support for higher regional taxes and big regional road projects. But two of the biggest projects topping the list of regional priorities — the Third Crossing and the U.S. 460 upgrade — won’t address traffic congestion at all: They are economic development projects. The purpose of this post is not to denigrate the economic development potential of either project — that’s an entirely separate issue — but to point out that many citizens in Hampton Roads are likely to be quite unhappy if they find themselves $200 million a year lighter in their wallets and still stuck in traffic.

A number of this blog’s readers have been making that very argument in the comments section. But the point was really driven home by numbers cited in a press release issued by the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Describing the U.S. 460 project as “a symbol of waste and misplaced priorities in our transportation program,” Executive Director Stewart Schwartz writes:

Route 460 would be a new 55-mile interstate equivalent highway between Suffolk and Petersburg. The cost of the road is currently estimated at $1.5 billion, but some estimates go to $1.9 billion. The state’s taxpayers would have to pay at least $1 billion toward a project that VDOT wants private toll-road builders to construct under the Public-Private Transportation Act.

The PPTA isn’t living up to the promises made by its boosters. This amounts to a substantial public subsidy…

Remarkably, the existing Route 460 is predicted in VDOT’s Environmental Impact Study to be at Level of Service A (free-flowing) in 2030, except in small towns with traffic lights. Today, the highway carries fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day compared to average daily traffic volumes on I-64 on the Peninsula of 43,000 to 80,000 vehicles per day in the Williamsburg area.

Says Schwartz: “Roads like 460 have been pushed through the [Commonwealth Transportation Board] process by VDOT and would make an early claim to both the $2 billion in bond funding and the increases in fees, taxes and tolls in the Hampton Roads region. This will siphon money away from real congestion problems within the metropolitan areas of the state.”

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

27 responses to “Billions for Transportation — but How Much for Congestion Relief?”

  1. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Stewart Schwartz doesn’t seem to mind wasting billions on the Silver Line that will attract only 18,400 new riders by 2030. (i.e., people not using transit today) Why the difference, Mr. Schwartz?

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ve been reading Bacon’s Rebellion for a while now and the blog as a lurker.

    I’ve read quite a bit about Virginia’s transportation fix and your suggestions for relieving the congestion, and I’m curious: do y’all really believe that the response to today’s transportation problems is to restructure human settlement patterns that have been evolving with the automobile?

    What do you do with the needs of people aleady living in the subdivisions that have sprouted up all around Virginia’s urban areas in the past 30 years?

    It doesn’t seem to be an adequate or realistic response to existing congestion transportation problems to say “not one dime more in road building until you reorganize urban society.

    Am I mis-reading?

    Bubberella

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think what US 460 is about is trucks originating and destined for the ports.

    I-64 is two-lane in each direction in many places and for anyone who has travelled that road… it’s one neverending rolling roadblock from folks who get in the left lane and stay there.

    The reason an new US 460 would require taxpayer dollars is that it would be COMPETING against a FREE I-64 and thus would only attract traffic when I-64 is ugly.

    Which makes me wonder.. why not add a 3rd lane to I-64 and TOLL that lane… or a 3rd lane for trucks only and tolled… etc.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Reality check No. 2. The 460 Bypass is actually going to cost around $2.5B and yes, toll revenues will not cover the cost.

    Another factor that should be considered in prioritization and selection of transportation projects is safefy. Not always easy to apply a number to what is achieved.

    One of the primary purposes of the 460 Bypass is improved safety for that route over the existing undivided four-lane highway. A nice drive now, but can be somewhat harried when the 18-wheelers are rolling along. Another need is hurricane evacuation. In a disaster, man-made or natural, evacuation from the peninsula will be a fiasco at this time. Apply a number to that?

    A PPP is being looked at to advance that project, with all the proposals posted for all to view on the VDOT web site.

    And yes, it does boil down to either the 3rd crossing or the 460 Bypass. It will take political will and public funding to advance either.

    Don’t worry, if the numbers don’t work, the private investment will walk. It is also not getting cheaper.

    Ock

  5. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jim: Doesn’t the utility of improving 460 depend on which way the 3rd Crossing goes?

    If the 3rd Crossing goes as planned now – thousands of trucks get dumped north of the James on I-64 in the middle of Hampton.

    If the 3rd Crossing went with rail and road south of the James to connect to 460 – it would move a lot of trucks and containers without adding to the congestion.

    Where’s Reid Greenmun? He has these facts memorized.

    The one I remember is this: The current plan – voted on today – INCREASES congestion in Hampton Roads. 20 years from now there will at least 91 miles MORE congestion – after years of construction delays, accidents and death.

  6. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Bubberella:

    You are mis-reading.

    “Not one dime more in road building until you reorganize urban society” is not an adequate or realistic response to existing congestion transportation problems. The usual request is to increase transit funds for localities with congestion problems from 14.5% to 50%. This was the ratio in the Northern Virginia 2010 plan and the Northern Virginia 2020 plan.

  7. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I have an idea. It might sound ridiculous but nevertheless, it’s an idea. If this has already been done, please forgive my ignorance.
    While reading the various posts from several blogs, I realized that the bloggers seem to have a far better grasp on reality then the GA. I think a post should be set up for the purpose of collecting specific individual bloggers solutions for transportation, statewide. Specific solutions only, like a survey. After a predetermined period of time, someone could assemble the ideas and submit them to the Governor. I’d be willing to bet it would be superior to the compromise that he will certainly pick apart. I understand the very nature of blogs is for exchanging ideas and a forum for communication. For this purpose, could it be a specific task? This idea was born from total frustration. Who knows, maybe some of our future legislators will have unique, equitable solutions. I apologize in advance if this thought offends anyone.

  8. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Mr. Bacon, I’m here. I have been very busy tearing apart HB 3202.

    I have so much work to do now.

    Now I have to mobilze a REGIONAL effort to cause the new REGIONAL AUTHORITY to fail to have enough localities vote to adopt it.

    There are many, many very nasty “things” sprinkled within HB 3202.

    And … as you pointed out, the highway projects it funds in TW/HR really do NOT reduce any traffic congestion. Frankly, its really about the port expansion, not “We, The People”.

    I am going to bed now – tomorrow I have to teach Adult Sunday School and I get up at 5:00 AM to write my lession and prepare my PowerPoint slides.

    Night all.

    It was a very bad day for government in TW/HR today.

  9. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Our favorite suggestion:

    Recommendation #28 (General Assembly and Governor): Amend the Code of Virginia to change the current allocation system so that Transportation can base their priorities and criteria on statewide needs rather than by district, county, and city.
    Page57 http://www.apa.state.va.us/data/download/reports/audit_local/VDOTfollowup04.pdf

    No original. It came from our State Audditor.

  10. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    On the other end of the spectrum it was a good day for Northern Virginia.

    A transportation bill was passed with broad based support in the house of delegates

    Special thanks to the moderate commonsense democrats who supported the bill

    Bulova
    Caputo
    Marsden
    Poisson
    Shannon
    Sickels

    All of the votes against in the house and senate were from blue districts with little danger of practical challengers from the Rs except for two

    Sleep well tonight

    Senator Colgan and Senator Herring

    Bob FitzSimmonds and John Andrews/Patricia Phillips are looking forward to the fall 🙂

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Andrea – many suggestions from this blog, as JW pointed out are recommendations from Virginian’s own audit agencies.

    JLARC and the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts have both produced scathing accounts of shortfalls in both transportation policy and implementation of policy and have issued recommendations…

    some .. very simple.. like setting up performance criteria to rate road projects so that they can be ranked and prioritized.

    Then.. folks writing the budget – can look and see just what projects could be built for what kind of money.

    More money would take them deeper into the list – less money – less projects.

    This is how most Capital Projects operate whether they be public or private.

    WalMart cannot build every store it wants to build – tommorrow.

    So they prioritize their list according to criteria important to them.

    Virginia – at the least – should operate this way.

    Further – the number ONE ranking criteria that we should be using (besides safety) is Congestion Relief.

    The first suggestion – JLARC and APAC recommendations are not blogger ideas – just ideas ignored by VDOT and the GA.

    The second suggestion, congestion relief – has been recommended by many education and transportation research organizations – again not an idea sourced from bloggers.

    The problem that we have is that the elected folks apparently don’t read the same things that bloggers read.

    OUR “bad” though – we elected them and I gaurantee this Fall, we’ll re-elect them or vote in a new person just as uninformed…..

  12. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Bubberella:

    “do y’all really believe that the response to today’s transportation problems is to restructure human settlement patterns that have been evolving with the automobile?”

    YES

    THOSE PATTERNS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE BECAUSE WHAT MAKES THEM WORK IN SMALL URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS IS CHEAP GASOLINE (UNDERPRICED ENERGY REGARDLESS OF SOURCE).

    IN LARGE URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS THEY HAVE NEVER WORKED WELL EVEN WITH CHEAP GASOLINE. SHOW US ONE LARGE URBAN AGGLOMERATION (A NEW URBAN REGION OVER 3,000,000) THAT IS NOT SPENDING MILLIONS (AND MOST BILLIONS) ON SHARED-VEHICLE SYSTEMS.

    IT TURNS OUR THAT AT THE UNIT, DOORYARD AND CLUSTER SCALE THE VAST MAJORITY ALREADY LIVE IN PATTERNS AND DENSITIES THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY FUNCTIONAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE AUTONOMOBILE. SEE THE 87 1/2 PERCENT RULE.

    THE PROBLEM IS A DISTORTED MARKET AND GOVERNMENT CONTROLS OF LAND USE THAT HAVE SCATTERED SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, VILLAGE, COMMUNITY AND SUBREGIONAL SCALES IN PATTERNS THAT ARE NO TRANSPORTABLE. THESE PATTERNS AND DENISTIES ARE ALSO NOT SUPPORTIVE OF MOST ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL OBJECTIVES OF CITIZENS, THEIR FAMILIES, ENTERPRISES AND INSTITUTIONS.

    “What do you do with the needs of people aleady living in the subdivisions that have sprouted up all around Virginia’s urban areas in the past 30 years?”

    1. YOU ALLOW THE MARKET TO RAISE THE COST OF MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE POINT THAT SETTLEMENT PATTERN TRANSFORMS

    2. GET MUNICIPAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY OF THAT TRANSFORMATION.

    “It doesn’t seem to be an adequate or realistic response to existing congestion transportation problems to say “not one dime more in road building until you reorganize urban society.”

    FIRST, SHOW US ONE LARGE NEW URBAN REGION (WHERE 70 TO 80 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF THE US OF A LIVE AND WORK, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DRAW THE BOUNDARYS) WHERE SPENDING MONEY ON ROADWAY BUILDING HAS LOWERED CONGESTION (HOURS OF DELAY, VMT) ON A LONG-TERM REGIONAL (NOT SHORT-TERM BOTTLENECK) BASIS.

    AUTONOMOBILITY DOES NOT WORK ANY BETTER THAN EXCLUSIVE USE OF HORSES FOR MOBILITY AND ACCESS IN LARGE NEW URBAN REGIONS. LARGE URBAN ARE WHERE CITIZENS WANT AND NEED TO BE TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A CONTEMPORARY HIGH TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY AS DOCUMENTED BY THE MARKET.

    CITIZENS WILL SUPPORT EXPENDITURES IF THEY CAN SEE THAT THE MONEY WILL BE WISELY SPENT TO CREATE A SUSTAIANBLE SETTLEMENT PATTERN.

    SO FAR IN VIRGINIA, NO REGION AND THE COMMONWEALTH HAVE NOT PROVIDED SUCH A STRATEGY. FEW IN THE US OF A HAVE EVEN COME CLOSE SO FAR.

    “Am I mis-reading?”

    NO, YOU JUST HAVE NOT YET READ ENOUGH.

    Have a great day in the snow.

    EMR

  13. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I am sifting through HB3202 and I have a question I am hoping one of you can answer.
    What section of this bill allows a locality to impose an additional .25 per $100.00 on A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND that has been residentially zoned for over 15 years, with proffers of cash and 210 acres of land for public use? How can they single out one piece of land that is undeveloped when they have rezoned hundreds of acres in the immediate vicinity within the 15 year period? If they do this, there will be residents paying $1.24 on one side of the road, and residents paying $.99 on the other side of the road FOR THE EXACT SAME SERVICES. Any insight would be greatly appreciated gentlemen.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    WOW! A Scathing editorial in this mornings Free Lance Star .. and INCLUDING a PLUG for BR.

    see:

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/022007/02252007/262342

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “What section of this bill allows a locality to impose an additional .25 per $100.00 on A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND that has been residentially zoned for over 15 years, with proffers of cash and 210 acres of land for public use?”

    The involvement of Proffers suggests that this land is being rezoned to a higher density or a more intensive use (Commercial perhaps).

    Either way – the new uses are a negotation (as opposed to by-right) and the negotiation is how much more traffic will impact the existing infrastructure – as a result of the new proposed use.

    The locality will take a look at what it will take to mitigate the impact and then work with the developer to essentially agree to a quid pro quo… in return for the rezone… the following mitigation will take place.

    The change in the tax rate suggests that a CDA will be used and if there is one owner of the parcel – the CDA can be put in place to essentially have the folks who move onto the parcel pay a fair share of the cost of the infrastructure upgrades over some period of time… and then the tax would go away.

    So I would say that the same level of services is true ONLY if the property is not developed for more intense or dense uses.

  16. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    This is a 2000 acre parcel of land with a previously approved phase 1 tentative. It is specifically limited to 3550 dwelling units, 210 acres of employment generating uses and has roughly 600 acres of open space.
    The owner acquired the property in March of 2006 and applied for a tentative re-approval. He has been prevented from even submitting plans based on an ordinance that isn’t allowed by statute. ( In my opinion 15.2-2241 and 2242 are very clear)
    The owner refuses to take this for a rezoning. The proffer is now $15,600/du.
    The locality decided to suddenly add an agenda item at their last meeting to impose a special tax on this property only, because they think they can get more than they have under current conditions of zoning. They didn’t even bother to give the landowner a heads up on what they were going to do. Yes, they can go to court, but with four phases of development, the locality can choose to make the process impossible to navigate.
    A CDA would be wonderful! It would allow the desired improvements to be constructed in advance, and in a more cost effective manner. However, the locality doesn’t like CDAs. They don’t like to loose control. They have done only one, and are having issues with it after only six months. Help?

  17. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Jim, I am sorry for wandering off topic.

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Has there EVER been a proposed road construction project that the coalition for smarter growth has not dunned as a waste of money? Maybe there has been, but I can’t recall it. Anyone?

    Show us one large new urban reion where spending billions on shared vehicle systems has lowered hours of delay. Pretty hard to do since shared vehicle systems have an average speed half of that supported by the automobile.

    Surely some combination of auto and transit will provide the best result, but the best evidence we have is that transit really works cost efficiently (and envirionmentally efficiently) for only around 2% of the population.

    But since there is NO lare urban region where millions of people do not waste millions of hours of otherwise productive time waiting for other millions to get out of their way, then MAYBE the problem is large urban regions. MAYBE the problem is too many people trying to go to the same place at the same time.

    Citizens will support expenditures if they can see the benefit to themselves. You cannot ever sell the idea of sustainable settlement patterns based on self-sacrifice, besides, there isn’t any evidence that supports the idea that large urban areas are sustainable, with or without automobiles, and a good deal of evidence to suggest otherwise: prices and taxes for starters.

  19. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The projects that come to mind are only a small sample of the VDOT tip. Most projects are not opposed by the environmental community.

    The environmental community supports a balanced transportation program. One example is the NoVa 2010 program. The problem was the implementation by VDOT. They only build projects on one half of the teeter totter. The environmental community has since remained silent on projects that have wide spread support and only voiced concern when a project is needed to balance the transportation program.

    Any concern that the environmental community will oppose highway projects that result in congestion reduction, trip reduction, reduction in miles traveled and safety improvements is misplaced.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well I’ll wade in….

    let’s see WHERE is the cost/benefit for roads in urban areas? You know. the one that is the road-equivalent of the one used for transit?

    you know.. where they decide that the cost of the road is worth the reduction in congestion on the network?

    Let’s take the ICC.. 122 million dollars a mile… and how much congestion reduction will result?

    How many more ICCs would have to be built to reduce congestion throughout the Wash DC Region?

    Just give me a number… and what percentage of congestion relief we get for that number…so we can plan out how much it will cost – long-term to build our way out of the congestion?

    How many neighborhoods will have to have new roads cut through them?

    How many businesses will have to relocate for the new roads?

    How many natural areas, parks and historic land will have to be paved over for congestion relief?

    And projects stopped by the opposition… let’s see .. how much left over money is there from opposed projects never built?

    Where is that fund? It ought to be humongous.. right?

    🙂

  21. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Larry and others as you propably know by now I am a strong supporter of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.

    Since it is snowing and most of us are stuck inside today I invite you to puruse our backgrounder

    Go to the homepage http://www.nvta.org

    Scroll down to the bottom and uner Alliance Newsletter/Sminats click on the last link
    Special: Tranportation 101:…

    Enjoy

    NMM

  22. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’ll repeat the question, has there ever been a road project that the coalition for smarter growth supported? give me an example of a project that an environmental group supported with more than just a lack of opposition. After all, they have to prioritze how they spend our resources, too.

    Any concern that the environmental community will oppose highway projects that result in congestion reduction, trip reduction, reduction in miles traveled and safety improvements is not misplaced precisely because groups such as the coalition for smarter growth beleive that NO road project will ever meet those requirements. It is a completely and utterly disingenuous argument, and it is exactly the sort of thing tht gives (some) people a bad taste. (In my opinion)It is bad PR to insult people’s intelligence this way, and it hurts your cause.

    And projects stopped by the opposition… let’s see .. how much congestion relief have we gotten from projects never built? How much money might there be for actual construction if we didn’t waste it fighting over non-construction.

    Holding up a lack of congestion relief as a means to fight road construction is a red herring argument by itself. We all know the problem is more complex than that, so why shoot ourselves in the foot by making ourselves look like simpletons?

    We are not going to get congestion in the places that need it most by building roads, regardless of how many roads we build. Downtown Houston is 75% streets.

    The question we should ask is whether the money (whether on roads or transit) spent will provide more service to those that wish to use it, and whether it is a good investment based on the economy it supports. Four lanes of congested traffic provides more service than two lanes of congested traffic.

    They also produce more pollution than two lanes of congested traffic, and (maybe, maybe not) more time wasted sitting in traffic.

    Probably, there is some optimum mix of road and transit, but experience suggests that real economically efficient (and environmentally efficient) public transit will serve only about 2% of the population, and less than that with regard to transportation needs other than commuting during rush hour.

    So, after you decide if a project is a good investment based on the economy it supports, then take into account how much pollution mitigatiion it will cost to make up for it, and what the costs will be for the pollution you can’t mitigate. Then subtract those numbers from the equation. If you still have a positive number, put the project on the list.

    After the list is complete (assuming there is any money left after all the studies, and assuming the inevitable opposition doesn’t kill it anyway) then fund the projcts, starting with the ones that have the highest net positive return.

    Take the social engineering out of the equation, except for pollution.

    I submit that such a plan would pretty much eliminate roads like 66 inside the beltway.

    So, instead of blaming the roads, the funding mechanisms, the long distance commuters, the new guys moving in, and bad social planning, maybe we should ask one simple question.

    Once apon a time we had a street that wasn’t crowded. Now we have a street that is not only crowded, but even if we double it, it will still be crowded. Where did we go wrong? Do you think it could be that we simply allowed more land use than the street could support?

    After all, those four lanes of traffic are presumably not there for their health or enjoyment. They must be going somewhere to do something that pays them enough to put up with the expense and grief.

    Maybe when you talk about demand management you should consider where they are going as part of the problem. In fact, it is THE problem, because it is demonstrably true that on holidays when the workforce is down, then the streets are navigable: it isn’t like (most) people just hop in their car and drive around in order to depreciate the car and rack up VMT.

    Congestion reduction is only one part of the equation, and not a very important (or likely) one, so hanging all the value of a transportation project on that is a mistake, whether the project is a street or transit.

    I agree with Larry, there is almost no cost benefit ratio that will support building more highways in urban areas. There is also no cost benefit ratio that will support building mass transit, either.

    The fact that so many new office buildings are going up outside the central areas suggests that maybe there is no cost benefit ratio that supports building anything additional there. That is why we fill up the space with government funded stuff like ballparks, convention centers, and oh, metro stations.

    We don’t seem to have any problem tearing down houses for any of those. Tearing down houses is an expensive way to get right of way, but at least it also reduces demand. Maybe the people who lived there first should have thought of that, and reserved enough open space for future uses. Of course, then they would have had to tax themselves to conserve this future asset. This way, we can just blame the problem on the new guys.

    We aren’t going to get congestion relief, not with building more urban roads, and not with building more urban transit. So forget about it. Forget about wasting money fighting over it, and instead make an HONEST effort to see what does pay.

    My suggestion is that when we do that, we will see that it doesn’t pay to try to put 10 pounds of birdseed into a five pound bag.

  23. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “Show us one large new urban region where spending billions on shared vehicle systems has lowered hours of delay. Pretty hard to do since shared vehicle systems have an average speed half of that supported by the automobile.”

    When you measure the wrong thing, you get the wrong answer.

    The purpose of a transportation system is to connect destinations. If you want to improve transportation, you measure the average trip time. Trip time depends on the distance to the destination and the speed you travel. The reduction in distance created by the increase in destinations in regions with transit oriented development more then makes up for the decrease in travel time.

    Any paper that discusses transportation projects while ignoring land use is trying to solve a puzzle with only half the pieces.

  24. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Good post.

    NVTA is just what it is paid to be:

    As reasoned voice as you can create to represent an unreasonable proposition: Autonomobility.

    You only have to look at those who pay thier bills to understand their postions.

    I speak as a former board member and chair of the technical committee of NVTA.

    Nice folks doing what they are paid to do.

  25. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    I like them because I support roads over transit in most cases. In my opinion transit only works in very unique situations.

    However they are another business as usual lobby when it comes right down to it. They want more money period.

    The VTRANS 2030 plan has plans for 7 corridors in the greater Fairfax, PW, Loudoun area.

    I think I am moving towards the HR/TW view that the so called plans in the 7 corridors are not always necessary or the most efficient.

    I was going to post a link but it seems the Vtrans 2030 plan is down at the moment

    __________________________________

    I am really starting to get confused/frustrated.

    Its getting confusing because TW/HR have their problems/issues Fredrickburg has theirs. Richmond has theirs. NoVA has theirs Chaloteesvile has theirs.

    Its confusing because I get the contributors mixed up

    Its confusing because views change based on the topic

    It would be much easier if there was one silver bullet to fix transportation/landuse

    They all require fundamental change and I like EMRs theory in developing areas but in areas that have existing deveopment/bad land use and the associatd problems its a much harder nut to crack.

    Its frustrating because the same arguments keep coming up and getting rehashed and rechurned.

    Along with that it seems most people are not going to change their positions on issues

    So in summary I will be taking a hiatus.

    It has been an interesting ride and I will be lurking and may come back in a little while

    NMM

  26. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    NMM – I see the NVTA as a front group for some landowners who want taxpayers to dig more deeply to build infrastructure near their landholdings. I doubt that there is a single person on the board of that organization who truly cares about improving transportation — at least not any of those who can tie their own shoes.

    This is one reason why I think that the GOP’s tax plan for roads is marginally acceptable. The 25% fee/tax on commercial real estate in NoVA forces these people to put some real skin in the game for the first time ever. It’s very easy for these shall we say, manipulators and their flunkies, to support their boondoggle projects when the general public is shelling out higher sales taxes. Building a worthless Techway (from the prospective of traffic reduction) on the backs of the average Jane or Joe is easy. But when these same manipulators and flunkies are footing a significant portion of the bill, they just might be more interested in fixing the worst 25 intersections in Fairfax, Prince William or Loudoun Counties than in building another road for development’s sake.

    It’s like the situation where parents slightly underfunds their kid’s college education, such that the student must put some of her or his earned money into the pot. Quite often, the student who pays for part of the tuition takes learning and studying more seriously than the student who pays nothing. The same may hold true for the business community. If the business community begins to challenge itself, we all might win.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    NMM – don’t go… your view is needed and offers some balance and perspective.. needed…

    re: “fixing the worst 25 intersections in Fairfax, Prince William or Loudoun Counties than in building another road for development’s sake.”

    AGREE!

    WHERE on the NVTA website is the above?

    WHERE on VDOT’s website is the STate Version of it?

    WHERE is the list of the most congested areas AND the proposed fixes AND the projected improvement in Congestion Reduction?

    Here’s what we are doing right now (excerpted from WaPo Dr. Gridlock):

    “First off, I would like to congratulate the team that is responsible for the improvements to the Springfield interchange”

    …..

    “Now on to the problem. While the commute from Tysons Corner — 495 to 95 south — through the interchange works great, the problem has been pushed farther south. As soon as you get through the interchange, traffic on 95 south comes to a standstill.”

    What VDOT and NoVa did was to essentially spend $700 million dollars to “push congestion south on I-95”.

    This is really a dumb and ungodly expensive approach to the traffic problems faced in NoVa – would you not agree?

    But NVTA … believes that more of the same is the correct path… except they essentially tell whoppers about the actual anticpated costs….

    The ICC tells us what to expect in real costs – 100 million a mile – at least…

    Now take that number back to NVTA’s lowballs.. and then do a quick division to derive the per capita cost.. and you start to appreciate just how disengenuous NVTA is…

    I can only agree with TMT about their possible motives.

    Who.. in their right mind.. would profess to be FOR legitimate solutions to problems and devote a whole website to what NVTA does?

    NMM.. stick around…

Leave a Reply

Read More