Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Blindness Goes On

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

It was big headlines in the Mainstream Media when a coalition of twenty-some Northern Virginia business groups endorsed more taxes for transportation, but no news at all when 19 environmental/ conservation organizations sent an open letter to state lawmakers outlining their consensus position.

Because you didn’t see them anywhere else, I’m summarizing the key recommendations here:

  • Reduce travel demand. Existing transportation plans are unaffordable even with additional funding, and should be reevaluated with an eye to reducing travel demand. No more open-ended commitment to endlessly expand capacity.
  • Volatile energy prices are combining with a changing real estate market to change the type of transportation investments needed Translation: Developers are designing more pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities. State and local government is behind the curve.
  • Performance standards at the state, regional and local levels should include goals to reduce per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled; increase market share for transit, carpooling, biking and walking; and increase the share of jobs and residences within walking distance. Transportation funding should be tied to meeting these goals.
  • Evaluate alternatives. A full range of alternatives should be fairly and transparently evaluated for transportation projects, rather than zeroing in on a pre-selected approach.
  • Public-private partnerships must maintain public oversight, make the planning process transparent, ensure that the private sector really invests new money, and funds transit alternatives where congestion pricing is utilized.
  • Change allocation formulas. More investment for transit, freight rail, pedestrian and bicycle needs. More money for local streets. Less money for mega projects.
  • Improve street connectivity. Better connectivity of streets accepted into the VDOT system would reduce the burden on the few large arterials the state can afford to build.

You don’t have to agree with every one of these proposals to acknowledge the vitality of thinking that is taking place. Between the market-oriented House of Delegates and the “smart growth” prescriptions of the environmental/conservation community, virtually every core assumption about transportation policy in Virginia is being called into question. Yet, judging by the news and editorial coverage of the Mainstream Media, you’d never know an intellectual revolution was occurring.

When will those guys open their eyes?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

12 responses to “The Blindness Goes On”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s an interesting passage:

    “transit alternatives are funded where congestion pricing is utilized.” (page 2 of the referenced doc).

    First time I’ve actually seen it written.. though it’s been implied… and pretty bold… it presumes that transit is the best, most effective way to improve mobility and therefore deserving of a dedicated funding status.

    You can bet the road guys won’t like this…… Tysons.. Dulles et al… their hair will be on fire….

    I suspect though.. many ordinary folks in the metro areas might support it.

    When I see angry, sign-carrying motorists threatening to lynch their legislators.. I’ll probably be convinced otherwise.

    I still continue to believe that the main thing legislators can do to get voted out.. is raise taxes but then again.. Mark Warner.. managed to not only do that… but retain a 60%+ rating.

    🙂

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Better use of existing resources has always been a priority of the business community — it is what we do in our own companies. But we aren’t stupid enough to believe that it substitutes for real capital.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tolls Alone Won’t Fund Corridor
    Deseret Morning News, September 16, 2006
    UTAH

    Tolls will not raise enough to be the sole source of funding to build the 40-mile Mountain View Corridor, which will connect Salt Lake and Utah counties, according the results of a recent study by the Utah Department of Transportation. About one-third of the $1.7 billion will need to come from state residents, through a gas-tax increase, higher sales-tax, vehicle-registration fee increase or by other funding sources, said the study.

    A bill was passed in the 2006 general legislative session that allows Utah to enter into a public-private partnership to build toll roads. The state would then be allowed to lease the road to a private company to build, operate and maintain the road, as well as impose the tolls.

    The UDOT study found that if the state ran the toll road it would still leave a $502 million deficit that would need to be funded through taxes or otherwise. If the project were financed through a private concessionaire then the shortfall would be $641 million. UDOT thought it could raise more money for construction and operating costs by leasing the road to a private consortium, said Teri Newell, UDOT project manager for the proposed Mountain View Corridor.

    The agency had looked at Chicago’s sale earlier this year of the Skyway tollway to a Spanish company for $1.83 billion. But that deal involved an existing toll road that had a lucrative history in toll collection, whereas the Mountain View Corridor involves a new road, and greater risk. So investors would likely pay less, Newell said.

    Sound familiar to 460?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Volatile energy prices are combining with a changing real estate market to change the type of transportation investments needed Translation: Developers are designing more pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities. State and local government is behind the curve.”

    How do they think the real estate market is changing, for the better or for the worse? As far as state revenues are concerned it’s changing for the worse.

    But, don’t take my word for it;

    http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/060922/Area_potts.asp

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FYI – “Feds solicit proposals for corridor congestion relief

    USDOT wants proposals for relief in congested multi-state corridors and it is welcoming proposals that involve toll financing. Proposals can come from state DOTs, counties, or the private sector, and they don’t have to be approved plans in the first stage anyway. The program is called “Corridors for the Future” and is part of the USDOT’s “National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network” “

    http://tollroadsnews.info/artman/publish/article_1524.shtml

    So THAT’s the problem with the 460 proposal… it’s not multi-state .. north-south… 🙂

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Existing transportation plans are unaffordable even with additional funding…”

    Huh? Right. We’ll meet our transportton needs by staying home.

    “Volatile energy prices are combining with a changing real estate market to change the type of transportation investments needed”

    People want homes and cars, neither one is going away, but higher fuel prices will mean the get smaller and more efficient. I don’t see anything fundamentally changing.

    “Performance standards… should include goals to reduce per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled; increase market share for transit, carpooling, biking and walking; and increase the share of jobs and residences within walking distance. Transportation funding should be tied to meeting these goals.”

    OK, first of all, who says we should do these things? Second, where are the goals for the goals? Suppose we actually tie transporttion funding to these goals and we get bad results, like less commerce more unaffordable housing, increased congestion, funds that turn out to be mis allocated.

    We can’t just say we must do these things with out some way to measure ir it turns out to be a mistake. Suppose we actually allocte 50% of our funds to Metro for ten years and at the ned of that time ridership has increased 1%. How long will you continue down that path?

    “Evaluate alternatives.”

    Cars are not going away, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. the alternatives are really additionals: lets recognize that and recognize that what we are talking about is more funds, not instead of funds, In other words, get real.

    “Public private partnerships” are still going to cost us money, get over it. If it comes out of my pocket its a tax, no matter what fancy lable you slap on it.

    “Change allocation formulas”

    Isn’t this the same thing as was said under performance standards and Evaluate alternatives? I thought there was supposed to be new thinking here.

    “Improve street connectivity”

    Sure, lets have more intersections and not have more roads so that people can drive less VMT’s and use all the alternates anyway. How about if we just have bigger blocks and more of them?

    Or we can all move to rural areas where the roads cost less and people don’t have to pay as much for them.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Well – I agree – the challenge to accomplishing these concepts is implementation AND I agree – let’s not assume that any of these are the ultimate right answers so we need to monitor and adjust as changes are made.

    But I would say that arguments against doing anything because we don’t know all the outcomes is essentially arguing for no change and a status quo.

    Here’s a new Bill that does exactly that. HB 5093 Urban transportation service districts; creation thereof.

    what this bill does is it incentivizes density with more funds for transportation in such districts AND it allows Impact Fees for both roads and schools. see: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?062+sum+HB5093

    It may not be perfect and it might need some tweaking to suit the various interests but… fundamentally it’s a new direction with respect to land-use and transportaion and has promise.

    This, in my mind, is how we need to move forward and if this bill was encouraged by the folks who wrote the Open Letter then I congratulate them… in fact.. take a look at the sponsors…also.. “no tax” folks who have put something on the table… besides new taxes.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Our friends at the Hampton Roads Daily Press are apparently worried:

    “The worst outcome possible for Hampton Roads – and the senators and delegates who represent the region – is for the special session to end with Northern Virginia’s delegation going home with a plan that helps that section of the state … and with Hampton Roads coming home with nothing.”

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-33737sy0sep23,0,3115752.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials

    Do they know something that everyone else do not know? Why the apparent paranoia?

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I see I need a new keyboard, or something, I really can spell, but this thing can’t seem to keep up, or I’ve worn it out.

    Anyway, I don’t mean to sound negative to the alternatives ( which I think are really additionals). We need to apply some of anything we think will work, and then see if it actually does work.

    What I hear is something that sounds way too optimistic for what is likely to be achieved, and that is a recipe for failure.

    In the most transit friendly cities in the world transit carries only 15% of passengers, so even if transit is twice as expensive as roads, you can’t justify spending more than 30% on transit, yet some groups are proposing 50%. I don’t think that is realistic.

    I think the connectivity item is amusing. Yes, we all hate to leave one strip mall go out on the street just to enter another strip mall next door. Isolated subdivisions where you can’t cut through are aggravating. But that doesn’t mean everything has to be a grid, either.

    Intersections are the most expensive and most dangerous part of the system, and they require roads to make them work. Certainly there are some places that can be improved with little trouble, but others might involve major digging and realignment for little gain, so where are the standards for the alternatives?

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I didn’t mean to sound so negative. We do need to try any alternative we think will work, but most of the alternatives are really additionals, and we should recognize it will cost more.

    Yesterday I struck up a conversation with a bicyclist buyng granola bars and bottled water at the local convenience store. (He was also buying cigars, and Slim Jims, go figure.) He said if there were more bike facilities in and around Gainesville, that more people would bike to work in Manassas.

    Then he hobbled out the door in his special biking shoes and shorts, unsutable for walking or working. Meanwhile I’m thinking that you wouldn’t catch me dead bicycling in that mess.

    OK, so there are different perspectives.

    I can’t see actully proposing that we spend 50% of our transporttion dollars on transit,when nowhere in the world does transit carry more than 15% of traffic, and then only in isolated areas.

    Yes, you should have to go out in th street to get to the strip mall next door, and some subdivisions are warrens of culdesacs useless to anyone but the residents. But intersections are the most expensive and dangerous part of the system, and they need roads to make them work.

    So, more connectivity where it works and isn’t too expensive is one thing, but blindly advocating a grid system everywhere is something else, so I repeat the question: where are the standards for the alternatives, and who decides if they are really good, or just dogma?

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    it’s easy to advocate change…especially to folks friendly to what you are advocating…

    it’s a whole nother thing to implement actual changes… and even under the best of circumstances it won’t happen overnight for new development and re-working existing development will be pretty-much a no-go….

    changes that “work” will be accepted. changes that appeared to be doeable but become unwieldy… won’t go forward until kinks are worked out…

    but funding … is about priorities…. as much as it is about cost-effectiveness.

    I note this exerpt from the JLARC report:

    “Transit may be a more cost-effective means to handle excess travel demand during peak periods than adding additional highway lanes”

    They did not conclude this… but if legislators agree with their reasoning… and we all know traffic is projected to increase and to produce even bigger rush hours – the logic is… to address the peak flow with more transit…

    It appears that Bill Howell the House Leader believes this… rather than believing that more highways are the answer for urban rush hours.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Transit may be a more cost-effective means to handle excess travel demand during peak periods than adding additional highway lanes.”

    Exactly. It might even make overall cost effectiveness goals if we actually used it that way. Since Tranit’s value is so narrowly focused, maybe it makes sense to operate Metro during peak hours and shut it down otherwise.

    Probably, if it was priavtely operated something very nuch like that would happen. Let’s recognize transit for what it is and stop selling it for what it isn’t.

Leave a Reply

Read More