Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

EMR’s Worst Nightmare

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Yes… the flying car. Air cruising speed of 115 mph, range of 450 miles. The retail price of 130 quid will give it limited market appeal. Yet… according to this UK news report, 70 people have already forked over a hefty down payment for an advance order.

I am a great enthusiast for cool technology and alternate modes of transportation — anything to get people off our congested roads. But I have to say, flying cars are not what I had in mind. The only question I have is this: How many of these things will have to crash and burn before they are banned outright?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

27 responses to “EMR’s Worst Nightmare”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I saw a fascinating program the other night on personal pods.

    and the most important point in the show was that personal pods do something that mass transit does not…

    and that is the personal pod goes from point A to point B without stopping whereas mass transit stops at every station no matter what.

    The difference is time and in the modern world – time is such a valuable commodity that squandering it on a METRO car is worse than… hmmm.. sitting on the beltway in gridlock?

    forget that… both are bad ideas.. eh?

    but I'll take the pod concept over air cars…

  2. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Very interesting – however, in contrast to the headline. EMR's "vision" is my worst nightmare.

  3. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Even I don't think these things will have wide appeal: the cost/benefit ratio just isn't there.

    But, as for crashing, these things will probably have a much better record than the car they replace.

    Personal pods are going to turn out to be smart cars that go to their destination along the least congested route, while avoiding other vehicles pedestrians and traffic signals automatically.

    That technology is going to be ported backwards from aircraft to autos, and so these vehicles may be in the vanguard of promoting smart car technology. Unmanned military aircraft already exhibit most of the technology needed.

    This morning I observed people walking to the Vienna Metro station along Lee Highway. my first thought was that they were too far from the station: according to theory they should not be willing to walk that far. (Of course I'm only assuming they were headed to the Metro station, they might have been going to a bus stop, or something. )

    In any case, the area whee they were walking has no sidewalks. so we have sidewalks to nowhere in some places, and other places where the need is obvious and we have none. What is wrong with this picture?

  4. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    With regard to the pod system being installed at Heatrow:

    "the obvious problem with PRT is not the development of the vehicles, but the building of large networks of guideways. At between £3m-£5m per mile, the network is expensive, although that compares favourably with light rail……

    for the near future at least, PRT is likely to be developed as a complimentary transport, ferrying people around airports or large campuses."

    As long as a system depends on dedicated guideways, it can never solve the accessibility problem. That is why the air traffic contrl NEXTGEN system is designed to eliminate the current system of aerial guideways.

    RH

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    What goes around, comes around.

    First the title:

    Not “nightmare.” Perhaps ‘Will Prove EMR in Right.’ EMR agrees with Bacon’s prediction and that might put an end to the endless hype about flying cars.

    There is a section on this topic in the forthcoming “what comes after the car?”

    For a summary of what is still wrong with this idea see Column # 43 from 15 November 2004: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues04/11-15/Risse.htm

    Or you can go to Google and type in “The Skycar Myth Bacon’s Rebellion Risse”

    As to those ‘pods’ Larry. You have not been paying attention. The system is called Personal Rapid Transit or PRT. EMR frequently mentions their potential and they will be a big part of the future.

    Stay tuned.

    EMR

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – what do you think of the final plan for Tysons Corner adopted by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors?

    TMT

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'd be curious to know also.

    The Smarter Growth folks are beating their chests….and in general expressing approval.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Old Stewart Schwartz & company are licking their wounds, while claiming victory. He support the Task Force's "Vision" that would have permitted as much as 220 million square feet, with a 40-50 planning period.

    The Board of Supervisors adopted a new Comp Plan for Tysons Corner. The new Plan permits significant new density at the four new rail stations in Tysons, but keeps most of it within one-quarter mile of those stations, where people are most likely to walk to transit. Density beyond that distance is much more limited (2.0 to 2.5 FARs are allowed from ¼ to ½ mile from stations). The BoS also limited the planning horizon for the first stage of Tysons to 20 years, rather than 40 or more. The Task Force and the Smart Growthers wanted to give away 40 years of density now. They didn't care about the rights of future residents of Fairfax County to have a say in their community. The landowners wanted to be able to flip their property. More making money without doing any thing.

    The Supervisors also provided for a re-planning trigger when either approved commercial space goes from today’s 27 MSF to 45 MSF or when landowners construct 10 MSF for any use beyond today’s total 46MSF. The 45 million MSF commercial trigger is based on George Mason University’s highest projections of growth for Tysons by 2030 so it is hardly a pinched grant of density. The Plan includes many other goals and requirements.

    TMT

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – you are obviously very, very familiar with the Tysons issue and unless I read you wrong – more satisfied now than before.

    How about laying out what you consider to be the good, the bad and the ugly for the "plan".

    What ever happened with the transportation infrastructure plan, who will fund it and when will it be upgraded?

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT:

    Thank you for the question:

    EMR knows little about “the plan” other than what he has read here (as always, thank you for your observations) in Enterprise Media and in the sources cited in Planetizen.

    Based on that EMR’s view remains the same as it was in the “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies” and “Asphalt Desert” columns (Google title plus Bacon’s Rebellion and Risse).

    Stewart and his friends did as much as they could and the plan would have been much worse without them BUT:

    The questions now are:

    Will The Great Recession kill the Silver Line before it opens in Tysons?

    Will The Great Recession support any station-area development when the stations are elevated and isolated in the middle of Roadways?

    Given all the vacant and underutilized land close to existing METRO stations that are closer to the Zentrum which is the focus of the Regional Jobs / Services AND the places citizens will be able to afford to live and get to Jobs and Services:

    It may be a century before there is a market for Ziggurats in the station areas. (See “All Aboard”)

    If we could rewind 1980 to 2006 that would be a different story BUT

    humans burned through the Natural Capital that supported that “growth” all we have left is debt, unfounded expectations and an unsustainable trajectory…

    Hope that helps.

    EMR

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    International Air Travel (Passenger and Freight) Rebounds in May to Above Pre-Recession Levels

    "The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced international scheduled traffic statistics for May, which showed an 11.7% increase in passenger traffic and a 34.3% jump in freight demand compared to May 2009.

    “Demand rebounded strongly in May following the impact of the European volcanic ash fiasco in April. Passenger traffic is now 1% above pre-recession levels, while the freight market is 6% bigger,”

  12. Hyder Avatar
    Hyder

    USA today

    Holiday drivers will pay less than ever at the pump for upkeep of the nation's roads — just $19 in gas taxes for every 1,000 miles driven, a USA TODAY analysis finds. That's a new low in inflation-adjusted dollars, half what drivers paid in 1975.

    Another measure of the trend: Americans spent just 46 cents on gas taxes for every $100 of income in the first quarter of 2010. That's the lowest rate since the government began keeping track in 1929. By comparison, Americans spent $1.18 in 1970 on gas taxes out of every $100 earned.

    EMR thinks driving and the Auto is dead, yet it keeps etting cheaper and cheaper to do, and to own.

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    here's the deal in Virginia:

    " In 2004, Fairfax County received $29 million for such projects. This year, Virginia's most populous jurisdiction got $238,000, and next year the amount will be $1,989."

    Loudoun County's secondary road funding for next year? $1024

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504786.html?sub=AR

    How will new roads get built in Loudoun?

    referenda/property taxes, proffers, tolls.

    is that "better" than a gas tax?

    In my view – yes and the reason is that the taxpayers in Loudoun will then understand how much roads cost – including when new development is proposed.

    and they will have to decide – "do we want to pay higher taxes for more roads to serve more development".

    I think it's much more appropriate for the good folks of Loudoun and other counties to decide how much they want to pay for roads (or not) instead of thinking the money comes from the good fairy in Richmond.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I'll concede that the problem with gas taxes is that the money doesn't always make it to the potholes.

    However, ONLY the gas tax offers all the benefits the gas tax does in concservation, salubrous behavior, and general equity.

    ALL of the alternatives you mention are less equitable, and they are less equitable because they are based on faulty premises.

    We are only driving 7% more miles, even after adding both vehicles and population. But we are paying 15% less and probalby 30% less infaltion adjusted.

    That PROVES that the gas tax works in gettng people to drive less (per person, there are more of us) and driving less polluting more economical vehicles.

    The only problem is that the gas tax has been so successful at doing THAT PART of its job that it has come up short on the other part – raising road related revenue to take care of our road needs.

    The alternatives you mention MAY raise the revenue, but at a dstinct loss in personal responsibility. And probably those methods will only raise revenues for new infrastructure.

    We will still wind up raiding the gas tax just to maintain previously installed PUBLIC hiighways and roads.

    RH

  15. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    The salary of the the good fairy in Richmond is paid for by the good people of Loudoun. They have every right to expect their fair share of fairy dust in return, over time.

    The Springfield Interchange would never have been bult if it had to come out of Fairfax funds. The point of your argument has nothing to do with how much locals will pay, or whether it is equitable.

    You make that argument because you know that it means the end of road construction, or at least a significant reduction. And you believe, therefore, a significant reduction in development, schools and money out of your pocket.

    Whatever roads are built will be billed to someone else, and whatever benefit trickle down to you, will be "free – no cost".

    It is a crock of crap, Larry, it can't work that way.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As Larry asked, I am fairly well pleased by the Fairfax County BoS decision on Tysons Corner. The decision puts density at the four stations and not much elsewhere; contains some public facility triggers; has a 20-year planning threshold; incentivized building and not flipping properties; prevents, at least to some degree, density warehousing, except for Macerich and Lerner, who were grandfathered effectively; and requires re-planning a whole lot earlier than the landowners would like.

    Is it perfect? No. But, except for those who own land within 1/4 mile, everyone else didn't get a June visit from Santa Claus.

    What happened? The citizens groups didn't give up. The landowners got caught up in the massive egos of Bill Lecos and Clark Tyler, who pushed density to absurd levels. The landowners offended the staff and some planning commissioners over and over and over again. The Task Force failed to do any transportation or financial planning, while VDOT's 527 transportation impact analysis rules require it. The empty, sing-song rhetoric from the landowners, Stewart Schwartz, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, along with the out-and-out lies from Tysons Tomorrow failed to carry the day.

    The landowners' arrogance and sense of entitlement blinded them to what they needed to do. They got some bad advice and advocacy from some of their lawyers and consultants. They couldn't sell the media. Collectively, they wasted five years and millions of dollars, but generally have no one to blame but themselves.

    The Task Force's Vision was so bad that it had to be fixed by the staff, the public and the planning commission. When the BoS saw what was a reasonable plan, which also split the interests of the landowners, they voted for it. The plan gave the potential for huge density to those right at the stations. Guess what? They quickly abandoned those who wouldn't get much under the plan. So much for the Chamber of Commerce's "everybody wins, except for the public" approach.

    I met some from the other side whom I truly respect. But they are vastly outnumbered by the greedy, the arrogant and the incompetent. Man bites dog! A good result was had.

    TMT

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well.. we'll use the gas tax for maintenance and operations minus the administrative "cut" of course.

    New roads will come from local/regional taxes and tolls per the wishes of those who might pay them – which I assert is far more equitable than having others take your money for their needs which is the current system for many kinds of non-local taxes – like the gas tax.

    Let the localities and the regions decide what roads they want/need AND ..AGREE to pay for.

    interregional/state roads would be analyzed to see if the demand for them would be sufficient for the tolls required to build them – and if not then they won't get built until those provide the money for them are assured they get it back with interest.

    but in localities – the best approach is to put the question to the people who live there – to see if they want to pay.

    Referendums. They work. The same people who would oppose an increase in the gas tax would approve an increase in property taxes for a local road because there is a clear nexus between the tax and the benefits.

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The salary of the the good fairy in Richmond is paid for by the good people of Loudoun. They have every right to expect their fair share of fairy dust in return, over time."

    and they are only entitled to get back what they paid and with the gas tax – what they now pay only covers the maintenance and operations of their roads.

    It's the idea that you pay a nickel and get back a dollar that has to change.

    Every locality in Virginia thinks the same way.

    They think that VDOT "funds" roads.

    some are foolish enough to think the funding comes from general revenues.

    Most of them don't realize that the "funds" that VDOT gives them for their roads is basically what they paid to the State in the form of gas taxes and the state takes out the maintenance, operations and administrative costs and gives them what is left.

    What is left nowdays is ZERO.

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Thanks TMT!

    Have you read this:

    Barbara Hollingsworth: In Tysons Corner plan, density is the only guarantee

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/In-Tysons-Corner-plan_-density-is-the-only-guarantee-96831539.html

  20. hydra Avatar
    hydra

    The nexus for gas tax and tolls is the same: you drive you pay. Only tolls are more expensive and less equitable. (Appeal to knowledge fallacy. Enviro-economists favor the gas tax. )

    If way is left after maintenance is zero then you need to raise the gas tax anyway. A bad sales pitch is to raise property taxes for road work "so we don't raise gas tax,and then raise gas tax.

    If distribution of the gas tax is an issue then fixity and move on. You will need to fix it anyway for the other taxes and they will be more expensive andslower. I see you don't deny the delay and deny portion of your scheme.

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    tolls are fees for service – a true user fee.

    taxes are not.

    taxes go to Richmond where someone decides if the taxes you paid actually are used to benefit you – or someone else.

    That's not a nexus.

    that's the lack of a nexus.

    The distribution is the problem and the only way you fix it is to not give them any more UNTIL they fix it – not the other way around.

    When you get right down to it – the "fix" is this – don't send any more money to Richmond but instead send it to your county and let your county spend it and if you don't like the way you spent it – elect new people.

    Can't do that with the bean-counters in Richmond and if you send them more money they continue to do what they now do.

    The "fix" for the gas tax is to not send it out of your county in the first place.

  22. hydra Avatar
    hydra

    Nonsense a toll is a tax.

    A gas tax is a user fee.

    The government gets your money either way.

    Only you get less of what you pay for with tolls.

  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well then consider the toll a pay-per-use fee and a tax a "all you can use" fee.

    agree with that?

  24. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT:

    Thank you for your perspective on the adopted Tysons Corner Plan.

    I have only one problem with your perspective:

    How far will humans REALLY walk in a dull as dishwater context owned by METRO?

    Not far. Even Pentagon City and Courthouse are TOO FAR.

    In retrospect that is why our plan for Virginia Center (and the plan for METRO West) while they looked great (good) on paper they would (will) never really be successful.

    Without Ziggurats on public land over the Route 123 and Route 7 rights-of-way — that would have paid for most of the cost of METRO — other stations will be more attractive for intensive development in the National Capital Subregion within the market constrained by global, cheap resource deprived economic reality.

    If we could rewind 1980 to 2006 …

    EMR

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – I think your points on walking are important. They remind me of trips our family took to New York, Philly and Boston when my children were younger. We had no car in New York and didn't use it (with one exception) in Philadelphia and Boston. We walked or took public transportation, except to drive to the Franklin Institute.

    My kids screamed, as they felt they were being tortured by being made to walk. But while we were often very tired and even grumpy from walking, walking and public transportation made the trips into the memories they became. But walking was acceptable because it was pleasurable. There were things to see, touch, hear, and smell on the way. The journey was as important and enjoyable as the destination.

    I cannot imagine anything like that occurring at Tysons, but hope to be proven wrong.

    But Tysons Corner is not and was never about good land use planning or sound transportation. It was about a few wealthy and seemingly powerful people who believed that they were entitled to become even more wealthy. Transportation in Virginia is about manipulating the public policy process to channel resources to near where the manipulators owned land. It's the "Til Hazel Mantra." "I build things and it is the responsibility of taxpayers to fund the public facilities necessary to support what I build."

    To a significant degree, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors rejected the Mantra on June 22. While there remain huge subsidies to some landowners and Tysons may never work as desired, the density was generally limited to 1/4 mile from the stations, and those landowners more than 1/2 mile will essentially never get significant density. Bill Lecos' promise of Santa Claus giving density to all simply was not fulfilled. But no one made the landowners believe the promise.

    I also forgot to include one of the biggest mistakes on the part of the landowners — funding Gerry Connolly's successful congressional campaign. While Connolly remains a very important player in Fairfax County, he is not Chairman of the BoS. He was not there on June 22 to control the process. The landowners outside the magic 1/4 mile circles had lost their board chairman and were, as a result, left with their own hollow and self-serving arguments that were soundly rejected by the BoS. The result was only fitting.

    TMT

  26. hydra Avatar
    hydra

    You put gas in your car and you use as little as possible because it is a pay per use.

  27. hydra Avatar
    hydra

    Tonight a motorcycleist passed me on the highway at speed – while texting.

Leave a Reply

Read More