Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Freight Rail: The Robust Transportation Mode

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Let me put in a plug for Peter Galuszka’s column this week, “Forget Passenger Rail,” which is based upon recent remarks by Norfolk Southern CEO Charles Moorman. Here’s the thrust of the column: Moorman doesn’t see much future for passenger rail in the United States: The political will doesn’t exist to build it. But he does foresee a bright future for freight rail. And public-private partnerships with the freight rail companies could make sense.

Here’s my spin on Peter’s story. Instead of flogging the fantasy of high-speed, inter-city passenger rail, wasting money and creativity on studies that will lead to nothing, Virginians should focus on working with the freight railroads to divert millions of trucks off the roads and highways.

Freight rail in the United States is muscular and robust: It kicks sand in the face of that scrawny weakling, passenger rail. Freight rail, unlike passenger rail, is profitable. Freight rail carriers spend billions of dollars annually upgrading their systems — the capital budget of Norfolk Southern alone is $1.4 billion this year. Bottom line for taxpayers: Freight rail is a transportation mode that pays its own way.

Of course, there’s only so much that Norfolk Southern and other railroads can do by themselves. They have to generate competitive returns on investment or they will be punished by the money lords of Wall Street. That means they are unwilling to invest in an array of projects that might offer important social benefits, such as getting even more trucks off congested highways.

I’m one of those anti-tax zealots that Peter has little patience with, so I’m not persuaded that subsidizing rail, even freight rail, is a good idea under any circumstances. But if we’re determined to do so, we’d be better off focusing our attention on partnering with Norfolk Southern and CSX rather than pursuing pipe dreams like a Bristol-Richmond-Washington rail corridor.

(Photo credit of Norfolk Southern and CSX trains: Pentrex Railroad Videos and Books.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

85 responses to “Freight Rail: The Robust Transportation Mode”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Strongly disagree with forgetting passenger rail.

    The main reason no one uses it in Richmond is the costly delays created by Norfolk Southern at Acca train yard!

    Folks, as usual this is all related. I see how many coal trains go by my house as fast as they can go. Tax them. Break the coal/rail/highway coalition.

    The country desperately needs new energy, less pollution, and clean, affordable ways to travel.

    Listening to some CEO at the moribund World Affairs Council is not how progess is made.

  2. HEK Avatar
    HEK

    Arguments by rail road executives like this just make me tired. This kind of thinking is dangerous at any speed.

    I don’t see why passenger rail must remain a fantasy, nor why this needed means of transportation should be usurped at the expense of all sense and reason. This notion of “political will” not existing is self-fulfilling prophecy.

    If this nation and state possessed as robust an energy policy as there exists freight rail–and they should, as just the fate of the species and planet hinges upon these decisions–there’d be a demand for passenger rail. That kind of transportation would ease congestion, be a selling point for tourism, and with more riders, the price would go down.

    If Madison Avenue can sell a psycho-sexual box made of plastic that gets altered a little every year just to make it a wee different, they can sell passenger rail.

    That we can travel around D.C. on a subway all day, then have to get out and white-knuckle a drive back to Richmond is not just ridiculous but life-endangering — because in part, yes, of all those lumbering speeding trucks. But I’d rather have more rail and fewer cars.

    Why is it that the billions spent on maintaining roads, from the asphalt to the guardrails to the plantings in the median aren’t regarded as subsidy, but supporting a rail system to get it up and running makes freight supporters cry, “Socialism!”

    The Europeans got it right. Their cities and states outright own their rail and stock. They can’t be purchased by outsiders and either run into the ground or replaced by less efficient transportation–which is exactly what happened in the 1940s.

    Goodrich and General Motors suffered a whopping $5,000 judgment in Illinois federal court in 1949 that found them guilty of buying up municipal rail systems,monopolizing and dismantling them).

    Amtrak further muddled matters by closing many of its central city stations–in Richmond, Main and Broad Street–and building polyvinyl Amshacks in the cul-de-sac archipelago with the dunderheaded belief commuters would use them more. Instead, of course, they just got in their cars and kept going.

    Our nation has been subverted by the automobile. Any other product that caused more than 60,000 deaths a year would be recalled. The damage done to the fabric of cities and rural areas by road building is incalculable.

    Automobiles are, in relative terms, a recent invention. For most of human existence, muscle power, theirs or animals, got them around. Using machines in a smart and responsible manner can be of value.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yeah, well. I took Amtrak to New England recently, and it cost more than four times as much as if I drove, and it cost as much as if I flew.

    So, why did I take the train?

    It boiled down to schedule and connections. If I flew I missed half a day at my destination, but I could take the train overnight and arrive in the morning. I could sleep on the train, but not sleep while driving.

    I also used the high speed catamaran ferry from New Bedford to Martha’s Vineyard. Smooth, fast and quiet, even in rough seas. It was ONLY the combination of train and ferry that made the train make sense. Had it been an ordinary city to city trip, flying would be a no-brainer.

    That and the subsidies. It is easy to promote passenger trains in the abstract: it is going to be a lot harder when the bills start coming in.

    “Why is it that the billions spent on maintaining roads, from the asphalt to the guardrails to the plantings in the median aren’t regarded as subsidy, but supporting a rail system to get it up and running makes freight supporters cry, “Socialism!”

    Well, right. They ARE both subsidies. They are both necessary, and they do different jobs. Let’s get over it, and do what makes sense: what creates the best ecomomic payback (including environmental costs), and get on with it (them). It isn’t one or the other.

    “The Europeans got it right. Their cities and states outright own their rail and stock.” Not in England, and I beleive much of Europe is under a plan to be privatized as well. But first they have to realign some of the forty different standards that trains operate under.

    “Any other product that caused more than 60,000 deaths a year would be recalled.” OK, suppose we actually moved as many person miles per year by animal as we do now by cars.

    Would the pollution be more, or less? Would the deaths and injuries be more, or less? Besides, are you talking about deaths per passenger mile, or deaths per trip?

    RH

    RH

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    HEK, The reason why it’s fair to say that passenger rail is subsidized while roads are not is that drivers pay a user fee in the form of a gasoline tax. Rail passengers pay no such tax.

    Of course, the General Assembly has begun muddying the waters in the past few years by subsidizing road construction with General Fund revenues. As far as I’m concerned, they’re wrong to do so.

    If there were a practical way to assign a carbon tax or pollution tax to each transportation mode, I would be in favor of that — as long as there was a rational nexus between the tax paid and the amount of carbon/pollution emitted. I would not support using such a tax as a blunt instrument to arbitrarily favor one transportation mode over another.

    The point of my post was this: Freight rail in the U.S. is economically viable, and it can make an important contribution to congestion relief by diverting millions of trucks off Interstates and highways. Why not go with what works?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Freight rail in the U.S. is economically viable, and it can make an important contribution to congestion relief by diverting millions of trucks off Interstates and highways.”

    I think this is a somewhat misleading statement…..Rail is used to ship natural resources like sand, rock, grain and chemicals which go to a factory and then become the things we buy at the store.

    Putting more freight on rail cars may reduce congestion on interstate highways if the goods the trucks are hauling are those that are mentioned above.

    However, at some point the “finished” goods must be placed on a truck and delivered to the place where they will be sold. They ARE NOT placed on a rail car and delivered to your local Wal-Mart!

    So, IMO, unless that changes this does nothing to reduce congestion on the local level.

    Simply ask yourself, how much does Wal-Mart, Target, etc. use rail to ship “finished” goods to their stores?

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The railroads were built in this country with massive government subsidies, direct and indirect The intercontinental race to Provo Utah after the Civil War was fueled with massive transfers of federal land and was as much about opening land for development then as 288 in Chesterfield is about development now.

    But the rails are for freight. The numbers do not work for passenger service, and won’t until gasoline costs $6-7 bucks a gallon like it does in Europe. The highest, best use of the line is freight. The opportunity to build lines dedicated to high-speed passenger service is probably past, unless we tax gas $3 a gallon to pay for it (as some would happily do.)

    I’m torn on the idea of additional subsidies for freight line improvements, and if done, they should probably be in the form of tax incentives rather than cash. The main problem is the lines built will remain private, not public — dedicated to NS, CSX or some other rail line. If some public rail line was built, and then the various companies or AMTRAK could share it the way truckers use the highway or airlines use the airports, the case for public investment also improves. But the business is based on territories (which is why it used to be more regulated.)

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear anonymous 12:35 p.m.

    The delay-causing Acca Yard you refer to in Richmond is owned and operated by CSX, not Norfolk Southern.

    Peter Galuszka

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” I would not support using such a tax as a blunt instrument to arbitrarily favor one transportation mode over another.

    …………

    Why not go with what works?”

    Agreed.

    Now, if you want to charge an additional $3 a gallon for gas to make it work, well OK, but then you give up the argument that stated the whole thing, which is that autos are heavily subsidized.

    You can’t have it both ways. So, you might as well go with what works. That being the case, the subsidy needed for rail is probably too high to work, except in special cases.

    RH

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TOO MANY HOLIDAY PARTIES

    I am afraid that my good friend Jim Bacon has been going to too many holiday parties frequented by Business-As-Usual types.

    Exhibit One: “Freight Rail: The Robust Transportation Mode.”

    Who knows if passenger rail is worthy of more or less special support (aka, subsidy)? Until there is a level playing field and all users are charged for all their location-variable costs, citizens can only use tools such as Regional Metrics to judge what is “fair.”

    On the other hand we do know that:

    Right now it is just those who are too old, too young or too poor who have not means of getting around intraRegionally or interRegionally , However,

    As gasoline prices go up and Private Vehicle Mobility becomes more costly, it will be those who are too old (there will be more of us), those who are too young and the bottom half of the economic food chain who will have no means of Mobility and Access beyond walking distance.

    The alternative is to invest in shared-vehicle systems – both intraRegional and interRegional.

    The sooner we start investing, the less pain there will be for all of us.

    Peter Galuszka may have been going to some of those parties too.

    The end of “Forget Passenger Rial” is peppered with “… the explosion of imports … ,” “… U.S. must keep up with emerging economic giants … ,” “… want a piece of the coming action…” . Sounds like Chamber of Commerce talk promoting the Mass OverConsumption.

    The future of sustainable freight transport is finding cheaper and more energy efficient ways to move less freight, shorter distances, not more freight, longer distances.

    “Create, trade, and consume intraRegionally.”

    Much of the growth of in Global trade rides on the back of subsidized extraction, processing and especially transport. Peter knows this because he quotes “Supercapitalism.”

    As we note in “The Shape of the Future” transport is a waste. It is what humans spend to get from where we (it) are (is) to where we (it) wants (needs) to be. A sustainable future means citizens, goods and services being where they want and need to be.

    Some marginal notes on the posted comments:

    We have never seen so many Anon comments that are on target. You folks ought to come out of the closet.

    Current motor fuel taxes pay for only 25 to 30% of the total cost of the creation, and use of the roadway system. This may be more than is added directly to rail passenger ticket prices but not enough to give Autonomobiles a rhetorical free ride.

    No one is putting aside replacement funds for the current roadway system.

    Motor fuel tax on trucks – to move all those finished goods to Wal-Mart and Target – only pays about 10 cents on the dollar of roadway wear and tear. Level the playing field and rail could meet much more of the interRegional demand.

    McDonalds has for years shipped their supplies by rail to Regional distribution centers and in the National Capital Subregion, the rail terminal is inside the Clear Edge.

    In Virginia the state government subsidizes the location of interRegional distribution centers that have no alternative but to use trucks.

    Buying new Autonomobiles is now listed as the primary way that Households in the bottom half of the economic food chain waste money.

    Above we noted that “Until there is a level playing field and all users are charged for their location variable costs citizens can only use tools such as Regional Metrics to judge what is “fair.” From here it looks like interRegional passenger rial does make sense in some corridors now and will be needed before long if we want the bottom half to be able to get from here to there.

    Happy Holidays.

    EMR

  10. Spank That Donkey Avatar
    Spank That Donkey

    went to the Caps game Saturday, and was a little late, so instead of risking a traffic jam on I-66 all the way to downtown, I opted to get off at Vienna, and take in Metro.

    Even on a Saturday, Metro was pretty crowded… The entire system is maxing out.

    If people are living as far away as Harrisonburg, and Winchester and commuting to DC. You have two choices, improve Mass Transit, and further out, or decentralize DC government buildings.

    This is a Federal issue… and VA, MD and PA should press the case…

    It’s pretty much that simple…

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    For the record, when I expressed skepticism of passenger rail, I was explicitly referring to *inter-city* passenger rail. I remain optimistic that passenger rail can be economically viable as a transportation mode *within* regions, as witnessed by my July 2, column, “Midlothian Leviathan,”.

    Although I have been highly critical of the Rail-to-Dulles project as currently configured (my concerns focus on the management structure and the financing plans), I share the sentiment that heavy rail is vital to evolving Tysons Corner into a more liveable, sustainable community. Also, I have consistently supported Transit Oriented Development along the Washington Metro and the Virginia Railway Express.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Ed Risse,
    You seem to be like King Canute ordering the tide to stay out. It can’t happen. The global economy is cranked up and decisions are being made by people in Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, Dubai and London who have never heard of your “Patterns of Human Settlement” theories and probably don’t care. All I am doing is pointing out the coming tide, whether you or I like it or not and whether or not it fits what you want the world to be.
    Moreover, you missed the point of my column. I was simply pointing out that as nice as passenger rail sounds, it ain’t going to happen. I agree with Moorman that there is no political will do fund it. As noted, Virginia can’t seem to fund any infrastructure improvements. I would heartily love to live in your world where we don’t buy unneeded, cheap products at Wal-Mart, but that is not the reality. And, this state has become a major transshipment pont, like it or not.
    A few other points:
    (1) You point out that the global economy is subsidized. Sorry, but “Duh!” Of course it is subsidized. That’s the way the rest of the world does things. China is still a Communist state for Chrissakes!
    (2) Let’s go for more regional distribution. Well, that’s what we’re talking about. For years about 80 percent of the Asia trade went to West Coast ports such as Long Beach. Now it is split half-half with the East Coast. It is cheaper, less polluting and more efficient to ship goods by water to ports such as Hampton Roads.
    (3) The markets determine demand for goods, not Ed. Risse.
    (4) Look to yourself before you criticize writing. I take your point that a couple of my phrases were cliched, but you should talk. Look at this prose from one of your recent columns:

    “1. Relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A for the entire Community as defined in GLOSSARY.

    2. Balance of the whole Community also requires relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A in each of the projected four station areas proposed to serve the Zentrum of Greater Tysons Corner.”

    (5) I’m not backing car traffic. I love trains so much that you might call mer a “foamer.” When one passes, I stop and watch in awe.

    It is too bad that you can’t get past your land-use dogma to truly understand points others are making.

    Merry Christmas

    Peter Galuszka

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dear Ed Risse,
    You seem to be like King Canute ordering the tide to stay out. It can’t happen. The global economy is cranked up and decisions are being made by people in Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, Dubai and London who have never heard of your “Patterns of Human Settlement” theories and probably don’t care. All I am doing is pointing out the coming tide, whether you or I like it or not and whether or not it fits what you want the world to be.
    Moreover, you missed the point of my column. I was simply pointing out that as nice as passenger rail sounds, it ain’t going to happen. I agree with Moorman that there is no political will do fund it. As noted, Virginia can’t seem to fund any infrastructure improvements. I would heartily love to live in your world where we don’t buy unneeded, cheap products at Wal-Mart, but that is not the reality. And, this state has become a major transshipment pont, like it or not.
    A few other points:
    (1) You point out that the global economy is subsidized. Sorry, but “Duh!” Of course it is subsidized. That’s the way the rest of the world does things. China is still a Communist state for Chrissakes!
    (2) Let’s go for more regional distribution. Well, that’s what we’re talking about. For years about 80 percent of the Asia trade went to West Coast ports such as Long Beach. Now it is split half-half with the East Coast. It is cheaper, less polluting and more efficient to ship goods by water to ports such as Hampton Roads.
    (3) The markets determine demand for goods, not Ed. Risse.
    (4) Look to yourself before you criticize writing. I take your point that a couple of my phrases were cliched, but you should talk. Look at this prose from one of your recent columns:

    “1. Relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A for the entire Community as defined in GLOSSARY.

    2. Balance of the whole Community also requires relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A in each of the projected four station areas proposed to serve the Zentrum of Greater Tysons Corner.”

    (5) I’m not backing car traffic. I love trains so much that you might call mer a “foamer.” When one passes, I stop and watch in awe.

    It is too bad that you can’t get past your land-use dogma to truly understand points others are making.

    Merry Christmas

    Peter Galuszka

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I have to admit that what I get out of EMRs logic seems to be that we should not be buying light bulbs from china but instead a local industry…
    and that world trade of goods is inherently wasteful and the correct answer is to produce goods locally instead of importing them from afar…

    If so.. it’s a pretty provocative concept and like Peter .. I’d be bamfoozled….

    so.. either I don’t understand or EMR’s ideas about land-use extend to commerce/trade/economics, etc.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: freight rail – free market vs subsidized

    We don’t view schools nor prisons nor public health care nor a litany of other services as “subsidized”.

    And yet, we, at the same time consider other services as subsidized, when even in other countries they do not consider them subsidized.

    Why?

    and my second point is this. In Virginia we have this schizo idea of governance.

    JAB points out the truly odious concept of the early gentry ruling Virginia and it’s inhabitants .. “for their own good” – and to this day, we have governance in Virginia still based on that concept – that our elected do know what is best for us… even as they cuddle up to companies like Dominion to assure that investors get a fair shake even if it comes at the expense of consumers.

    And Virginia continues to maintain an iron hand on this type of governance by NOT allowing citizens to decide issues via referenda.

    So – the question: if we produced a “plan” for inter-regional rail that showed the costs of such a system and the allocated costs to each taxpayer and then had a referenda (like we do for parks and education), what would Virginians say?

    I resent the idea that the GA still knows what is best for Virginia when they cannot find their own backsides sometimes on issues that affect each person in the state.

    And when I hear that 60 million dollars of money went into their pockets as “free speech” ..”education” so that the GA will continue to NOT hear Virginians on issues that they do have an opinion on…

    and this gets cast as a “lack of political will”.. then I have to stifle it….

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “As gasoline prices go up “

    Gas is still a lot cheaper than it was in 1951 dollars.

    “The alternative is to invest in shared-vehicle systems – both intraRegional and interRegional. “

    The alternative to what? Roads and autos are not going away. What you are really talking about is systems IN ADDITION to the roads and private autos. That is not going to result in less pain, but more.

    “The future of sustainable freight transport is finding cheaper and more energy efficient ways to move less freight, shorter distances, not more freight, longer distances. “

    And that mean you will have to find economical ways to make more things in more places, so that you can ship them less distance. As for shipping less stuff, that is merely a call to reducethe economy, which surely will not result in “less pain for all of us”. As you say, “A sustainable future means citizens, goods and services being where they want and need to be.”

    “Current motor fuel taxes pay for only 25 to 30% of the total cost of the creation, and use of the roadway system.”

    That is correct, but but motor fuel taxes are only part of the money that road users pay to support the road network. Far from what is commonly stated, auto useres par far more of their full costs than other forms of transport. The simple way to look at it is that nearly everyone uses or depends onthre roadways, to the extent that the roadways are paid for, the useres MUST be paying. Whether the sistribution of paymnents is fair is another matter.

    “No one is putting aside replacement funds for the current roadway system.” Correct, but the current system needs only to be maintained, not replaced. We are not going to re-buy the right of ways or rebuild the entire substructure of the roadways. We do not have enough highway maintenance funds, but neither does Metro.

    “Motor fuel tax on trucks…only pays about 10 cents on the dollar of roadway wear and tear. Level the playing field and rail could meet much more of the interRegional demand. “

    Trucks don’t pay enough. But if we have more stuff built where it is needed we reduce interregional demand. Local demand stays the same, or goes up.

    “Buying new Autonomobiles is now listed as the primary way that Households in the bottom half of the economic food chain waste money.”

    Really? Many economists suggest that the best way to help low income peole is to give them cars – so that they have more access to jobs.

    Half truths, EMR, half truths.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If people are living as far away as Harrisonburg, and Winchester and commuting to DC. You have two choices, improve Mass Transit, and further out, or decentralize DC government buildings.

    This is a Federal issue… and VA, MD and PA should press the case…

    It’s pretty much that simple…”

    Bingo. If you want to succeed, then plan for what is likely to happen.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One reason we buy light bulbs from China (wages aside) is the pollution and other regs in the U. S. IF, I said IF, those regs contribute to even more wasteful shipping, then the regs themselves are wasteful.

    HOWEVER, until it is ACTUALLY more efficient to produce them locally, we are still better off importing. That is going to (most likely) depend on parity in labor costs and regulations.

    If you want to succeed, best to plan on what is likely to happen, and not try to hold back the tide.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “No Political Will” = “No New Taxes”

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “No Political Will” = “No New Taxes” = “No Roads” = “No Schools” = “No services” = “Caveman Lifestyle”

  21. Richard Layman Avatar
    Richard Layman

    Even though drivers pay a gasoline tax, it covers only about 50% of the cost of roads.

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If people WANT to pay MORE for something they think is worth it to them and legislators say “No” – is that Political Will? More important, is it leadership?

    What if the legislators KNOW that if you ask citizens the question via referenda that they’ll likely APPROVE it so they don’t want to ask the question because then everyone will know the answer and they’ll have to accede to the citizens?

    I’m not condoning tax&spend here but I am pointing out that government exists to serve people and if people want something and they’re willing to pay for it, it’s not the job of elected to NOT represent the wishes of their constituencies based on their own personal or party dogma.

  23. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter Galuszka (PG) says (twice):

    Dear Ed Risse,

    You seem to be like King “Canute ordering the tide to stay out. It can’t happen. The global economy is cranked up and decisions are being made by people in Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, Dubai and London…”

    EMR says:

    No, it is cranked up by those in the US of A who are buying more than they can afford. The US of A has the world largest economy and the EU has the second largest.

    If US of A citizens bought only as much as EU citizens per capita, the “decision makers” in Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbari, Dubai and London would have no choice but to change.

    Problem is US of A’s current settlement pattern is so dysfunctional that this is not possible with out painful impacts on Mobility and Access and quality of life.

    It will be even more painful in the future unless enought citizens understand reality and support Fundamental Change in settlement patterns and Fundamental Change in governance structure.

    By the way we hear those towers in Dubai are already coming to a halt because of declining US dollars.

    After the election the dollar will drop like a rock. You heard it here second.

    PG says: “who have never heard of your “Patterns of Human Settlement” theories and probably don’t care.”

    EMR says: Actually they have heard of them and they do care. “They” just hope those in the US of A do not wake up until they make a little more money.

    We attended a global settlement pattern conference in Berlin in 2000 and many of the speakers sounded like they read “The Shape of the Future” which had come out 4 months before.

    They had not but they understand the basic principles upon which our work is based.

    PG said: “All I am doing is pointing out the coming tide, whether you or I like it or not and whether or not it fits what you want the world to be.”

    EMR said: By framing the world as ‘the way it is with no alternatives provided’ and as if the current trajectory is enevitable, you delay the time when enough citizens understand reality to make a difference.

    PG said: “Moreover, you missed the point of my column. I was simply pointing out that as nice as passenger rail sounds, it ain’t going to happen.”

    EMR said: I did not miss the point of your column, I was simply pointing out that continuing to beleive what you state as inevitable will result in more and more pain the longer citizens ignor the current trajectory.

    PG said: “I agree with Moorman that there is no political will do fund it. As noted, Virginia can’t seem to fund any infrastructure improvements. I would heartily love to live in your world where we don’t buy unneeded, cheap products at Wal-Mart, but that is not the reality.”

    EMR said: It will not be reality until a majority of the citizens understand the current trajectory and they understand that there is an alternative.

    That is why citizens must work to preserve four Estates, not two.

    If Moorman had his way there would be one Estate with two dependencies. In the short run that creates the greatest return on investment for his Enterprise.

    PG said: “And, this state has become a major transshipment pont, like it or not.”

    EMR said: You need to come to grips with what interRegional and intraRegional implies for shipping and consumption.

    Less stuff, shorter distances.

    PG said: “A few other points:

    (1) You point out that the global economy is subsidized. Sorry, but “Duh!” Of course it is subsidized. That’s the way the rest of the world does things. China is still a Communist state for Chrissakes!

    EMR said: So, would it not have been appropriate for you to note that in your column rather than suggesting this is the way the world will function into the future and that we better get on board before we lose out?

    PG said: “(2) Let’s go for more regional distribution. Well, that’s what we’re talking about. For years about 80 percent of the Asia trade went to West Coast ports such as Long Beach. Now it is split half-half with the East Coast. It is cheaper, less polluting and more efficient to ship goods by water to ports such as Hampton Roads.”

    EMR said: You assume massive one-way Asia trade in goods that you call “unneeded” and “cheap” is a good thing?

    Shipping by water is POTENTIALLY more environmentally friendly but not with the existing bottoms according to the EU.

    Further the whole point is the need to ship less, not more.

    PG said: “(3) The markets determine demand for goods, not Ed. Risse.”

    EMR said: You left a lot of that holiday cheer at the party.

    I am aware the “Ed. Risse” does not determine the demand for goods but thank you for reminding me. I will tell him when I see him.

    See earlier note re demand for goods in the US of A.

    PG said: “(4) Look to yourself before you criticize writing. I take your point that a couple of my phrases were cliched,”

    EMR said: If you reread the Post, EMR was not criticizing your writing but the Rah Rah cheerleading for Mass OverConsumption.

    PD said: “but you should talk. Look at this prose from one of your recent columns:

    “1. Relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A for the entire Community as defined in GLOSSARY.

    2. Balance of the whole Community also requires relative Balance of J / H / S / R / A in each of the projected four station areas proposed to serve the Zentrum of Greater Tysons Corner.”

    EMR said: Peter, you are perfectly free to avoid understanding human settlement patterns. I do not see a word I would change in those quotes.

    PG said: “(5) I’m not backing car traffic. I love trains so much that you might call mer a “foamer.” When one passes, I stop and watch in awe.

    EMR said: Good! Now you need to try to understand how rails can become better contributors to a functional and sustainable future.

    PG said: “It is too bad that you can’t get past your land-use dogma to truly understand points others are making.”

    EMR said: Please check the mirror before making statements like that.

    Happy Holidays!

    EMR

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR,
    From what I could decipher of your retort, you are accusing me of being “Rah-Rah” for something or another. I am not cheerleading, but simply stating economic realities. The fact is that there is a tremendous trade business in ports, like it or not, and various ports and transportation units are hotly competing for it. I am not making a judgment call on the benefits or non-benefits of foreign trade, simply stating that it is out there.

    Peter Galuszka

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Even though drivers pay a gasoline tax, it covers only about 50% of the cost of roads.”

    How can this be? Nearly everyone uses the roads. Where does the other 50% come from, if it isn’t from drivers or road users? Would you have us beleive that 50% of road costs are paid for by the 3 to 5% of people who do not use cars?

    Nonsense.

    The actual fact is that auto drivers pay the highest percentage of their full social costs than any other transport means.

    Furthermore, Metro riders pay only about 45% of thir costs through fares, and other rail riders pay even less.

    Where does the excess come from? From people who (also) drive cars.

    Not only are auto drivers paying more of their full social costs than other modes, they are paying the other modes (unpaid) shares as well.

    And yet, despite these obvious and unassailable truths some people persist in saying that auto drivers are (somehow) being subsidized.

    True, the gas tax does not pay all the road costs, but all the road costs that are paid, however they are paid, or whatever the revenue source IS paid by people who use and benefit from the roads.

    You cannot say the same thing about Metro, however, or any other rail transport.

    Lets just drop that ridiculous argument, and move on to figure out what additional rail transport might make sense, that we can afford, and are willing to pay (extra) for. I say extra, because it will NOT be an alternative mode, it will be an additional mode.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…if people want something and they’re willing to pay for it, it’s not the job of elected to NOT represent the wishes of their constituencies based on their own personal or party dogma.”

    Does that mean we can do away with zoning, and let people build what they are willing to pay for?

    How do we know what people want to spend money on? Where is the referenda? Or should we depend on polls operated by special interests?

    Hey, heres an idea. Put a form an the back of your tax payment, where you can indicate how you would like your money spent.

    No more arguments.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The idea that

    “the US current settlement pattern is so dysfunctional that this (bought only as much as EU citizens per capita), is not possible….” strikes me as a stretch, even for EMR.

    We can’t decide to buy less, because of where we live?

    “those towers in Dubai are already coming to a halt because of declining US dollars.”

    Right. And that is because the profits overseas firms make are invested where? Right here. They are as dependent on us as we are on Oil and cheap Chinese and Korean Imports.

    EMR seems to think that we will be better off with “less stuff”. OK, assume we all went on the wagon tomorrow and bought half as much stuff. What would happen? The price of stuff would fall dramatically, making it easier to buy more. Overseas suppliers would be hurt, local vendors would be hurt.

    We would all have a lot more money lying around, and what would happen to that? Lordy, Lordy, it would get invested, by speculators, looking for short term profits, so they could snap up more of that cheap stuff that is now on sale at deep discount prices.

    RH

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: voting on zoning.

    sure – but you’re gonna lose on that one. Most folks want strict zoning to protect their existing assets…

    re: special interest polls

    Referenda asks voters specific questions about what they want their money spent on.

    Referenda are to be used for expenditures that are over and above core services funding.

    Asking folks if they want to spend money on prisons or mental health care would not prove anything other than we’d probably highlight the fact that a certain low percentage of folks who are ignorant to the point of being dangerous… to themselves and others.

    These would be some of the same folks who won’t put tires and brakes on their cars unless the State fails them at inspection time.

    Referenda are for issues that may have majority public support but require higher taxes and appropriate to ask and get an answer.

    The problem with referenda sometimes is they basically ask “do you want $100 million more in State Parks” but it doesn’t include how much extra it will cost in higher taxes.

    I would advocate that referenda contain BOTH – AND that a high bar be set for longer-term costly proposals.

    What I’m advocating is not radical or unreal – as it is common practice in quite a few other states.

    In Denver and Golden Colorado, a solid majority of people supported higher taxes for transit.

    And this goes back to my original comment which was – if folks want something and they’re willing to pay for it.. then why not?

    The debate and arguments that precede such referenda is – Democracy in action.

    Portland, Oregon turned down an omnibus road/transit proposal last month.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I didn’t say anything about voting on zoning. You said if people are willing to pay for something, that government has no business providing the “leadership” that prevents them from doing so. If I want to build a house, and I’m willin to pay the costs, why should government imose “leadership” that prevents me.

    I see you point about people being ignorant to the point of dangerous, but I don’t believe it. Some people would put all their money into old folks homes, some would put it all in law enforcement, some woul put it all towards roads. Averaged over 7 million people, I suspect you can’t help but get an accurate picture of what people say they want.

    The legislature still doesn’t have to act on it, but now they will have to explain themselves.

    And, a lot of special interest airbags that claim people are willing to spend money for this or that, might be surprised.

    I come from an area where every item on the budget is subject to referenda, Called the new England Town meeting, so I know how that works. Problem is that it still depends on who shows up.

    The beauty of my proposal is that it applies to everyone who sends in a tax form.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “………decentralize DC government buildings.

    This is a Federal issue… and VA, MD and PA should press the case…

    It’s pretty much that simple…”

    geeze… if NoVa/Wash Metro was the only place in the entire country with this problem… then yes…

    but it’s not…. there are plenty of places that have these problems that DON’T have a strong Federal presence… right?

    so.. is your advice essentially to go to every city with this problem and FORCE decentralization?

    How exactly would you pick the businesses to boot out?

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “is your advice essentially to go to every city with this problem and FORCE decentralization?

    How exactly would you pick the businesses to boot out?”

    How is this any different from any other zoning issue. Just downzone them, without recompense, like anybody else.

    Government is allowed to change the rules arbitrarily, right?

    Those businesses have no right to cause everyone the pollution and expense it takes to supply them with transport.

    RH

  32. Spank That Donkey Avatar
    Spank That Donkey

    Larry:
    Innsbrook in Richmond is an example of decentralization itself, as those businesses picked up and left themselves…. As DC maxes out, and no one wants to deal with the commute anymore, it will just happen…

    Personally, I think tele-commuting will become more and more of a factor easing the problem, but to answer your question…

    Those businesses themselves that want to hire the best quality workers, will simply move themselves…. The Federal Govt. could use some decentralization, and/or halving it’s work force when the boomers go out….

    What if 10,000 Fed workers were offered an early retirement next year, and they didn’t commute into the city January 1, 2008?

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There would be 10,000 more beltway bandits clogging up Tysons Corner and Dulles area

    Even worse there is less (almost none) mass transit options out there

    Washington DC needs to still remain a place of commerce

    P.S. welcome to one of the better blogs in VA

    NMM

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “As DC maxes out, and no one wants to deal with the commute anymore, it will just happen…”

    Pretty much the opposite is happening right now. DC and the inner suburbs have reversed the downward trends largely due to the nightmare of commuting outside the beltway. I know quite a few people who refuse to take jobs in Tysons without a large pay differential, simply cause it’s such a pain to get there. That pretty much defeats the savings that come with moving away from the high priced interior.

    “What if 10,000 Fed workers were offered an early retirement next year, and they didn’t commute into the city January 1, 2008?”

    There would be about 10,000 new lawyers and consultants moving in on Jan 2, 2008.

    ZS

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Even though drivers pay a gasoline tax, it covers only about 50% of the cost of roads.”

    “How can this be? Nearly everyone uses the roads. Where does the other 50% come from, if it isn’t from drivers or road users? Would you have us beleive that 50% of road costs are paid for by the 3 to 5% of people who do not use cars?”

    This has more to do with the other 50% coming from non-direct user based fees, i.e. auto registration fees, tickets, property taxes, sales taxes, general funds. I think what is disturbing to some is that the trends are going more towards general funds as states refuse to raise gas taxes to pay for roads while metro rates go up. Also to defend the OP of the 50% rate, he is in DC where the city has to pay a lot of road upkeep out of general funds since they have a large commuter population that doesn’t pay much into the gas tax.

    “Furthermore, Metro riders pay only about 45% of thir costs through fares, and other rail riders pay even less.”

    Metrorail pays about 80% of their costs and the bus is somewhere around 20-30% which gets to the 45%. I think if the metrorail assets such as parking rates and leasing space were better managed they could get to 100%. Metrobus has to subsidize lower income areas so it will never be neutral.

    The problem with this whole passenger rails/roads comparison is the completely different ownership structures of assets. With auto transport the roads are largely publically owned and the vehicles are almost exclusively privately owned. With rail the lines are almost all privately owned and the passenger vehicles are publically owned. I’m sure when you look at total system costs both private and public of going from A to B with either method on a per capita basis they are pretty close since the laws of mechanical physics don’t change much when it comes to moving a certain object of the same weight.

    ZS

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I know quite a few people who refuse to take jobs in Tysons without a large pay differential, simply cause it’s such a pain to get there.”

    And I know a few who refuse jobs downtown for the same reason. Tysons IS downtown, now.

    As for reversing the trends, where do you get your numbers? Washington DC employment has been stagnant since 1992 while the metro area has grwon substantially, with muchof the growth in outer areas. Witness the FBI move to Manassas. And the jobs in DC pay substantially less.

    http://dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/lib/dmped/pdf/Employment_Workforce.pdf

    RH

  37. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “…if people want something and they’re willing to pay for it, it’s not the job of elected to NOT represent the wishes of their constituencies based on their own personal or party dogma.”

    Does that mean we can do away with zoning, and let people build what they are willing to pay for?”

    “I didn’t say anything about voting on zoning. You said if people are willing to pay for something, that government has no business providing the “leadership” that prevents them from doing so. If I want to build a house, and I’m willin to pay the costs, why should government imose “leadership” that prevents me.”

    and exactly how would you know what people wanted if they did not vote on zoning?

    it means that they can vote for what kind of zoning that they want or do not want – as opposed to your concept that voting is not an issue and the default is no zoning.

    Let’s be clear. If you put the issue of zoning to people – they will vote for zoning.

    Further, for any elected local or state who would propose that we do away with zoning – he/she would be out in spectacular fashion no matter what kind of “leadership” was being asserted.

    Do you disagree with that?

    This, by the way, IS .. Political Will.

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “….coming from non-direct user based fees, i.e. auto registration fees, tickets, property taxes, sales taxes, general funds. I think what is disturbing to some is that the trends are going more towards general funds as states refuse to raise gas taxes to pay for roads while metro rates go up.”

    Agreed. But since nearly everyone drives, non-direct user fees are still mostly paid by people who use the roads.

    The fifty percent figure is widely used, no matter where the author is from. And it is mostly wrong, or misleading. Anyway, “general funds” in the District include federal funds that are paid by, guess who? Drivers from outside the District.

    “Metrorail pays about 80% of their costs and the bus is somewhere around 20-30% which gets to the 45%.”

    You are correct, excuse my mental shorthand. However, until Metro rail gets to 100%, the argument remains that transit is supported by auto drivers, in addition to paying most of their own way. And, if metro rail gets to 100% on the back of parking fees, then guess what? It is still the drivers who pay.

    Overall the idea that drivers are not paying their own way is either false or a red herring. It does not help the situation, and it makes those that make the argument look silly. Let’s get over it and move on.

    I agree the rail/roads argument is nonsense. They don’t do the same job. What we need to do is work out a total system that works best. A key portion of that problem for both rail and transit is to recognize the fact of more and more satellite areas that need service between, in addition to the radial service we now have.

    “I’m sure when you look at total system costs both private and public of going from A to B with either method on a per capita basis they are pretty close since the laws of mechanical physics don’t change much when it comes to moving a certain object of the same weight.”

    I agree.

    Those that think that rail is much more efficient and less polluting than autos, are only partially correct. They have not looked at the total system costs. I’ve said before that money is a pretty good proxy for materials and resources, and therefore pollution, it isn’t perfect, and it isn’t always true, but if you find out the costs of some alternative are the same or more, then looking at the pollution aspects makes sense.

    I think a full rail car uses less mass per person than the usual auto at 1.2 persons per. But rail cars spend a lot of time moving around a lot less than full, so the giveback is huge. They don’t climb grades well, so we spend more energy building the system. etc etc. etc.

    I’ll be a lot more supportive of rail when I can get a guaranteed seat. I like rail. I use rail when it works for me, but geez, it is still a pain, and expensive. I don’t see any point in painting it to be something it isn’t.

    RH

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ………”Innsbrook in Richmond is an example of decentralization itself, as those businesses picked up and left themselves…. As DC maxes out, and no one wants to deal with the commute anymore, it will just happen…

    Personally, I think tele-commuting will become more and more of a factor easing the problem, but to answer your question…

    Those businesses themselves that want to hire the best quality workers, will simply move themselves…. “

    and as RH.. and others point out, what happens when that guy gets married to a gal who works 20 miles away and then next year he takes a job 30 miles in the opposite direction?

    Businesses who need “knowledge” workers – will not move to outlying areas where there are less qualified workers than in a more centralized location unless they feel the transportation links are adequate to provide for commuters from other areas.

    This is the “beltway effect” and it has virtually nothing to do with Federal employees other than the fact that many of them are the same workers than private concerns want.

    If you want proof of this – take a look at Fredericksburg, Va which has two major Federal facilities that would be ideal for BRAC relocations and yet not a single major BRAC agency chose to re-locate there and instead went to Quantico and Belvoir.

    And the same is true with major private companies.

    The biggest private sector employer than Fredericksburg has is Geico – which – IS, in fact, a virtual enterprise staffed by local employees.

    So Geico has proved that Fredericksburg does have the electronic/communications infrastructure but for now, virtually all of them would rather locate in NoVa – which is most ironic – because many of their employees – live in the Fredericksburg Area and commute every day to their jobs in NoVa.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “….what is disturbing to some is that the trends are going more towards general funds as states refuse to raise gas taxes….”

    But that isn’t what they are saying. What they are saying is that cars don’t pay their way. And they don’t want gas taxes raised either.

    It’s a classic case of wanting it both ways, and preferably both ways at someone else’s expense, hence the cry for toll roads, which will only nab a relative few.

    Good Luck.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and exactly how would you know what people wanted if they did not vote on zoning?”

    But we DON’T vote on zoning. we vote for elected officials who then do what they want.

    Your question was, if someone is willing to pay for something (rail in this case) how is the government empowered to impose its will?

    My question is the same.

    In the case of zoning, we started off with what seemed like a good idea. Then we sandbagged it and sandbagged it and sandbagged it. EMR is telling us the levy is about to break, and I think he is right.

    We just diagree about which side the water is standing on.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But that isn’t what they are saying. What they are saying is that cars don’t pay their way. And they don’t want gas taxes raised either.”

    The issue is that metro riders are looking at both an increase in metro fares and a raise in general taxes and fees to cover roads. Since most metro riders also drive, but are light drivers they are now subsidizing heavy use drivers. If driving pays 50% and metro riders pay 45% directly, then raising one without the other becomes unfair. I agree that the arguments from the hardcore public transit advocates about subsidizing cars is exaggerated.

    ZS

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And I know a few who refuse jobs downtown for the same reason. Tysons IS downtown, now.”

    Not sure how this is considering that DC/Arlington employs close to 10x what Tysons does. Tysons is downtown Fairfax, but that is it. If Fairfax would remain a largely bedroom residential area that most the residents moved there for, Tysons wouldn’t even be an issue.

    “As for reversing the trends, where do you get your numbers?”

    From the amount of commercial real estate I’ve seen added and filled in the past 5 years, i.e. East End, Navy Yard, NY Ave. Right now there is more RE being built and in the pipeline for SE, NoMA, and the East End then the expansion plans for Tysons. Also according to your source DC jobs pay better than the metro at large, not sure if that has much meaning though.

    I would like to see find more up to date stats as most trends and conclusions about migration patterns are being drawn from a decade old data. Since their has been an in-migration to urban areas starting 15 years ago and really accelerating the past 5-7. If you look at the political atmosphere for growth in outer suburbs versus the core areas you can see where developers will look to build.

    As far as decentralization and tele-commuting, most of what could happen, has happened. Companies have had plenty of time to evaluate outsourcing and decentralizing back office work and done what they can, but there are limits to what you can do. If all the decentralization made financial sense you would see the cores of expensive cities empty out.

    The FBI to Manassas, how long will they stay when their agents get tired of driving to Alexandria and DC to go to court.

    ZS

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Since most metro riders also drive, but are light drivers they are now subsidizing heavy use drivers.”

    That “light drivers” premise is a stretch. How about the people that drive 40 miles, just to get TO the Metro? And metro is goin to go positive by increasing PARKING, remember. How about the ones who ride metro so the spouse can run around all day? Remember, commuting is only 25% of travel.

    Anyway, there are How Many Metro Riders compared to how many Drivers? This is like 5% to 95%, right? How big a subsidy is that?

    AND the big if is, IF drivers pay 50% and Metro pays 45%. I think we agree that the right numbers for drivers is near 100%, from whatever sources, and the right number for metrorail riders might be 75% or 80%.

    How do you figure that raising one and not the other becomes unfair if we don’t yet understand the “fairness” of the present system.

    Even if you are arguing that 50% is pretty close to 45% and so the present structure is near fair, the vast number of drivers who pay for metro and get NO benefit from it far outweighs the number of Metro Riders who ride Metro and get no benefit from road use.

    It stikes me as a highly assymetrical argument.

    How about if we just agree, that the inner area road system is about built out: anything that needs more roads is going to have to go someplace else. At the same time, we could use a whole lot more metro service in a whole lot more places, Not just the $5billion we are going to spend in Tysons.

    Call it $200 billion, for a round guess.

    Where is the political will for that?

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Since their has been an in-migration to urban areas starting 15 years ago and really accelerating the past 5-7.”

    I agree there has been an uptick lately, compared to earlier. How much is homeland security?

    (You are right about the wages, I mis-read the graph: the other graphs used dark blue for the district.) But, look at the employment trends graph on page 2. Even if there is an uptick in District employment, it would still be a drop in the bucke to the overall picture.

    ????

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The FBI to Manassas, how long will they stay when their agents get tired of driving to Alexandria and DC to go to court.”

    Do they spend that much time in court? Anyway, if Larry is right, they live out west somewhere and have to travel eveyday anyway. At least if they check in at the Manassas office and then go to court (or anyplace else), they will get paid for their travel.

    RH

  47. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    name one location where there is no more “room” for businesses..

    just one…

    Name one city that has vacant land and they won’t let anything be built on it because they “don’t have any more room”.

    The problem here is a failure to grasp realities and then to accept that there are no perfect solutions but plenty of acceptable ones.

    If congestion were truly gridlock, as often implied, businesses WOULD leave but name a place where this has happened…

    Now, name a place were folks routinely commute 50 miles a day in each direction… radiating out from the center point of any urbanized area.

    I would posit that the above describes virtually any urbanized area with a beltway.

    these are realities.. not conjecture.

    You’re not going to tell businesses that they’re going to go away and you’re not going to tell people they cannot commute.

    or, let’s put it this way any “leader” who advocates this – as a “solution” is going to be an ex-leader about as quick as it takes to utter the thought.

    Your fundamental basic problem in virtually every urbanized area is more people driving solo vehicles at rush hour – than there is capacity for.

    And no urban area has shown that there is a way to build enough roads to keep up with rush hour capacity.

    HOT Lanes may not work and if they don’t, we’re just back to where we are now – and not Armageddon.

    What is the reason for NOT trying HOT lanes?

    What is a “reasonable” reality-based way of going forward without HOT lanes?

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If congestion were truly gridlock, as often implied, businesses WOULD leave but name a place where this has happened…”

    FBI to Manassas
    Booz Allen to Chantilly
    FAA to Vint Hill
    Geico from Downtown to F’burg

    Etc.
    ????

    “You’re not going to tell businesses that they’re going to go away and you’re not going to tell people they cannot commute.”

    You mean to say they have a right to overload the resources? That they have a “right” to pollute? We tell them how fast to drive, when to get inspected, have to wear a seatbelt (except on Metro and school buses). We already have controls on land use, we just don’t use them.

    Except on people who can’t fight back.

    “Your fundamental basic problem in virtually every urbanized area is more people driving solo vehicles at rush hour – than there is capacity for.”

    And why is that? It is because we have allowed businesses to locate where there is insufficient capacity, and no workable way to increase it. If this was a river, and we were talking about MDL’s, you would propose shutting them down.

    “What is the reason for NOT trying HOT lanes?”

    Because they won’t work and they foist the bill on a small number of people, which only increases the locational disparities we have now. They pay more, AND they still get to send money downstate.

    It’s the same argument that ZS raises about raising Metro fares and not gas tax.

    “And no urban area has shown that there is a way to build enough roads to keep up with rush hour capacity.”

    Ah, yes, the old you can’t build your way out of congestion argument. Which TAMU has at least partially refuted.

    So, we build HOT lanes, fill every car and train to capacity, we keep allowing still more businesses, because they have the right to go wherever they want, until eventually the multiple occupancy vehicles are SRO only, like right now on the Orange line.

    Then what?

    If you don’t have capacity, you don’t have capacity, single or multiple occupancy.

    You build more places, until you come to the end of the petri dish, and then you die. OR, you tell people what they can and can’t do.

    Like build where it is overcrowded, or procreate. Beijing has already limited procration, and they are planning six new satellite cities, to alleviate overcrowding.

    We are not at the edge of the petri dish, yet. Maybe we can’t build our way out of congestion, but we can build where congestion isn’t.

    Or, we can keep cramming more businesses in one spot, hauling more people and stuff there, and hauling more garbage away, building ever more heroic transportation systems, and more convoluted rules to live with, ————
    Instead of just choosing a scale that is a little more human to begin with.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If people are living as far away as Harrisonburg, and Winchester and commuting to DC….”

    I live in Winchester and I can tell you the amount of people that commute into DC proper is VERY SMALL. I would bet that 98% of all commuters go to Fairfax, Prince William, or Loudoun. The other 2% probably work at the Pentagon and they “think” they work in DC proper because they can see the Monument.

    They had a bus service that went all the way into DC from Frederick County and it’s all but empty. It’s simply not possible or practical to get that far in using a car, bus, or the Metro, or a combination of all three…..that’s sad!

  50. Spank That Donkey Avatar
    Spank That Donkey

    “I can tell you the amount of people that commute into DC proper is VERY SMALL.”

    and you go on to say they are going to the DC Metro area.. still an hour commute….

    It’s happening, and the solution is providing some form of mass transit. I believe this thread was about heavy rail freight vs. passenger… and light rail gets mixed in….

    Eisenhower massively subsidized the trucking industry with initial funding for our highway system… heavy rail was first subsidized by the Feds also (linking our coasts), as pointed out in land and favorable legislation…

    All for national defense and commercial reasons…. If we are heading towards ‘megalopolis’ which we are up and down the eastern seaboard…. Rail for passengers is an essential element to try and move people efficiently.

    It should be built, and funded by halving the Federal Workforce… How about that? I don’t know what to do with the lawyers, but I hear it’s against the law to shoot them 🙂

  51. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    In response to HEK’s comments:

    The idea that general motors was behind a conspiracy to replace rail lines with less efficient forms of transportation is a myth. What they were actually found guilty of in the 1949 case that you refer to (U.S. v. National City Lines) was trying to monopolize the market for manufacturing passenger buses. But is was simple economics that drove cities to adopt the new buses instead of replacing their agin streetcars. GM was not involved directly in many cites, and motorization of transit proceeded just as quickly in these places. For more information, see this article:

    http://lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf

  52. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”oh, yes, the old you can’t build your way out of congestion argument. Which TAMU has at least partially refuted.”

    Oh? Tell me WHERE it has been actually implemented beyond words on paper.

    Is there an urban place that has actually built their way out of congestion?

    “So, we build HOT lanes, fill every car and train to capacity, we keep allowing still more businesses, because they have the right to go wherever they want, until eventually the multiple occupancy vehicles are SRO only, like right now on the Orange line.”

    you did forget commuter buses – a very easy way to take 37 cars off the road for one bus.

    “Then what?”

    Again.. tell me again which city has gotten to the “then what” point?

    “If you don’t have capacity, you don’t have capacity, single or multiple occupancy.”

    nope, you be wrong.

    “not enough capacity” is not the same as “no capacity”.

    and “not enough” is a subjective term.

    Congestion doesn’t result in “I cannot get to work”. It results in “my 30 minute commute is now 45 minutes and on some days, a fender bender hoses things up for hours”.

    You can bet that companies will leave when MOST of their employees cannot get to work MOST days but again, I’m not sure that such a situation exists because people and companies make decisions long before than point is reached.

    And for every person or company that leaves an urban area – they are usually replaced in short order by another.

    I’ve probably been to 30 metro areas in the US and Canada.

    It’s a hobby of mine to look at how transportation “works” (or not).

    I have yet to see one that did not have rush hour congestion and I have yet to see one where people and businesses are heading for the exits… although I do recommend that you not catch rush hour in Chicago, LA and Boston…unless you’re really into pain and suffering…

    🙂

  53. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Wow!

    I take a trip to Australia and between the time I leave and the time I land there are 53 comments posted about an article about an article about freight rail.

    HEK – I gotta know – what are you talking about:

    “If Madison Avenue can sell a psycho-sexual box made of plastic that gets altered a little every year just to make it a wee different, they can sell passenger rail.”?

    Is the psycho-sexual box a car?

    Ray:

    Where did this stat come from:

    “Gas is still a lot cheaper than it was in 1951 dollars.”?

    I’ve never seen gas price data going back to 1951. I believe you have the data but what’s the source?

    Richard Layman:

    “Even though drivers pay a gasoline tax, it covers only about 50% of the cost of roads.”.

    I’ve always wondered about the ratio of gas tax : road cost. Do you have a source for that stat?

    Larry Gross:

    “So Geico has proved that Fredericksburg does have the electronic/communications infrastructure…”.

    So does Bangalore. Fredicksburg will need more than an electronic/communications infrastructure to become a job magnet.

    Spank That Donkey:

    “It should be built, and funded by halving the Federal Workforce… How about that? I don’t know what to do with the lawyers, but I hear it’s against the law to shoot them :-)”.

    True – but shooting lawyers is only a misdemeanor in Virginia.

  54. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “So Geico has proved that Fredericksburg does have the electronic/communications infrastructure…”.

    So does Bangalore. Fredicksburg will need more than an electronic/communications infrastructure to become a job magnet.”

    Indeed, anything that can be tele-commuted to Stafford, USA can also be tele-commuted to Stafford, England – both places having a minor leg up on “accent”. (I dunno about you guys but I have one heck of a time understanding Anglish).

    So for those who say we need more “places”, be careful what you wish for.

    Groveton – what else does the Fredericksburg Area need to become a job magnet? (or anyone.. chime in).

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I have yet to see one that did not have rush hour congestion “

    Me neither. How many times do you have to see the same thing before you deide it is not working, and start looking for a different answer?

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…you did forget commuter buses – a very easy way to take 37 cars off the road for one bus.”

    The goal isn’t to take 37 cars off the road at any price. The goal is to get people where they need to go and when, do it comfortably, and efficiently.

    The bus does NONE of those things, and it isn’t even efficient. The costs for the Loudoun commuter buses were $.85 per passenger mile, last I knew. It doesn’t even take the cars off the road, just diverts them to the park and ride.

    Why not put the office building where the park and ride is? What is the point of driving 20 miles to work and then spending your day sending e-mails and working on a application that lives on a sever in Arizona?

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ok when you boil it all down its a capacity issue for a limited rush hour window

    75% of the time there is no transportation problem at all. (The areas that actually have congestion all the time are where actual dollars should be spent) anyway…

    Heres a twist on the more places (which I agree with BTW)

    More places will cost money to setup the inferstructure and eventually you will need another place

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to try more times first…

    Government already does it with flex schedules, compression, Pentagon people who work from 7-3:30 etc.

    But I forgot all of us NoVa suckers are workaholics who work from 7-6 already :-p

    -NMM

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You can compare the relative prices of various things over time, using different ways to compare at

    http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/#

    At the bottom of the page is a discussion of gas prices since 1949.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “75% of the time there is no transportation problem at all. “

    Right. 90% of congestion occurs on 10% of our roads during 20% of the time.

    We could fix that, if we had the political will.

    Instead, we waste $1089 per year, and create tons of noxious gasses unnecessarily, just to appease the special interests, which consists of those that don’t want roads or cars under any circumstances, and those that wish to build in certain areas, at any cost – especially if the cost is to someone else.

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Wouldn’t it make more sense to try more times first…
    Government already does it with flex schedules, compression, Pentagon people who work from 7-3:30 etc.
    But I forgot all of us NoVa suckers are workaholics who work from 7-6 already”

    We already have rush hour from 5:30am until 9:30 and from 3-7. I’m not sure how much more you can stretch that and still run operations.

    “Why not put the office building where the park and ride is?”

    You can’t put the office building at the park and ride since those riders aren’t all going to the same office. Also you assume that office can be isolated from other organizations. If the organization can run largely in a vacuum then yes it will locate on the outskirts (e.g. Orbital in Dulles). Most organizations can’t do this for a number of reasons and need to be in a more centralized location to draw a large labor pool and in a central commerce district.

    “The bus does NONE of those things, and it isn’t even efficient. The costs for the Loudoun commuter buses were $.85 per passenger mile, last I knew. It doesn’t even take the cars off the road, just diverts them to the park and ride.”

    I’d be curious where you got the $.85 figure since I’ve seen numbers all over the place depending on whose agenda you are following. I guess it just matters how you want to measure things. Airplanes operate at somewhere around $.12/passenger mile so I’d be surprised that a bus would be significantly worse.

    The point of the bus isn’t to take cars off the road where there isn’t congestion, it’s to transport larger numbers of people where there is congestion and limited transportation infrastructure space. The park and ride also provides storage for vehicles in a place where space is vast and inexpensive vs the central district where it is not.

    ZS

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I’d be curious where you got the $.85 figure since I’ve seen numbers all over the place depending on whose agenda you are following. I guess it just matters how you want to measure things. Airplanes operate at somewhere around $.12/passenger mile so I’d be surprised that a bus would be significantly worse. “

    It is amazing, isn’t it? But that is pretty much the case.

    I actually forget the source, but I think it was either WCOG or the Bus Lines own financial reports. And Metro buses aren’t much better. I do seem to recall that one of the county bus services was quite a bit better, like around $.50 per passenger mile.

    I think there are several problems.

    -Buses are heavier per passenger.
    -Buses have a lot of stop and go.
    -Buses have to return empty, so even if they are full one direction their load ratio is 50% to start with.
    -Buses are very seldom full: ridden an airplane lately?
    -Buses don’t have the FAA clearing traffic lanes for them.
    -Buses don’t get as good as maintenance as airplanes.
    -Buses (some) are not operated for profit.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The point of the bus isn’t to take cars off the road where there isn’t congestion, it’s to transport larger numbers of people where there is congestion and limited transportation infrastructure space. The park and ride also provides storage for vehicles in a place where space is vast and inexpensive vs the central district where it is not.”

    I’m not so sure the idea isn’t to take cars off the road. There are some that would ban cars outright, if they could.

    Otherwise, I agree. But here’s the thing: “The park and ride also provides storage for vehicles in a place where space is vast and inexpensive vs the central district where it is not.” Isn’t that true for office buildings, as much as parking lots?

    Whether we like cars or not, isn’t the question at what point does the congestion (and associated pollution) and limited transportation infrastructure space cost more than some other option?

    I think we agreed that DC jobs pay more, after I read the chart wrong.
    Is that a benefit, or an expense? Are those places paying more just to get workers to put up with the hassle and expense, or is it really a better business (and work) environment?

    ??????

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This started with freight, so think of how the freight system works. They have major, minor, and small distribution centers where the work is agglomerated for the long hauls and separated for the short hauls.

    In one respect the Park and ride works like that, but there is a real difference, isn’t there?

    The freight system is designed to meet any need anywhere, it has a bunch of hubs and a bunch of spokes. But the commuter system is only designed to meet the needs of the CBD. And only the major CBD’s at that.

    RH

  64. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH is going to “convince” folks that 40 solo drivers as passengers in a bus with one driver is less efficient than 40 drivers in SOLO cars and he’ll surely cite some off-the-wall economist blogger page to “prove” it.

    what happened to common sense here?

    buses are not convenient and comfortable? Since when?

    If you have a rush-hour CAPACITY problem – the footprint of a single bus is not less than 40 cars?
    Maybe in Alice in Wonderland.

    and the alternative proposed is to buy up more expensive NoVa real estate and take it off the tax rolls – for more right-of-way.

    your road capacity is maxed (with solo vehicles), the prospects for substantially more roads is very limited, and the amount of land that can still be developed and redeveloped is substantial and population growth is a given.

    AND – NoVa is NOT unique with respect to this. In Fact NoVa is just getting into this compared to more mature cities around this country and the world.

    There’s not a city in the entire world that has gone belly up because people could not get to work in a SOLO car. There ARE lots of cities where folks get to work every day just fine in multi-passenger vehicles and the people do not move away and the businesses do not flee to “more places”.

    I’m not saying this is right or wrong or optimal or “hopeless” – only that it is a fact and that this is the likely progression in NoVa unless someone comes up with a pretty novel alternative.

    “Congestion” will, in fact, self-regulate without HOT lanes. When it gets bad enough, people will start using buses and transit no matter how crowded they are – if that gives someone a more reliable trip than a solo-driven car OR they’ll do what is common – they’ll find a job closer to home.

    Yes.. you could find someone in Winchester commuting to Tysons but I doubt seriously that you’re going to find very many commuting from Winchester to Landover Hills, Md.

  65. Danny L. Newton Avatar
    Danny L. Newton

    I strongly disagree that we only need to maintain the existing system or roads. An automobile or truck needs an un shared space on the road plus the distance to stop it while operating. Increases in population means increases in the number of lanes in the system.

    All states with congestion problems fail to keep up with this basic requirement. Otherwise, the distance between vehicles will shrink over time. Maintaining the system means maintaining the utility of the system, not just filling potholes.

    Rail diversion is not likely to give a lot of relief to congestion. A single long truck 75 feet long and weighing at least 60K pounds takes up about 400 feet of lane in a perfect world… not I-81. A million such trucks would pass a stationary observer every 3.9 seconds. A million trucks could pass a stationary observer in 45.138 days. Over 8 times that many trucks could pass on a single lane of traffic available 365.25 days of the year. The road is open 24/7 and the train has to run on a more limited schedule.

    The value of the pavement recovered by diversion is not as great as a lot of people think. A million trucks a year is 2737.85 trucks a day. Each of them taking up about 400 lineal feet of lane. That is 207.41 miles of lanes or about 60 percent of the length of I-81. If you think of it as a lane on each side of I-81 then the length would be 107.7 miles. Even though that 207.41 miles represents a billion dollars at $5million per lane mile, the value to VDOT is not a billion dollars since the benefit only last for one-eighth of a year. It is closer to $130 million.

  66. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I think there are several problems.

    -Buses are heavier per passenger.
    -Buses have a lot of stop and go.
    -Buses have to return empty, so even if they are full one direction their load ratio is 50% to start with.
    -Buses are very seldom full: ridden an airplane lately?
    -Buses don’t have the FAA clearing traffic lanes for them.
    -Buses don’t get as good as maintenance as airplanes.
    -Buses (some) are not operated for profit.”

    this is what I call major hand-waving.

    let see the cites…

    or .. fess up that you’re hand-waving..

    🙂

  67. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ……”Rail diversion is not likely to give a lot of relief to congestion.”

    I agree. Until I hear NS or CSX say that they lack capacity to meet demand, I’m inclined to agree with those who point out that trucks move the goods from the distribution locations to the stores.

    Wherever you live.. pay attention to how many tractor trailers visit your local grocery or WalMart or other high-volume store.

    Trucks are … performing .. just-in-time stock replenishment right on down to the local 7-11, WaWa or Sheetz…

    Why you buy something.. they scan it. You might think they’re scanning it for the cash register – and they are – but what they are also doing is “building” their next delivery order.

    When you pick up one of six items of a shelf in a 7-11, it leaves 5 and when you leave that 7-11, that item you bought is now listed on a computer assembling the next order for that store.

    It’s the business model and there is no way that 7-11, WaWa, Walmart or Food Lion is going to get their stock via rail. Instead, it’s on that tractor trailer that is stuck in the same traffic you are or blocking the left lane on I-81.

    As far as more roads – whether they be urban or rural (I-81)… where is the money going to come from?

    There is no money. Virtually every penny of the existing gas tax now gets spent on just maintaining the roads (fixing those potholes if you will).

    New roads will require new money. Where will it come from?

    Right now – unless the general public DEMANDS a 25 cent increase in the gas tax – the plan is tolls.

    What the public wants right now is more roads without tolls and without an increase in the gas tax.

    I don’t know how long it will take for folks to “get it’ but until they do.. there probably will not be a consensus – in other words – no progress… until the public agrees to one path or the other.

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “-Buses are heavier per passenger.
    -Buses have a lot of stop and go.
    -Buses have to return empty, so even if they are full one direction their load ratio is 50% to start with.
    -Buses are very seldom full: ridden an airplane lately?
    -Buses don’t have the FAA clearing traffic lanes for them.
    -Buses don’t get as good as maintenance as airplanes.
    -Buses (some) are not operated for profit.
    I’m not so sure the idea isn’t to take cars off the road. There are some that would ban cars outright, if they could.”

    I’m not remotely suggesting banning cars outright. I’m not sure you even need things like congestion fees or HOT lanes with a good surface mass transportation system.

    As a great example, I recently made a trip up to Vancouver and got to see a very well set up transportation system that has very little underground rail, no congestion fees, no HOT lanes, similar gas prices, sub $10 CBD parking, and probably 3-4x the density of DC or NoVa. It was very simple, on all the major roads the right lane was reserved for buses and bikes, while the other lanes were for cars. The whole time we drove there we never got caught in congestion despite driving in rush hour. All the bus stops I saw had long queues and the buses I noticed had leather seating aboard.

    ZS

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I think we agreed that DC jobs pay more, after I read the chart wrong.
    Is that a benefit, or an expense? Are those places paying more just to get workers to put up with the hassle and expense, or is it really a better business (and work) environment?”

    DC jobs pay more because that’s where the higher end positions are. It takes that density and concentration of talent to accomplish higher complexity jobs. Also most the lower end service jobs are in the suburbs. It’s basically the chicken and the egg thing, with DC being the chicken and Fairfax County, PWC, etc being the eggs. Would Fairfax County be what it is without DC. Of course not, but DC would still be DC even if it there was no Fairfax. The suburbs are merely an offshoot of the city they are around.

    ZS

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “All the bus stops I saw had long queues …”

    But you didn’t see any congestion?

    They just moved it to the queues, but at least the queues don’t pollute.

    RH

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Major hand waving.

    Larry, the fact remains that LC bus company costs more than four times as much per passenger mile as Flying Southwest.

    I just offered some possible reasons. But the fact is that most public transit operates at a LOWER load factor than the average auto with 1.25 persons.

    Since you don’t and won’t believe anything I say anyway, I see no reason to do your homework. If you think my handwaving is wrong, find the cites and show me. I’m not afraid to be wrong.

    RH

  72. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – I don’t expect cites on every assertion.. but your points about the buses is highly questionable and deserves some evidence…

    and so I chose just one of your claims about the per passenger vehicle weight to prove (with a cite) that it was not only wrong – but very wrong.

    If the rest of your points are similarly wrong – then handwaving is the appropriate description in my view.

    I’m just asking that you do a little due diligence in your assertions… so the dialog makes some sense beyond yammering….
    🙂
    ( and yes.. I do my share of yamering also sometimes – perhaps often)

  73. Richard Layman Avatar
    Richard Layman

    Sorry I haven’t kept up with the thread, focusing more of my time on my own writing. The source for the statement that 50% of road cost is covered by taxes and fee, and the rest is subsidized in this column by Neal Peirce, quoting a Brookings Institution report.

    http://napawash.org/resources/peirce/Peirce_5_11_03.html

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The way I see it a 40′ diesel bus wighs from 27,000 lb to 37,000 lb and has a capacity of 37. They get around 5 mpg in city service. Call it 30,000 lbs on average.

    If you were really good, and you got as much as 40% load capacity you would average 14.8 passengers.

    That’s 2100 lb per passenger or 70 passenger miles per gallon.

    My Prius weighs 2800 lb and at 1.2 average passengers that works out to 2300 lb per passenger and 72 passenger miles per gallon around town. Out on the highway the diesel coach does better.

    If you drive an SUV its a whole different picture.

    The maximum possible efficiency for a motor bus is 280 passenger miles per gallon, but typical efficiciency is only 78. For the prius the numbers are 240 and 72.

    But, that is only the fuel efficiency, you have also to figure in the time efficiency.

    http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html

    What did you come up with?

    RH

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Wachs argues we’d be smarter to rely more on user fees. Short-term, that means additional fuel taxes, tolls, vehicle registration charges, truck weight levies and the like. The truck issue alone is significant: if heavy weight trucks had to pay their true cost in roadbed wear and tear, costs would get allocated more equitably among all types of vehicles, and the advantages of switching a larger share of long-distance freight to rail lines would be a lot more apparent.”

    Larry ought to love that. He is paying more because trucks aren’t paying enough.

    I didn’t read it all, but I didn’t understand how roads are subsidized by non-user fees. Just about everyone uses the roads, its just that the fees are not necessarily related to road use. It might be all right for part of your property taxes to go to roads, because part of the value of your property comes from roads.

    The one thing tha is clear is that ther isn’t enough money to do all that we want.

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In the short run, increases in fuel taxes are viable and practical. In the longer term, tolls collected electronically promise the most appropriate and flexible method of user fee financing.”

    See, Larry, we are both partly right. We do need higher fuuel taxes, and we need them now. Long term, we can work out the toll system, provided it is universal and not targeted to certain areas.

    RH

  77. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. I LOVE the comment – “we don’t have enough money to do what we want”.

    did you really mean “want” or did you intend “need”?

    or do you think the two words means the same thing?

    from my point of view.. saying we don’t have enough money to do what we NEED to do… is a little like saying you don’t have enough money for fuel for your car to do all the things you WANT to do.

    So, the answer is not to figure out how to get more money for more fuel but to figure out how to get MORE out of your current fuel…. by

    driving less or adding errands together or just not driving sometimes , etc, etc.

    another apology:

    I don’t have enough money run my furnace so it heats my whole house to 75 degrees all the time – so I need to make more money.

    so … you make an agreement with a furnace company who guarantees to you and everyone else that they’ll heat your home to 75 degrees for a set price…

    and you think you are fine.. until they come back and tell you that in order to continue your contract, you need to pay them more.

    so you say.. well.. how about if I cut back my thermostat to “level out” my fees and they say “no dice”, your choice is to either pay more money or drop out of the program.

    THAT’s WHY most folks prefer fee for service, user pays, tolls over taxes.

    see.. you’d probably NEVER agree to the furnace deal for your own home but you seem to prefer that kind of a deal for roads..

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Nope, I picked want over need on purpose. When we cn’t afford to do what we need to do, peopl will start dying.

    What your comment says to me is what I have been saying all along: we need an agreed upon method to put prices on what are basically values. Otherwise if you think your values are worth more than mine – we can never come to an agreement on anything.

    RH

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don’t know who you are arguing with. I agree that roads (and all transportation) should be paid for primarily, but not entirely, by user fees. More than 60% of our road usage is still paid by user fees.

    But I also agree with Wachs (and Winsotn and Shirley), that heavy trucks and buses are getting virtually free ride, we should fix disparities in payments first. Then we need to raise the current user fees to reasonable levels. If it turns out that this doesn’t work because of high mileage vehicles, then we can think about some other method, like widespread generalized tolling. But, if you fix the truck disparity, then the effect of high mileage vehicles becomes smaller. And, you can always re-set the current user fees high enough to make up the difference.

    Despite your claims, widespread generalized tolling is gong to be harder, cost more, and take longer than you think. Frankly, I don;t see the difference: more money is more money whether you call it taxes or tolls.

    RH

  80. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ….greed upon method to put prices on what are basically values.”

    we simply charge people what it actually costs… right?

    isn’t your complaint more along the idea of how they allocate the charges – i.e. variable fee charging?

    re: trucks “free ride”

    don’t you think that if we charge trucks more that all they’ll do pass that cost on to us?

    I’m not opposed to that.. only pointing out that we’ll ultimately pay… not the trucking companies.

  81. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “..don’t you think that if we charge trucks more that all they’ll do pass that cost on to us?…”

    Absolutely I beleive that. And that, I think, is the problem with most of your hare-brained schemes to “save money”. It is almost surely going to flow back down hill to us, and in the end we not only save very little, but we have a lot of added costs along the way, just keeping up with all the transactions that nit-pickers would require.

    In the case of trucks, what you say is patently obvious, unless Jim Bacon is right and it causes other factors to kick in, like more railuse. I don’t se that happening, much, but there may be other technologies.

    Also in the case of trucks, the disparity is really egregious, like a factor of 0.4 for trucks vs 1.5 for cars, as far as paying their own way goes.

    In the end, you are right. Almost everyone drives cars that help make trucking cheaper. Amost everyone uses things that moved by truck. It may turn out to be a wash in the end.

    If you take a dogmatic approach that everyone should pay their own, individual costs for everything, then you lose out on the possibility of having subsidies that really are useful.

    If you think everything should be subsidized, you are a communist.

    I’m just pointing out what WAchs said: fix disparities first, raise user fees and gas tax second, and worry about tolling later.

    I love it when the eggheads at Brookings get paid to publish what I have been saying for years.

    RH

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You didn’t rebut my figures on buses. Do you have a different source?

    RH

  83. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “subsidies that really are useful.”

    you would have to define, compare and contrast the difference between a “subsidy” and a “core service”.

    then you’d have to show me an example of a subsidy that had a higher ROI that the cost of the subsidy.

    re: rebut … WAGs… otherwise known as Stawmen and hand-waving…

    I prefer to see your cites if you’re going to claim they are facts.

    otherwise.. you’d have me spending hours and hours responding to as many WAGs as your furtive fingers could machine-gun on your keyboard.

    no thanks.

    also.. i prefer for the most part “.gov” sources of info.. not those with “agendas”…. although other sites like Wiki (with footnotes) can be a good starting point.

    so here’s one I would think is useful reading…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

  84. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

  85. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    http://www.buses.org/files/ComparativeEnergy.pdf

    page 7

Leave a Reply

Read More