Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Heavy Rail and Flying Pigs

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Ken Orski, publisher of Innovation Briefs, makes the case that the era of massive federal funding for system-building investments in urban rail transit is coming to an end. Rail transit funding will continue, he writes, but “it will shift to incrementally expanding existing rail networks and commuter rail services rather than embarking on construction of brand new rail transit systems.” Writes Orski:

After 30 years of sustained federal investment in urban rail systems— an investment program that resulted in the construction of 22 new light rail systems and 5 new heavy rail systems— the New Starts program is beginning to run out of cities that can afford or justify cost-effective rail transit investment. Norfolk, VA, has been the only new urban area to have joined the “club” of rail cities in recent years.

Such conclusions are probably warranted under the current Business-As-Usual paradigm in which transportation projects are made in isolation from land use decisions. The economics of rail could improve dramatically, however, if projects were part of a more encompassing process that combined planning for transportation and land use together. Of course, if pigs had wings…

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    complete garbage.

    rail is the future. we’ve hit peak oil, there is no other option but to invest in rail.

    The next federal administration will eliminate all those arcane policies.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    11:36 – Plain silliness. I have a good friend who was a transportation official in the Clinton administration and who still votes “D” who will argue that heavy rail consumes as much energy and creates more air pollution than Bus Rapid Transit. There are good people with varying political beliefs who are actually trying to find cost-efficient and effective mass transit solutions. Then there are those who engage in sloganeering. Consider joining the first group.

    TMT

    TMT

  3. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    How many times does it have to be said:

    It is the need to evolve functional settlment patterns that must drive Mobility and Access system decisions.

    That will true in Charlottesville – Albemarle, in expanding existing systems and, most importantly, in deciding how to evolve functional station-area settlement patterns where new systems are needed.

    Second reality is that in the future there must be fewer vehicle trip, not more.

    PRT, BRT, light rail, heavy rail, whatever they all have to pass the same test: Provide Mobility and Access that supports functional settlement patterns.

    EMR at the request of the Z Team

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so far.. most of the Federal funding of transit comes from the Federal Fuel Tax.

    There are two problems with this approach.

    1. – As the revenues from the gas tax are eroded by inflation and more fuel efficient cars – resulting in less and less money available.

    In fact, the Federal Transportation law, SAFETEA-EU is projected to start running a deficit in 2009 and will require cutting planned projects back.

    Guess which ones will get cut if it is a choice between roads or rail/transit and the money.. what is left of it.. comes from the fuel tax?

    Some folks think the Dulles decision was specific to the Wash Metro area transit plans and the Dulles plan in particular.

    It was not.

    Projects across the country are being cut back because there is less and less money available.

    2. – What is it about NoVa (or for than matter any urban area) that leads one to believe that all taxpayers in America.. should fund those systems?

    We are told in one breath that the WAMTA extension to Dulles is absolutely critical to the economic future of the region – that really bad stuff will happen if it is not built – and then in the next breath – we are told that it is simply not financially feasible unless all those folks across America.. kick in their share of the 900 million that is the difference between life and death.. for the Wash Metro area.

    the project is “vital” but we can’t build it without a 900 million dollar subsidy?

    If rail is “the way to go”, then we need to stop whining about the folks in Kansas who won’t pay and focusing on the folks who say it is “the way to go” for that money.

    Now.. RH is going to say.. it’s only fair that if we subsidy farm crops in Kansas that those folks in Kansas subsidy Wash Metro rail…

    Why not let the folks in Kansas tend to their needs and the folks in Wash metro do likewise?

    We can agree that the folks in Kansas and in Wash metro both need to pay their share of the roads and rail that connect Kansas to Wash Metro – a legitimate use of taxes to serve both places… but when it comes to regional needs.. why is it that others outside of Wash Metro should fund Wash metro needs?

  5. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    “Peak oil” is a straw man.

    Energy is everywhere.

    There never will be a “peak energy” problem.

    Watch energy get cheaper in your lifetime!

    Won’t make those who want to remake human settlement patterns in their own image happy, but it is a fact.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    perhaps a reasonable question to ponder if .. what happens to personal mobility on the downside of peak oil?

    If we look to Europe where gasoline is $5 or even $6 a gallon (actually $6.50 a gallon in the Netherlands)… we still see plenty of autos and trucks… so from that.. we can probably predict that gasoline at $5 or even $6 a gallon in the US will not cause folks to get rid of their cars.

    The question is..at $5 a gallon, will we move closer to where we work.. causing changes in settlement patterns

    or .. will we just change the way we commute basically finding a way that keeps the cost of commuting from getting to be too high?

    I think we’re going to find out fairly soon.. in the DC area though.. as it appears that we’re going to have higher gasoline taxes AND tolls… and the combination of the two may well take us to the equivalent of $5 or $6 a gallon.

    as far as rail goes… here’s something to think about… and that is WHERE is the money for rail going to come from if folks are already going to be paying higher gasoline and tolls?

    I can see them going to commuter rail and commuter buses and BRT but where will the money come from to pay for these modes?

    ideas? thoughts? opinions?

    now of course if we follow RH’s theory of public benefit – everyone will pay and everyone will get a free rail pass…

    You will be able to go anywhere in the Wash metro area with a $10 rail pass.. 1/3 the price of a HOT lane toll.

    🙂

    🙂

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, Europeans aren’t going to get rid of their cars. But they may drive them less. It would be interesting to see how many Vehicle Miles Driven they rack up in the land of $6-per-gallon gasoline compared to here in the United States.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I find the statement of TMT’s friend to be very credible given that heavy rail may typically have a significant load factor for 4-6 hours per day on weekdays. And, if you factor in the tremendous amounts of energy required to fabricate the steel, concrete, etc. for the railroads, stations, and trains, it has to get even worse. Whether the first commenter or “Not Ed Risse” is correct about peak oil, investing huge amounts of money in new heavy rail projects in the US (with the possible exception of NYC) is a loser. Urban rail systems are designed for the commuting needs of the early 20th century. We need flexible solutions for the commuting and transportation needs of the 21st century.

    LB

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    LB:

    You were going fine until the last two sentences.

    If citizens need the capacity of heavy rail depends on the settlement pattern in the station areas, nothing else.

    “Urban rail systems are designed for the commuting needs of the early 20th century.”

    But the vast majority of the trips on the ‘urban rail’ (aka, heavy rail) in 2008 shared-vehicle systems are not “commuters.” They are persons who use the rail for some high-value trips. (Yes, some are commuting, but most are not.)

    The intensity of origins and destinations of travel demand that has agglomerated at high-capasity system station-area results in most high capacity shared-vehicle system riders meeting most of their Mobility and Access needs without resorting to any vehicle.

    (As EYA advertises, “LIFE is within walking distance.”)

    “We need flexible solutions for the commuting and transportation needs of the 21st century.”

    That is almost right.

    The one discontinunity in this sentence is the word “commuting.”

    It is not feasible for “commuting” as it was thought of in the 20th centruy to be a 21st century activity.

    Most citizens will not be able to afford it and the rest will not want to.

    That is what the market now demonstrates for the vast majority of those who have a real choice.

    Think Fundamenal Change.

    EMR

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think most of EMR’s statement is ans outright falsehood.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “everyone will pay and everyone will get a free rail pass…”

    Hey, I’m not the one who suggested it, but at least one analysit has said that the optimum fare for Metro is zero.

    As for everyone pays, that is already the case.

    The question is, do we get what we pay for?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “most of the Federal funding of transit comes from the Federal Fuel Tax.”

    What does that tell you?

    Transit has no way to fund itself, other than massive subsidies.

    If the fed’s succeed in promoting transit, there will be a lot less people buying fuel.

    Larry is right. Where will the money come from.

    In fact, where will the money come from for that “free” rail pass?

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you think there is no other option but to invest in rail, then you haven’t considered the options very carefully.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Second reality is that in the future there must be fewer vehicle trip, not more.”

    Nonsense. There will be more trips. How we manage it is open to question, but there will be more trips.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Subsidies amount to picking winners and losers. It’s a good subsidy if the result is that the winners can pay off the losers and still come out ahead.

    It is pretty clear that DESPITE subsidizing farm crops, we have the lowest food prices in the world. I’m not sure ther are any losers here, despite the farm bills huge cost. And remember, that a good part of the subsidies are only available to farmers who perticipate in land conservation measures.

    “it’s only fair that if we subsidy farm crops in Kansas that those folks in Kansas subsidy Wash Metro rail…”

    I never said that, but if they are both good subsidies it doesn;t make any difference.

    Anyway, the argument is silly. The fed funds are fungible. We can just as well argue that all the kansas crop subsidy come from kansas as we can argue that Metro money comes from kansas.

    Oh, but some areas are net senders and some are net receivers. Now all you have to do is explain how the winners make the losers better off.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There are a little over 9000 miles of rail transit in the U.S.

    There are 226,000 miles of nonrail transit.

    There are 8.33 million highway lane miles.

    Tranit meets about 2% of our travel needs. Even if you are crazy enough to think that transit can reduce our nontransit travel by half, you can see that substatntial sums would have to be spent to get transit up to speed.

    If the 9000 miles of rail transit are carrying 0.5 percent of our travel needs, then we would need 100 times as much to meet half opur travel needs. 900,000 miles.

    At $25 million a mile that’s 22,500 billion.

    Just for construction.

    After that, about half the travel will be subsidized around 50%, if it meets todays standards. But, as fuel prices go up, you can afford to charge users more for rail travel.

    After you spend 22,500 billion. Plus whatever it costs to move all those people and businesses to the station areas.

    Or, you could have a war on terrorism. Which you might need once half the population is riding around in railcars.

    And then you have to decide what to do about the 8.33 million highway miles. Abandon all? Half?
    Which half?

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “It would be interesting to see how many Vehicle Miles Driven they rack up in the land of $6-per-gallon gasoline compared to here in the United States.”

    and then this:

    “It is not feasible for “commuting” as it was thought of in the 20th centruy to be a 21st century activity.”

    This is precisely why I asked the question about – would higher oil prices .. or let’s just cut to the chase – higher commuting prices – even if it is not oil but electric

    lead to less aggregate-mode VMT?

    IF EMR is correct – there must be an optimal VMT…. regardless of mode -right?

    So.. it would be useful to not only see a chart of VMT vs fuel cost but would it not also be useful to see a chart of aggregate-mode VMT verses fuel cost?

    And .. then I would also ask EMR to render an opinion as to what aggregate-mode VMT should be for a Balanced Community NUR.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “So.. it would be useful to not only see a chart of VMT vs fuel cost but would it not also be useful to see a chart of aggregate-mode VMT verses fuel cost?”

    Or rather, TOTAL costs for personal miles traveled plus ton miles shipped. Fuel is only part of the equation.

    RH

  19. Single Avatar
    Single

    “IF EMR is correct – there must be an optimal VMT…. regardless of mode -right?”

    But EMR isn’t correct, he has his ideology but it isn’t in step with a vast majority of the United States.

    The automobile has made this country the greatest country in the world. It opened opportunities that previously didn’t exist; at least not on the scale that they existed after the automobile became affordable to the population. Every time I read one of EMR’s posts I think back on the time where some people lived and died in a place and during their lifetime never ventured more than 20 miles from where they were born.

    I live in a place where some of EMR’s ideas have tried to be implemented – granted to a lesser extent than the draconian measures that EMR would have us live. Like any living situation there are a group of people who embrace those ideas and that lifestyle. Then there are those like me who scorn it and would feel like an animal in a cage living like EMR wants me to.

    Rail is fine for moving goods, in fact it does a GREAT job at that. For moving services and people, it’s day is long since past.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “VMT reductions in 20 years range from 10% to 20%, compared to the future trend
    scenario, are achievable with reductions in emissions and fuel use roughly
    proportionate to the decrease in VMT, while supporting the same level of future job
    and housing growth. In most studies, the highway levels-of-service are the same as, or
    better than, the trend scenario.

    The studies reviewed also suggest that these reduced-VMT scenarios generally produce
    higher transportation system productivity, positive net user economic benefits, greater
    equity in the distribution of transportation system benefits, reduced congestion delays,
    and a reduction in other adverse environmental impacts.
    The most-effective policy sets combine land use policies, such as compact growth, with
    strong transit provision and not expanding highway capacity. The addition of auto pricing
    policies, such as fuel taxes, work trip parking charges, or all-day tolls increases the
    effectiveness of the land use and transit policies. Peak-period tolls, by themselves, increase
    travel.”

    Victoria Transportation Policy Institute.

    I’d be curious know how they decided that the most effective policy sets include more compact land use.

    On the other hand, it isn’t hard to see how raising the prices for auto use and not providing more service would tend to decrease that use.

    Supporting the same level of job and housing growth but directing it to certain areas does not addess the equity issues involved. Again, one wonders how they know, other than models that have not yet been verified.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you beleie VTPI’s statement that more compact structure still leads to improved hosuinga nd deeleopment opportunities, then how do you reconcile it with this?

    “Groceries Grow Elusive For Many in New York City”
    With Rents Soaring, Stores Are Being Demolished for Condos”

    ??

    RH

  22. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    RH:

    Interesting point about Victoria. I assume it’s Victoria, Australia. As luck would have it I am in Melbourne, Australia this week – in Victoria state. The transit system in Melbourne is very well run. But the land use patterns are a bit of a sprawl. They have congestion tolling, electric treet trams, trains, etc. It’s almost a Jim Bacon / EMR nirvana.

    So, how does Melbourne do what cities like DC only talk about?

    High taxes. Think 50% as a top tax rate for upper middle class wage earners. There’s also a Goods and Services tax. When I bring ex-pats to Australia the biggest cost is usually the tax equalization – not the housing or the trips home.

    You can overlay a modern, fuel efficient transportation system on a sprawled city – you just have to pay for it.

    Larry:

    “2. – What is it about NoVa (or for than matter any urban area) that leads one to believe that all taxpayers in America.. should fund those systems?”.

    As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again”.

    Do I “pay for” farm subsidies? Do I pay for roads in Kansas when the federal government provides funds for road construction in Kansas City? Or Farmville, Kan?

    Your recurring rant about other people paying for NoVA’s transportation system is blather. The Federal government is a whole lot bigger than the Army and the Navy. There are endless local projects that request and receive Federal funding. One example is the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. If you have a serious proposal for the federal government to only collect taxes sufficient for truly national programs – like border security or the military – you should make that proposal. The feds can lower thier tax rates and let the states and localities provide the rest. Until then – we are all paying into the federal purse who uses a lot of that money to fund local priorities that have nothing to do with the national agenda.

    That’s reality – no?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think VTPI is a Canadian Institute, and while they have some good information, they are blatantly pro-transit.

    When you get into the body of the text you find:

    “The median reduction in VMT in the 20-year scenarios for 31 exercises with adequate data was 2.3% but 11 scenarios resulted in reductions of 5% or more.”

    In order to get to the higher values reported above, and in a Eruopean environment.”

    “Increasing the cost of both auto
    travel and transit by 50% decreases travel and energy use about 10%. Increasing auto costs by 400% reduces VMT and emissions about one third.”

    And finally the real FAustian bargain comes out:

    “The effects of the various pricing policies were found to vary by region and often had negative effects on sprawl (increased sprawl) and so all must be studied individually and in combination with other policies.

    Increasing transit speeds increased sprawl unless accompanied by pricing and urban limit line policies. Increases in transit service often reduced road congestion and caused more sprawl. This finding shows that highways must be allowed to become congested, while improving transit.”

    In other words, place matters: you simply cannot say that rail is the only option.

    Then, if you find a place that works, you pay for it with major increases in auto use costs and the promise that it will reduce congestionand associated pollution. You do this, all the while knowing that you actually intend to keep congestion in place as a means to reduce transit initiated sprawl.

    Therefore, the very costs that are supposed to reduce traffic will not: you need the traffic to create the congestion and pay the fees that make transit work!

    If the same congestion exists, or the reduction is minor, then all or most of the energy spend constructing and operating rail turns out to be in addition tothe auto congestion and not in place of it.

    In spite of all this, they still claim a social benefit:

    “The VMT reducing policy sets increased economic welfare by 1,000-3,000 Euros per person (net present value over 20 years) and also reduced traffic accidents, ongestion, and noise.”

    but it doesn’t say whether this is NET of the 400% increase in auto costs charged.

    “The transit-only scenario assumed many Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, in exclusive lanes within the urban areas, and on highways to the outlying cities in the region….This scenario reduced VMT by 8% in 2025 and 12% in 2050.”

    “The MPO’s transportation plan assumed more freeways, more HOV lanes, more or wider ramps, and more Light Rail lines, was modeled with an urban growth boundary
    (UGB). This scenario reduced VMT 7% in 2025 and 8% in 2050″

    “The transit-only scenario was tested with a UGB. This reduced VMT by 15% in 2025 and 20% in 2050.”

    In other words, if we refuse to build new roads, offer only transit, and won’t allow people to live outside the UGB, you can decrease VMT by 20% (not an actual reduction, just compared to the growth that will occur under no changes) by the year 2050, if you increase auto ownership and usage fees by 400%.

    Yeah- buddy, I want to sign our grandchildren up for that plan so we can prevent sprawl and we will haved saved them some open space to enjoy.

    ‘Course, they won’t have any way to get there to enjoy it, but, what the heck.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    reality?

    blather ??? ouch ouch…

    here’s what I heard.

    NoVa subsidizes Kansas.

    Kansas subsidizes NoVa.

    As long as we keep doing business this way… what’s the problem?

    The problem is that as long as ANY region “thinks” that the solution to that regions problems and issues
    is not their responsibility and in fact, can only be solved with the generous help of the Feds and State – we make dumb decisions with respect to land-use and transportation.

    We’ve got this mindset that we can create a place like Tysons – and no matter how messed up it is – it really is not our responsibility but the FTAs or VDOTs.. because we subsidy Kansas and fixing Tysons is “owed” to us.

    I’m not just picking on Tysons…

    Just down in Fredericksburg, Va, we have the same mindset.

    Our folks down here think that it is the responsibility of VDOT to somehow fix what we’ve screwed up with our poor land use planning – predicated from the get-go on the idea that we’d never have to fix it and VDOT would.

    Groveton – you mentioned how Melbourne deals with their transportation and land-use problems.

    Does it surprise you that the money that has to come from somewhere – comes from the people in Melbourne instead of the folks in Sidney?
    … but I DO envy you Groveton.. for having the opportunity to travel the world.

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m looking at a map of Tysons:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tysons+corner+fairfax+va&ie=UTF8&ll=38.930237,-77.224617&spn=0.028777,0.062227&z=14

    note the map scale: 2000 ft

    note the MASSIVE Dulles Toll Road, I-495 and I-66…

    Massive road infrastructure – and then … repeated long and often – the idea that Tysons .. does not have “enough” roads….

    and I’m trying to conceive in my own mind.. where else you would put roads in Tysons…

    I’m not minimizing the problem, believe me, I’ve been there and it’s not a place that I willingly visit.. in fact.. I have to be drug kicking and screaming to that place..

    but one does have to ask.. what exactly would you have done differently?

    Is there a ‘lessons learned” for Tysons?

    I still think it’s looks like a perfect location for Cordon tolling by the way.

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: VMT

    of course one way to deal with VMT would be instead of trying to “catch up” with it…which some folks think is like chasing a mirage .. i.e. trying to build one’s way out of congestion..

    why not make a target VMT the goal?

    figure out what VMT reduces or wipes out congestion time delay losses – and then formulate a policy that makes a target VMT the outcome-based goal?

    Now.. let me guess.. RH is going to come back and say that VMT tracks with GNP and such a policy really is a policy to reduce your GNP.

    but then I would counter back that doesn’t congestion time delays ALSO REDUCE GNP?

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “NoVa subsidizes Kansas.

    Kansas subsidizes NoVa.

    As long as we keep doing business this way… what’s the problem?”

    It’s a philosophical thing. You can pretend that every dollar you pay in federal taxes is parceled out proportionately to every federal contract or project. That way you can be offended at everthing the feds do that you don’t like.

    Or you can pretend that your dollars are spent on your projects and sleep happy.

    You can pretend that Kansas dollars upport kansas projects – up to the point at which Kansas projects exceed the amount of Kansas dollars paid – plus whatever benefits the Kansas dollars spin off to other places. I imagine that Booz Allen has some business in Kansas that benefits NOVA.

    Stop worrying about it and get some sleep.

    ————————-

    “as long as ANY region “thinks” that the solution to that regions problems and issues
    is not their responsibility and in fact, can only be solved with the generous help of the Feds and State …”

    Probably often true, but not necessarily true. Don’t let dogma get in the way of reality. There are some good (and temporary) transfes. Would Hoover dam have been built with local funds – user pays? Even if you think Hoover dam turned out to be not such a hot idea after all (hey, it’s renewable energy), you still get the point.

    ——————————

    “folks down here think that it is the responsibility of VDOT to somehow fix what we’ve screwed up with our poor land use planning “

    And you don’t think that the land use planning that put Fredericksburg jobs 50 miles away was bad land use planning? That DC, Arlington, and Fairfax (and now PW and Loudoun) capitalizing ont he geographic accident of jobs, but exporting the housing, wasn’t bad planning? That those job providers don’t expect someone else to provide them with heroic transportation efforts in order to supply the raw materials (personnel) they need?

    Is your idea of good land use planning to set aside enough land (belonging to someone else) so that your street is never crowded? Anmd you don’t think that is exporting your costs?

    —————————–

    I wonder if the people planning transportation in Melbourne had thirty years of “no new taxes” to deal with.

    ——————————

    “it’s not a place that I willingly visit.. in fact.. I have to be drug kicking and screaming to that place..”

    In the end, the market will solve the problem. Isn’t that what you are telling us?

    —————————-

    TAMU has showed us that (those places that wish to) CAN build their way out of congestion. On the other hand, if you do nothing, you surely cannot build your way out.

    HOW you do it, what it costs, who pays the costs, and who reaps the benefits, are the only real questions. We can fix Tysons if we choose. We may not bea ble to fix Tyson’s and F’burg simultaneously, but what if the solution for Tyon’s was to fix F’burg – make it attractive enough and with all the fixings – so you would never have a reason to be drug to Tyson’s.

    —————————–

    “figure out what VMT reduces or wipes out congestion time delay losses – and then formulate a policy that makes a target VMT the outcome-based goal?

    Now.. let me guess.. RH is going to come back and say that VMT tracks with GNP and such a policy really is a policy to reduce your GNP.”

    Absolutely not. I think you are on the right track – even though you preveiously said we don’t need to “figure anything out”.

    Here is where I think you fall off the track: …”formulate a policy that makes a target VMT the outcome-based goal?”

    Would you make that the goal at any price? I don’t think so. If the policy to reach that VMT goal costs more than the congestion (plus the congestion related pollution) it prevents, then why do it?

    Maybe the best (and cheapest) policy is to wipe out only 20% of the congestion. (OK, you did say reduce or wipe out congestion.)

    VMT is closely correlated with GNP, but let’s not get carried away. GNP is also dependent on the gas we waste in congestion, and the cell phone calls we make while waiting, etc.

    The idea is to increase productivity with the least amount of waste. Overcorrecting on any activity increases waste. If I steer my boat or airplane too much, it slows dwon progress and sucks up energy.

    So, GNP varies over time, and the best (most economic) level of congestion may also vary over time.

    So, what you need is a feedback mechanism that depends on both the value of GNP (produced in that area) and the cost of controlling congestion in that area.

    Total costs = cost of controlling congestion in that area + cost of not controlling congestion in that area, where one of the “costs” is the gain or loss of GNP generated through inadequate control, justright control, or too little control.

    We probably need to figure that one out.

    RH

  28. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I think we’ve gone too far on the “everybody pays in” an the ultra powerful central government sets the priorities. We need a smaller, more focused federal government and a smaller, more focused state government. Of course, that would mean a bigger local government. Thinking of Gerry Connolley with more power is a somewhat freightening thought but I still think that the government that governs closer to the people governs better for the people. When I am stuck in traffic, I want a local politician to harrangue. When I see that Fairfax County schools are among the best in the country I think it’s the local politicians who deserve credit. The federal government must assure the national defense – a task they accomplish pretty well in my mind (meaning quality of US military).

    But what does the state government do? What is their logical place? The Constitution (brilliant as it is) is an old document that never envisioned the current structure of the United States. It’s time to reduce the power of state government. It is time to join 45 other American states and recind major portions of Dillon’s Rule. The General Assembly has a very limited legitimate role in modern Virginia.

    Larry – You would envy my travel less if you saw me get off the Qantas flight from Melbourne in LA on Friday morning and then run through LAX to get to the United flight over to DC.

    I love being in places like Australia but I hate getting there.

    Finally, I (personally) would pay higher taxes to have a transportation system like they have here in Melbourne. I think it especially helps those of lesser means. People can live in an affordable area and work in the expensive areas downtown. Meanwhile, everybody moves along whether they take the tram, train or (expensively) decide to drive. The people I know here are all pretty well to do. They all commute on the trains. The American ex-pats working here all communte by car when they are in the US. The Aussies have a pretty good plan as far as I can see.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I still think that the government that governs closer to the people governs better for the people.”

    Me too. I’d like to send all mytaxes to that local guy. Then if the state needs money, they can negotiate ith him instead of beating up each citizen individually. When the Feds need money, they can negotiate with the state.

    Why have governments that are simultaneously bottoms up and top down – each trading money to subsidise each other: with all the attendant overhead and transaction costs. The whole system is topsy turvy.

    “The General Assembly has a very limited legitimate role in modern Virginia.”

    In Massachusetts, they have pretty much gutted the county, and most government is carried on at the town level.

    “The Aussies have a pretty good plan as far as I can see.” And they have a plan to pay for it that is not based on “no new taxes”.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More