Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Hide Your Highways

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The anonymous blogger who publishes the “Urban Richmond” blog loathes the four- and six-lane highways that slice through America’s cities. In this recent post, “Good Idea #1: Hide Your Highways,” he explores ideas for diminishing the disruption of highways on the urban fabric. Drawing examples from different cities, he proposes two solutions: (1) Elevate the highways and build underneath them, or (2) sink the highways so you can build over them.

Ambivalent Richmonder cites approvingly the practice in Columbus, Ohio, where the Ohio Department of Transportation hid an elevated highway by building retail shops underneath. From the street level, you can hardly tell there’s a highway at all — the shops are knitted into the urban fabric.

The author also cites the City of Richmond, where structures have been built over Interstate 195 through downtown. One is a parking deck and sidewalk that connects the twin Riverside towers to the rest of downtown; the other is the Kanawha Plaza, which does the same for the Federal Reserve Bank. Such structures are expensive, of course, so they can’t be built everywhere. But they do create economic value by preserving the integrity of the urban fabric.

Ambivalent Richmonder travels far and wide in his quest for good ideas for urban transportation and land use. Readers of this blog should add him to their bookmarks. (Hat tip to Jon Baliles for steering me to this website.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

48 responses to “Hide Your Highways”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    s u r e ……..

    but would it be cost-effective and pay for itself?

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    some ideas.

    Check out Tampa’s new Reversible EL that ends in the downtown.

    It has transformed the peak hour commute in that region.

    http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/172

    Next.. check out the NYC City Traffic Toll Plan:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/nyregion/08congestion.html

    Put these two things together… to have most of the downtown trip destinations on EL’s that terminate at Parking Garages where both shuttles and plug-in electric zip cars are available.

    A fee would be collected electronically on the EL (like Tampa) – and that fee would include parking and shuttle.

    The zip cars would be not only rentable with your EZ-Pass but they would be automatically dispatched (via wi fi network and GPS) after you leave it.

    People that still wanted to drive could do so – for a cordon fee but they would not be allowed in the downtown area served by shuttles and zip cars.

    The only conventional vehicles allowed would be emergency and truck deliveries (outside of normal hours).

    With the advent of electronic tolling and localized Wi-FI networks in urban areas -there are tons of opportunities to transform cities into primarily pedestrian and pedestrian-friendly vehciles areas – through automatic electronically collected fees – rather than taxes.

  3. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Jim Bacon –

    San Francisco and Washington DC are
    two great American cities in which
    stiff public opposition killed the
    construction of a major freeway along the waterfront in the first
    city and across the second one.

    I-95 in Richmond was built in a
    poor, minority part of the city.
    It truly does the split the community in half and is an eyesore
    by today’s standards for such projects.

    The Federal Highway Administration
    would do well to explore the selling of air rights above this
    freeway for future development in
    downtown in Richmond.

    There will be a point in time when
    the city will be built out from
    I-95 back down to the river and
    expansion east over this freeway
    will make economic sense.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tampa EL looks great.

    How about an elevated loop around Tysons with a BRT circulator.

    Looks like it would be vastly cheaper than rail and would serve more of Tysons.

    The Tampa EL demonstrates that with toll roads and innovation there is a lot of capacity that could be added to I-66, the Dulles Toll Road, or the Beltway.

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Amended Post:

    Two classics of roadways “under” are:

    The I-5 Park(s) in the Core of Seattle.

    The Prudential Center and other developemets over the Mass Pike in Boston.

    See our discussion of elevated shared-vehicle systems in column “All Aboard” 16 April 2007.

    The problem with elevated roadways is they have no “station” to serve the immediate area. Therefore it is best to bury them.

    Also see our discussion in End Note 9 of “All Aboard” concening the cost of the Interstate system not accounting for severance /disruption of Dooryards, Clusters / Neighborhoods / Villages and Communities.

    If all roadway building fairly allocated these displacement costs roadways would cost more and subsidize Autonomobile travel far less.

    EMR

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    i agree, this North American Union thing Bush has pushed us into by signing the S.P.P. has us Texans feeling really down. The Trans Texas Super corridor is a mass of highways, railways, pipelines and powerlines that can be as wide as 1200 feet and swallow as much as half a million acres of private Texan’s land. The thing is, no one i knew in Texas supported it, but they passed the building of it anyway.

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    But they do create economic value by preserving the integrity of the urban fabric.

    This might be true, but it is far from obvious to me.

    Boston’s Back Bay was built by filling in a wetland: you could never do it today.

    To now say that the Prudential center is economic and preserving the urban fabric seems a little fetched.

  8. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    To All-

    The country and impacted states
    should support the recently
    announced plans by the Norfolk
    Southern Railroad to upgrade the
    rail lines from New Orleans to
    New Jersey to capture more cargo
    movement and remove trucks from
    our interstates.

    Nationally, we need to support
    such efforts for they would reduce
    our need to build more super
    highways that damage the urban
    fabric of our communities.

    EMR (8:57 pm posting) is correct
    in his comments about I-5 in
    Seattle. It requires a major urban
    center to make such a concept work.
    More mixed-use projects and larger
    high rise buildings in downtown
    Richmond need to be encouraged.

    It then will follow that as the CBD
    is built out using air space
    over the freeways (I-95 and
    the Downtown Expressway from
    the West End) becomes even more attractive
    and a viable opportunity.

    The lack of a good, state planning
    department to work with our transportation
    officials and local
    governments is a void in our state
    that hinders our ability
    to take such planning concepts to
    another level.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “The lack of a good, state planning department to work with our transportation officials and local governments”

    What happened to a Regional Planning perspective?

    The problem, as I see it, is localities planning as if their actions affect only themselves and even if there are adjacent jurisdictional impacts – that if it serves the direct interest of the locality that benefits – so be it.

    I note the Reality Check exercise is done on a Regional Basis – and one of the most important (I think) realizations that came out of it was the need for Regional Comprehensive Land-use Planning.

    I do agree that a state level planning agency is also needed – but to coordinate between Regions not within a Region.

    What specific functions would the state perform with respect to Regional Planning that could not be properly done by Regional Planning?

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Nationally, we need to support
    such efforts for they would reduce
    our need to build more super
    highways that damage the urban
    fabric of our communities.”

    but NS is not proposing to build rail instead of road in the cities themselves.

    I’m not sure how rail from New Orleans to New Jersey will divert traffic from the urban fabric …

    .. okay.. so we need to better define what the “urban fabric of our communities is”.

    Is it downtown Washington DC or is it all the places around washington that experience truck traffic?

    Ditto.. Fredericksburg.

    Even if you took all trucks off of the interstates around Washington and Fredericksburg…

    …. as long as we have thousands of long-distance commuters driving at rush hour.. twice every day – all you’d get is a temporary reprieve from the freed-up capacity by not having the trucks.

    Economic growth .. will ensure that population would continue to grow with thousands of new commuters and then you’d be back to gridlocked roads – sans the trucks.

    right?

    My point is that .. yes the trucks are a part of the problem but the bigger problem in urban areas like Washington and urbanizing areas like Fredericksburg is the use of cars to commute…

    yes.. the trucks make the mess worse – but even if you outlawed them.. growth will simply replace the space with … cars… and we’re still back to square one with the fundamental problem which is commuters …the majority of which want to not only drive at rush hour – but they want to drive SOLO at rush hour.

    The problem is .. that we will never be able to build enough highway capacity to provide congestion-free SOLO commuting.

    There is simply way too much available land.. that even if developed .. minimally.. will still generate far more auto traffic .. that we can provide road capacity to serve it.

    That is.. unless you want the interstates to be 24 lanes and the major primary roads to be 12 lanes.

    .. and if that is the preferred answer – then fine – let’s set up an equitable system to pay for it – and the people who pay the most should be the folks who use it the most -the SOLO rush hour commuters.

    We should not be taxing folks in the rural parts of Va to pay for roads for rush hour SOLO commuters who probably make 3-4 times the salary of the folks who live outside our urban areas.

    The urban commuting problem should rightly belong to the urban commuters – the ones who want to commute SOLO twice a day on highly congested roads.

    As long as we have a system where others are taxed to pay for those who commute – there is absolutely no incentive for them to do anything but enjoy the new roads – paid for by others.

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    A word about smart growth and commuting.

    When you build “Smart Growth” in the Fredericksburg Area – and, in fact, any exurban community that has a large percentage of commuters –

    .. all you are doing is build more dense communties of … commuters.

    .. if you really wanted to control the NUMBERS of commuters – you’d limit land development to one house per 20 acres.

    When you rezone that land to allow 100 people on it – you’ve just generated 100 times the number of commuters…on local roads and on the interstates to their urban jobs.

    Of the 10 trips per day per home – in an exurban commuting area – like Fredericksburg – it’s the two of them at rush hour that is the issue – not the other 8 that are often done outside of rush hour.

    Folks need to recognize that “Smart Growth” in exurban commuting areas means, in effect, commuting on steroids….

  12. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “Smart Growth” is “Balanced Growth.” When you add houses when you should be adding jobs you are building Dumb Growth.

    You build residential neighborhoods at five to ten units an acre because you are looking for the lowest cost of services. Smart Growth requires building communities.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so… if you build ten units to the acre – only 2 of them – work locally… and the other 8 commute 50 miles …

    … then what is accomplished by building the 10 units per acre?

    .. Wouldn’t it be better to NOT build the 10 units per acre and save the 8 commute trips?

  14. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Larry is looking at the problem from a rational point of view. As long as VDOT subsidizes the commuter trip, the developer makes more money by building for commuters. This is why congestion pricing is an important tool.

    If you look at the question from the developers and their elected enabler’s point of view you build where you can make the most profit. Developers build in locations where VDOT and the existing community subsidizes the new residents. They don’t use “Smart Growt” in their decisions. They do use “Smart Growth’ in their advertising.

  15. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Larry Gross, Jim Wamsley –

    This started out as a posting and
    discussion about how to make freeways more attractive in our
    metropolitan urban regions.

    What is that got to do with attacking
    developers and smart growth efforts?

    Go figure.

    Larry Gross, interstate highways
    are the domain of the Federal
    Highway administration, thus the
    need for state planners and transportation officials to deal
    with issues of air rights, such
    as what Seattle has used over I-5.

    Upgraded rail corridors will need
    be done by the federal and state
    governments and the railroads.

    Virginia has already recognized this
    need relative to meeting
    the demands along I-81 and improving rail lines
    from Hampton Roads to Midwest markets.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “….all you’d get is a temporary reprieve from the freed-up capacity by not having the trucks.

    Economic growth .. will ensure that population would continue to grow with thousands of new commuters and then you’d be back to gridlocked roads – sans the trucks.

    right?”

    Maybe. But it seems tomew that the capacity you would save is only the long distance trucks, going through to someplace else. All the local truck traffic to Walmart and Giant, paper and office supply trucks, etc. would still be the same, or as Larry points out, worse.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “What is that got to do with attacking developers and smart growth efforts?”

    well.. I’m not attacking developers – but asking for clarity with respect to what the benefit of building “dense” (Smart Growth) is .. and is not to exurban communities (like Fredericksburg) who have high commuting populations .. which does have a connection to the idea of burying freeways in urban areas

    because.. why would you need a freeway to start with.. ???

    well.. you need it for all those folks who don’t live and work in the city but instead commute…

    In other words.. instead of building more housing units that go UP in the cityscape.. we want to let folks commute 50 miles and then arrive in underground freeways – paid for by who ?

    would it be the folks who commute or the folks who live and work in the city?

  18. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Larry Gross, Ray Hyde and others –

    Jim Bacon’s posting about hiding
    highways is being corrupted by your
    need to continue to use this blog
    for your personal agendas … so be
    it.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “When you build “Smart Growth” in the Fredericksburg Area – and, in fact, any exurban community that has a large percentage of commuters – “

    It isn’t smart growth unless it also includes the local jobs needed to support it.

    Likewise, adding additional ob growth where there isn’t the housing and other amenities needed to support it is also not smart growth.

    We may think it is unfortunate or not, but for many people amenities means yards and cul-de-sacs. I was recently looking at a huge (and still unfinished) complex of townhouses. These are three and four storey homes that appeared to be only 18 feet wide.

    Such spaces cannot support any activities other than eating, sleeping, reading, and watching tv. Everything else is going to involve a trip somewhere else where the desired amenities exist. Such amenities might be as arcane as a car wash or pharmacy.

    “As long as VDOT subsidizes the commuter trip, the developer makes more money by building for commuters.” Sure enough, and exactly the same thing can be said for Metro, as long as we subsidize it, they will make the most money by benefiting from the subsidies.

    In either case they make the money by offering something that is desireable to their customers, and it is the customers who really benefit: in other words, all of us, and all the taxpayers.

    But, if we already have our home(s), then it is easy to feel that WE are not benefitting, when of course, we are.

    “Wouldn’t it be better to NOT build the 10 units per acre and save the 8 commute trips?” Sure it would be better, if you can stand the sight of all those homeless and jobless people. But those people have already happened, they are going to live somewhere and do something to survive.

    I happen to think that it is to all our benefit to make sure that happens at the lowest cost, and in the most economic and environmentally friendly manner.

    In doing so we should recognize that someone benefits or profits from most everything we do or allow and someone also benefits or profits from most everythng we prohibit. Everything we do, allow, or prohibit also has some externalities, so most everything we do also harms other people.

    I don’t see any point in constantly demoniing developers, or anyone else that benefits from the rules we have made. An entire industry has sprung up around Sarbanes-Oxley: an industry effectively “subsidized” if you will by government regulations. We are willing to tolerate that in order to (try to) prevent another Enron. We think it is to our benefit, even if we now pay for all those reports each time we go to the store.

    As EMR says, it is all a question of balance. Developers build where the existing communities “subsidize” the new residents. Someone will profit from the new rail corridors, and those corridors will “subsidize someone, somewhere.

    My response is, “So what? What else is new?”

  20. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Ray Hyde –

    You and your partner Larry Gross –
    so many words, but no constructive
    solutions to our problems – just
    more negative commentary – Bacon’s
    Rebellion is Bacon’s Black Hole with no hope ….

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I actually think there ARE solutions.. once we all are willing to recognize some realities AND take some ownership of the solutions.

    In my view, the problem is that the more “free” roads that are built around urban area MSAs – the more folks will use them – because the perception is that they are “free”.

    And these are not folks who are poor and looking for minimal (affordable) housing… as often portrayed; they are, in fact, fairly well-paid folks looking for “more” house to go along with their expensive gas guzzling SUVs that they want to drive solo at rush hour.

    Let’s be honest. The average person in Va does not make salaries like urban area commuters and most live in much more modest circumstances and many any don’t even have equivalent health care.

    And yet, we keep the fiction that our commuting congestion problems cannot be solved by us – that others “the State” must rescue us.

    Is the answer to the issue – to have a State level Agency “teach” us how to plan better .. or to raise taxes on the modest incomes of many so that more commuting roads can be built for those better off economically?

    My “constructive” suggestion is that we’d probably be better served if we took more responsbility for problems of our own making.

    And now – with the advent of technology – electronic tolling – we do have an opportunity to make a dent in the problem which I feel is far more constructive than standing by for 20 or more years whining about a lack of money to “fix” the roads.

    Now… if someone was ALL in favor of having commuters pay their fair share of the costs – AND THEN they also wanted a state level planning agency – again – to be paid for by those that need/want that agency – then we’d be fully on the same page… and wouldn’t that be cool?

    But sorry… I’m not about to propose that we need to raise the taxes of a guy who drives a coal truck for a living in SW Va..or the Post Mistress in Martinsville to pay for those who commute to NoVa.

    I think the first step – the proverbial “constructive” solution is for us to “own” this problem.

  22. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Larry Gross –

    Our transportation system built
    our country.

    You want to punish the average
    Virginia resident, who can least
    afford some of your socialistic
    views about how to manage our
    transportation system.

    A toll is a tax….if it is tossed
    in a basket at a booth or collected
    electronically.

    You have your facts wrong about
    SW and Southside Virginia residents funding Northern
    Virginia highway improvements.

    For years Northern Virginia’s
    revenues have been funding needed
    services in SW and Southside Virginia.

    During a recent trip down there,
    I used a four lane Rt. 460 out of
    Blacksburg to Giles County.

    Much of Rt. 58 in that part of the
    state in now four lane.

    While back home, you and others in
    Fredericksburg who killed the Outer
    Connector, insured our congestion would get worst, while
    the funds for that project have been
    used to make road and bridge upgrades in West Point.

    I do not think you really care
    about the guy driving a coal truck
    in SW Virginia or the post mistress
    in Martinsville.

  23. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    p.s.

    Larry, what does any this have to do with Jim Bacon’s posting about
    improving freeways in urban areas,
    as has been done on I-5 in Seattle?

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are all forgetting the restrictive zoning laws that prohibit the construction of adequate housing in the inner suburbs are the real cause of all this dysfunctional development in the outer burbs.

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    My only agenda is that if you are going to present economic justifications for political positions, then you had better be able to back them up with proven, measurable facts. And you should be prepared to show how those arguments apply equally to your own agenda, because economics are politically neutral.

    I do not offer solutions, because I do not have an agenda, or an affiliation. I believe the best solution is to allow everyone to work out their own solution: That the greatest public benefit is the sum of all the individual benefits.

    I believe Roger is right: “For years Northern Virginia’s
    revenues have been funding needed
    services in SW and Southside Virginia.”

    And I don’t have a problem with it. Whatever we do, allow, or prohibit benefits some and hurts others. The best thing we can do is allow people the freedom to adapt.

    I disagree with Larry when he says

    “And these are not folks who are poor and looking for minimal (affordable) housing… as often portrayed; they are, in fact, fairly well-paid folks looking for “more” house to go along with their expensive gas guzzling SUVs that they want to drive solo at rush hour.”

    I disagree because he is making unsupported generalizations. Do urban commuters make more than the general VA population? Probably. But their lifestyle is also more expensive. They spend a lot of money which goes to support people who live much more modestly.

    But, here is an example. Larry thinks urban commuters make 3 to 4 times as much as the average Virginian. The real numbers are that the Virginia per capita income is $33,671, Fall Curch income is the highest at $41,052. True enough, there are places like St. Charles, VA where the per capita income is $10,133. In that respect, Larry is correct, but how many people are in St Charles, Honaker, and Nicklesville?

    I do not know what the proper balance is. How much should those modest dwellers expect to pay so that their employers can travel far enough to support them?

    Their employers could “choose” to live in much more expensive housing, or more modest housing at the same cost. Presumably this would mean an end to 30 mile traffic jams. It would also mean and end to support of those on the fringes.

    But, what would happen on Friday afternoon when they all choose to escape the city for the weekend?
    At the end of the day, “the State” is us, modest dwellers and wealthy alike.

    “The state” spends its money politically, as Roger has shown. Larry thinks that congestion tolling will reduce congestion. I think it will move congestion someplace else. If Roger is right, then it will (eventually) move to Farmville, or someplace else that (presently) has excess capacity.

    Capacity that was paid for by wealth urban commuters.

    My “constructive” suggestion is that we’d probably be better served if we looked more closely at what causes our problems than we will be by simply putting an electronic price on them.

    I think Deena is right: we do not know who is really subsidizing whom. We would be better off to forget that argument, and focus on what makes economic sense.

    I do not think it makes economic sense to try to move 3.5 million people in and out of the city every day. Not by auto, and not by Metro.

    Equally, I do not think it makes economic sense to put all the homes those people need in the city where their jobs are. I don’t think it makes sense because, if you do that, you substitute moving all the goods these people consume and all the waste they create for moving the people themselves.

    If you do that, then you concentrate all your problems in the areas where they are most complex, most dense, hardest, and most expensive to solve.

    Finally, when Larry says “I’m not about to propose that we need to raise the taxes of a guy who drives a coal truck for a living in SW Va..or the Post Mistress in Martinsville to pay for those who commute to NoVa.”, I think he is pandering, disingenuous, and probably wrong.

    If we raise taxes, we don’t raise them only on the coal truck driver and postmistress. By law, we must do it on a basis that affects everyone, everywhere.

    The result is that far more taxes are raised in the urban areas: there isn’t enough money in the rest of the state to make much difference. And the result is just as Roger has stated. It is just EMR has stated.

    Those people in Farmville and Blacksburg and Giles county: they are the ones that have had their roads grossly over subsidized. That is why they have excess capacity, not to mention plenty of peak hour capacity.

    The problem is .. that we will never be able to build enough highway capacity to provide congestion-free SOLO commuting.

    “There is simply way too much available land.. that even if developed .. minimally.. will still generate far more auto traffic .. that we can provide road capacity to serve it.”

    Again, I disagree. In New Mexico and Montana you can drive for hours and seldom see another car. They have a LOT more roads than they have people to use them. If they can do it, so can we.

    BUT, if you look in New Mexico and Arizona (in the Urban areas) all of a sudden there are congestion problems.

    I think building 24 lane urban interstates is insane. Putting them underground is even more insane. I can’t imagine any economic justification that makes the engineering and construction worthwhile. Think of the ventilation problems: It will be a huge neighborhood NIMBY problem.

    I think that if you need more than two lanes, then you probably need to build someplace else. And, economic analysis shows taht you can cary more vehicles on two two lane roads than you can on one four lane superhighway. And you can do it for a lot less money. But, those people cannot travel as far, or at such high speeds, therefore, you need more places that they can reach.

  26. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Anonymous (10:41 p.m.)

    Three cheers for you – your comments about zoning driving up housing costs and forcing our fellow Viriginians to move from the inner suburbs to the outer suburbs to find housing is right on the money.

    Ray Hyde (10:51 p.m.)

    Thank you for your ideas.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The issue of building elevated/underground freeways in urban areas in some respects goes to the heart of urban commuting because in my mind it demonstrates just how out of touch with reality the concept is – IN THE CONTEXT – of dealing with the root causes of congestion in our urbanized and exurban commuting areas.

    In a word – we are unwilling to deal with simple realities, take ownership for the problems as well as the solutions.

    We want “free” highways that support SOLO SUV rush-hour commuting (including elevated/buried freeways, “affordable” single family homes for folks who make higher salaries than average.

    It’s certainly true that the coal truck driver and postmistress and their fellow citizens do not pay for urban roads and that the reverse is true but the folks who DO live in urban areas and commute believe that the answer to the congestion is – for the State of Virginia to “step up to the plate” on transportation.

    In other words – raise taxes statewide to generate the funds necessary to continue the fiction of “free” roads for those who are fairly well off and choose to commute SOLO – in gas guzzling autos.

    This increased taxes would include the coal truck driver and the postmistress – neither who earn anywhere near what the average NoVa commuter earns and neither who really sees a need to raise taxes.

    Then we have the argument that a toll is a tax. It’s not true but it’s especially not true when the Fredericksburg to NoVa commuter is paying it – and the folks in SW Va are not.

    Rodger alludes to a local road proposal – part of a lowball $500 million dollar for which there was NO MONEY for an area that received 50 million dollars a year for ALL of it’s transportation needs – and they blame the demise of this bogus idea on the folks who “stopped it”.

    So my question is.. what happened to all of the money that was saved when the road was blocked?

    and the answer is.. there was no money to start with…

    and the reason why there is no money is simply because do not have the will to accept responsibility for the problem.

    We don’t need to ruminate about subsidies if we have simple intelligence to understand that the problem is us – and the simple will to deal with the problem instead of whining about the State “not helping”.

    I am all for solutions and the simple reality is – that if a signficiant number of people want to commute 100 miles a day from Fredericksburg to NoVa – someone has to pay for that infrastructure – and who more appropriate to pay for it that they folks that want it?

    The same thing would go for elevating or buring freeways in urbanized areas – and we do – by the way – have an existing model – the Powhite Parkway in Richmond.

    and folks.. it is indeed – a toll road.

    Let’s get on with practical and EQUITABLE solutions on the commuting roads for NoVa.

    As with the TAMPA Reversible EL TOll Road – .. it’s a solution.

    It’s probably not perfect but it’s way the heck better than whining and pondering subsidy concepts.

    lead, follow or get out of the way.

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Outer Connector

    The supporters of this road not only did not care where the money came from to build it but they also did not care that the terminus of it would be in rural Spotsylvania and would provide a direct connection to I-95.

    Developers were literally advertising “easy-on and easy-off” access to I-95.

    Furthermore, VDOT’s own study showed that C/D lanes adjacent to I-95 would be more effective at moving traffic and relieving congestion but that did not matter to the folks who wanted the sprawl-producing version.

    Today… with the advent of high-speed electronic tolling – there ARE some options to build new roads in the Fredericksburg Area – but strangely silent are those who want the State to pay for those roads instead…

    It’s the same old, same old.

    For the proponents of “free” roads – there is (in my view) a stubborn refusal to deal with reality but more important – a refusal to accept responsibility for the problem.

    It’s about blame – not solutions – despite the rheoric.

    For decades in the Fredericksburg area- pro-development business and elected officials rezoned massively to provide profits for those who made money from development – all the while – telling citizens that the State would pay for the transportation.

    They did this even though they knew – we only had 50 million a year for projects.

    But they continued to tell the citizens that the State would come in and build the projects.

    They did this – even when Federal Law required them to not list any projects (like the Outer Connector) that did not have identified funding.

    In my mind, anyone associated with that mindset – then or now – is not dealing honestly and credibly with the challenges.

    My view is that if folks really want these roads – they should be more than willing to pay for them through tolls.

    When you put that proposal to them – they bail out and insist that it is the State’s job to take care of the problem.

    This mindset is really bogus in my view and when we get right down to it – those folks are the true opponents to solutions.

  29. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “My view is that if folks really want these roads – they should be more than willing to pay for them through tolls.”

    That’s OK for a starting point. But the real purpose of roads is to increase commerce, and increased commerce means taxes that flow to the state. It is only reasonable that an amount somewhat similar to that should flow back to the region the generates the commerce.

    It is unreasonable to have one group pay all of its costs, and then expect them to support others as well. Otherwise you have a one-way flow as described by Roger in the next thread.

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “..But the real purpose of roads is to increase commerce”

    exactly right – and commuting is not only not commerce but it actually degrades the utility of the road for commerce..

    I’m sure that folks have observed that the 18 wheeler guys – for the most part avoid I-95 and I-495 like the plague during rush hour and, in fact, some of them will actually divert to/from I-81 via US 29 and 17 or US 301 to get to/from I-95 south of Washington.

    re: “..It is unreasonable to have one group pay all of its costs”

    the “one group” is the folks who use the road the most – and cause the congestion on it – and themselves want more capacity.

    Who else should pay?

    In Nova – with the transportation authority – others will pay – with comprehensive fees on virtually everyone – and then we have those who are opposed to that method of raising money also – that it “unfairly” penalizes those who don’t commute at rush hour everyday.

    What would be a reasonably feasible alternative?

    increased gas taxes at the Fed or State level do not appear to be in the cards – and even if they were – it would take years/decades for enough money to be generated for projects of the scope of the Springfield Interchange…

    Like I said earlier – isn’t it time to stop whining and stop blaming others – and suck it up and get on with doing something constructive – both figuratively and literally?

  31. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Larry Gross-
    re: Outer Connector
    (6:57 am posting)

    You need share all of the facts with the readers about this highway
    you helped kill.

    This road:

    -would have eventually been a loop
    road around the Fredericksburg area
    similar to I-295 in Richmond and
    Rt. 199 in Williamsburg

    -it could have provided a means for
    trucks to get around the area up
    Rt. 17 and off of I-95, now one of
    the worst highways in the state

    -it could have provided a means for
    area residents to have access to
    to the local university adult campus on Rt. 17 and the community
    college campus south of town without using I-95 and the bad
    section of Rt. 17 between I-95
    and GEICO

    -it could have provided a means
    for area residents to get to the
    large employment centers along
    Rt. 17 north of town

    -and it could have provided major
    relief for Rt. 3 west of the city.

    Larry, your spin on this road is
    unfair to the motorists around
    Fredericksburg, who suffer daily
    because of the efforts by you and
    others to kill the Outer Connector.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Hmmm.. who is responsible to the motorists around Fredericksburg for massive land-use rezones when
    it was known that there was no funding for the proposed roads that the public was being told would be built to serve the growth?

    I think the citizens of the area were lied to by elected officials and their business community supporters who stood to gain from the growth but did not care how the roads would be built.

    But you do have the option now of PPTA toll roads. Any PPTA entity can make a proposal – and Fredericksburg Area leaders are free to consider any/all to bring some relief to the area residents.

    Where are the leaders on pursuing solutions – right now?

    oops.. there are whining and blaming others… so much for leading.

  33. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    larry gross –
    (7:04 pm posting)

    Jim Bacon’s commentary about the
    design of urban highways was a
    constructive essay that should
    have stimulated some constructive
    responses.

    Your continued use of his blog to
    beat the drums about your gripes
    against the world do little to
    add to such a discussion.

    I only digressed with you for you
    used this space to make statements
    that are false.

    Virginia’s transportation problems
    have their roots in the lack of
    adequate funding from Richmond and
    poor planning at the state level
    that could have encouraged some of
    growth over the last three decades
    to rebuild our cities and urban
    areas.

    My wife and I have visited some
    great cities in North America,
    most recently Vancouver, BC which
    is a model of good urban planning.

    We need a good transportation system and better plan communities
    to insure as good future for our
    state.

    The sniping, snickering, elitist
    comments by the likes of you will
    never help your community realize
    the potential it has not yet found.

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We can do better – much better – and the first step is to understand that our problems and our solutions are OURS – and it is our responsibility to deal with them.

    Blaming others and expecting others to tell us what to do – without change and action on our part is what? It’s talk and inaction.

    Vancover is not Fredericksburg.

    Richmond is not Fredericksburg.

    Is the idea that Fredericksburg does not have the “right” folks and that Vancover and Richmond do?

    We have our own problems and we are responsible for doing more than blaming Richmond for a lack of planning and funding when we screwed up the planning ourselves and we refused to reconcile simple realities about money.

    We, as individuals, do not expect others to come to our homes and tell us what needs to be fixed – and then front the money to fix it for us – gratis – and yet that is what I hear as the answer for our community.

    We have our own community – we have the responsibility to deal with the issues – responsibly – rather than stand around blaming Richmond for not planning and for not giving us other taxpayers money and pining away about Portland and Vancover when we are perfectly capable to go forward in our own community – using the good ideas that other communities have had success with.

    What would have happened to Portland and Vancover if they had adopted the Fredericksburg approach to problem solving?

    That’s the problem in my view.

    And it applies to ANY community.

    Blaming others (including those who point out our shortcomings) for our own lack of commitment to plan and budget within our means is not problem solving AND.. more important, it’s not leadership.

    Portland and Vancover did not blame others – they rolled up their sleeves and did what needed to be done to improve their communities – and I can guarantee you that citizens were directly involved as opposed to it being the vision of the business community.

    THAT is what we need to emulate in my view.

  35. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    In my view – one the biggiest differences between the way we do business in Va and other places like Portland and Vancover is Regional Planning.

    One of the Fredericksburg Areas biggiest failings is a lack to plan regionally for transportation and land-use.

    Each locality tends to it’s own interests – regardless of whether it’s plans “mesh” with the other localities in the region.

    There are two huge examples.

    Individual locality Comprehensive Plans that designate land-use – specific to the interests of each locality rather than on a region-wide basis.

    This has led to a “war” on commercial development – to the detriment and harm of everyone.

    Many other examples of how our region does not act in the best interests of the Region.

  36. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    ..”commuting is not only not commerce but it actually degrades the utility of the road for commerce..”

    Of course commuting is commerce. It supports the businesses that conduct commerce, and that is why the businesses should pay for the transportation need caused by their poor location choices. As we have seen, Google has stepped up to the plate on this.

  37. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “one group” is the folks who use the Metro the most – and cause the congestion on it – and themselves want more capacity.

    Who else should pay?

  38. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “they should be more than willing to pay for them through tolls.

    When you put that proposal to them – they bail out and insist that it is the State’s job to take care of the problem.”

    The state benefits from the commerce the roads support. Locals who use the roads should be willing to pay major portions of the cost, but to the extent that the sate benefits, it should also pay part of the cost.

    As Deena pointed out, it is sometimes hard to see (or admit) who benefits.

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Perhaps commerce is commuting and vice versa… but I gotta tell you that figuring out what it ought to be called – is not the same as figuring out how to respond to the congestion that it causes.

    Are we saying that commerce causes congestion that …. eventually strangles … commerce – and it’s someone elses fault?

    Oh.. and all of this .. it’s the fault of cross-jurisdictional subsidies?

    hmmm.. I’ll have to go off and ponder that nugget for a while…

  40. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Are we saying that commerce causes congestion that …. eventually strangles … commerce – and it’s someone elses fault?”

    Pretty much, yes.

    Commerce and the jobs it creates are the attraction that causes the nuisance of congestion. Commerce is the root cause of congestion.

    Anthony Downs points out that our congestion problems are directly a result of our affluence: during the recent tech bust we saw traffic in many tech centers decline.

    Here are a couple of othe nuggets from Anthony:

    “Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) would permit more residents to walk to transit, thereby decreasing private vehicles on the roads. But (1) the number of such “transit circles” within each region would have to be very large, (2) the residential density within each circle would have to be much greater than the average central city density in 2000 and (3) the percentage of workers living in the TODs who commuted by transit would have to be at least triple the 10.5 percent average for central cities in 2000. Moreover, the shift of TOD residents from using private vehicles to transit would soon be offset by the principle of triple convergence. “

    and

    “Even if the nation’s existing transit capacity were increased fourfold and fully utilized, morning peak-hour transit travel would rise to 11 percent of all morning trips. But that would reduce all morning private vehicle trips by only 8.8 percent — hardly enough to end congestion. And that tactic would be extremely costly.”

    Don’t expect TOD or Transit to alleviate traffic congestion, or if you do, then expect to be disappointed.

    I do not know what the effect of cross juridictional subsidies is.

  41. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Commerce and the jobs it creates are the attraction that causes the nuisance of congestion. Commerce is the root cause of congestion.”

    so… we cause congestion on purpose by promoting commerce but.. we are not responsible for the congestion it causes – and it is the fault of someone else?

    Here’s the deal.

    We say we want growth and commerce .. it’s a strategy that we engage in – on purpose – but we cannot be responsible for the downsides of that strategy?

    In other words.. we can only plan for commerce and it’s benefits… not it’s impacts?

    plainly: .. “we cannot plan for congestion impacts – we can only plan for commerce and it’s benefits”.

    okay.. so don’t let me put words in your mouth… so let’s see if a more satisfying statement can be stated.

  42. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    We say we want growth and commerce, but why do we plan in such a way that we allow it all to be placed in such a way that getting there causes massive congestion and waste?

    If APF is a requirement for residential growth, why not for business growth?

    Simple. We believe that commerce brings money and residences cost money. It is a lot harder to turn down money than it is to turn down losing money.

    OK, where does commerce bring the money from? Residences. Where do residences get the money? Commerce.

    Why would we plan for, or allow planning for, a situation that requires us to drive thirty miles to bring money from one place to the other?

    Maybe one of the APF’s we should consider is jobs.

    Anyway, the idea that commerce and affluence is the root cause of congestion comes from Anthony Downs. Take it up with him.

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Anyway, the idea that commerce and affluence is the root cause of congestion comes from Anthony Downs. Take it up with him.”

    but you brought it up and apparently buy into it – right?

    I really don’t disagree with the premise.

    A certain amount of congestion is indeed a healthy consequence of economic growth.

    My problem is that we also KNOW the over-the-top consequences of explicit strategies to attract business (and residential) growth.

    And folks.. residential growth – make no mistake – is business growth. The premise is to provide housing – but we all know it means business opportunities also.

    We actually KNOW what the traffic generation is – for different kinds of business and residential activities.

    AND… we actually argue that BRAC and the Fed moving their employment centers around – has profound impacts on traffic and congestion – and we DO demand from them some level of compensation to offset and mitigate the relocation impacts.

    But when it comes to Private Business including residential growth – we do what?

    Well.. we welcome them with open arms…often we use taxpayer money to sweeten the pot to attract them…

    .. and we often ignore the obvious and known traffic consequences – until After the Fact – at which point we bemoan the congestion

    .. and this is the part that REALLY get’s me going…

    Business and Elected of the impacted areas say that the STATE should HELP them own this problem

    .. which is simply another way of saying that they want tax revenues that were generated oustide of their own region…. otherwise.. why would they be making the appeal to the State to “help”?

    I agree .. there is an argument that the state is collecting more sales and other taxes from SOME of the economically-vital areas – like Fairfax – but does anyone really think that if the state rebated a substantial portion of that money that it would be spent on cost-effective responses to traffic congestion?

    Of course not – because…

    the folks who want the growth – and the benefits of the growth – are simply not interested in the impacts… it’s somebody elses problem in their minds.

    Their frequent mantra is “we don’t have the money.. because the State refuses to adequately fund our needs”.

    And I feel that such an attitude both from the business community and the elected officials – the same ones who promote the growth – is ..in a word – irresponsible.

    If these same folks did the same behavior with respect to poor planning of water/sewer – there would be endless lawsuits and thousands of people after their respective hides… and rightly so.

    But they do essentially the same irresponsible behavior with respect to not planning adequately for transportation impacts of pro-growth policies – and they get a walk.

    Why?

    The simple answer is that for decades in Va… local business promoters and the elected officials were free to approve land-use development – no matter the impacts – on the really stupid premise that whatever was needed – no matter the cost – would be built by VDOT – who would get the money from the “state”.

    It’s a system that could not have been designed any more perfectly to promote profitable land-development activities at the expense of not planning for the infrastructure impacts.

    There is a reason why we are not like Portland or Vancover or have our highways hidden by elevating or burying them – it’s (at least in part) because many in the business community (and their elected supporters) do not see profit opportunities in good planning.

    In my view, If we want to look more like Portland or Vancover – citizens need to be part and parcel of the vision to advocate for the quality-of-life issues that actually would result in better planning and better communities.

    Without their effective involvement – you get what we have – souless places designed to serve business interests.

  44. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “…do not see profit opportunities in good planning.”

    Without profit opportunities, how can we call it good planning?

  45. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “…but does anyone really think that if the state rebated a substantial portion of that money that it would be spent on cost-effective responses to traffic congestion?”

    If you had enough money, then you could afford to spend it on responses that are not cost effective. That still might be more cost effective than doing nothing, assuming we only plan to build our way out with roadways (or transit).

    But what if you spent the money relocating the cause of congestion instead? What makes you think the money would go to Fairfax, anyway? Aren’t the commuters from outlying areas and isn’t that where the money should be rebated?

    They could then use the money to subsidize new office buildings to compete with Fairfax. Instead of using it to subsidize roads that generate waste, use it to subsidize buildings that create productivity.

    (I mean real office buildings and “nerdistans” if you like, not some shabby flex warehouse out by the landfill.)

    Your comment suggests that nothing can or will be done that can alleviate congestion. I agree, and so does Anthony Downs. Like I said, HOT lanes will be good for those that can use them, and everyone else will still have the same problems as today.

    You can never solve congestion with more facilities designed to pack more people into the same space.

  46. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “What makes you think the money would go to Fairfax, anyway? Aren’t the commuters from outlying areas and isn’t that where the money should be rebated?

    They could then use the money to subsidize new office buildings to compete with Fairfax. Instead of using it to subsidize roads that generate waste, use it to subsidize buildings that create productivity.”

    Now you ARE talking like EMR!

    so .. you’re avocating taking the sales taxes that Fairfax generates and use it to buy office buildings in Fredericksburg… wow!

    How do you know.. that it is the building that is why they locate in Fairfax.

    Fredericksburg – right now – has multiple office buildings right next to I-95 that are vacant and available (after Capital One went away).

    I don’t think it is the buildings. It’s access to human captial.

    re: “Your comment suggests that nothing can or will be done that can alleviate congestion”

    nothing could be further from the truth. I’m saying that congestion can be allieviated – if the same folks who approved the rezones also spent the time required to plan and pay for the necessary infrastructure upgrades to mitigate.

    The problem is that these guys are all in favor of the growth… but have no interest in dealing with the adverse impacts. They see that job as not theirs… even those they had a role in creating the problem.

    That’s why your businesses who locate in Fairfax – believe that it is up to government to deal with the infrastructure issues.. not them.

    I still point out that we go to the Fed to get money for congestion mitigation when they do BRACs and the rationale is that they must do “their share” and yet we have a blind eye on the same exact issue with regard to private businesses. Why?

  47. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Geez, Larry. We are talking about F’burg residents who go to Fairfax to work. They bring home money and spend it at home. They pay state income tax at home. The businesses in Fairfax pay taxes that go to the state, too.

    I don’t see any reason why the citizens of F’burg who commute to Fairfax in order to support businesses there should have to pay 100% of the cost of the roads (or whatever) needed to get them to those jobs without some recognition from the state that they are the human capital responsible for a flow of funds to the capital, some of which is forwarded to the state by the Fairfax businesses.

    Those businesses are responsible for the congestion, and they should help relieve it.

    No amount of money is sufficient to fix the transportation upgrades needed to fix Fairfax, and even if the money was available, it still wouldn’t happen. So, you need to look for another solution.

    Frankly, I don’t know why a business locates in Fairfax: it sure isn’t the easy transportation situation. But, if there are vacant buildings in F’burg, then it is because the price is too high.

    Take some of that money and “subsidize” the price of moving productivity to F’burg, or take it and “subsidize” roads and the use of them to move that same productivity (in the form of human capital) all the way to Fairfax and back every day.

    “if the same folks who approved the rezones also spent the time required to plan and pay for the necessary infrastructure upgrades”

    But the rezones are in and around F’burg. Who is going to pay for the upgrades if it isn’t F’burgers? I’m saying that since the real purpose of all that stuff is to support Fairfax businesses, then Fairfax business ought to expect some of their funds (funneled through that black box in the capital) to be exported to F’burg to help their employees.

    Put another way, Fairfax is monopolizing all the juicy business money, and exporting all their residential problems. In this case, Fairfax is the user, and Fairfax should pay.

    There are cities that have just such a “reverse commuter tax” for just the reasons mentioned.

    It is up to government to deal with the infrastructure issues, and it is up to them to see that the bill gets sent to the right users.

    When they get the bill, then those Fairfax users will have a “choice”: They can stay in Fairfax and pay the tab, or they can move to F’burg into a nice subsidized office building, put there to reduce congestion in and to Fairfax, presumably one with adequate streets.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Fairfax is monopolizing all the juicy business money, and exporting all their residential problems.”

    hmmm.. do you consider Fredericksburg commuters on NoVa roads at rush hour to be … “exported”?

    🙂

    This is why I support tolls.

    It becomes a legitimate cost of taking the job – and the employer has to deal with it in terms of whether they want to pay that commuter more salary to help offset the cost of commuting – which is more expensive so as to pay for the extra infrastructure that is needed for that commuting.

    Make sense?

    That way, you get government out of the equation and all those complicated formulas.. that the government ..you can bet.. will screw up.. out of the equation.

    It becomes two simple transactions.

    One for the user who pays to help provide the necessary commuting infrastructure – and the second one – between the commuter and his employer for the higher costs.

    Who knows… the employer might decide …that telecommuting is cheaper than paying employee tolls or.. what they hey.. he might move her business to Fredericksburg where all of his commuting employees actually live!

    Have I sold you on the concept yet?

    🙂

Leave a Reply

Read More