Implications of Shrinking Trade Deficit Hitting Home in Hampton Roads

I hate to say I told you so, but… I told you so. Back in February, I took note of major shifts in global trading patterns resulting from the declining value of the U.S. dollar. In “The Inscrutable Meaning of the Shrinking Trade Deficit,” I noted that a weaker dollar would translate into greater U.S. exports and lower imports. That’s Economics 101 — not exactly a leap of genius. But I went a step further, writing:

[Virginia] lawmakers are being urged to make massive infrastructure investments based on those global trading patterns. Hampton Roads is undergoing a massive expansion of port capacity predicated on the view that the volume of imported containers, mostly from China, will continue basically forever.

Rising imports implies the need for more trucks — and highway capacity. But a leveling off of imports suggests that the anticipated surge in truck traffic may not materialize. What worries me is that the business-political establishment of Hampton Roads will plunge ahead blindly with its monumental road improvement projects, saddling the region with a massive extra tax burden in order to handle an increase in imports that never materializes.

Now comes this news from the Daily Press:

For the first time since before 2003, annual revenue for the authority’s terminals is projected to fall by nearly 7 percent in 2009, a decline officials attributed to a continuing economic downturn and the specter of losing two major customers to Portsmouth competitor APM Terminals Inc.” …

“If you look at the trend in the last few months, I think our volumes have been down three of the four months,” said Joseph A. Dorto, president and chief executive of VIT. “We look out there, read the newspaper and see what the economy looks like, and we think the rising cost of fuel, energy and food are going to cause people to cut back and not spend as much and buy as much.”

In other words, the shift in global trading patterns is now being felt in Hampton Roads. What’s not clear from the Daily Press story is how much of the anticipated 7 percent decline in container traffic represents a loss of state port business to private terminals in Portsmouth, and how much will manifest itself in a smaller number of trucks running up and down Interstate 64 and U.S. 460. Clearly, though, truck traffic, whether it originates from Norfolk or Portsmouth, is expected to decline.

Combine the port trend with yesterday’s post, “Vehicle Miles Traveled – Down 4.3 Percent.” Folks, we are experiencing a significant shift in the demand curve for transportation capacity. That’s a fancy way of saying that we won’t need as much new transportation infrastructure as we thought we did. Whether any of this will penetrate the consciousness of lawmakers before they convene this June to address transportation funding, however, remains to be seen.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So if you were planning for the next 25-30 years, would you make the assumption that the economic boom times are gone forever? And if the port traffic switches from the Port of Virginia to APM, does that mean fewer containers on the roads and rails (or just a different traffic pattern?) The second, I think.

    As for the dollar, to borrow a phrase, what goes down will come up. It will be strong again some day, perhaps soon. But a conclusion in search of data is almost always successful in finding some.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    While I agree with the point about planning ahead – whose job is this and what is the process for determining needed infrastructure and capacity for the future?

    or to put this another way – how much skin should government (taxpayers) have in this game?

    Do we think the State of Virginia has the expertise to comprehensively analyze and project 20 years of shipping logistics enough so to figure out what a cost-effective ROI is on infrastructure investments?

    This sounds like the ideal role for investors – who have their own money involved and a terrible role for bureaucrats who are using other people’s money.

    If future port capacity is such a good idea then why are taxpayers the investor of choice?

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 12:16, No, it would not be prudent to assume that the import boom times are gone forever. But that doesn’t make it prudent to assume that the boom times will roll on forever — especially in the face of the current evidence that they will not.

    Here’s the problem: Many of the road improvements are predicated on continuing boom times for imports. I think we can all safety agree that there is a risk that such an assumption may prove to be invalid. The question, then, is who should assume the risk of building the desired infrastructure?

    As it stands now, the Hampton Roads leadership wants to foist as much of the cost and risk as possible to general taxpayers and/or toll-paying motorists. For the ports and shippers, it’s a classic, heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. Heads (if the import boom continues), I get the roads I want; tails (if the boom collapses), the taxpayers are on the hook, not us.

    I still think the best way to resolve the dilemma is to privatize ownership of the ports of Virginia and apply the proceeds toward the transportation improvements that the maritime and shipping communities are looking for.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The growing weakness for American businesses is that more and more of them are highly dependent on government appropriations of one type or another — direct suppliers and users of infrastructure come to mind.

    Neither are bad per se. We need vendors of goods and services to sell to the government & sometimes the private sector can provide services more cheaply than can the government itself. Similarly, we need increases in infrastructure. But those investments should not be made to enhance someone’s real estate holdings.

    What if federal spending increases were held to the rate of inflation or roads and rail were built without regard to lobbyist pleas?

    How would Virginia businesses handle this? Is it fair to other businesses that don’t get government aid, etc. for the trough to operate?

    TMT

  5. “Similarly, we need increases in infrastructure. But those investments should not be made to enhance someone’s real estate holdings.”

    Likewise, withholding infrastructure improvements — the current “no new roads” philosophy implemented in Virginia — also enhances real estate holdings for existing buyers through artificial limits on the housing supply & access.

    “I still think the best way to resolve the dilemma is to privatize ownership of the ports of Virginia and apply the proceeds toward the transportation improvements”

    I’m sympathetic to this line of thinking, but the question arises — what would be the source of these proceeds? Port charges & fees? You’re basically asking for the cost of new roads to be passed on to the consumer in higher costs of goods. There’s nothing wrong with that, but we shouldn’t speak as if “someone else” is paying for these improvements just because the costs are hidden.

    Assuming privatized ports would run more efficiently than state-run ports, the net cost to the public would be less. If that’s true, it’s a good idea. The same analysis gives the opposite result for tolling.

  6. Oops — substitute “existing owners” for “existing buyers”

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think Bob meant enhances profits for existing owners, but the point is correct.

    I don’t see how you build anything without enhancing someone’s real estate holdings. Nor do I see how you prevent building without enhancing someone else’s. Case in point: Fauquier county. The county has had a long term antigrowth stance. From 2000 to 2006 median home price soared 176% form 176,000 to $399,000. while median household income went from $62,000 to $75,000. A gain of 21%. Local government salaries are around $35k, to $50k.

    In the entire county only 283 dwellings are affordable for those earning $50,000. It is a disgrace.

    ——————————–

    How would we have built Metro if it wasn’t for the argument that it would enhance development?

    Oh, yeah, but that’s the “right kind” of development, I know.

    If you are not going to enhance someone’s realesatate holdings, then you must be planning on completely breaking the link between land use and transportation.

    I don’t get it anyway. Why WOULDN’T you want to enhance someone’s real estate holdings? Have you got something against this guy? Would you build a road where it is not going to do any good, for someone? Don’t you want someone to be prosperous so he can come buy from you?

    On the other hand, if you expect someone to provide APF, cash up front, when do you suppose that will happen? Pretty much never, right? But then, that’s the point of APF to begin with, isn’t it?

    A better name would be NPF: no public facilities, because that is waht this is really about. No Public Facilities usually means Private – Keep Out. And like Bob said, that enhances the real estate holdings of existing owners.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Let’s go back to the sales tax referendum in NoVA.

    “Developer Contributions Now Exceed $1.2 Million

    “Developers have provided the bulk of the funding to pass the tax hike. Newly released campaign contribution reports show major new funding from highway builders, highway material vendors, and mortgage lenders.” http://www.nosprawltax.org/02files/charts/DevelDollarsBar.pdf

    A Long History Ties Developers and New Highways http://www.nosprawltax.org/02files/reports/DeveloperDollarsReport.pdf

    Sales Tax is Highway Robbery
    Developers Own at least 65,000 acres along Proposed New Roads

    Today, a coalition of smart growthers, environmental groups and civic activists took the media on a tour of thousands of rural acres – the setting for new highway corridors proposed for funding by the sales tax increase. They also released a map showing over 65,000 acres owned for speculative development along proposed new highway corridors found in the proposed sales tax package for Northern Virginia.

    “The Route 234 Bypass/Route 659 Relocated and the Tri-County Parkway do nothing to help 99 percent of the drivers in our region,” said Joe Maio of Voters to Stop Sprawl. “This tax increase isn’t about solving congestion, it’s about suckering the taxpayers into building more roads for developers, nothing more.”

    Cars were few and open fields aplenty as the Coalition took reporters on quiet country byways and even a one-lane gravel road optimistically called the Loudoun County Parkway. Rising out of the countryside and a short distance from that gravel road, a symbol of speculative exuberance, MCI/Worldcom, sat amid the hundreds of acres it has for sale. The company, or its successor, would be a direct beneficiary of any funds expended to build the Tri-County Parkway from Route 7 down to Prince William County.

    “This is why we call this tax increase a Trojan Horse,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “While they talk about transit, the real reason for this tax is to have taxpayers subsidize these new highway corridors and open up thousands of acres for sprawl development. Why else would the real estate, construction, and development industries pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the proponents’ campaign? This is nothing more than Highway Robbery, and we urge the voters to reject this tax package.”

    Farther west, the Route 234 Bypass/Route 659 relocated would slice between historic Manassas Battlefield and Conway Robinson State Forest, before running north past Beaverdam Reservoir – the drinking water supply for City of Fairfax and part of Loudoun County – and hitting Route 7. This road would follow the alignment for the Western Bypass pushed by developers and the Virginia Department of Transportation. “Nothing is sacred out here anymore,” said Jolly DeGive of Piedmont Environmental Council. “They want to surround this hallowed ground with highways and sprawl.”

    “Going back to 1981, the same people who pushed the Fairfax County Parkway, who pushed through the last ½ cent sales tax for roads, and have been pushing for the Western Bypass and Techway, are the ones who stand to profit,” said Chris Miller, President of the Piedmont Environmental Council. “In the early 1990’s they made Route 28 into a speculative development corridor. Today, when they haven’t even completed Route 28 with proposed interchanges, and haven’t come close to developing that corridor, they insist that taxpayers must pay for two more highway development corridors.”

    He noted that the early speculative expansion of Route 28 has already cost northern Virginia approximately $40 million in road funds to cover shortfalls in promised contributions from landowners in the corridor. “Their goal is to use the sales tax subsidy to fuel the next round of suburban sprawl, which will generate yet more traffic,” said Miller.

    There is a long history to the campaign by leading developer John “Til” Hazel and the development industry of Northern Virginia for new bypass highways. Til Hazel was instrumental in coordinating construction of the Fairfax County Parkway with his land speculation and development of parcels adjacent to the highway. In 1981, a business partner, William Wrench, was forced to resign from the state transportation board following efforts to route the Fairfax County Parkway past land that he owned and parcels owned by Hazel.

    “While this tax does nothing to reduce the daily traffic volumes on roads like Route 123 in Vienna, or Route 236 and 123 in Fairfax City, or Georgetown Pike, the development industry would siphon off tax-dollars to build new highways that benefit absolutely no one stuck in traffic today,” said Roger Diedrich of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club and a Fairfax resident. http://www.nosprawltax.org/media/releases/2002-10-01Robbery.html

    See the map also. http://www.nosprawltax.org/02files/maps/HighwayRobbery.pdf

    This has nothing to do with enhancing existing transportation facilities, but only with opening more areas for development or redevelopment. I have better uses for my income than helping this segment of the real estate industry. This is government-forced investment by taxpayers in someone else’s business enterprise, but without access to any of the profits. It fascism, plain and simple.

    “Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.” Sounds like the CTB and NVTC to me.

    TMT

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Developer Contributions Now Exceed $1.2 Million”

    So what? nosprawltax.org, smart growth inc., voters to stop sprawl, PEC, Sierra Club, and anybody else is free to raise money and make their own contributions to a PAC or for other projects. If it is really a problem, they should be able to get a half million people to kick in $3 apiece to get what they want.

    —————————–

    “Developers Own at least 65,000 acres along Proposed New Roads”

    So what? SOMEBODY is going to own it.

    ——————————

    “a coalition of smart growthers, environmental groups and civic activists took the media on a tour of thousands of rural acres “

    So what? How many of those rural acres were in productive rural use? Of those in use, how many were productive enough to pay their own taxes? There is a 25% chance that the taxes are paid with off farm income – that comes from the construction industry.

    ————————–

    “They also released a map showing over 65,000 acres owned for speculative development along proposed new highway corridors “

    So what? Speculation is supposed to be bad? It sounds to me like somebody put their money at risk to get what they want.

    The government can’t win on this. if they plan ahead and build a road to nowhere, they are wrong. If developers make a plan to build someplace, and make a plan for a way to get there, then the government is wrong for promoting speculation.

    If you really want to make a deal, then make a win – win proposition. Don’t come up with a proposal that says simply do nothing, forever: this is hallowed ground and the price is infinite.

    ——————————

    “Cars were few and open fields aplenty “

    Sure, if you want to reduce traffic, put up a forest. Then reconfigure our education program to teach people how to be forest dwellers.

    ——————————-

    “even a one-lane gravel road optimistically called the Loudoun County Parkway.”

    There are quite a few of those ion that neck of the woods. Every few months they put down another hundred tons of gravel, which gets churned up into dust coating the countryside, and kicked off the road into the drainage ditches. you should see the color the runoff from those roads turns the streams.

    There is one that’s five miles of unprotected dirt road, filling three small streams with silt every time it rains. Right in the middle of it, there is a little construction site dutifully surrounded by silt fence.

    They don’t pave the road because so few live there. It will take speculators to fix that problem, which the government has ignored for decades.

    —————————–

    “The company, or its successor, would be a direct beneficiary of any funds expended to build the Tri-County Parkway from Route 7 down to Prince William County.”

    And so would all the people who presently churn up that dirt road every day.

    ——————————

    “Today, when they haven’t even completed Route 28 with proposed interchanges,…”

    I believe two interchanges are currently under construction: the two most needed. If Chris Miller thinks that corridor isn’t close to developed, he hasn’t driven it during rush hour lately. It is however a prime example of imbalance: too many jobs in too litle space with not enough housing. Which is why people drive on dirt roads to get there.

    Miller is living in Fantasyland, after his organization repelled Disney. At least Disney would have provided the infrastructure.

    ——————————–

    “Their goal is to use the sales tax subsidy to fuel the next round of suburban sprawl, which will generate yet more traffic,” said Miller.

    This is the old induced traffic argument, first introduced 30 years ago and largely discredited for the past 15 or so. Which doesn’t prevent Miller from continuing to use it, long after its demise. More Fantasyland.

    ———————————-

    “While this tax does nothing to reduce the daily traffic volumes on roads like Route 123 in Vienna, or Route 236 and 123 in Fairfax City, ….”

    But it might someday.

    Problem is any proposed actual use of the funds, will be fought tooth and nail by the likes of the Sierra Club et al. At a recent hearing on a road widening project a citizen rose to ask how many trees would have to be removed.

    The planner explained what they had done to keep that number down to twenty.

    After a pause, the citizen asked, “Which ones?”

    With that level of “public participation”, how do you get anything done? And then to complain that the money isn’t well used…..

    Think how much money you could save with that level of public participation, if you just gave everybody a shovel. You could have built the ICC with the amount of public time and money that was spent on meetings, and had it done 15 years ago when it would have one quarter as much.

    —————————-

    “siphon off tax-dollars to build new highways that benefit absolutely no one stuck in traffic today” (in places where we didn’t build enough ahead of time to begin with.)

    When he says “siphon off”, he makes it sound like there ae existing plans for 123 and 236, which he would actually support. neither one is true of course. I call this kind of argument a “lie by false implication”.

    ——————————-

    “I have better uses for my income than helping this segment of the real estate industry. “

    Isn’t it true, that every time you buy a Starbucks coffee or an item at WalMart, some of your purchase money is “siphoned off” to build the next franchise?

    Why should your water or road bill be any different?

    If you are afraid someone else will make money, if you are convinced that it is a major rip off leading to huge windfall profits, then the thing to do is for nosprawltax.org, smart growth inc., voters to stop sprawl, PEC, Sierra Club, and concerned citizens of Vienna to get together, pool their funds and go buy stock in K. Hovnanian, van Metre, or Clark.

    Then you can take the profits and go buy up some hallowed land to sit on forever.

    Or until you get offered a better price.

    In which case you can buy more ground, or more hallowed ground. It is called making a profit.

    ——————————-

    I’m sorry. I refuse to buy the argument that says all builders and speculators come from the dark side. Some of them are friends, some are customers, some are vendors to me, some are members of my church.

    Sure, they are looking after their interests, and spending money to do it.

    nosprawltax.org, smart growth inc., voters to stop sprawl, PEC, Sierra Club, and anybody else is free to do the same, just as they are doing with this article. (They are doing a perfectly lousy, self defeating job of it, in my opinion.)

    Bad as it is, that’s the system we have. One way we measure what it is that amounts to the public interest, is how much money different groups are willing to spend to promote theirs.

    If the big bad construction industry is willing to spend a lot, it is because they believe they stand to make a lot by selling homes and offices to people who want them more than they want to prevent them. There isn’ta lot of stuff that gets built that doesn’t get sold or used.

    Unlike those thousands of acres of unused rural land.

    Jolly DeGive owns a lovely piece of property. No doubt she thinks it will be worth more if she can protect it. Her preferred method is to simply declare everything around it as “sacred”. Meaning its worth is infinite.

    So, she can form an organization and go buy land for cheap, which she thinks has an infinite value. From her perspective, she can’t lose.

    But, meanwhile, we have a lot of people who want to buy houses. Then we have nosprawltax.org, smart growth inc., voters to stop sprawl, PEC, Sierra Club, and anybody else trying to make sure that they can’t get them, only can get the ones they think are smart, and if they do get them they will be a lot more expensive. As a result, the developers have to go spend MORE money just to stay in the business of giving people what they want.

    ALL THAT EXTRA MONEY AND TIME BEING SPENT IS A WASTE. And yet these groups pretend to be environmentally and conservation oriented. If they feel that strongly about it, if they are sure it is a net benefit to society, then they should take the money they are wasting now, and use it to provide free down payments for homes in what they think are the smart areas.

    And guess what? If they ever show up with a meaningful plan to go DO something, as opposed to a plan merely to prevent everything, then I might contribute. But when they come to me with a sales pitch that sounds like that article, I think it is an affront to my intelligence. I think the kind of arguments presented are perfectly terrible PR, and counterproductive to boot.

    If you want to improve the community, then go do it. Don’t sit around and tell others what they can’t do. If you have a better idea than they have, then you will be more successful than them, and you will make money. People will buy what you sell willingly, and you won’t have to achieve it by force.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – We have plenty of transportation needs right here in Fairfax County. Every dime raised here could be used to improve intersections, widen bottlenecks, time lights, etc. Indeed, VDOT has just produced a cost study that indicates that making some, but not all, improvements needed for Tysons Corner alone total $580 million. Most of the big interchange projects have not even been costed by VDOT yet. (I emailed Jim Bacon a copy of the cost study.)

    Why can’t we spend tax dollars raised in Fairfax County in Fairfax County? Why should Fairfax County tax dollars be sent to build outer beltways when the beltway near me needs work? The outer beltway is designed to enrich a few landowners. It would do nothing for Fairfax County. Not a single dime of Fairfax County taxes should be spent on road projects outside the County until commuting here improves.

    TMT

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think NOVA as a whole has 27 percent of the state roads, 33 pecent of the population, and pays 40% of the road funding. NOVA roads are proabably more expensive, so I don’t see a problem with that distribution, generally.

    But, NOVA has 30% worse service than the rest of the state.

    More money is needed everywhere, and worrying about where it comes from and where it is spent is EXTRA MONEY AND TIME BEING SPENT WHICH IS A WASTE. COLLECTING NICKLES AND DIMES FROM A HANDFUL OF PAYERS IS A WASTE.

    We can’t afford it and we should stop bickering about who pays for what. What if we built the outer beltway? (I prefer the Eastern Skyline drive – put it right across the top of Bull Run Mountain. It coould be a memorial to the Eastern plane that crashed there so it would be hallowed ground. It’s location would inhibit any new interchanges.) suppose we build it and it diverts enough traffic to make your sections more bearable?

    Who cares if somebody makes money? Are we really that jealous? Do we really believe that when someone makes money it is stolen from us, somehow?

    We have big thing to do and we need big money to do it. In Fairfax and elsewhere. Mark my words, if the economy goes down the toilet, we will print money and build the roads with the next WPA.

    Take a look around. Do we have a lot of houses that nobody wants? Do we have roads that are not used?

    Do we have empty fields that are growing mostly invasive weed trees and deer to collide with our cars?

    Are we wasting our lives and thousands of dollars just waiting in line to get to WORK?

    Why do I think this is madness? Am I stark raving mad that I see things that differently, or am I right to despair at the waste we create in the name of “fairness” and the environment?

    I pay Fairfax taxes, and state taxes, and Fauqier taxes. I think Fairfax roads should get fixed, mostly with money that comes from Fairfax, but with some that comes from other places, because we need to continue to fuel the state firebox.

    Wherever it comes from, we need a lot more of it than two dinky toll roads will provide, and a lot better plan to relieve congestion and pollution.

    I’d suggest an obstructionist tax. Only in the proper spirit of spin caling things what they aren’t, let’s name it the public participation tax. Any one donating political funds pays it (Groveton’s Idea) And any one speaking at a public hearing pays $10. (to support the infrastructure, naturally: it’s a user fee).

    This is a win win. We either get enough money to build the stuff we need over anyone’s objections, or no one objects and we can get on with it.

    I think you should get Fairfax dollars, and other dollars too. But I think you need a lot more of both. Larry and the GA are thinking WAY too small. We need a Virgina version of Eisenhowers interstate plan, but it needs to include an intercity rail plan, regional airports, and a serious repopulation/reinvigoration of our smaller cities.

    Let’s get off it and move on with something that works, and people actually want.

    RH

Leave a Reply