Comments

16 responses to “Internet Reading for a Lazy Day After Thanksgiving”

1. 

   Larry Gross

   November 24, 2006

   traffic DOES move like water – but unlike water.. there’s someone in the car – who at the end of the trip is going to say – “DANG.. it took twice a long using back streets .. “

   We hear this from truckers and others who swear they will “boycott” toll roads.. which has about as much credence as someone who says they never, ever, for the rest of their lives buy anything from any big box or Walmart.

   yes.. when pigs fly.

   People are pretty smart. Even truckers.. if you want to treat them as different from “people”. 🙂

   At the end of the day.. it boils down to how long.

   If you brag to someone that you took a “shortcut”… and then they ask you how much time you saved and you say.. “Oh I didn’t save any time.. .but I avoided paying a two dollar toll” – they’re gonna look at you like you are warped – which I would submit that YOU ARE!

   Now I’m excluding the folks who by their nature.. choose “scenic” routes.. as a way of life… backroads through rural PA to NY rather than the Garden State Parkway…

   But let a trucker explain to Walmart that they are a day late because they didn’t want to pay $25 in tolls and that is going to be one unemployed trucker… Businesses KNOW that TIME is MONEY and most folks relate in the same way.

   For most folks.. there has to be some tangible advantage to taking a back road – beyond a change of scenery.

   Show me someone who commutes 50 miles and an hour each day who willing chooses that over 25 miles and 1/2 hour every day and I’ll show you a weird person.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Ray Hyde

   November 25, 2006

   50 miles in an hour, on a commuting route? You’ve been working from home too long. Try an hour and a half, or two hours if you use transit.

   I have a new assignment, and once again, I’m traveling 50 miles, through no choice of my own. (OK at some level I have a choice, but the alternatives are even less atractive.) Eventually, I may be able to undo the choices currently foisted on me, but until then the facts are what they are.

   I could do much of my work from home, but my government sponsor hates telework (I think because it diminishes his power.) He apparently hasn’t got the word yet on government telecommuting initiatives. He doesn’t even like car pools because then he can’t demand overtime. Apparently we have a long way to go in selling policy to the people that count, and making it work.

   Fortunately, he can’t complain too much about the carpool, peer pressure at least works a little. So I can get much of my sleep in the car pool.

   But, even if I drive, it still beats living 25 miles closer and having a mortgage in addition to car costs. And, I’d actually have to be thirty miles closer to be in Metro range, except Metro doesn’t go to where the government has elected to locate my office. And it is slated to move to suburban Maryland.

   Besides, the first 25 miles takes 20 minutes; its the second 25 miles that takes over an hour – even in the car pool lane. It can take a half hour to go five miles.

   Everyone has their own utility function. I’m not sure how many people are willing to invest $2 million in a biodiesel franchise to promote renewable energy. But, if somebody around here does that, then I’ll switch from hay to high oil corn or soybeans, meanwhile, I’m not holding my breath.

   Some people have a utility function that allows them to spend thousands on cosmetic surgery, others prefer travel to city living. There are a lot of wierd people out there, but it doesn’t make what they are doing wrong.

   Traveling 50 miles a day pretty much sucks, but I can’t very well move the farm. All I can do is prospect for something closer to home, once again. That’s the problem with the idea that we can reduce travel by redesigning our communities. It isn’t cheap, and it doesn’t necessarily work. Or it works for some people some of the time, and for everybody else we still have a problem.

   I’ve moved twice to be closer to my job, and three times my job has moved away from me. I can’t think of any city design that would have changed that, necessarily.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Ray Hyde

   November 25, 2006

   You will love my next contributions to the knowledge base. I haven’t submitted or referenced them yet, because I’m still reading and absorbing all the impact. But this is the short story.

   I have two studies. One points out, as I have said before, that transit is not nearly as energy efficient as people believe. It saves only 10 to 30% over private autos, and much less than that compared to hybrids. Furthermore, it points out that no amount of densification will improve the situation, and gives the reasons. As Larry points out, that still leaves the issue of where the energy and pollution is produced.

   The second study compares two studies of point-to-point travel habits in Minnesota, ten years apart.

   Not surprisingly, VMT has gone up. So has commuting time. And non-commuting travel time. But non-commuting travel time is by far the biggest slice of the pie.

   But the hooker is, that the differences are independent of where in the state they are measured. Minnesota has Minneapolis and St Paul, which have separate commuting patterns, and it has the rest of the (mostly rural) state. According to the study, settlement patterns are NOT a factor in the changes in travel patterns, because the changes are uniform across the state.

   It gets worse.

   The studies separated those that use auto only and those that use transit. From this they are able to tell that the longest commutes, in terms of time, are from those that use transit or mixed mode. Travel time went up for all the rings studied including what EMR would call R4. R4 and under went up less than those areas farther out, but it also included less growth in the intervening years. And there is the issue of self-selection. Overall the report concluded there is only small evidence to support the idea that densification reduces traffic, traffic congestion, or commute time.

   What they found was that transit does decrease auto use, but the reduction is not trip for trip. Depending on how you massage the numbers, it takes between 2 and 3 transit trips to eliminate one auto trip. This is similar to another study I have which found that walking trips were in addition to and not instead of car trips.

   So now, you have to ask, if transit saves only 30% on energy, and pays only 50% of its own true costs, and then reduces auto traffic by only 30%, and takes 20 to 50% longer, then why are we doing this?

   Surely it can’t be because we think that settlement patterns have anything to do with how much we drive, or what things cost (especially infrastructure), because we have at least some evidence that this isn’t so. I still think that transit has some advantages, but they are not the ones usually claimed, or at least not at the extent claimed.

   There has to be some tangible advantage to taking the back road. But maybe the advantage is merely that you can actually get there in a predetermined amount of time, as opposed to taking a crapshoot on congestion. That may be the advantage to transit as well – predictability.

   Finally, traffic is not like water. If it were, our problems would be over. If you have water in a pipe and constrict the pipe, water speeds up. Traffic doesn’t speed up when you constrict the pipe; it slows down, because traffic is a non-Newtonian fluid.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   Larry Gross

   November 25, 2006

   “There has to be some tangible advantage to taking the back road. But maybe the advantage is merely that you can actually get there in a predetermined amount of time, as opposed to taking a crapshoot on congestion. That may be the advantage to transit as well – predictability.”

   I think you’ve touched on a KEY point.

   There’s actually more uncertainty in back-roading… during rush hour I would think. It only takes one fender-bender or some local obstruction to destroy the reliability. At least on the major arteries, the traffic helicopters can actually warn you before you even get on them.

   And here’s another clue – what happens to METRO and VRE ridership when bad weather moves in or when a bad accident shuts down the beltway or I-95?

   Why?

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   Larry Gross

   November 25, 2006

   re: Transit vs Roads energy use.

   I think you’re on to a false argument – a common one but wrongheaded none-the-less.

   Which is more energy efficient?

   A solo SUV, a 4-person carpool in a hybrid or a 50 passenger commuter bus or a FULL Metro rail car with 100 people on it?

   Which is more expensive? A 100 passenger metro car with 10 people or 8 lanes of non-peak hour roadway with 10 cars?

   I would actually LIKE to see some HONEST apple-to-apple comparisons but most of these studies compare things like a half-empty METRO train with a free-flowing road moving an optimal number of vehicles (non-peak hour).

   and they talk about the operational cost of METRO exceeds the farebox recovery by 50% while claiming that roads do not “cost” because the gas tax pays for everything – which it clearly does not.

   It costs 3 billion dollars a year to OPERATE the road system in the Wash Metro Area. If you total up the amount of money that drivers pay via the gas tax towards those operational costs – it comes up way short.

   Where does the rest of it come from and why don’t these studies actually show apple-to-apple comparisons or operational costs for both Transit and Roads – as opposed to bogus cherry-picking comparisions?

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   Jim Wamsley

   November 25, 2006

   Once again we see reports that densification does not improve energy efficiency. This is easy to report because there are sweet spots for density. You can cherry pick your comparisons to avoid the sweet spots and prove your point. One sweet spot is within a quarter mile of a transit station with fifteen minute service. The other sweet spot occurs in urban areas with a density of between one and ten units an acre. Stay away from the sweet spots and you can prove anything you want.

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   Ray Hyde

   November 26, 2006

   15 minute service to where? One ten millionth of the world?

   Densification does not improve enregy efficiency because cities are the biggest energy sinks we have. Why do you suppose it is that cities have heat islands over them? Partly it is because they are over paved, but mostly it is waste ehat from all the energy being used.

   It doesn’t matter if the gas tax comes up way short, it was never designed to pay all the costs, and we have hired a government that sees to it we pay in many ways, Through income taxes because roads increase income, and through rela estate taxes because roads improve property values. And if we wnated to make the argument that gas taxes should pay all the costs, then wouldn’t we have to make the argument that metro fares should pay all the costs?

   Lets be enormously generous here. Lets say that Metro is as much as 40% more energy efficient than autos as far as motive force is concerned. And lets ignore all the other costs like lights and escalators and computers and night service vehicles.

   And lets assume that it only takes two metro trips to cancel out one equivalent car trip.

   The question is still the same. If it not a substantial energy savings, which clearly it isn’t at 40% savings and two trips to one, and if thousands of people who don’t use the system have to contribute to keep it running, and if it only serves a tiny fraction of the economic universe, and takes 30% longer to do so, then why are we doing this?

   This is as dumb as toast.

   We’ve been doing this for thirty years and traffic is as bad as ever. Metro ridership has never met its projections. And an awful lot of Metro riders still depend on cars to get to Metro.

   The fact of the matter is that Metro trains DO travel around half empty, and they always will, for reasons pointed out in the study. At 1.25 people per car and an average four seat car the auto load factor is 37%. Most rail systems would be hard pressed to match that. And cars don’t go anywhere whn they are empty.

   If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare real apples to real apples, not hypothetically full Metro cars. Or, if you want to compare pie in the sky scenarios to pie in the sky scenarios, then lets postulate equally a dense city that can run only on Metro and a disperse city that can run on 50HP hybrid cars running at sensible speeds and densities.

   The very best we can say is that Metro allows a number of people to go downtown who otherwise would be unable, and the cost of this additional downtown workforce comes at the cost of Billions, plus Millions more in ongoing annual subsidies. And the benefit of all this expense goes to who? Not the people who ride Metro, and certainly not to the people who pay for metro and don’t ride. It goes to those with downtown property interests that otherwise would have maxed out thirty years ago.

   What fiscal conservative can possibly get behind this nonsense? Where is the environmental platform that supports putting more congestion and more pollution in one place? How do you rationalize the idea that something bigger and more complex can be cheaper and more efficient, when we know these places have the highest costs and and highest taxes, along with antiquated and crumbling infrastructure?

   As far as I can tell, these reports were not agenda driven, and they correspond with other reports I have found. This isn’t Randall Cox or someone like that. As far as I can tell, the numbers are what they are.

   I still think Metro is worthwhile, just not for the usual fluffy reasons given. We ought to stop fooling ourselves and find out where the real benefits fall. Then we ought to plan the future of Metro, and its funding, accordingly.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   Larry Gross

   November 26, 2006

   The rationale for roads has always been that comparisons are not needed because roads are “self-sufficient” with regard to funding and that transit is not and is subsidized.

   This has never been true but the myth hangs on.

   We know that road users do not pay full costs and the current funding issues for transportation have further exposed the myth – and the gas tax, increased or not, is no longer going to be a longer-term sustainable funding source.

   HEADLINE: Va. road revenues less than expected
   Transportation cuts likely if tax shortfalls continue unchanged excerpts:

   .. their effect could be felt as early as this year if snow removal or other unforeseen costs are inordinately high.

   Virginia’s motor-fuels tax the 17.5 cents-per-gallon gas tax — collections for July through October were down 4.7 percent, or about $11.3 million, compared with last year.

   The state’s motor-vehicle sales and use-tax revenues came in 3 percent, or about $6.7 million, below last year for the same period.

   Both taxes also came in well below official revenue estimates.

   Higher gas prices and depressed auto sales account for the downturn in the tax collections, Reese said.

   http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191737409&path=!news&s=1045855934842

   Note the last sentence. “higher prices” depressed sales.

   Raising the gas tax.. is going to raise the cost per gallon which is… going to depress sales. You won’t net an increase in funds.

   and let’s talk comparisons … not hand waving..

   Right now – if it wasn’t for the 1/2% sales tax – we’d not even have enough money to maintain roads nor snowplow them.

   This is a billion dollar subsidy … Should we COMPARE this to METRO’s farebox recovery?

   So – to have a true apple-to-apple money comparison – you’d have to give 1/2% of the sales tax to transit to help offset their farebox recovery also.

   Correct? If not. why not?

   Now.. it’s usually at this point.. where road advocates abandon the apple-to-apple dialogue.. and begin “handwaving” with generalized assertions that “roads are better”… from a functional perspective… or other paths away from the cost-effectiveness path.

   And I find this kinda wrongheaded. For instance, make an argument that roads are better than “mass transit” – airlines. There are many places you could drive “cheaper” than fly – so why don’t folks?

   My point is that road-advocates judge transit with regard to the advantages that roads offer while ignoring the situations where transit is better.

   So.. even if someone can take transit in rush hour and get there 3 times as fast – the argument is that it doesn’t matter because transit is subsidized and roads are not – which is a demonstrable myth (see above).

   I’m not a transit supporter. I’m not a road supporter.

   What I’m for is cost-effective intermodal transportation solutions – NOT FACILITIES.

   This means what we build is not subsidized and is funded by user fees.

   The more we have government involved in transportation – the more failure we will have when it comes to cost-benefits because the customer is often not the focus – much less trying to deliver VALUE to the customer.

   If something IS a good idea and it WILL deliver value to a customer then the customer will be willing to pay for it.

   I think BOTH Metro and roads should be primarily TOLL/Farebox-based.

   For new facilities – I think PPTA should be the approach for deciding WHAT to build – as opposed to having VDOT or METRO deciding what to build and THEN seeking solicitations.

   For instance, instead of asking for bids for US 460 a “predetermined VDOT preference” – ask for bids for methods to add capacity between Richmond/HR and let the private sector use economics rather than politics in their analyses.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   Toomanytaxes

   November 26, 2006

   I think that I’ve posted this before, but it’s important to note that WMATA’s fares charge rail riders one of the highest percentages of costs (in the high 60% range) and bus riders one of the lowest (low 40s) in the U.S.

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    Ray Hyde

    November 26, 2006

    I don’t agree that road users don’t pay for the roads. The roads are paid for, and nearly everyone uses the roads and nearly everyone pays for roads, not just in gas taxes, but in real estate taxes and income taxes, and various kinds of sales taxes. End of story.

    If you like, you could say that roads are nearly 100% subsidized because we pay nothing or very little on a per use basis, but that is entirely different from saying that the users don’t pay.

    Same thing is true for housing. The argument is that housing is a net loss, but it is nonsense for the same reason: all the bills that get paid, get paid by someone who lives in a house, one way or another.

    I agree that the methods of payment are screwed up. But I make the same argument you previously made about land use laws: we elected the people who madeit this way, and therefore it is legal, even if you see it as unfair.

    If we make both roads and Metro primarily farebox based it will ignore completely the fact that real estate values depend considerably on the transportation available. That would really be giving speculators a free ride. If we didn’t use the sales tax to support roads we would be ignoring the strong correlation between sales and transportation. On an overall, system wide basis, I don’t see a basic problem with spreading the costs around, however the mix may be off.

    I don’t see any real difference between tolls and a gas tax set at the equivalent rate, except tolls require a whole new technology and bureaurcracy. If you claim that gas tax can’t raise the money because of cost aversion, then why would tolls be any different?

    Either way, it would raise the direct cost of driving, and this would seem to encourage more people to use transit.

    But, Winston and Shirley have calculated that if you charged enough at the fare box for transit to pay its own way, then transit would shrink to about 1% of the routes currently covered. Conversely they figure that if roads paid 100% of their costs roadways and auto use would increase by around 4%.

    Be careful what you wish for. The situations where transit are really better (MAY) be vanishingly small once we set aside the bogus pro-transit arguments and the bogus pro-road and bogus anti-road arguments.

    So, if you increase the road use fees through tolls or higher gas taxes then that amounts to a tax increase, unless you are willing to let real estate interests and users of commerce off the hook. Such a move might move more people to transit, but probably not,if transit also had to pay its own way.

    And such a plan would create hardships and have tremendous real estate implications that might take decades to stabilize.

    I’m with you: I’m not a transit supporter. I’m not a road supporter. What I’m for is cost-effective intermodal transportation solutions, but in the end, I don’t see how you can do that without facilities. And I don’t see how you can have cost effective solutions if, for example, we work on the assumption that alternative transportation options replace auto use on a one for one basis, when there is evidence that they don’t.

    I disagree. If someone could take transit and get to his destination three times as fast, that might be enough justification for a sizable subsidy. But the fact is that it takes something like 30% longer to take transit, or more. Therefore this should be counted as a disbenefit of transit.

    When I take the train to work, I first have to drive six miles out of my way, which is 25% of the distance to work. Then the train route is at least ten miles out of the way, and takes an hour longer than driving. If the train is only saving 10 or 15% of energy costs over a car, but it means you have to drive the car longer and the train longer, where is the energy benefit? Even though my fare is subsidzed substantially, it is almost not worth the effort and inconvenience, let alone the (additional) expense.

    I suspect that if we look at transit as a whole, that Winston and Shirley are right: it probably isn’t worth the (additional) expense, except for a very few sweet spots.

    I’d call THAT cherry picking.

    Here is what I don’t understand about your argument. You say that gas tax is not and cannot be a sufficient funding source because people will curtail use. Isn’t that exactly the point? And wouldn’t tolls have the same effect? Are you areguing that there is NO way to pay for the roads? Are you arguing that we should curtail use, even though we know it may wreck the economy and cause great hardship? Are you arguing that tolss will raise enough money, or are you arguing that tolls should replace the current tax on real estate “speculators”, which is most of us?

    My argument is pretty simple. We will not put all of the next two million people in transit oriented development, so we will have to put some of them in new places. We do need and will need more facilities, of all kinds, and in more new places as well as rebuilding what we have in old places. As much as we would like to see the “new guys” pay for all their new costs, as well as all the old ones we have so far deferred, it can’t possibly happen. In the end, those costs will be distributed throughout the economy, one way or another. It might be higher travel costs, higher housing costs, higher taxes, or higher business costs, but in the end we will all pay to some extent, and we will all benefit to some extent.

    Rather than raising bogus arguments designed to get the guy behind the tree to pay, we ought to diligently search for the real cost and benefit equations and distribute the costs accordingly. We need better metrics.

    On a larger level, EMR claims that the greatest value occurs in the city. (I’d disagree because I don’t think price equates to value, necessarily.) If we take his argument as true, then we’d have to say that the greatest benefit occurs there, and that’s where the costs should be assessed.

    This would, of course, decrease the relative value and encourage people to move out of the city, sprawl and eat up our landscape. So instead, EMR proposes to tax those in “locationally disadvantaged” places up to 10x more for the benefits that they mostly don’t get. So where would all tht money go? To the city. Your proposals likewise would charge people much more for traveling fifty miles to provide labor to those that chose or were induced to build in the city. Both of these means amount to taxing those that don’t benefit in order to help support the city, and yet you claim to be anti-subsidy.

    Meanwhile, the city is exporting its air pollution, its sewage sludge, its garbage, and its electrical requirements to the countryside. Simultaneously the city requires that the countryside remain pristine (which helps their real estate values) and provide the city with clean watersheds at no cost.

    It is a real conundrum. We need to figure out what is really going on. What are the input and output tables for each locality in the Metro region, and where does the money flow.

    THEN, maybe, we can have an intelligent discussion about what is equitable.

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    Larry Gross

    November 26, 2006

    “nearly everyone uses the roads and nearly everyone pays for roads, not just in gas taxes, but in real estate taxes and income taxes, and various kinds of sales taxes. End of story.” “…roads are nearly 100% subsidized [anyhow]”

    I don’t get it. Before you argued that roads pay for themselves with the gas tax and transit doesn’t…

    Now.. that it appears that the gas tax will no longer provide adequate funding for roads AND we’re already paying 1/2% in sales taxes…, you’re claiming that roads are subsidized anyhow… so go ahead and raise the taxes higher.. if roads need it.

    so … what I’m hearing is that because transit is subsidized and doesn’t pay for itself that we can’t raise taxes for transit but we can for roads – because even though they’re subsidized also…they provide us with many “benefits” that transit does not.

    ahemm… I’m having a great deal of difficulty here with sorting apples and oranges.. can you help?

    .. and then you say: “but it’s okay because we elected folks that created these subsidies..” and further that I think this is unfair.

    I don’t see it as unfair. I see it as opportunity for change. To more closely align fees with consumption – because the alternative is to raise taxes and continue with a status quo that is not – in the long run -sustainable.

    Time to fix IT … not let it “fix” us…

    .. and Ray… arguing that taxes are the same as tolls… or user fees… (remember the apple/orange deal?)

    Last time I checked… tolls, user fees, were for service and goods that you purchased for consumption.

    “fee for service” – you know…when you pay for a bag of popcorn at the theater… is that really a “tax”?

    When you get your electric bill or your car insurance.. do you also consider them “taxes”?

    I think… dear friend… those apples and oranges… just succumbed to a convoy of 18-wheelers and are definitely no longer in a form where they can be distinguished by mere humans….

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    Ray Hyde

    November 27, 2006

    Look. You can consider that roads are nearly one hundred percent subsidized, because we don’t pay as we use except for the gas tax and a few tolls. But The subsidy, if that is what you choose to call it, is also almost one hundred percent paid by those who use or benefit from the roads.

    That is not true for Transit. Transit riders take their subsidy from people who are also paying for the roads, especially and most conspicuously in the case of the Dulles toll road.

    Transit riders take their subsidy from people who do not use Metro, or seldom use Metro. That is an obvious and galring difference to me.

    I’m willing to concede that auto users benefit to some degree by having transit remove a lot of what would otherwise be competition and congestion.

    But it seems to me tht now cuts both ways, since Metro is equally or more congested than the roads. Everyone who drives help guarantee a metro rider a seat.

    At least when I’m driving, I get a seat. So, if you want to compare apples to apples, then let Metro gurantee me a seat and a seat belt, and an air bag. Let Metro guarantee I can leave the house at will, chosee a destination among millions of sites, set my own AC level, choose my own company, and my own music, and let me munch on an apple as I listen.

    Then talk to me about costs.

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    Ray Hyde

    November 27, 2006

    I don’t think I ever said roads pay for themselves with the gas tax. I have consistently said that I think the gas tax should be higher.

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    Ray Hyde

    November 27, 2006

    When I buy a bag of popcorn I have a truly free choice as to whether to buy it or not.

    Doing without travel is not much of a choice.

    When I buy a bag of popcorn, I have a choice of which theater to buy it in. And I expect the vendor to make a profit.

    In Viginia, I have little choice in road vendors, and I expect the state to provide the service at cost.

    As far as I’m concerned, when you give money to the government, it is a tax. I pay a “registration fee” of $350 for the privilege of keeping my land in land use. I consider it a tax. Calling it a registration fee is simply the county lying to me.

    I think the gas tax more closely aligns fees with consumption than tolls do. But I also think that roads (and Metro) increase the surrounding property values, and therefore property taxes are also what you call user fees. You use the land next to a major road, you pay the fees.

    Income is very closely aligned with the use of transportation. I not only drive a lot, I fly a lot, and my income would be substantially less if I didn’t. So I think it is fair to have a portion of road funds come from income.

    Let’s suppose that I make $100,000 a year by driving 50 miles to Fairfax each day, and it costs me the equivalent of $25,000 a year in time, car costs, and taxes of all kinds to do that. I’m still $25,000 ahead of the game.

    Now suppose I suddenly had to pay tolls of $25,000 a year in addition ($1.25 per mile). At that point I would be better off working locally in Fauquier and earning the local average salary of $50,000, so I wouldn’t pay the tax (toll), and I would’t have the extra $25k to spend and pay taxes on.

    In point of fact I would be better off working locally, but I would still be worse off over all, and so would all the vendors where I might spend that extra $25k.

    OR I could move, but that would easily cost me far more than $25k.

    What you are suggesting is lunacy.

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    Larry Gross

    November 27, 2006

    I think what’s been suggested is not lunacy… but likely outcomes to realities verses wishful thinking.

    Raising the gas tax is not going to bring in sufficient revenues in the near future beyond maintenance costs.

    It’s quite likely that new roads will not be built unless there is funding for them and they don’t add to overall pollution levels.

    Where would you get the money and what kinds of roads could you build that don’t add to pollution levels?

    Currently, the only options seem to be congestion-priced toll roads and HOT lanes.

    What would you suggest as competitive and viable alternatives?

    I’m naming the ones that I think are possible. I don’t see others as working.

    What are your suggestions?

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    Ray Hyde

    November 28, 2006

    As far as I can tell, you cannot build anything, not even a garden or a forest, without adding to pollution levels. My suggestion is to not try to cram anything more into the places that have the most pollution now, and use the space we hae to best advantage.

    My suggestion is to make cars and places smaller and more diversified.

    You could, if you choose, set the gas tax high enough to pay for all road construction and maintenance. But, the way it would happen would be that there would be so much less driving we wouldn’t need as many roads, so construction and maintenance costs would fall dramatically.

    The unfortunate side effect would be that the economy would probably go down the tubes along with transportation, and we would all be getting along with a lot less, which wouldn’t be a bad thing in my view.

    So, practically speaking, gas taxes won’t pay for all our needs or wishes. That doesn’t mean they could not be somewhat higher, or indexed to dollars instead of gallons. Ohio doesn’t seem to have a problem doing this, and they are as red as a state gets.

    We have already seen that tolls won’t cut it either. As far I I can tell, there is NO funding method that works for you, and the only thing to do is reduce road construction, road maintenance, and road usage.

    From your position, that works fine. But history strongly suggests that for most people the economy depends on roads and transportation. I think the likely results of wrecking the economy to save a few bucks on roads amounts to lunacy.

    That does not mean we can’t spend our money smarter, but I don;t see any way out of not needing more roads and more transportation in general, especially if we choose to add additional “alternative” modes to the mix. I haven’t any thing against alternatives, but we should recognize they are really additional, and they will cost more money on top of waht we already need for adequate maintenance, let alone new construction.

    Somebody, somewhere, is going to raise taxes, or else we are going to let the population suffer needlessly. It might be tolls, It might be gas taxes, it might be local taxes, but eventually we will either meet the transportation needs we have now, or else pwople will move and we will then be faced with entirely new transportation needs someplace else.

    Congestion priced toll roads are a new tax. It will tax not only the drivers but everyone who owns property where those roads end, and the result will be people will go someplace else. It might take thirty years, but that will be the result. If you even remotely think that congestion based toll roads will work out to a true user pays paradigm, then you are kidding yourself. Hot lanes are not going to solve the problem either, remember, Metro was supposed to solve the problem too, and we see how that worked out.

    The answer is really easy, all we have to do is figure out how to tax all the people who are Not In My Back Yard, meaning everybody else but me.

    When you figure out how to make that work, let me know.

    But, when we stop trying to solve the problem of moving 3.5 million people to and from the same place every day, and just agree to make more places for them to go to, then we will have begun to work on the right problem instead of chasing useless solutions for the wrong problem.

    Log in to Reply