Virginia’s Transportation Debate with Oil at $150 Per Barrel

It’s amazing how, in just a year or two, energy issues have pushed themselves to the forefront of the Virginia public policy agenda. Electric power… offshore drilling… transportation and gasoline consumption… Climate change and conservation… It’s equally astounding how little lawmakers’ thinking has actually changed.

Energy policy was quiescent for more than two decades following the collapse of oil, coal and natural gas prices in the early 1980s. Virginia lawmakers were somnambulant, spending billions of dollars yearly on a transportation system designed around the premise of cheap energy. Even as soaring oil costs simultaneously (a) push up the cost of laying asphalt on new roads and highways and (b) depress demand, only a small number of state legislators appear willing to rethink transportation policy in a fundamental way.

The contours of the transportation debate have changed little since petroleum was selling at $20 per barrel in 2002: There’s nothing wrong with the system that more revenues and more construction won’t fix. What passes for enlightened thinking today is the idea that instead of just throwing money at roads, we now need to throw money at roads and transit — but without enacting the land use reforms required to make transit work.

It was only last September when I was blogging about the impact of oil at $100 per barrel. (See “Quality of Life, Human Settlement Patterns and $100 Oil.”) Not long ago, the price busted through the $150 per barrel level. What will it take to change attitudes? Oil selling at $200 per barrel? $250?

I came across a short piece written by Jeff Rubin with CIBC World Markets. Demand in China and other developing countries continues unabated, often stimulated by subsidies, he writes. Recent Saudi promises to increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day are meaningless compared to the four million-barrels-per-day decline in oil production expected for the rest of the globe this year. Meanwhile, supplies are restricted in oil-producing regions by under-investment in nationally owned oil companies (Venezuela, Mexico), political instability (Nigeria) or environmental restrictions (the United States).

Rubin projects oil selling at $200 by 2010, only two years hence, which, under prevailing refinery margins, will translate into $7-per-gallon gasoline. He continues:

As gasoline prices climb inexorably, American driving habits are going to have to undergo a massive change, mimicking the driving habits long adopted by Europeans who have faced much higher gas prices. Average miles driven will likely fall by as much as 15%, while the market share of light trucks, SUVs and vans will be literally halved, reversing the trend of the last fifteen years. But the most fundamental, and unprecedented change will be in the number of vehicles on the road.

Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today — a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks. … Many of those in the exit lane will be low income Americans from households earning less than $25,000 per year. Incredibly, over 10 million of those American households own more than one car.

Soon they won’t own any.

Let me repeat a couple of key phrases: Average miles driven will fall by as much as 15 percent…. We are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history… Soon, some 10 million poor American households might find themselves unable to afford a car…

The debate over transportation funding is based on the same assumptions that underpinned the Warner-era VTrans2025 study, which listed $108 billion in “unmet transportation needs” over the next 20 years based on anticipated population growth and vehicle miles driven. To persist in such a debate in the face of soaring oil prices is breath-taking folly.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    err, if I follow your line, by 2010, $200 oil would result in a 15% reduction in vehicle miles being driven; that would move to average virginian from 17K miles a year to around 15K a year.

    Currently the average vehicle in the US gets about 20 MPG. Let’s assume we move to a european pricing model (small cars, no large SUVs, moderate small SUV usage). The UK average MPG is 25.

    At that model, we would have the new average Virginian in 2010 buying about 600 gallons of gas a year to fuel his 15K/25MPG.

    At the assumed $7 a gallon, that would be $4200 in gas a year. That is opposed to right now, where the average Virginian is paying about $3400 in gas. (17K /20 * $4).

    A 15% reduction in vehicle miles is not substantial consumer change. We are talking about shaving 7 miles a day. For the average person, that is about a round trip to the grocery store.

    Now I agree, higher gas prices would mean less congestion, and so we could look at VDOT projects in a new light.

    $7 gas also mean that an increase on the state gas tax is very doable. Under the CIBC model, an additional 5 cent gas tax would result in the average driver paying $30 more in taxes a year. Even a 50 cent gas tax would result in the average driver paying $300 more a year (or about where the average car tax was before that was killed off)

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The wish list in VTrans2025 reflects the Virginia allocation formula priorities. A ranking list of projects to reduce congestion, reduce VMT or reflect travel patterns with $7 a gallon gasoline would provide a much more useful planning tool.

    Jim W

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” …we now need to throw money at roads and transit — but without enacting the land use reforms required to make transit work.”

    And don’t even think about actually paying the costs of those “land use reforms”, because if you do that, transit can never “work”.

    There is something fundamentally wrong with complainig – for decades – that roads enrich developers, and then turning around to claim that we need to make some landowners super rich – at the expense of others – just so we will have the density that makes transit appear to “work”.

    Transit does not “work”. Not on efficiency (or just barely), not on convenience or utility, not on coverage, and not on comfort. We are going to subsidize transit three times, in order to make it “work”. It will be capitalized with national funds, it’s operating deficit will be subsidized, and the density needed to make it feasible will be subsidized.

    But those “land use reforms”, unless paid for, will also turn out to be a de facto environmental coup, so that all three of those subsidies taken together not only buy us more transit, they also buy us a bunch of conservation land.

    Sounds like a great deal.

    Until you figure out that we are not actually paying for the land “conserved” so the real subsidy to make transit “work” needs to be a lot larger.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The contours of the transportation debate have changed little since petroleum was selling at $20 per barrel in 2002:…”

    And why should they? See the graphs on http://www.mjperry.blogspot.com/.

    They will show that things are not as bad as they seem. 10 gallons of gas today costs around 1.8 hours of work vs 1959 when ten gallons of gas cost – 1.8 hours of work.

    RH

  5. Tobias Jodter Avatar
    Tobias Jodter

    The only fair thing to do is for the government to subsidize the increased cost of gasoline for the lower income folks. It’s not fair if poor people would not be able to drive as many miles as rich people.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think that’s why we call them poor.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I still think it interesting that rail and transit are described as subsidized waste in this country and not so in Europe.

    Is transit not also subsidized waste in Europe?

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Is transit not also subsidized waste in Europe?

    Great question.

    I think the answer is a fairly resounding “No”. I struggle to understand how a city like London would operate (let alone prosper) without mass transit. The streets are too narrow to expand without knocking down lots of big buildings. London’s extensive subway is built underground which prevents underground parking lots. Gasoline (or petrol) has been expensive for years. The overall cost of living is very high leaving most people with less disposable income to spend on personal autos and expensive fuel. And there is a fairly broad societal sense that people should not engage in activities that hurt the environment. Finally, London did reach the point where its roads were choking in gridlock. A cab ride from Heathrow to downtown London was a variable length exercise in abject frustration.

    The UK also seems to understand that London is an amazing economic engine. Ignoring the importance of moving people from their homes to their jobs would simply slow the growth of that engine. And that would hurt the entire UK – even the people in RoUK.

    Given that background it should be understood that London manages its mass transit system pretty well. Clean, double decker buses run continuously, the subway goes essentially everywhere, water taxis (large, comfortable fast boats) transport people up and down the Thames. Pre-paid fare cards (called Oyster Cards for some reason) get you on buses, trams and the tube (subway). When personal transportation is needed the cabs are plentiful, clean and the cabbies know the city like the back of their hand.

    Certainly there have been problems. The articulated buses got stuck on the narrow streets (trying to make turns) when they were first introduced. The cordon toll in the city center has been very controversial. Sometimes, the buses and subways are crowded. However, I believe that the vast majority of Londoners would say that their mass transit system is a necessity and a point of civic pride. They would no more consider their system “subsidized waste” than the typical American would consider the US Navy “subsidized waste”.

    Mass transit makes London work which makes England work which helps preserve the British way of life. At least, that’s what I think most Englishmen would say.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Europe is also struggling with the high cost of subsidized transit, and they have many of the same discussions as here. Various kinds of privatization are being tried in order to reduce costs – mostly unsuccessfully.

    Subsidy and waste are two different things. It is possible to have a thing subsidized and still be a net benefit to the community. Subsidizing a 40 foot bus to carry 3 passengers from Winchester to downtown probably isn’t a good idea. But if you can deliver 80,000 more people downtown than Rte 66 can carry in the same corridor, then that might be worth something. It might even be worth more than what the passengers are willing to pay for the trip itself.

    In the privatized world, it is a pretty easy thing, either it pays or it doesn’t. But that is also a pretty high standard, and almost no transit will meet it.

    Now, the trick is to figure out what it is you are really paying for, and what it is really worth. If the benefit is pretty generalized, like cleaner air, then none of us shoud object to paying for that benefit. But if the benefit is pretty specific, like higher property values near Metro stations, then we should object.

    Short answer seems to be that 95% plus of transit in the U.S is subsidized waste: The public cost exceeds the public benefit, by a wide margin. In Europe it might be that only 75% or even 50% is subsidized waste.

    The question isn’t whether transit is or isn’t subsidized waste, in Europe or here. The question is how do you establish a procedure which will allow you to decide, fairly and unambiguously, whether you are in Europe or here?

    What is the full list of costs and benefits for all modes of transportation, and what is the best mix?

    How much is it worth to get one person out of a car and into Metro? Now how much is it worth if somone else fills that (newly available) car slot?

    On first priciples, we don’t have a clue as to what those costs and values are, But, We can take a guess, based on behavior.

    Say metro ridership increased from 700,000 to 800,000 (around 15%) on account of higher gas prices.

    Now say 3 million continue to drive, in spite of increased costs of $2 per trip ($80/month). That says there is a 3% chance that the value of a metro ride is worth at least $2 more than the current (out of pocket) cost of a Metro trip, and a 97% chance it is worth less. If 2 million continue to drive then it is a 5% chance, etc.

    And that is just to the rider.

    The flip side is that if Metro raises their fare by $2 there is a 3% chance they will make money and a 97% chance they will lose money on the switch. And of course there is a cost to Metro for hauling another 100,000 passenges, which has to be subtracted out. But since Metro is running full anyway, the rational thing to do is raise the price (at least during rush hour).

    Metro would lose less money and the drivers they forced away by higher prices would be no worse off.

    You do a similar kind of thing for every stakeholder affected by the system then run a big montecarlo to find the areas that are feasible and not.

    Suppose it turns out that in Europe only 50% of transit is subsidized waste. How much should we be willing to spend to move from 95% waste to 50% waste? Well, you would not want to spend more capital creating a system that “works better” than you could amortize with the savings.

    It isn’t all that hard, mostly it is just tedious. But before you go down that route, you have to be willing to accept the answer when it slaps you in the face.

    Or, you can refuse to accept any answer but YOUR answer, and sue, like the people are doing over the proposed coal plant. Then you get a political answer instead of a numerical one.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton gives a good example of a thing that is subsidized and still a net benefit.

    But, London was there before autos or transit. If you had to build London from scratch today, would you do it the same way?

    What do you do with London when transit is maxed out or gridlocked like the auto was? Put in another Layer of tubes?

    How many places have all the Benefits of London that make transit worth while?

    Transit works some places and not others, the question is how to create a system that lets you decide unambiguously. Simply deciding politically that transit is good, autos are bad (everywhere) will inevitably lead to bad decisions and a lot of waste.

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    How much is your liver worth?

    Theoretically, it’s just one organ so it’s only worth some fraction of the value of your body. In a “user pays” anatomy the liver might not be worth keeping since it doesn’t pay it’s full location variable costs. However, the value of the other organs might go into steep decline if you had your liver removed and thrown away.

    An economy, like a human body, is a system. Isolating each thing and demanding that it pay for itself ignores the reality of co-dependence. I think that developing sophisticated econometric models for Virginia would be helpful. Heck, developing a regional or county-based income statement would be helpful (yet that seems beyond the capability set of the General Assembly). However, even the most sophisticated model won’t just spit out the right answers. A good econometric model will make the political discussion a whole lot more intelligent but there will still be a political discussion. But think about the inverse – a place where decisions are made without any attempt at building a comprehensive model. Would you invest in any company that stated it was incapable of building economic models of its future and made decisions based on politics and “gut feel”? Or, a company that had hundreds of different models that never tied together? How about a company that had lots of subsidiaries but didn’t know which ones were making money and which ones were not? Maybe a multi-billion dollar company that had a part time management team who all held other jobs for the vast majority of each year?

    If Virginia were publicly traded it would be a penny stock. Past performance might look relatively good but there have been some bad recent quarters and future guidance stinks. And the management team is either gridlocked (e.g. special session), making decisions that turn out to be illegal or reversing themselves before the ink dries on the plan (e.g. abuser fees).

    Maybe a great economy floats all boats – even those with holes. Maybe a bad economy will sink the leaky boats.

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Anon 5:41 –

    “But, London was there before autos or transit.”.

    Yep. So was Washington, DC, Richmond, Tidewater, Fredricksburg, etc.

    “If you had to build London from scratch today, would you do it the same way?”.

    Nope. In retrospect, I wouldn’t build any place the way it was originally built because there are always “lesons learned”. Except maybe Reston. It was pretty close to perfect from the day it was first invented. Only thing I’d change is the name. I’d call it Groveton.

    “What do you do with London when transit is maxed out or gridlocked like the auto was? Put in another Layer of tubes?”.

    I guess if it’s maxed out then (by definition) you can’t add any more capacity. However, the subway system has been expanded over and over again. Longer trains, more tubes, parallel tubes, etc. Someday, the Sun will go supernova and destroy everything so I guess we should just sit on our hands since it’s all futile anyway. Someone once told Keynes that, in the long run, all costs are variable. To which he replied, “in the long run we’re all dead.”.

    “How many places have all the Benefits of London that make transit worth while?”.

    Nowehere. There is only one London just like there is only one Paris, one Tokyo, one Short Pump, Va. The better question is, “How many places have enough of the attributes of London to make some form of mass transit worth while?”. I think a lot. And the number grows each time the cost of a gallon of gas goes up.

    “Transit works some places and not others, the question is how to create a system that lets you decide unambiguously.”.

    See my point on models. I doubt it will ever be unambiguous. However, it can be a whole lot more analytical than it presently is (in Virginia).

    “Simply deciding politically that transit is good, autos are bad (everywhere) will inevitably lead to bad decisions and a lot of waste.”.

    True. But there are cars in London. In fact, there are a lot of really, really nice cars in London. There are just fewer cars (relative to the population) than in US cities (as far as I can see). It’s not “guns or butter”. It’s guns per capita vs. butter per capita.

  13. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    cars per capita in VA: .96
    cars per capita in MD: .74
    cars per capita in DC: .41

    http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2007/ebp/pdf/ebp-phase1.pdf

    cars per capita in the UK: about .48

    Other interesting factoid:

    231 euros invested per capita for public transport in London, 135 euros for roads.

    The debate in the UK is somewhat similar to Virginia, in the sense that one large metro area (london) is probably the source of 80% of the arguments about traffic.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I wonder in London and Europe if they have debates about whether or not transit reduces road congestion?

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “cars per capita in VA: .96”

    I don’t see the point of this. I own nine vehices, each for a specific purpose, but I only drive one at a time. Obviously, I’m an extreme case, but not an unususal one.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Until we stop pretending that Virginia’s transportation debate is related to the efficient, effective and safe movement of people and goods, all we will do is chase our tails.

    I’ve long argued that transportation expenditures in Virginia mainly deal with the ability of some well-placed investors, who also make big campaign contributions, to get taxpayers and road users to fund projects that enhance the value of the their real estate investments. That is still true, but I must also add the other relevant factor is ideology. Some people hate cars and want us to live in company towns. Others don’t think a dime should be invested in mass transit because they don’t use it. Then, of course, there is the WaPo, which argues for anything that increases taxes in Virginia.

    Second point. Has anyone seen or heard of a proponent of higher taxes and fees for transportation actually tying those increases to specific and measurable improvements? My feeling is that they talk in generalities. But, since they are motivated by real estate investments and/or ideology, it is unlikely that they have even thought about specific and measurable benefits for the average Virginian.

    TMT

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I wonder in London and Europe if they have debates about whether or not transit reduces road congestion?”

    I don’t see the point of even asking this question.

    These are different services, and you choose the one that works best, among those available. Even having transit available won’t reduce a road trip, if you need a car for that trip (or maybe the next one after that trip).

    We have a thirty year experiment with Metro to show that congestion still exists. Obviously, metro by itself hasn’t reduced congestion. Whether it might be worse without metro is a different hypothetical question entirely, but it does not affect the facts on the ground today, which are that congestion still exists, so Metro cannot be the answer.

    We believe that building new roads doesn’t help because of induced traffic, but then we turn around and believe that Metro DOESN’T induce traffic. We believe that building new roads enriches developers, but Metro pay s for itself through increased property values. 25% of us are in the development or supporting businesses. I beleive the truth is in those inconsistencies somewhere, and we can put a range of prices on them, and when we can agree what they are, we have basically made a deal.

    Suggesting that traffic congestion would be worse without metro implies that we COULD build our way out of congestion with more transit, even though we can’t with more roads. All we need is infinite money. Stated another way Transit supporters seem to think it has infinite value compared to anything else. that is not a way to agree on prices or strike a deal.

    The concept of transit reducing congestion is a dumb idea from beginning to end. If you don’t have enough roads, or if you have too many cars going the same place, then you have road congestion – Metro or not. Same with Metro. When you have too many people going to Farragut square, you have mass confusion and congestion, no matter how many streets are above the station. If you don’t have enough parking for Metro, then Metro begins to fail.

    Longer trains can’t help because of platform limitations, and the lead time between trains has to increase in order to get more people off the trains and up the escalators. Sooner or later you hit some kind of limits.

    Look at the total system, not at parts that might be one “better” than the other. Groveton is right, of course, we probably won’t get answers that are completely unambiguous, but we can do a lot better than now.

    In order to do that you must first a) recognize that too much can be just as big a waste as too little, and b) be willing to look.

    Clearly, in the end, the answers will be partly political but it is hard to hold a purely political position when the numbers are stacked hard against you.

    That’s why we are not willing to look. It is easier to simply hold a position that says “We need more transit.” than it is to say “We need more transit in those places have enough of the attributes of London to make some form of mass transit worth while”.

    Even Groveton trips over it when he says he thinks a lot of places have those attributes. Which leads me right back to the question, “How do you know?” “What are those attributes?” “What constitutes worthwhile?” “Which places?” “Why one and not another?”

    I believe that if we can agree on those individual things, then the argument over transit goes away.

    Here is how NOT to do it.

    “231 euros invested per capita for public transport in London, 135 euros for roads.”

    What does this mean? I can’t tell if that is capital investment, operating costs, or both. And “our” investment in roads ought to include our individual investments in the autos to use them, just as it includes the vehicles used for transit. Then, road transit depends on roads: do you count that as part of the transit system or part of the road system?

    But ignore all that and take it at face value. In new York Transit is 10% of all trips. Assume London is even twice as good. that would mean that for 231 Euros you carry 20 people and for 135 Euros you carry 80 people, or some such ratio.

    Which one is a better deal to that mysterious “per capita” who is, by the way paying BOTH of those sums? I’d say there is a 20% chance he will get some use of his 231 Euros and an 80% chance he will get some use of his 135 Euros. On a probable value basis his 231 Euros are worth 46 and his 135 Euros are worth 108.

    You really can’t tell which is a better deal without knowing the value of the trips ane a lot more stuff, but the point is that you CAN find out, and you CAN agree on reasonable ranges of values.

    You start by conceding that nothing has an infinite value, not even a liver. Now the range of values is a little smaller, and so is the chance for making a bad political judgement. You keep pecking away at it until you get to a rule of thumb that reasonable people can agree on.

    A Flat Earther might argue that well, the curvature is really small, so it is effectively flat. Until Gravity comes along and crushes that idea. Inconsistencies get resolved, and the result is better answers.

    Better answers mean less waste. But you don;t get better answers when you start with an answer, like “grid Streets”, “more transit”, or even “less pollution” and then go looking for a problem for “your answer” to solve.

    Groveton seems to agree that bad political decisions lead to waste, and he seems to agree that we can do better analytically.

    That’s all I’m saying. If the analytics show more transit or grid streets or less pollution works, I’m all for it. But, Groveton is also right in saying that none of these things exist alone. You cannot isolate the costs of preventing more mercury poisoning from the costs of preventing Malaria.

    That still doesn’t mean the solution is impossible, just that it is a LOT more difficult. It is so difficult that we recoil at attempting it and instead resort to politics. I view politics as a kind of Delphi process, where in we basically consult the experts until they come to a conclusion or solution they can live with.

    Whether it is right or wrong is seldom an issue, but our current GA has distinguished themselves with obviously wrong answers recently.

    Groveton is right, we don’t even have the most basic models in place, let alone sophisticated ones. But, we need to be careful with models, too. The inner workings need to be open source, otherwise COG, or whoever is the model owner, can create a model that builds in their predefined political choices.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Has anyone seen or heard of a proponent of higher taxes and fees for transportation actually tying those increases to specific and measurable improvements? “

    If we did, it would put Metro advocates in a tough spot, considering previous claims, and our thirty year experiment.

    Probably, those improvements would most likely show up as property value enhancements. If that was the case then the logical thing to do would be to enact fees on the income from property. This would protect locals (until they sell) and put much of the costs on commercail or leased properties.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “That’s all I’m saying. If the analytics show more transit or grid streets or less pollution works, I’m all for it.”

    then why do you assume the status quo does this – if the analytics also do not show it?

    I think your advocacy boils down to being in favor of the status quo when it fits your view and being opposed to it when it does not – because the “analytics” by your own admission would require heroic efforts from totally unbiased sources….

    the question remains

    Is transit in this country or Europe valued, supported, because it reduces congestion?

    If your view is that transit is supported by Europe for different reasons than why we would support it… then why would we not also use Europe’s reasons?

    What is it that Europe is attempting to achieve with transit?

    If they are not attempting to relieve congestion but instead to provide timely mobility that does not require a personal auto – then why is that not worth spending money on?

    For instance, what would be the primary benefit of Metro to the Airport?

    Would it be to reduce congestion or would it be to provide a timely and reliable trip?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I think your advocacy boils down to being in favor of the status quo when it fits your view “

    You think wrong. I am actually an environmentalist. Grew up in an environmentally sensitive location in an environmentally conscious community. Trained in hard environmental science, specializing in detection and measurement of trace contaminants in the environment. Competed graduate school in systems enginerring and environmental economics. Earned my living for ten years in enverionmetal analysis, site remediation, and alternative energy.

    I just hate environmentalist activities that are obviously BS.

    Recently I saw a construction site in Middleburg with the obligatory silt fence around it. A flat lot, with pavement all the way around it, and existing buildings on two sides. One stretch of silt fence was six inches ayaw from an adjacent brick building wall 30 feet high.

    I’ve made fun of silt fence before, and you think that regulators and inspectors are at fault. Obviously, this is a trivial example, but is it really, when we fine people $100 for flipping a cigarretee butt? It is a waste, and it is a waste that is created by bad environmental law and bad environmental enforcement. It is OUR fault because we don’t demand common sense in environmental law.

    I think it is a trivial example, but I see it as indicative of what’s wrong with the larger system. Maybe that silt fence cost $100, but it was a total waste: it porevented NOTHING.

    Just think of what a total waste on a big project costs.

    I’ve seen it in action. Once worked on a PCB remediation, doing the analysis to decide when it was “clean enough”. I used barrels of solvent, and by the time I got done the hazard from the solvent was far greater than the hazard from the PCB. And we didn’t eliminate a single PCB. All we did was dig it up and bury it someplace else, with a perpetual care contract on the new burial site. Hundreds of trucks, thousands of plastic liners, gallons of truck fuel.

    The more I knew, the less I could see the sense in it.

    Sure it is complicated to figure out, but for the $100 we wasted on silt fence in Middleburg, I can do a LOT of calculations. Call it an advertisement for work, but I think we have the wrong priorities.

    I think that if we try, we can figure out what the real value of transit is with regard to congestion. We can find out what the real value is with regard to pollution. We can find out what the real value is with respect to patronage. WE can find out whether they are IN FACT providing timely mobility that does not require a personal auto OR whether they are actually taking second best.

    WE can decide what the primary benefit of Metro to the Airport is, and if we can PROVE that it is to provide a timely and relaiable trip, then we can bypass Tysons, and be done with it. The landowners and developers would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

    But we might also show that the reduction of congestion is more important, and we should forget about the airport and just do Tysons.

    In the process we might find methods for measuring the value of cogestion reduction that we can use elsewhere.

    I don’t assume ANYTHING about the status quo except that we got here mostly by accident and politics. I do know that we are really, really terrible at assessing the appropriate economic response to risk.

    Yes, what I am proposing is a heroic task. So is calculating all the trajectories for a space based missile defense. So is collaborative, mutually avoiding airspace control.

    You just do it one calculation at a time. But you need a reason to start. My reason is everytime I look around and see wasted petroleum based silt fence. Or any one of another hundred environmental idiocies I have known.

    As you say “the question reamains”.

    I’m an advocate for answers, because I know that only the right answers will generate the best environmental results.

    I am not a blind cheerleader for RAH RAH environmentalism. I’m the offspring of Ebeneezer Scrooge and Rachael Carson. I believe (as stated by Dennis Meadows) that any deliberate attempt to reach a rational and enduring state of equilibrium for the earth by planned measures, rather than by chance or catastrophe must be founded on a basic change of values and goals.

    We had better have those values right, and that means we need to go measure them. Mere postulation won’t cut it.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Failure to capture external costs or benefits, by definition, results in an inefficient allocation of resources. To alleviate the inefficiency, a price for the externality has to be established.”

    Tim Haab

    This is my view of environmental economics and ethics in a nutshell.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. I’m not going to take the “environmental bait”… since the title of this thread is $150 oil.

    and what I would point out is that Europe – by taxing gasoline – has made it “virtually” expensive as $200 a barrel or higher oil.

    and that Europe has used that money NOT for more roads and not to encourage more driving but instead to provide wide and deep mobility that does not depend on the automobile.

    This allows many more folks to live in many more areas as long as they are within some reasonable walking or biking distance.

    One could say that they have “invested” in mobility – that is not affected by the high price of oil – at least not near as much as an auto-dependent mobility context.

    My question centers on why we think in this country that transit is not an investment but a subsidy and a wasteful one at that.

    whereas in Europe, the same concept – taxing people for transit – is considered not a subsidy but instead an “investment” of mobility that is not as dependent on roads, cars or gasoline.

    And .. in the longer run of $400 or $500 oil which approach – the American or the European is less likely to have severe economic impacts …..

    and let’s not just use Europe.. Japan is a strong economic entity that has a similar strategy…

    who is harmed more – economically – by higher and higher oil prices?

    Europe, Japan or the US?

    Bonus Question: where does Europe and Japan get their electricity for their transit from?

    Are they burning fossil fuels to get it?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Europe has used that money NOT for more roads and not to encourage more driving but instead to provide wide and deep mobility that does not depend on the automobile.”

    Nonsense.

    European countries put that money in their general fund, and use it for many things we don’t have, including universal health care.

    Their mobility is not wide and deep because they travel much less than we do, and it still depends heavily on autos and road usage. Like you say – as long as they are within walking or bicycle distance.

    Their GNP per capita is lower, too.

    Japan imports ALL of their oil. France generates a high percentage of their electricity form nuclear power.

    All of Europe imports mainly refined fuels. As a result their per capita energy usage appears artificially low because the energy used in refining shows up in the per capita energy use in places like Bahrain.

    The value of energy is primarily to replace labor. As the cost of energy goes up there will be more opportunities to replace it with other labor. Those places with the most cheap labor will benefit the soonest form high energy prices.

    It does not matter whether you call it an investment or a subsidy. The question is whether it is a GOOD investment or a GOOD subsidy. See Winston and Shirley for their explanation of how they did just that. They call it “Net Social Value.”

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The U.S. is the largest electricity producer at 25%, followed by China, Japan, and Russia. Over half of U.S. power is from fossil fuels.

    “The major Japanese power utilities produced 744 TWh of electricity in
    1991. Much of this power was generated from fossil fuels – oil and oil products, natural gas and coal. Hydro and nuclear plants supplied about 13 per cent and 28 per cent respectively.

    In producing electricity from fossil fuels, Japan is heavily reliant on imports. Australia is a major supplier of two of these fuels, coal and (recently) liquefied natural gas.”

    http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/energy/archive/electricity.pdf

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Russia generaates 70% of their power from fossil fuels. Nuclear power is held in low regard for obvous reasons.

    China Generaes 75% of their power from fossil fuels, mainly coal.

    If the idea is to prevent Greenhouse gas and save money here at home, we should be giving away wind turbines to China and Russia.

    RH

  26. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    My rough guess is we are spending something like $525 per Virginians on roads. The real number may be higher if the $4 billion in VDOT spending doesn’t include federal money (cough, Wilson bridge).

    Shows what a waste Metro-to-Reston is at $5 billion; basically more than a year of VDOT funding for very minor benefits.

    As I said, UK is spending about 135 euros per person on roads and 231 on public transit. If you accept the exchange rates that is about 170 dollars. The UK trends transit heavy — they are heavily urbanized — I think France or Germany may be spending up to 300 euros on their roads.

    So I agree there is a lot of waste in VDOT.

    Going back to the original point, if higher gas prices reduce the need for road spending due to less cars being used, we can look to France or Germany as models. Bring VDOT spending down to about 350 per person at $7 gas. That would enable you to cut 1.5 billion in VDOT spending. Realistically, a transition to Euro-style driving would take a few years, so you might be looking at incremental savings of say $400 million a year for 5 years.

    Of course, you’d have to spend a lot more on transit ACROSS the state to get there.

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    that’s why I keep asking if Europe views transit as a “good” investment.

    or as RH said ….a “Net Social Value.”

    People drive less in Europe and Japan for the same reason we will drive less when gasoline starts to hit $8 a gallon, I would suspect.

    At THAT point, will more and more folks in the US .. start to think that taxes for transit is a “Net Social Value” ??

    or will we continue to think that our auto-centric philosophy is golden?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    .. start to think that taxes for transit is a “Net Social Value” ??

    It isn’t a question of what they THINK. It’s a question of costs.

    The values are a little different now, with higher fuel prices, but last we knew Metro’s average cost for moving a pssengerwas barely a few cents lower than driving a car -all costs considered.

    Loudoun County Transits costs are a lot higher, per passenger.

    After you consider the inconveneience, the waiting, the comfort, the standing and walking and limited freight capacity a transit ride STILL has a net negative value compared to the car for about the same cost.

    SOME people have decided the difference is now worth the ride, and everyone else is still driving.

    I figure that for Metro area reidents (right now) there is about a three to five% chance that the cost of switching to metro is less than the cost of higher gas. If you get that up to more than 50%, then I agree you have a net social benefit.

    Only, how much is it going to cost to get from 800,000 riders to something like four times that?

    After you spend THAT kind of money, is it still a net social benefit? And, you STILL need all those roads.

    Stop thinking of it as either or, better worse, and you will get a good answer a lot sooner.

    RH

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “After you spend THAT kind of money, is it still a net social benefit? And, you STILL need all those roads.”

    how is this question any different for Europe and how do they come up with a different answer?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We don’t know if the answer is different.

    For all we know Europe is wasting a good deal of money on transit that might be better spent. We do know that their per capita GDP is lower. They might be better off with more cars and less transit.

    As I said there is plenty of conversation in Europe about the cost of transit, we just don’t see it here.

    Go read Winston and Shirley. They make a pretty good argument about what pays, socially speaking, and what doesn’t.

    But, if you want a European system, fine. Raise taxes and forget about user pays. Increase subsidies to farmers to keep the countryside green and increase density and inner area home prices. I’ll sign up for that.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look, I beleive that there are places where we can use more transit and spend the money wisely. I just don’t think there are as many as most people seem to think.

    We should search for them carefully, instead of approaching with a broad brush that says auomatically that transit is better, or it is always good, no matter what. Thats how we get idiotic plans like rail to Tyson’s.

    Look at the slugfest on 395. There is clearly a market for multipassenger vehicles. Why isn’t there plentiful private operated bus lines on that route?

    Because the sluglines offer something the buslines don’t: frequency.

    Why is Metro crying out for a “dedicated source of funding” when it is already paid for by thousands of people who don’t use it for every one person who does?

    There just isn’t any measureable figures that jsutify the kind of money we spend on it, for the service it provides, unless you include the benefits of development.

    Metro provides a big peak hour capacity boost, but it is the same as any other peaking problem, Dominion or highway, it costs a lot of money for peak capacity that goes mostly unused otherwise.

    It costs a lot of money to move a couple million people twice a day, and it costs a lot more when you want to put them all in a small space. They could all live in that small space, but they don’t want to, and that is even more expensive, as Groveton pointed out with his London real estate post.

    The problem, as I see it is to minimize the deamand for peak travel capacity, and do it as inexpensively as possible.

    All I suggest is that we get out a clean sheet of paper and figure it out – without any preconcieved notions, and without any options excluded.

    We have a tremendous investment in Automobiles, and part of the equation ought to be to plan to use that investment efficiently, not to simply scrap it, or penalize it out of existence.

    I can’t believe we can afford to build enough automobiles to clog the roads, and then say we can’t afford roads.

    I also can’t believe that we can pack Metro cars like cattlewagons and not make a profit, but that’s what we do.

    I can’t believe there is any reason to allow so many offices in one place that we can’t get people in and out, and yet we use inadequate facilities as an excuse to prevent housing.

    None of this makes the slightest bit of sense, except it is all driven by special interests.

    Time to get out a blank sheet and figure out what really works. Go find some nice towns that don’t seem to have the problems we have and measure everything in the town. no place is perfect, but surely soe are measurably better than others. So what ARE those metrics, and how do we work toward them?

    RH

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Question:

    I have an SUV that gets 15mpg and it’s near the end of it’s useful life and I can easily afford an econobox that gets 30+ mpg.

    What oh what.. should I do?

    Choices:

    1. – get out a clean sheet of paper

    2. – head on down to the dealership

    🙂

    no muss. no fuss. no contemplating the mysteries of naval lint… or their close cousins – settlement patterns…

    just .. get er done…

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    OOPS.. I think that was supposed to be: Navel Lint !

    at any rate.. contemplating the “darker” side of settlement patterns and transit may not occur quite yet.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, you could be making a big mistake.

    Consumer Reports, Edwards Automotive and several other sites have websites where you can calculate such things as when to trade in a clunker, and when to move closer to work.

    The answers might surprise you.

    Or, you can just do what you want and waste money and other resources.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you go, I highly recommend a Prius.

    If you don’t have any answers, change the subject.

    RH

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    here’s what the answers are not:

    they are NOT to start over.

    they are NOT to start with a new blank sheet.

    $150 oil is ..history… they are now talking about $200 oil ..and up.

    What does this mean with respect to public policy – specifically Virginia Transportation Policy?

    What should Virginia do with regard to people who have chosen to use 15 mpg cars to drive solo to work that is 40-50 miles distant from where they have chosen to live?

    Should all taxpayers in Virginia or just a subset – all drivers – pay higher taxes so that the folks who have chosen the commute life can obtain some financial relief?

    Or.. is this something that each person should make individual decisions about?

    Or… should Virginia raise taxes to build more roads?

    The last statement is clearly ludicrous in a world with $200 oil, I would posit.

    Should Virginia be thinking about intercity and intracity rail… where, for instance, someone could board a train in Richmond and one hour later arrive in Washington or Norfolk?

    What would the average Virginian be willing to pay taxes for in a world of $200 oil?

    My bet is that they’ll be willing to pay for rail and transit – because it will get them a level of mobility that they cannot obtain as an individual.

    I don’t think we’ll make this decision by getting out a clean sheet of paper and starting over either.

    It’s probably start with a simple question on a ballot – a referenda.

    Do we want to build an intracity rail system in Virgina.. where someone in Charlottesville can board a train to catch a flight at Dulles for about the same as it would cost in gasoline costs but you save two hours of driving?

    You say – this is not possible?

    I say.. this is what Europe and Japan does right now and why not us?

    If fact, I’d wager that if you put both questions on the ballot:

    1. – higher taxes for more roads

    2. – higher taxes for rail/transit

    that 2. wins .. hands down.. in a world of $200 oil.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “here’s what the answers are not:

    they are NOT to start over.

    they are NOT to start with a new blank sheet.”

    How can you say that? You are the one that thinks the whole system is broken. All I’m saying is that when you do a systems analysis, there is a procedure for doing it. It starts with a blank sheet and zero preconditions.

    ———————————

    What should Virginia do with regard to people who have chosen to use 15 mpg cars to drive solo to work that is 40-50 miles distant from where they have chosen to live?

    Nothing. It is their choice and their problem. In my opinion gas prices are not high enough yet. I don’t poke along onthe highway, but there are still people in monster vehicles, driving aggressively, and flying past me like I’m sitting still.

    You harp on those 50 mile drivers but they are a tiny minority. The average commute is only 27 minutes, which can’t be more than 2o miles. If every fifty mile driver stayed home, you would barely notice the difference in rush hour Tysons.

    50 mile drivers are not the main problem and we should forget about it, and move on.

    ——————————

    “My bet is that they’ll be willing to pay for rail and transit – because it will get them a level of mobility that they cannot obtain as an individual.”

    It is a bad bet. It will never happen. It hasn’t happened in New York. It hasn’t even happened in Europe. Nothing gives you the same mobility as an individual vehicle.

    ——————————-

    My bet is that they would not be willing to pay for rail and transit if they knew the true efficiency and the true costs. But to demonstrate that, you have to be willing to start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of a bunch of preconceptions and hypothetical efficiencies.

    But, there are places and conditions where transit would work. I’m not opposed to finding those exceptions and exploiting them.

    —————————–

    “where someone in Charlottesville can board a train to catch a flight at Dulles for about the same as it would cost in gasoline costs “

    That would be great. Now, after the passenger pays the equivalent cost in gasoline – where are you going to get the REST of the money that trip costs?

    ——————————

    “I say.. this is what Europe and Japan does right now and why not us?”

    No, it isn’t what they do. They don’t move travelers for a cost equivalent to the price of gas: they pay enormous costs for their transit, and they pay enormous taxes to get it.

    ———————-

    “that 2. wins .. hands down.. in a world of $200 oil.”

    You are probably right, but like you said, voters are clueless. Mostly because they have been mislead by people like yourself.

    RH

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “It starts with a blank sheet and zero preconditions.”

    “You are probably right, but like you said, voters are clueless. Mostly because they have been mislead by people like yourself.”

    we never start over.

    Just like with EMRs vision of settlement patterns…

    We don’t level the existing infrastructure and go back to square one…

    .. the analogy is more like trying to turn a huge oil tanker…

    .. it won’t happen quick… no matter what.. unless the main engine quits or the rudder falls off – i.e. oil goes to $500 a gallon.

    re: 50 mile drivers.

    Again.. I would urge you to get yourself down to I-95 10 miles north of Fredericksburg at 6 a.m. one morning and then report back to me what a “tiny” amount of folks are doing this.

    And.. Fredericksburg is but one locality – roughly 50 miles away..

    you can go around the quadrant from South to West to North to gather up other communities from Culpeper to Warrenton to Loudoun where every day many thousands of vehicles are commuting much further than 20 miles.

    but this is something we both apparently agree on – let those folks who have made those choices figure out how they will cope with $5 or higher gasoline…

    and what I am saying is that everyone one of those guys who decides he can no longer afford $5 gasoline is going to become an advocate of “alternatives”.

    He’ll park his car.. at a commuter lot.. and board a multi-passenger vehicle of some kind…that he’ll say “yes” on a ballot – without hesitation.. even if it means his neighbor that still drives will have to pay higher taxes to buy more mass transit.

    Agree?

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we never start over.

    Just like with EMRs vision of settlement patterns…

    We don’t level the existing infrastructure and go back to square one…”

    I never suggested that. I suggest we start with what we have – and a blank sheet of paper to figure out where to go from here. We have roads, we have cars, we have some transit. We waste a lot of time and resources, and we create a lot of pollution moving a lot of people twice a day.

    That is 25% of our travel problem.

    How do we solve the WHOLE problem, housing and jobs included?

    A blank sheet, unsullied by anyones opinions, and nothing gets written on it that we cannot measure.

    I bet the answe r isn’t only tolls, but it is a collection of many answers, some of which you and EMR won’t like, and some of which I won’t like.

    ————————

    “Again.. I would urge you to get yourself down to I-95 10 miles north of Fredericksburg at 6 a.m. one morning and then report back to me what a “tiny” amount of folks are doing this.”

    I don;t have to. that has already been measured, and I have reporeted the facts. You refuse to believe them. I can’t help you.

    In Fauquier somthing like 67% of the population commutes out of the county to work, and something like 48% commutes in.

    I’d wager the general direction of morning migration is west to east in each case. It is a matter of home prices and obs availability. Fauquier ha actively been opposed to new obs, because they are (inordinately and probably wrongly) afraid that jobs will result in more “money losing” residential development.

    It is a self fullfilling prophesy.

    Some people drive really long distances. It is their problem, not mine.

    —————————-

    let those folks who have made those choices figure out how they will cope with $5 or higher gasoline…

    ——————————–

    “he’ll say “yes” on a ballot – without hesitation.. even if it means his neighbor that still drives will have to pay higher taxes to buy more mass transit.”

    Well of course he will. That is exactly what is bankrupt about the whole idea.

    RH

    Yep, and let’s NOT add on any other artificial barriers to how they make their decisions.

    —————————–

    “everyone one of those guys who decides he can no longer afford $5 gasoline is going to become an advocate of “alternatives”.”

    Sure he will. As long as we lie to him and make him beleive those alternatives are cheaper and more efficient. As long as we keep paying half of his fare and his employer pays the other half.

    It won’t make a crap in the end. In the end it matters what is REALLY more efficient, not what we think it is. If we spent as much time finding out,as you and I spend arguing, we’d have an answer by now.

    One based on incontorvertible facts, or at least on pretty stong probabilities.

Leave a Reply