Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Kaine Working on Transportation Plan

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine is working on a new transportation-funding plan in preparation for the special General Assembly session. Details are not yet available, but the governor has articulated at least three main principles, reports the Daily Press.

  • The plan will address funding for the two most congested regions of the state — Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.

  • The plan will be simple, replacing the patchwork of taxes, fines and fees passed by the General Assembly last year.

  • The plan will address the ever-increasing claim of the maintenance budget on Transportation Trust Fund dollars. As maintenance requirements grow, money is running short for construction funds.

Missing from the Daily Press account is the phrase “user pays.”

According to the Daily Press, GOP lawmakers on the Peninsula are pushing for a regional sales tax. Such a levy has only one virtue: the ability to raise lots of money while not pinching anyone too badly at any one time. But it would represent a massive transfer of wealth to drivers from non-drivers, subsidize auto-dependency and prolong Virginia’s vulnerability to rising gasoline prices. We can only pray that Gov. Kaine doesn’t have that idea in mind.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But it would represent a massive transfer of wealth to drivers from non-drivers…”

    What non drivers? The vast, vast majority of people are drivers, or riders. Areas that have the lowest proportion of drivers are the poorest areas, which spend less in retail purchases (Although, it may be a higher percentage of their income).

    How do youcome up with a massive transfer of wealth from this group to everyobody else? It isn’t that large a group, and they haven’t the money to transfer.

    And bus riders depend on roads, too.

    The mere fact that almost everyone uses the roads means that no matter what the “source” of the funding, the users will wind up footing the bill. It is only a question of which pocket they take the money out of.

    Now, if you are talking about a nexus between usage and payment, then that’s probably not the right way to think about it. We should be thinking about BENEFIT vs payment and not simply usage.

    RH

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, By “transfer of wealth to drivers from non-drivers,” I was using a shorthand for a less commodious phrase, “transfer of wealth to people who drive a lot from people who drive only a little”…

    Or… “to people who drive 20,000 miles per year from people who drive 6,000 miles per year.”

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Isn’t this the same Region that shot holes in the sales tax idea in 2002?

    here’s some relevant info (I hope):

    A 1 -cent-on-the-dollar sales tax increase, excluding food and drug sales, is thought to raise about $153.8 million a year if imposed on 12 localities in Hampton Roads, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/area-lawmakers-support-sales-tax-increase-roads

    How much can you raise by increasing gasoline tax a penny in Hampton Roads alone?

    About $8.2 million a year, based on the typical driver consuming 527 gallons a year and applied to the 12 municipalities that make up Hampton Roads.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/road-funding-itll-take-more-raising-gas-tax

    Notice that the dialog .. has shifted from the State funding the Hampton Roads region to Hampton Roads thinking about it…???

    Virginia generates about 6 Billion a year off of the 5% sales tax.

    We know also .. that of the 5%, VDOT gets 1/2% and that totals up to about 500 million.

    A penny on the gas tax -statewide raises between 50-60 million.

    The question is – will JUST a 1% sales tax in HR/TW (or even NoVa) for that matter be enough to fund their road needs?

    I doubt it.

    and trying to make up the difference with a gas tax that only generates about 8 million per penny in HR/TW is not going to add pots of money….either

    not chump change but clearly not enough revenue.. unless they use that money for bonds… to build the infrastructure and use tolls to pay back the bonds…

    and that ought to go over really good.. raise the sales tax, raise the gasoline tax and then put tolls on the roads…

    but as RH says.. the money has to come from somewhere.. HA HA….

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m less troubled by the “user pays” issue than with apparent lack of any mechanism to stop the manipulation of transportation tax dollars by the big landowners, developers, builders and their confederates.

    Why should I (or anyone else, for that matter) pay an additional dime in taxes unless and until I can be assured that those additional revenues will be spent on projects that actually improve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods — and are spent in Fairfax County (or whatever other jurisdiction where the taxpayers live).

    My level of trust is zero, as I see Governor Kaine and Senator Warner (along with Reps. Davis, Moran and Wolf) working aggressively to try to save federal funding for the Silver Line despite the fact that its main benefit accrues to the Tysons Corner landowners and their agents. Moreover, former Governor Mark Warner signed a no-bid contract with Bechtel for that same project.

    Show me a record of spending transportation tax dollars on projects that provide the most bang for the buck based solely on economics and engineering data. Show me a number of media stories about distraught landowners, developers and builders, who cannot get their pet transportation project built despite spending big bucks on lobbyists and campaign contributions. Show me a few related association presidents losing their jobs because the developer gravy train has crashed. Show me a couple of REITs going into bankruptcy because they could not find taxpayers to build them a road or a rail line.

    Then, let’s talk about higher taxes and fees!

    TMT

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “subsidize auto-dependency “

    Auto and motor vehicle drivers pay a higher proportion of their own full social costs than other transport users AND they subsidize other modes.

    It might not be enough, but if not, then nother modes are still being subsidised to a much greater extent.

    Now, there is nothing wrong with subsidies that buy us more than they cost (although the actual examples of this are few and far between).

    But before we go off waving our hands over subsidies or incentives, we ought ot at least agree on what it is we are buying.

    The benefits don’t only accrue to the immediate users whether we are talking roads, rail or bike trail, but we need to understand and agree on what they are before we go off making alloctions based on broad (and probably wrong) assumptions.

    For years, baseball ranked pitchers based on their won lost record, as if they were solely responsible. Nowadays we use more specific performance parameters such as strike out to walk ratio.

    You would hate to spend more on outfielders, claiming that pitchers are overpaid, based on the wrong statistics, only to discover that you were losing more games as a result.

    RH

    (Even if you consider those that drive 6000 miles vs 20000 miles, where is the huge transfer of wealth? If urban style living is what allows the difference, then those 6000 miles of urban roadway are worth a lot more and cost a lot more, wouldn’t they? They are also more congested and therefore (paid for) by more people, but my point is we just don’t know that this is a big wealth transfer, especially averaged over a few million people.)

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry’s argument says that a penny in sales tax in HR genertates 153 miilion but a penny in gas tax is only 8 million.

    He is making the argument that the smaller the base the higher the rate needs to be to raise the same money. Pile the taxes on a smaller group and maybe it will miss you.

    We know that VMT and GDP are pretty closely related. Let’s say Larry’s numbers are correct for HR, but for some other area a penny in sales tax raise $76.5 million, but a penny in gas tax would raise $5 million.

    That would mean the HR is getting more benefit for their miles driven (more goods delivered and sold, per mile driven) than the second (hypothetical) region. If that was the case then a user pays system would be a bargain for HR as compared to hypotheticville.

    It might be a huge transfer of wealth.

    I don’t have a problem with raisng the money through sales taxes, precisely because sales are so closely related to miles driven. the money has to come from somewhere, i think it is mostly a wash.

    We decide to just live with the situation, we could just bet that high fuel costs will solve the problem for us. But that would suggest that using a gas tax, even though it won’t raise as much money, is sufficient disincentive that you wouldn’t need as much money either.

    I think raising “enough” money with sales taxes and “enough” money with fuel taxes, is probably two different answers as to what constitutes enough.

    Either way, the money has to come from somewhere. If fuel prices are high enough (with or without taxes) people will drive less and spend less. If (and probably in addition) sales taxes are high, people will also drive less and buy less. I know it is already happening in my house.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “distraught landowners, developers and builders, who cannot get their pet transportation project built “

    I don’t get this. I understand the sentiment behind it, but not the logic.

    I buy some product, transport it to my place, use my labor to add value, and my advertising to make information available about what I have, and I sell at a profit. My profits depend on roads. Growing my business depends on new rooftops and new roads.

    Why does that make me any different from those diablo builders?

    If we need more roads (which I doubt) then we need them for a reason, and that reason boils down to sales. If that is the case, then a level plwying field implies that one dollar of sale is as valuable and desirable as the next. Why pick on the builders?

    But, if we think we have too many sales of all kinds, let’s cut back on the roads, and get that economy under control.

    RH

  8. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Great idea. Let’s throw another sales tax onto all the others. You wanna see what happens? People will quit going to food establishments, one of the largest sources of sales tax. We are already paying between 10 and 12 percent because the locals add their taxes on top of the state. So go ahead, hit that register one more time.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Exactly right, Darryl.

    My county is considering such a tax now. And the rationale is that this way we can collect money from outsiders to pay what are really our own legitimate expenses. They even want to restrict the money only for schools.

    Crazy, AND fundamentally dishonest.

    If you want to collect tourist related revenue, then spend it on tourist related business.

    But no, these guys are proudly advertizing the fact that they are creating a tax that “only other people” will pay. For our benefit, of course, and to cover our expenses.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The use of cell phones is cosely related to travel. how about a tax on cell phones to support transportation?

    It might also cut down on the use of cell phones – while driving.

    Since it would be a tax on what is essentially entirely new revenue, it wouldn’t be (an additioanal) drag on the rest of the economy.

    RH

  11. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    That was the rationale in VAB, tax the tourists and devote it to tourist ‘amenities’. Except that around 60 percent of the food tax is paid by local people. At least VAB had an excuse, unlike the other cities around here.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Auto and motor vehicle drivers pay a higher proportion of their own full social costs than other transport users AND they subsidize other modes.”

    You know there is not basis for this statement. Why do you continually repeat it?

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just had a duh moment today

    RoVa has a lower demand for new construction

    NoVa/TW has a higher demand for construction

    Maintanence will always be taken care of at the cost of a reduction in new construction

    So if you are from RoVa there is absolutely no problem with the status quo why should you pay more “maintanence” money to reduce the drain from the Transportation Trust Fund allowing more roads to be built in other areas

    Should be interesting to see what the NoVa/TW Rs and the RoVa Ds end up doing.

    NMM

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – My problem is that taxpayers, DTR users, etc., have had their taxes and fees hijacked to fund the speculative land investments of some well-connected people and entities. That, IMO, is simply wrong.

    The CTB and the NVTA continue to be heavily lobbied by individuals and companies that want new road and tracks laid in locations that just happen to be near the lobbying parties’ landholdings.

    These scams have nothing to do with improving transportation. Indeed, I’d argue that, if we really spent taxes and fees on those projects that would improve safety or reduce travel time, we would improve commerce generally. But spending money on those improvements would not likely provide windfalls for land speculators who are looking to open their properties for development and reap the windfall profits.

    Senator Omer Hirst, in promoting the DTR, promised that, once the Toll Road bonds were paid, the DTR would become a freeway. But his good faith promise has been hijacked by Tysons Corner landowners who want Metrorail to pass nearby their holdings so that they can obtain massive increases in density.

    Virginia is a crooked state, as bad as Illinois, Louisiana or New Jersey. Elected officials from both political parties lie, cheat and steal to divert public money to fund the development schemes of their pals and campaign contributors.

    That should stop before further increases in taxes or fees are levied.

    Kaine should direct VDOT to list what projects would actually improve safety and decrease travel times. Then let’s fund those projects (and only those projects) and talk about additional revenues.

    TMT

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually, I got curious about the oft stated maxim that auto drivers are heavily subsidized, along with the related idea that sprawl in general is heavily subsidized.

    I read a number of articles that listed all the reasons that gasoline should be $10 a gallon if all externalities were covered.

    I concluded that (some) of these externalities were overblown and the articles were an attempt to sensationalize a particular point of view.

    I began to ask myself what would happe if you applied the same level of criteria to other modes, and the answer wasn’t pretty.

    Mind you, I LIKE other modes. But I dislike untruths.

    In my reading I found a lot of dog in the fight arguments: why light rail is better than buses, more efficient than trains; why BRT is better than light rail; why PRT is the wave of the future, etc. etc.

    Generally, these had serious, and obvious flaws, but they often contained at least some gems of information that the opposition wasn’t likely to provide.

    At the same time, i was involved in a big, long term cost estimate for a commuter airline operation, and I found that there were many issues that were similar. These included things like load ratio, revenue miles, passenger miles, peak pricing, maintenance, labor costs, regulation, type of management, training requirements, etc. etc.

    Eventually I came to the conclusion that a) almost everyone drives or rides b) al the roads we have ae paid for somehow, by someone. c)Therefore, that someone doing the paying is likely to be a rider or driver.

    We can argue about who pays how much for what, but overall we can be pretty sure that drivers are paying whatever funds pay for our roads.

    That rider or driver provides his own labor to drive, equipment to drive, and repairs to the equipment.

    Which pretty much takes us down to externalities. One which is frequently used is the externality of congestion. But isn’t each driver congested exactly as much as he congests others (forgive us our trespasses)?

    Metro, for example, is the largest provider of parking in the region. metro DEPENDS on people driving to the stations, and yet we count parking as a negative externality only of autos.

    Then I learned that the average cost per passenger mile of some of our local transit operations were as much or more than $0.85 per mile. I know from my personal records that the full-up costs of driving my autos is much lower than that: including purchase, debt, depreciation, repairs, fuel, and insurance.

    As a chemist and engineer, I know that costs pretty closely track resources used, so I concluded I was using less resources than many of our local transit agencies.

    Autos are accused (rightly) of enormous property damage and injury. But they don’t get credit for the fact that much of this is covered by insurance paid for by the drivers.

    I began to see that crowded trains are viewed as an example of success, but crowded roads are not. I began to see that trains have congestion problems of their own.

    In the end, I concluded that even IF autos were not paying their own costs, they were paying more of their own costs than other modes – when measured to the same standards, same degree of accuracy, and the same precision.

    AND

    In addition to paying for their own autos, auto drivers also pay the various taxes and subsidies that allow metro riders to pay only 45% of Metro’s operationg costs. That’s operating costs, not including externalities.

    So, yes, I think there is plenty of basis for that statement, if only you take the time and trouble to think about it carefully and go get the data. But, if your mind is made up, and you do not wish to be confused by facts……..

    Finally I found a book by Winston and Shirley which calculated what they called the full social cost of each mode of transportation – all based on government figures and surveys, including pollution.

    They concluded that if you actually made decision on that basis, then transit operations would decrease substantially, maybe 90%, until only the best operations were in place. The rest would revert to (more socially efficient) automobiles.

    But, since transit carries such a small proportion of total traffic, this meant that auto use would increase only about 2%.

    Obviously, local conditions might be a lot different and justify different answers, but just as obviously, you cannot say that autos are grossly subsidized in comparison to other modes. Bicyclists, for example, pay almost nothing to support their trails and paths, except in their (other role) as auto drivers and users.

    The reason I continually repeat it is that I believe it is fundamentally dishonest to insist that auto drivers pay more of their full costs, when what we really mean is that we want them to continue to pay their full costs, plus pay subsidies to transit.

    The reason I continually repeat it is that I do not believe you can make good policy based on bad information.

    Do cars have problems? Yes. Are they the root of evey social ill? No. Will unlimited money for transit cure all our social ills? No.

    The reason I repeat it is to try to inject some reality into even more often repeated agenda driven drivel. I read what people had to say, and concluded that many of them were just wrong, or simply didn’t know better.

    Look, I’d like to see all our coastwise freight delivered under renewable, sustainable sail, as in the days of coasting schooners. But, I know that would kill more men every year than the pollution caused by diesel freighters.

    For better or worse, we are going to be stuck with autos for a long time. We should be working to making the best of their good qualites and the least of their bad qualities, instead of dreaming up nonsense arguments for their ultimate demise.

    RH

  16. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    C’mon. Push that sales tax.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/woes-begin-weigh-patrons-some-upscale-eateries-cut-back

    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/stores-catering-thrifty-shoppers-do-swift-business

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “speculative land investments of some well-connected people “

    I suppose you mean people like Til Hazel and AJ Van Metre. Van Metre died recently and was given a glowing account in the Middleburg paper.

    I’m quite sure you are right, but I still have a problem with value laden words like speculative and windfall profits.

    Builders I know have worked for decades on their projects, and they would hardly call their profits windfall. Their business has more than its share of unmanageable risks.

    Sure it is speculative: anything is speculative that you don’t intend to live in. But the days of the individual builder are gone. We have created the layers of regulation and bureaucracy that in turn created huge builders. They love it, because it protects them from the little guy.

    Between the big operators who want massive increases in density and the other kind of big operators and NIMBY’s who want NO increases in density we are creating a mess. then blaming it on the most easily disliked subjects.

    The idea is to get the big operators on our side, and that means we have to get them profits.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    With regards to Rail to Dulles, you have to ask several questions and can not focus alone on the benefit to several landowners. For the record, there are likely many landowners – some connected, others not – who will benefit greatly from Rail to Dulles.

    However, we also know that the jobs to housing ratio in the NoVA region is skewed. This contributes to the parking lot conditions on I-95 from Fredericksburg north. Rail to Dulles will allow for denser development to occur in the NoVA region and allow people who will fill the jobs that continue to come to the area to live in the area.

    Whether or not Rail to Dulles increases or decreases traffic in the Tysons Corner area is not a question I will speculate on. However, the residents would have lived somewhere. Is it better to have them live closer to their jobs? Provide existing and these new residents with alternative transportaiton options? OR have more and more people move to Spotsylvania County and Clark County who work in DC and Fairfax. Which if you think about would require more asphalt per resident and increase maintenance costs futher draining the construction funds of VA due to the settlement patterns in those two regions. New residents will use the transportation network no matter where they live.

    new transportation revenues are needed – however the state needs to review the method used to allocate the funds

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    9:06 – I’m not sure where to start shreding your argument. There is no evidence that building expensive condos at Tysons Corner will do anything to move housing closer to jobs. A number of civic groups has requested this information from the Tysons Corner Task Force and from Fairfax County. No information has been provided. Why? Because there is no evidence supporting that premise.

    Most people who will work in Tysons Corner will not be able to afford to live there.

    Next, Task Force and County studies show that, for every ten new trips to, from, and through, Tysons Corner, eight will be by motor vehicle even with Metrorail. See Task Force Charts 18 & 19. Moreover, at peak development, Tysons Corner traffic will reach 1,100,000 daily auto trips. Bumper-to-bumper, 1.1 million cars would circle the
    Beltway 44 times (2,770 miles). The added vehicle trips would double the existing number of auto trips from today.

    Task Force data show that it would take 14.7 minutes to travel 1.1 miles from Rt.123 & International Drive. This is nearly 50% worse than travel time from 2005. A person could walk the distance in that time period! Keep in mind that this figure assumes no adverse weather conditions or holiday shopping.

    Supersizing Tysons Corner will require massive capital expenditures just to bring the roads up to what the last Task Force said was needed. That was in 1994.

    “Increase Funding for Transportation Facilities. Transportation improvements needed to support Tysons Corner area development will require substantial capital investment. At least $300 million (in 1990 dollars) will be necessary to implement the recommended arterial roadway improvements. Of this total, it has been estimated that approximately $120 million would be needed to improve the Capital Beltway and Dulles Airport Access and Toll Roads, (including interchange improvements) and that at least $180 million would be needed to improve primary arterial roads, such as Route 7 and Route 123. With respect to public transportation approximately $175 to $500 million or more (in 1994 dollars) would be the additional funding needed to establish an alternative rail alignment through the center of Tysons Corner as opposed to an alignment that uses the median of the Dulles Airport Access Road (i.e., an elevated alignment through Tysons Corner, as identified on Figure 15 in the Transportation Section, has been estimated to cost at least $175 million in additional funds whereas if placed underground, the estimated additional cost would be approximately $500 million or more). The entire Dulles Airport Access Road rail alignment from Falls Church to the Airport has been estimated to cost over one billion dollars.

    “The above cost estimates are based on estimates from preliminary engineering studies or the application of unit cost estimates for various categories of facilities to recommend improvements affecting Tysons Corner. Cost estimates will be revised when project planning studies are undertaken. The roadway cost estimates reflect a magnitude of expenditure necessary to construct roads and interchange improvements that are identified on the Transportation Plan adopted in 1991. The Dulles Corridor Transportation Study conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) estimated future rail extension costs and recommended to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) the more costly alignment through Tysons Corner including direct service with three stations, due to a variety of benefits such as increased ridership and development potential. In August of 1996, the CTB adopted the concept of an alignment through Tysons Corner as recommended in the VDRPT study for inclusion of the project in the Commonwealth’s Transportation Improvement Plan.”

    What are the costs today? Where will the funding come from?

    Tysons Corner is subprime mortgages redux!

    TMT

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Until developers will actually commit to performance standards with respect to the “live where you work” claim especially with regard to traffic generation – why should citizens believe it?

    The more cynical will perceive such efforts as merely marketing.. at best and disingenuous and worse especially as part and parcel of obvious developer stampedes to projects like Tysons?

    You start out with a pure transportation proposal to extend Metro to Dulles and you end up with a room full of developers talking about what a great idea it is…

    🙂

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Is it better to have them live closer to their jobs? Provide existing and these new residents with alternative transportaiton options?……New residents will use the transportation network no matter where they live.”

    I think the overriding consideration is to reduce congestion, with its waste of time, resources, and pollution. the more people you have living in one area the more cars you have. Even if some families have fewer cars and drive less, the number of vehicles per square mile and the number of miles driven per square mile goes up.

    That equals more congestion and more pollution.

    The idea that if you move some of those people to spotsy you will increase congestion, doesn’t necessarily fly.

    And of course thee is a question about the qualty of housing options avalable. If you cannot offer equivalent housing, you cannot offer an equivalent solution. Alternative transportation options will never really be an option when they are carrying less than 10% of trips. It is ludicrous to think otherwise; they are parial options at best, and enormously expensive considering what they do – and don’t do.

    “Until developers will actually commit to performance standards with respect to the “live where you work” claim especially with regard to traffic generation – why should citizens believe it?”

    The authorities are going to have to commit to more than traffic standards. They are going to have to commit to husing standards that mean more options than condos or even townhouses.

    Just because developers are talking about what a great idea it is does not mean it isn’t a great idea. It just means the payment plan is skewed.

    It is simply time to face facts. For a fraction of the costs in TMT’s posts, and in a fraction of the time, we could move ten thousand jobs to Spotsy – if we simply choose to.

    But, as long as people are pushing the idea of live where you work and not pushing the idea of work where you live, we will continue to have imbalance.

    The work where you live idea, I beleive, is promoted by the anti-sprawl crowd, who wish to preserve open space, keep their own bucolic conditions, and avoid the traffic competition and higher prices that come with more development.

    To do that, they propose preposterous optional development schemes, claiming they will save money, when the real result is numbers like those posted by TMT.

    RH

  22. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Virginia is a crooked state, as bad as Illinois, Louisiana or New Jersey. Elected officials from both political parties lie, cheat and steal to divert public money to fund the development schemes of their pals and campaign contributors.”.

    My thoughts exactly. If the GA wants a regional sales tax to fund regional transportation – fine. However, the only way to ensure that the money generated in-region will be spent in-region is a state constitutional amendment establishing an elected regional authority to prioritize projects and spend the money – free from “Richmond”.

    In other words, begin to weaken Dillon’s Rule.

    Gov. Kaine, Tear Down That Rule!

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How come folks on this blog still focus on congestion as the primary vector of our transportation system?

    How quickly we forget the lives lost and injuries caused by this “system”…

    The conversation needs to shift to reliability and redundancy.

    If it is dangerous, then you cannot be guaranteed a reliable trip. (If it takes 10 minutes, it should be 10 minutes all the time… If it takes an hour, make it an hour consistently, then one can plan.)

    If there is only one option, then you haven’t any redundancy between paths or modes and you cannot be guaranteed a reliable trip.

    Grids are superior to the arterial – cul-de-sac model. The number of modes one can choose to get around is also important. Then it is about incentives and decentives to get the individual mode choice to match modal split that maximizes the “societal” benefit (the split where everyone benefits).

    Funding should be based upon user pays with modal incentives and disincentives to get to the optimal societal modal split.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “How come folks on this blog still focus on congestion as the primary vector of our transportation system? “

    Congestion and its related pollution are something we come in contact with every day. Death and dismemeberment is pretty rare by comparison: people drive their entire lives without ever being in ana accident.

    And, an accident in bumper to bumper creepy crawling traffic, doesn’t amount to much. it would amount to a lot less if we still had $5.00 headlights instead of custom designed ones that cost $500. We could design a lot of expense out of accidents if we choose. It is one of the bad qualities we should seek to revise.

    “If there is only one option, then you haven’t any redundancy between paths or modes and you cannot be guaranteed a reliable trip. “

    I don’t understand this. On any given trip, you will commit to one option, and then you are stuck with whatever happens. YOUR own personal redundacy is zero. At least with a car, you might get lucky and have another route available. That doesn’t happen on the Orange line.

    If you really want redundancy, put a bike rack on your car.

    MARC trains are notoriously unreliable, and the red line isn’t much better.

    “Funding should be based upon user pays with modal incentives and disincentives to get to the optimal societal modal split.”

    I completely agree. Now, who gets to decide what is the optimal modal split? Winston and Shirley suggest that we are way overpromoted on mass transit as it is. They claim the optmal modal split involves 2% more cares and 90% less mass transit – and their analysisi includes accidents, reliebility, and pollution.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More