The Pocahontas Parkway Experiment

Contrast the news of canceled construction projects and maintenance cut-backs at the Virginia Department of Transportation with the ongoing investment that Transurban is making in the 8.8-mile Pocahontas Parkway toll road southeast of Richmond.

Last week Bacon’s Rebellion published a communique from VDOT Commissioner David Ekern outlining how he planned to prioritize spending — and where he plans to cut back — on the state road system. With stagnant revenues and rising expenses, VDOT has no choice but pare spending and make unpleasant choices.

The Australian toll road operator, by contrast, has a dedicated stream of toll revenue, and it has the latitude to raise tolls. Indeed, it boosted its toll at the main tollbooth last year from $2.25 to $2.50 in January, with plans to raise it another quarter in January 2009.

Operating a 99-year lease, Transurban is incentivized to manage the property for long-term profit, not short-term return. Accordingly, it investing in a 1.6-mile connector road linking the highway to Richmond International Airport — a route that will save south-bound passengers several minutes of driving time — and in making operational improvements to the highway. These include:

  • Installing sensors on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge (crossing the James River) to continually monitor snow and ice conditions. The sensors will tie into VDOT’s transportation operations center.
  • Installing cameras, panic buttons and other security measures at the toll booth and administrative offices.
  • Planting native grasses, flowers, shrubs and willow trees in the right of way to promote erosion control and improve storm-water retention.

Here’s what really intrigues me. Transurban actually advertises to promote awareness of the time-saving (and gas-saving, pollution-reducing) alternative that its toll road provides. Wall-sized poster in to corridors, greets arriving airport passengers trekking to the baggage claim and ground transportation areas. “Get home sooner,” the ad exhorts. “Pocahontas 895.”

Renting wall space in the airport is not exactly a huge marketing expenditure, but it represents a departure from VDOT’s no-advertising approach. Markets do require information to operate efficiently, and advertising helps fill the information void.

For the most part, I regard Transurban’s initiatives as positives, especially its roadway plantings. I do worry about one thing. It is in Transurban’s interest to promote real estate development along its route, in a mostly undeveloped portion of Henrico County. What may be in Transurban’s best interest is not necessarily in the best interest of the inhabitants of the Richmond New Urban Region. More development means more drivers paying tolls, which benefits Transurban. However, the scatteration of development drives up the cost of providing utilities, public services… and secondary roads. Such development puts cars on roads ill equipped to handle them, eventually leading to congestion, safety issues and demands for improvements that cost money the public does not have.

Those costs are not Transurban’s problem. I have no evidence that Transurban is actively promoting dysfunctional development along its route, but I would be mightily distressed if such evidence surfaced.

The Transurban experience on I-895 will be an interesting experience to watch — a leading indicator of what we can expect as Virginia privatizes more of its highways.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

69 responses to “The Pocahontas Parkway Experiment”

  1. Larry G Avatar

    re: “I do worry about one thing. It is in Transurban’s interest to promote real estate development along its route, in a mostly undeveloped portion of Henrico County.”

    oh as contrasted with politically using taxpayer monies to accomplish the same feat ..and then telling taxpayers that there is no more money for needed improvements unless there is a tax increase?

    If we are going to worry about public-private partnerships creating sprawl on purpose to boost their commuting revenues…

    we sure have not shown much on the same issue with regard to taxpayer monies….

    we actually have folks who support taxing citizens and then using that money to build roads to induce/enable sprawl development.

    I’d say.. perhaps this is the right time to formulate a process to deal with this issue no matter whether taxpayers or toll payers fund the road.

    If we had done what Mr. Ekern says that we ought to be now doing.. if we had done that all along… we would not have billions of dollars of “urgent” unmet needs…..

    grump!

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Operating a 99-year lease, Transurban is incentivized to manage the property for long-term profit, not short-term return.”

    How is that again? They’ve got a 99 year lease. Why wouldn’t they want to get as much money up front as possible?

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “formulate a process to deal with this issue “

    You mean like to fairly examine the costs vs the benefits, apolitically?

    RH

  4. charlie Avatar

    And in other news, as the global financial crisis continues….

    infrastructure plays like this DON’T make any sense. They are all based on financing. 99 years of tolls equals a lot of bonds and other instruments. All the infrastructure companies are over-leveraged. The Spanish just gave up on the PA Turnpike — they couldn’t raise the 3 billion.

    Basically, we don’t need new highways. We need better secondary roads and better maintenance of the highways we have. Taxing the hell out of trucks which destroy highways would be a start. I see the need for competition with VDOT, but this privatizing highway thing is now just a fad of the crazy, debt ridden turn of the century.

  5. So now there’s no proof that toll roads don’t drive people into the new urban hovels.

    So what’s the point of them again? When VDOT raises taxes to waste on stuff we don’t want, in theory we can throw out the governor and get a new head of VDOT. When Transurban wastes money on a $14 million golden parachute for the ex-CEO and $30 million for the board of directors, there’s nothing we can do about it.

    Cameras, poppies and posters! Well, that’s worth another 25c in toll money.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Taxing the hell out of trucks which destroy highways would be a start. “

    Charlie is right.

    We should also tax businesses with so many employees in one aea that they cause an “attractive nuisance” leading to congestion.

    Same as we do with residential developers.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “David Hartgen, a former UNCC transportation professor and an opponent last year of the transit sales tax, said light rail isn’t generating enough benefits to justify the high cost to build and operate it.

    Hartgen released a study Monday that says Charlotte is only getting 68 cents in benefits for every $1 the train costs. When only Charlotte costs are analyzed — the state and federal government paid for 75 percent of the construction costs — the train performs better, with $1.20 in return for every $1 spent.

    Hartgen said most highway projects generate between $1.50 and $2 in benefits for every dollar spent. “

    RH

  8. Groveton Avatar

    "Operating a 99-year lease, Transurban is incentivized to manage the property for long-term profit, not short-term return."

    Yes, that's a very well known habit of publicly traded, for profit companies – putting more stock in building for the next century than quarterly profits. In fact, the relentless long term perspective of publicly traded companies is ruining the world economy.

    Meanwhile, presumably, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a long term view.

    Jim – here is what you wizards are really paying for:

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Outgoing-chief-pockets-15m-as-Transurban-slashes-p-HX3HN?opendocument&src=rss

    Let's see – Transurban lost money this year and last year too.

    Yeah – they'll be taking care of those roads in 99 years. Sure they will.

    Why don't you sell all of your roads to Transurban? Why stop at the (Decesndants of) Pocohontas Parkway.

  9. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    From Transurban’s 2008 Financial Report
    Traffic on the 895 grew strongly during the first half of FY08 but dropped during the second half of the year due to a combination of a toll price increase, higher fuel prices and weaker economic conditions in the US. Despite this, toll and fee revenue still increased over the previous year, delivering US$13.7 million.

    Actually, this sounds pretty good, considering the company lost $140M last year (AUS$ perhaps?). But even that was an improvement from their $152M loss the year before.

    They need to rack up some serious profits now, because eventually they’ll need to do some real maintenance. You know, like repaving. but when they’re losing that kind of money elsewhere, how much will they have to spend here?

    However, let me repeat their own words –
    Traffic…dropped during the second half of the year due to a combination of a toll price increase
    So, their toll increase decreased their revenues? Sounds like Richmonders aren’t that sold on 895.

  10. Larry G Avatar

    It is in Transurbans interest to provide value for the tolls.

    Since the transaction is quid quo pro – their profits – to a certain extent depend on returning customers.

    But JB’s original question rephrased – why do we put new roads where we put them…

    and would a profit enterprise site those roads differently than a tax-payer funded enterprise….????

    Let’s assume that it would be to their benefit to develop land along a new road – what would be the result?

    I see at least two.

    first, remember, it’s a profit operation.. so the tolls have to be set high enough to do that and certainly cannot be so low as to generate a loss.

    So.. the cost of the tolls will affect people who decide to move to the new developments.

    second, in such a scenario, you essentially have an “on-site” operator of day-to-day operations .. tending to the traffic flow.. and reacting when stuff like congestion starts to adversely affect operations.. i.e. unhappy customers.. lower toll revenues

    as opposed to VDOT.. they build the road and walk away..and if things go kaflooey, their response is.. essentially. put your complaint in writing… and if we need more lanes or a new road.. put it on the list – the same list that we can’t fund right now..

    One path – it benefits the operator to fix the problems..

    the second path.. is truly a government path.. bottom line from folks in government jobs …”not my pay grade”… I just work here….

    how many times do we hear this attitude when someone complains about a traffic signal that does not work properly or improper lane markings.. or a bottleneck with some fairly obvious…sometimes even cheap fixes… sometimes, more often than not .. the local VDOT response is underwhelming… they actually get quoted saying stuff like “yeah.. we’ll swing out that way next week and take a look – but it probably won’t do any good”.

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton and Michael, You raise a good point about what’s happening to Transurban at the corporate level. Big losses and big pay-outs to ex-CEOs — sounds like the Aussies have adopted the American style of corporate governance. I’d be careful about jumping to any conclusions about what it means for Transurban’s Virginia operations.

    We need to hope that the Kaine administration negotiated a good contract with Transurban that sets forth clear operational and financial performance standards. I haven’t seen the contract, so I don’t know.

    But you’re missing the larger point: Transurban has a dedicated revenue stream that not only pays off bonds but pays for improvements. And the people who pay are the people who use the road. Not anyone else.

    Now, Groveton, you are ferociously opposed to applying user-pays principles to Northern Virginia. (You’ve also suggested that I’ve advocated the same principles for NoVa without embracing them for my own region.) But I would far prefer that the Richmond region build its roads through tolls than by bilking Virginia taxpayers — as in the non-tolled Rt. 288.

    The toll system works very nicely for the Powhite Parkway/Downtown Expressway. When the Richmond Metropolitan Authority needs to make reasonable improvements to the road, it hikes to the tolls to the level needed to pay for the improvements. Nobody is thrilled about the higher tolls, but get this… the road doesn’t get insanely congested. People do like that.

    Works for me.

  12. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    Jim,
    What I was suggesting was that they may not really have a dedicated revenue stream. Toll payers are their revenue source, and when they recently raised the toll even the company admits that usage dropped.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Nobody is thrilled about the higher tolls, but get this… the road doesn’t get insanely congested. People do like that.”

    You are not looking at the systems analysis picture, Jim.

    The people who can still drive on the uncongested, newly paved road, with higher tolls may like it, but that isn’t the whole cost. There is also a cost to those that choose not to use that route, and a cost to government in lost revenue from the business they did not conduct.

    Ryan, usage dropped, but revenues went up. Now, the question is, how do you get the most out of the road: max throughput, or max tolls?

    Max throughput will occur when traffic is traveling around 40 MPH, but at that speed, customers will be unwilling to pay a high toll. If you raise the toll high enough, no one will use it, there will be no revenue, and the road will be a total waste.

    But now we have split the responsibility as opposed to giving it to VDOT. Government would like to see the most use of the road (assuming road use generates other government revenues). The toll operator just wants the most revenue, and they don’t care if anyone uses the road or not.

    Instead of having somone responsible for the road, and the public welfare (VDOT, even if they do it badly) you have now divided the responsibility, and you can only expect results that are less optimal, not more.

    RH

  14. Groveton Avatar

    “…it hikes to the tolls to the level needed to pay for the improvements. Nobody is thrilled about the higher tolls, but get this… the road doesn’t get insanely congested. People do like that.”.

    Basic economics. Raise the price until demand falls in line with supply.

    Bu why stop there?

    1. If abortion represents a “woman’s right to choose” then a live birth (pregnancy with the choice not to abort) must represent a choice too. And if people are choosing whether to have kids shouldn’t school be a “user pays” area too? I am sure someone will say that schools provide a societal benefit. But so do roads. Next time you see a house on fire ask yourself how long it would take the fire department to walk over and put it out.

    2. Speaking of fire departments – how about a tax break for homes wil sprinkler systems. They are safer than homes without them. Why should conscientious homeowners who install sprinklers subsidize those who don’t.

    3. Basic vs. enhanced police protection. Maybe everybody gets basic police protection but, for an added fee, the police will drive by your house more frequently and maybe monitor the internet cameras on top of the lightposts on your streets more often. You know – people who want more safety can buy it.

    You see – this is the problem with the toll road argument:

    One service (roads) in some cases in some places.

    Why not all services in all cases in all places?

    Or, at least, all roads in all places.

    I am not opposed to toll roads. I am opposed to a random sprinkling of toll roads instead of a real user pays system whereby everybody who uses the roads pay for the roads.

    Right now – the toll roads are a scam. They are either targeted at out of state drivers passing through Virginia or they are targeted at communities which lack the political clout / interest to oppose them. So, tolls on Rt 81 are defeated and tolls on 495 are accepted.

    I actually believe in fairness – everybody who drives pays to drive. You pay by the mile and your cost per mile reflects the cost per mile.

    Now, you find me one politician from RoVA who would support that. You can’t. Beacuse driving should be free in RoVA and cost money in NoVA (Pocohontas Parkway not withstanding).

  15. Groveton Avatar

    “It is in Transurbans interest to provide value for the tolls.”.

    Yep. Presumably it’s in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s interest to provide value for taxes too.

    “Since the transaction is quid quo pro – their profits – to a certain extent depend on returning customers.”.

    All transactions are quid pro quo. That’s what a transaction is. Almost all businesses depend on returning customers (casket makers an exception). Politicians depend on returning voters. So what?

    “But JB’s original question rephrased – why do we put new roads where we put them…”.

    Why did we put the old roads where we put them?

    “and would a profit enterprise site those roads differently than a tax-payer funded enterprise….????”.

    Yes. They would only build roads which could be congested and stay congested. The profits are at the margin – just like airline seats. You want to make money in a fixed asset business – keep the assets busy. You want to make money as an airline – fill all the seats. You want to make money in tolls – keep the roads congested. Why is this hard? They would not build low usage roads or they would charge a small fortune to those who drive on low usage roads. So, if I bought the rights to the road in front of your house I’d have to charge you $10 a trip to drive on it. It’s not how much your road costs it’s how much you road costs minus the money generated from revenue generating trips. And this is something the “location variable cost” elites just can’t seem to understand – It’s not just the cost of the road but the usage too. A road where only a few cars travel in podunk is more expensive per vehicle mile than a crowded road in the city.

    Larry – nobody would build the road in front of your house because it is massively subsidized by the government. There is no conceivable toll that could be charged which would recover the costs and a profit. Lightly used (i.e. uncongested) roads are robbing Virginia blind. Congested roads are congested with what? Taxpayers! They pay for themselves if you count the taxes.

  16. “I actually believe in fairness – everybody who drives pays to drive. You pay by the mile and your cost per mile reflects the cost per mile.”

    We already have this. It’s called the gas tax. Drive more, you pay more. Your particular cost per mile will depend on your personal choice regarding efficiency — this is an incentive worth keeping.

    You are right that toll roads are a scam. It’s an opportunity for politicians to hide the cost of tax increases on the public. In Indiana, for example, Mitch Daniels sells off the Indiana Toll Road to a bunch of foreigners for $4 billion. Mitch Daniels gets to spend $4 billion on projects while playing radio ads saying, “Look! I didn’t raise taxes. Re-elect me!”

    Meanwhile, three generations of drivers in Indiana will be paying thousands per year to pay off Mitch’s spending spree — long after Mr. No New Taxes has assumed room temperature.

    Madness.

  17. Groveton Avatar

    “But I would far prefer that the Richmond region build its roads through tolls than by bilking Virginia taxpayers — as in the non-tolled Rt. 288.”.

    Why do roads bilk taxpayers? Roads are one of the few things that benefit just about everybody (arguably everybody). How is using tax money to provide soemthing that benefits everbody a bilk?

    I have no problem with tolls – as long as I can submit my annual toll expense as an offset to my state taxes. Since I am paying my own way through tolls why should I pay again with transportation taxes?

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Yes. They would only build roads which could be congested and stay congested.”

    Bingo. We considered a crowded concert or ball game a success, but a crowded road a failure.

    “Congested roads are congested with what? Taxpayers! They pay for themselves if you count the taxes.”

    Well, yeah, but isn’t there some kind of Laffer curve here? Wouldn’t they pay MORE taxes if they could get where they are going to conduct their business? True enough, there is NO toll that will support a very lightly used road, but isn;t there also a maximum congestion level before the utility and value of the road falls off?

    The state is in a position to, and has the incentive to, consider that balance (except for regional politics). But the toll road operators are not.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We have lots of lightly used and uncongested roads. We should be planning to get more use out of them by supporting development and jobs where they exist, instead of building new roads.

    RH

  20. Groveton Avatar

    Tolls are tax hikes in drag. They are how dishonest Republicans claim they are making government smaller. Governments only get smaller when they collect less in taxes (assuming no deficit spending). Tolls don’t make government smaller. They keep government the same size but ask it to do less. These same Republicans say they don’t like government sanctioned wealth transfers. You know, the whole equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome argument. But putting selected tolls on just a few roads in a few areas without reducing the toll payers taxes is a wealth transfer. It’s just a hidden wealth transfer. So, the only difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are more honest. Obama is just going take money from some people and give it to others. He admits it. But not the Republicans. They want a “public-private” initiate to instantiate “user pays” revenue collection. Translation – a government mandated wealth transfer.

  21. Groveton Avatar

    “We have lots of lightly used and uncongested roads. We should be planning to get more use out of them by supporting development and jobs where they exist, instead of building new roads.”.

    Seems like the tail wagging the dog. We found a road without many cars so we built a city there? Are roads really such a big deal in the grand scheme of development? VDOT’s budget is less than 10% of the state’s budget. Something isn’t adding up.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why do roads bilk taxpayers? Roads are one of the few things that benefit just about everybody (arguably everybody). How is using tax money to provide soemthing that benefits everbody a bilk?”

    Precisely.

    Just because there are a handful of people who use the roads little or none at all at this particular stage in their life, gives them no rights to impose much larger inequalities and much larger transaction costs on everyone else, just so they can be satisfied they are not getting screwed by a penny on just one measure of how they benefit from roads.

    Such an argument ignores the lhigher level system benefits and costs that need to be assessed, and paid for.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “A road where only a few cars travel in podunk is more expensive per vehicle mile than a crowded road in the city.”

    Probably, and this is EMR’s argument.

    On the other hand the city road costs a lot more per square foot. And then if the traffic is sitting on it instead of actually travelling, the costs per vehicle mile go up.

    Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Professor Hartgen said most highway projects generate between $1.50 and $2 in benefits for every dollar spent. “

    How is that a bilk for anybody?

    RH

  25. Larry G Avatar

    if that were true then why do we lack funds for more roads?

    and Ray… the difference between a congested sports stadium and a congested highway is that people pay substantial money to be there.. substantial enough to pay for the building and it’s operation and still have funds left over – called profit -that could be invested in more sports stadiums…

    we do not end with left over money on roads that then can be spent on building more roads..

    why not – especially if they are returning more benefit than the cost?

  26. “if that were true then why do we lack funds for more roads?”

    There is plenty of money for more roads. It’s wasted on mass transit ($5 billion rail to dulles) and assorted local government boondoggles hidden from public view by deceptive accounting practices.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if that were true then why do we lack funds for more roads?”

    Maybe because we haven’t raised the taxes for them in thirty years? Maybe because those that got there first (developed their property) have pocketed the benefits and allowed none to return to the government?

    Just because there are benefits for the people that paid for the (previous) roads, doesn’t mean there is funding for new roads. those two issues are utterly unrelated.

    But, if those same people have been brainwashed to believe that roads are the cause of all their problems (as opposed to what the actual research shows), then they will refuse to fund new roads, even if it is not in their own best interests.

    The facts are what they are, and yet people continue to spout conterfactual political rhetoric based on nothing more than personal philosophy.

    When we run out of work, we will create a new WPA – to build roads.

    Oh yeah, and what BOB said, too.

    RH

  28. Larry G Avatar

    re: ..”It’s wasted on mass transit ($5 billion rail to dulles) and assorted local government boondoggles hidden from public view by deceptive accounting practices.”

    VDOT has spent about 4 billion dollars a year for many, many years and not of penny of it went for the Dulles project and even in the current budget – if you look at how much is spent for transit verses how much money in that budget that does not come from the gasoline tax and instead the general fund – it just about evens out.

    If roads actually paid for themselves as Ray claims – then we’d have a giant revolving fund.. and an endless supply of funding for new roads….

    but of course we don’t… and the reason why is that there is a gigantic conspiracy to divert the funds into projects like Dulles that have yet to turn dirt.. and have not used a penny of gas tax money either.

    the fact that VDOT has 9000 employees and Virginia has the 3rd largest road network in the nation is apparently not relevant.

  29. Larry G Avatar

    actually.. there is a real possibility that if a certain person that Groveton supports – gets elected – that we’ll have a modern-day WPA road program.

  30. “and the reason why is that there is a gigantic conspiracy to divert the funds into projects like Dulles that have yet to turn dirt.. and have not used a penny of gas tax money either.”

    Oh, really? Without any dirt turned, $140 million (here) has been spent planning the Dulles Rail boondoggle. This doesn't count the state money wasted on the project. Do you honestly not think VDOT has not burned hundreds or thousands of billable law firm hours on this? Wonder where those firms send their campaign donations…

    "if you look at how much is spent for transit verses how much money in that budget that does not come from the gasoline tax and instead the general fund – it just about evens out."

    Your memory is bad. Money taken from motorists through the personal property tax AND the gas tax, etc, adds up to far more than is spent on roads at the state and local level. I've already demonstrated this using Fairfax County's own numbers.

    It is not a wash. The accounting you rely upon is smoke & mirrors.

  31. To clarify: the $140m is only the federal money already spent on Dulles Rail.

  32. Larry G Avatar

    “Money taken from motorists through the personal property tax AND the gas tax, etc, adds up to far more than is spent on roads at the state and local level. I’ve already demonstrated this using Fairfax County’s own numbers.”

    and your point?

    Did Fairfax take your personal property tax and spend it on rail/transit?

    Did they “divert” it to some other use than transportation?

    If the net affect of tolling can produce a road with acceptable congestion levels then why cannot VDOT and Fairfax accomplish the same with their transportation dollars?

    If they did that – then there would be no opportunity for toll road operators – correct?

  33. “Did they ‘divert’ it to some other use than transportation?”

    Yes. Money collected from driver sources exceeded the amount of money spent on roads. The remainder went to prop up the county’s spending spree, which includes wasteful and polluting buses. I’m not sure if Fairfax subsidizes Metro, but it seems likely, yes.

    “If the net affect of tolling can produce a road with acceptable congestion levels then why cannot VDOT and Fairfax accomplish the same with their transportation dollars?”

    Because of a political decision on the part of Kaine and Homer (and their immediate predecessors) to build no new roads. Also, economic catastrophe and the ebola virus can also create acceptable congestion levels.

    “If they did that – then there would be no opportunity for toll road operators – correct?”

    $170,000 in illegal political donations (plus an equal amount in legal contributions from Flour) buys opportunity for toll road operators. Do not apply free market concepts to toll roads. They are creatures of politcal force.

  34. Larry G Avatar

    so let me get this straight.

    The reason we have congestion is because localities (like Fairfax) spend property taxes on buses instead of roads?

    and the State (Kaine and predecessors) did not spend gas tax money on roads?

    and… we’d need this much money to build enough roads to “fix” congestion – (fill in the blank)

    .. and it would come from (fill in the blank).

  35. Larry G Avatar

    I have an even better question.

    If a private toll road operator can successfully operate their road at acceptable congestion levels…..

    then tell me how VDOT (or Fairfax or pick your govt entity) achieve the same goal?

  36. “The reason we have congestion is because localities (like Fairfax) spend property taxes on buses instead of roads?”

    No. Car taxes. It’s called a personal property tax, but that’s yet another deceptive tactic. It is a tax levied on cars. But, yes, the congestion is caused by lack of capacity that follows from the state and localities wasting vehicle tax revenues because they have an ideological opposition to roads.

    “and the State (Kaine and predecessors) did not spend gas tax money on roads?”

    It is a fact that total lane miles have not increased by any relevant amount (i.e., as compared to the increase in population) in the past 10 years.

    “and… we’d need this much money to build enough roads to “fix” congestion – (fill in the blank).. and it would come from (fill in the blank).”

    I don’t have the magic amount. A good start would be to devote all revenue sourced from drivers into the roads.

  37. Larry G Avatar

    let’s say that next year Fairfax does what you suggest.

    That all personal property taxes that derive from cars would be used for roads.

    How much would that be?

    and on what would you spend it – to see actual reductions in congestion – equivalent to what you might see with HOT lanes?

  38. Groveton Avatar

    “actually.. there is a real possibility that if a certain person that Groveton supports – gets elected – that we’ll have a modern-day WPA road program.”.

    Yeah – sort of.

    I think we need to raise taxes and lower government spending.

    McCain is 0-2. No new taxes and keep spending more.

    Obama is 1-1. Higher taxes and keep spending more.

    If anyone gets to 2-0, I’ll vote for him

  39. “How much would that be?”

    In Fairfax, which accounts for 1/7th of the state’s population, it’s $200m. see here

    So assuming other jurisdictions are thieves in equal measure, we’re talking about more than a billion.

    “and on what would you spend it – to see actual reductions in congestion – equivalent to what you might see with HOT lanes?”

    Your assumption that the HOT lanes will reduce congestion is incorrect. To the contrary, they guarantee congestion in the road network to maintain profitability for the pay lanes. On what would I spend $1b? I’d start by adding an extra lane to every congested road and start working on the list of deficient roads/bridges. Rinse, repeat.

    I’d also create a camp where no-growthers and NIMBYs can be placed for “re-education.”

  40. Larry G Avatar

    would that be a voluntary or mandatory camp?

    🙂

    I actually agree with you on the property taxes on autos.

    but I don’t think extra lanes will do much about congestion – especially at rush hour – because unless you can add the equivalent of a network-wide extra lane – all you do is shift the bottlenecks… much like we see when the HOV lanes merge back with the regular lanes.

    The way the HOT lanes will deal with this issue is by having the extra lanes have separate exits at the overpasses but even then – they’ll exit onto roads that cannot be widened either.

    I just don’t see how more roads will help NoVa congestion.

    but I WOULD use the tax money for reducing bottlenecks (where they can be), bridges, connecting roads, etc and – if a majority of voters want some of the money to go to transit – then do it.

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    “we’d need this much money to build enough roads to “fix” congestion “

    “I just don’t see how more roads will help NoVa congestion.”

    More roads won’t necessarily prevent congestion. Neither will more mass transit. They will help some,and they will allow more throughput. That capacity will be overwhelmed as new development occurs in already congested areas.

    In order to reduce congestion you need to limit the attractions, destinations, accessibility in certain areas. Move those attractions to places where the roads are uncongested.

    If you toll the roads going to the existing congested destinations (to reduce demand), it will have the result of making thethe destinations less attractive and they will eventually move, of their oen volition.

    When that happens the toll roads will bring in less revenue, and the lease will fail. A revenue event will occure when the operators demand payment for the new infrastructure they will turn over to the taxpayers.

    Surely there is a better way to move the jobs that costs a lot less money.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    “If roads actually paid for themselves as Ray claims – then we’d have a giant revolving fund.. and an endless supply of funding for new roads….”

    They are not my claims, I’m just repeating statistics published by professors and researchers in the field.

    The claim is that rods return $1.50 to $2 in benefits for every dollar spent. Those benefits accrue to the public, not the government: it is a system wide benefits analysis, not a government ROI.

    The government could tap into those benfits and get more money for roads, but people would have to agree to be taxed on the gross benefits to raise the money.

    In the long term, it would be to their benefit, but they would not retain as much short term profit, so they are opposed. They voice the opposition by falsely claiming that roads don’t pay, that “other users” aren’t paying fairly, and making red herring claims of regional favoritism.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar

    to see actual reductions in congestion – equivalent to what you might see with HOT lanes?

    Hot lanes won’t reduce congestion.

    The HOT lanes will not be congested.

    There is a huge difference, and a huge difference in cost.

    RH

  44. re: “In order to reduce congestion you need to limit the attractions, destinations, accessibility in certain areas. Move those attractions to places where the roads are uncongested.”

    you sound like EMR

    “all we have to do is move things”.

    You CAN reduce congestion if there are actions taken that result in folks who don’t need to drive at rush hour – not driving.

    That’s what HOT lanes do.

    They don’t keep you from driving but they do assign a premium cost to driving during congested conditions – AND you have options to avoid the cost.

    It is exactly the same process used to reduce congestion in airlines, cruise boats, hotels, etc.

    Yet.. when we adopt the same exact process used by private industry in dealing with congestion – it becomes a “scam” and an “unfair” thing to do.

    Why don’t you accuse the airlines of unfair scams when they charge you more for a prime time flight?

    If you let a private entity operate a road – using the same exact principles that the airlines use – it’s called a “scam”.

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    “you sound like EMR”

    Except in reverse. I agree about balance (or more accurately a trend in that direction: balance is unachievable), I disagree about direction, density, and costs.

    “That’s what HOT lanes do.”

    This is simply wrong. You have bought into a nice theroy that won’t work in practice. Hot lanes are a bad idea, and I believe they are unconstitutional: taxes are supposed to be uniform.

    I’ll agree they may move some non-cummute traffic off of rush. I don’t think they will do a thing for congestion. Metro was supposed to eas congestion, and it took a thirtyyeear multi-billion dollar experiment to prove otherwise.

    Now we are signing up for a 99 year multi-billion dollar experiment.

    It is the same process used in airlines, cruise lines, and hotels – to maximize revenue.

    Not to reduce congestion.

    Hot lanes will reduce congestion onthe hot lanes, but they will not reduce congestion overall. They will cost more money to deliver less traffic and they will do nothing for air quality. They will be a net social deficit, and therefore bad for the economy and the environment.

    It is a terrible idea founded on swetheart loan subsidies, and it ought to be scrapped forthwith.

    Oh, yeah, and the airlines? They all have to deal with rush hour at the airports and the airspace, even if the planes are full.

    Metro charges peak hour pricing too. And what does that do? Send people back to their cars – so they can pay peak hour pricing there.

    A road is not and should not be a private enterprise. If you think they should be,then lets make them all private eneterprise, and see what that costs.

    Roads and development are intricately linked, but not in a balanced way. Using (only) targeted road tolls to adress development and jobs imbalance is just incredibly stupid.

    Let’s take a huge, complex system and point to one distorted free-enterprise theory, applied to a fraction of the road network, and promote that as “the solution”.

    I guarantee it will be a wrong one.

    RH

  46. Groveton Avatar

    “Why don’t you accuse the airlines of unfair scams when they charge you more for a prime time flight?
    “.

    Because the airlines are competitive and I can take a different airline if I don’t like the prime time flight?

    Because I am not already paying taxes to fly and then being charged again to fly?

    Because the airline doesn’t charge me a premium fare but then let people from RoVA fly for free?

  47. re: “It is the same process used in airlines, cruise lines, and hotels – to maximize revenue.

    Not to reduce congestion.”

    yes Ray – that is exactly the reason.

    If the price of an airline ticket was the same no matter what the hour – people would crush the system at certain hours.

    The airlines have two choices.

    They could expand the airport and buy more planes – and in both cases the extra space and planes would be idle much of the day…

    or they can price the trip such that only the folks that absolutely need to fly at a certain hour – are willing to pay to do so.

    you clearly don’t understand – that it’s not the congestion per se – but the impacts of the congestion that are at issue.

    Is there a way to reduce/mitigate/negate the need to build MORE infrastructure by pricing congestion such that new facilities are not needed?

    Airlines do this – every day.

    Cell Phone companies do this every day.

    Hotels do this every day.

    and yet … this very same exact method is said to not work the same way.

    and the truth is that it DOES work and it works with traffic congestion on highways the same way it works with airline traffic congestion, cell phone traffic congestion and hotel traffic congestion.

    You at least ought to admit that it WILL work and that your objections are that you opposed the principle of using that proven process on public roads.

    not because it won’t work but because you dislike the idea of charging for congestion.

    if you really had consistent principles on this – you’d support outlawing the same practice used by airlines, cell phone companies and hotels.

    why is it okay for them to do this and not okay for roads to do this?

  48. Anonymous Avatar

    “If the price of an airline ticket was the same no matter what the hour – people would crush the system at certain hours.”

    People do crush the system at certain hours. As a result airplanes crush the sytem at certain hours.

    And just as with the problem within cities where certain areas have more “attaction” certain airports have more attaction, more congestion, and more travel delays.

    In the airline system travel delays throughout the system are directly traceable to delays at seven major airports.

    ————————-

    “you’d support outlawing the same practice used by airlines, cell phone companies and hotels.”

    No because they are private companies and none of them offer a service I can’t do without. They are not publicly supported in some places and fee based in others.

    ————————-

    I understand that it is the impacts of congestion that are the issue. I’m opposed to congestion tolls because they will do nothing to reduce congestion overall – just on the HOT lanes. Therefore they will do nothing to mitigate the impacts of congestion: they will onlly create an incentive to KEEP congestion – so that we can charge (some people) to avoid it.

    It is not OK for roads to do this because it is a stupid idea, and inherently crooked.

    Besides that, it won’t work. It doesn’t work for airlines: they already have planes sitting idle during the day. It does’nt work for metro: they already have trains and buses sitting idle during the day.

    The truth is that it DOES NOT work. Look at the photos of the HOT lanes in CA. A few cars in the HOT lanes, everyone else jammed in the rest: net change in overall congestion – zilch per megabuck.

    Stop comparing apples to oranges and pushing some agenda and just think about the problem at hand: the whole problem , not just a couple of lanes in a few places.

    There are a lot better, faster and cheaper ways to prevent congestion, IF that is actually the goal.

    RH

  49. re: “I’m opposed to congestion tolls because they will do nothing to reduce congestion overall”

    what does “overall” mean?

    Would you say the same thing with regard to airlines and cell phone minutes?

    Both of them “spread” the congestion… by encouraging those who do not absolutely have to fly at the busiest hour to defer their times

    this is exactly how HOT lanes work.

    The premise is that not everyone must drive at the most congested times – and that some trips can be delayed, deferred or even combined with other trips.. etc…

    read this:

    ” The anticipated mother of all traffic jams was more like the predicted blizzard that turns out to be a bunch of flurries.

    Transportation officials had warned the public that this weekend’s work on the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge could take 57 hours and cause 15-mile backups and 90-minute delays. Interstate 95 and the Capital Beltway would be parking lots.

    But traffic was extremely light for a Saturday, officials said, and the flow was unbelievably fine.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601301_pf.html

    Now tell me what happened to all those trips that people had no choice but to drive?

    This is not the first time this has happened.

    and this proves that not everyone needs to drive at the time they would – if they knew there would be congestion…

    In this case – the thought that it would be congested – kept people from driving…

    clear evidence that people uses roads the same way they use airlines and cell phone minutes.

    Only when folks have to pay to drive when this is congestion will they change their behaviors in the same way that folks change their behavior when they fly or make cell phone calls.

    You can bet that if airline tickets cost the same no matter when or cell phone minutes cost the same no matter when – that both of them would experience rush hours and gridlock… and that the only solution to it – would be to build more airports, buy more planes and build more cell towers – and it would cost us all more to do it.

    Essentially what you are advocating is charging everyone more – to buy down congestion – instead of letting those who want peak hour service – pay for it – and those that don’t – to not pay for it.

    In other words, you want others to subsidize your use.

  50. “But traffic was extremely light for a Saturday, officials said,”

    What’s your point? Saturday isn’t a work day.

    “The premise is that not everyone must drive at the most congested times “

    The HOT lane premise tells only half the story. The other half is the non-compete agreement that generates congestion to keep the HOT lanes profitable. In Virginia’s case, the agreement specifies monetary payments to Transurban in the event that VDOT does anything to relieve congestion in the free lanes.

    That provision should be sufficient to prove to any fair-minded individual that a net congestion reduction is not the goal. What you get instead is a movement of congestion from 95/495 onto side streets.

    The proof between theory and reality can be seen by taking a trip to the 91 freeway in California. Summary: it sucks.

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    “this is exactly how HOT lanes work.”

    Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

    It works (and only partly) for cell phoes, hotels and airlines because 1) they are private enterprises and 2) it applies to every plane and phone in the fleet, not just the ones in NOVA.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    They don’d do it to reduce congestion. They do it to increase revenue. They only increase revenue to the point that the planes still fly full – same congestion.

    RH

  53. they do it to get full utilization of their asset instead of having to buy more assets to provide full peak hour coverage but then have empty planes at non-peak hour.

    They keep their planes full by encouraging those who can fly at non-peak hour to shift their timeframe – in effect – for a discount to the peak hour price.

    Same thing with cell phones.

    If they did not charge a peak hour price – then their existing towers could not handle peak hour loads – so they charge a premium for peak hour and let folks shift to non peak hour so that they don’t have to buy more towers that will be full only during peak hour and be much less used at non peak.

    It’s not about profits.

    It’s that if the have to build more towers, more airport terminals and buy more planes to serve peak hour – and then those things will be unused outside of peak hour – they still have to be paid for.

    So rather than charge a huge premium for peak hour users to pay for those peak hour planes (that will sit unused outside of peak hour) – they charge a smaller premium – in exchange for people time-shifting.

    If they had to buy more planes and terminals – everyone’s price would go up OR the peak hour price would be astronomical.

    whether we’re talking about airlines, cell phones, electricity, water/sewer, the concept is the same.

    and it has little to do with whether it is private or public.

    We have private HOT lanes and we have Public HOT lanes and they both work the same way… they charge a premium for peak hour and the purpose is to encourage folks who can drive outside of peak hour – to do so.

    It would seem to be that if one opposes HOT lanes that they would also oppose the practice of higher air fares at peak hour or higher cell phone rates at peak hour.

    The question is – can the congestion at peak hour BE REDUCED (managed) by a pricing mechanism

    .. and the reality is that it can be.

    You can even make it uncongested if you raise the price high enough.

    Airlines could fly half empty at rush hour if they upped their ticket prices to levels that folks would not buy them.

    The same is true with congestion pricing of highway lanes.

    As you pointed out – there is still congestion but it is being managed at levels that is acceptable to the people who pay for it – to be acceptable.

    If it get’s too congested, they raise the tolls until enough folks think it is too expensive and shift to other time periods.

  54. “The question is – can the congestion at peak hour BE REDUCED (managed) by a pricing mechanism”

    For the sake of argument, let’s grant the premise that the HOT lanes work as advertised and that congestion is in fact managed in the two HOT lanes on the inner beltway.

    Ok, what about the four other general purpose lanes on the inner beltway? What about the neighborhood side streets that roughly parallel the beltway?

    What happens there?

    Are you “reducing” congestion, or are you just shifting it? People don’t all of a sudden not have to go to work in the morning because Transurban starts taxing HOT lane users.

    This is one of many fundamental differences between this and cell phones. The other is that Transurban is using right-of-way that belongs to the public that was given away without the consent of the governed. (Cf. the descendants of Pocahontas discussion)

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    “what about the four other general purpose lanes on the inner beltway? What about the neighborhood side streets that roughly parallel the beltway?

    What happens there?”

    MWCOG has already published a study on this.

    There will be more traffic.

    There will be more congestion on the surface streets.

    There will be fewer car pools.

    Some businesses will move out of the tolled areas.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar

    “they do it to get full utilization of their asset instead of having to buy more assets to provide full peak hour coverage but then have empty planes at non-peak hour.”

    Wrong. They can’t get slots to fly more planes at peak hours, even if they had them. It is pure revenue enhancement.

    During the day, planes get pulled for quick maintenance routines.

    What you say is also true, of course. Some people will delay a trip to get a lower price.

    But inthe context of two HOT lanes comapred to all the traffic out there, your idea is complete nonsense. Even MWCOG says so.

    There will be more traffic, more pollution, more congetion and fewer car pools.

    The only positive is that more cars will use the (now underused) HOV lanes.

    You need to learn to look for what is likely to happen, instead of what you would like to happen.

    RH

  57. re: “For the sake of argument, let’s grant the premise that the HOT lanes work as advertised and that congestion is in fact managed in the two HOT lanes on the inner beltway.

    Ok, what about the four other general purpose lanes on the inner beltway? What about the neighborhood side streets that roughly parallel the beltway?

    What happens there?”

    I’d ask you – what happened when DOT officials said that there was going to be construction of the WW bridge approaches and predicted gridlock and warned everyone that there would be long backups

    .. and then it did not happen?

    What happens to you when you know that at certain times – it is going to take you twice as long to get from point A to point B?

    Many folks will simply not go if it is a discretionary trip and if the trip must be made – they’ll try to defer it or find some other way to accomplish the purpose of the trip.

    People do this all the time when presented with heavy congestion levels.

    We all do it.

    There are certain times when we know that congestion levels are so bad that it is counterproductive to attempt timely travel during those times.

    Got to be at the airport during rush hour?

    What do you do?

    Well.. I can tell you what you won’t do – and that is attempt to get there without considering alternatives.

  58. two things here:

    1. – re: “Are you “reducing” congestion, or are you just shifting it? People don’t all of a sudden not have to go to work in the morning because Transurban starts taxing HOT lane users.”

    People respond to higher congestion levels by changing their behaviors.. We know this happens.

    If you have a 30 minute commute, and you can shave 15 minutes off it even though the last 10 is on surface streets and it used to take 5 – it’s still worth it.

    Most folks who commute daily – know – almost to the minute how long their commutes are.

    re: #2

    “This is one of many fundamental differences between this and cell phones. The other is that Transurban is using right-of-way that belongs to the public that was given away without the consent of the governed.”

    fess up.

    Would your opinion change if the same exact HOT lanes were done by Virginia/VDOT?

    Are you opposed to the concept itself regardless of who operates them?

  59. re: “Some businesses will move out of the tolled areas.”

    bullfeathers…

    show me a definitive study that proves his…

    for every business that leaves another will take it’s place.

    Show me an area that business – as a whole – has abandoned as a result of tolling…

    it’s simply a canard.

  60. re: “Wrong. They can’t get slots to fly more planes at peak hours, even if they had them.”

    you can get more slots by buying more terminal, more airports, more air-traffic controller labor and infrastructure, etc.

    but they don’t do this because you’d have vast periods of time when many of the planes would be idle and the new terminals, airports, etc would also be idle.

    It’s not about revenue.. it’s about having to buy infrastructure – that will not be fully utilized except at peak hour.

    and doing that would make it more expensive for everyone.

    this would be like someone building a sports stadium that was so big that only 10% of the events would fill it – and the other 90% would not.,

  61. E M Risse Avatar

    A lot of bytes but someone needs to point out that with functional human settlement patterns there are few applications of Toll facilities that pay for themselves, especially if trucks are required to pay their full cost.

    With the rising total cost of energy — due to buring up the cheap natural capital — there will be even fewer applications.

    Transort system Balance with settlement pattern generated demand results in different systems and non-papier-machae infrastructure.

    EMR

  62. EMR – you’re not going to outlaw cars (or trucks) and as long as there is fuel (including electricity), they will be part of settlement patterns.

    You must start with that premise or else the rest of what you say is just dreaming.

    You must recognize and accept the existence and use of automobiles as part of any realistic paradigm.

    But if you are not – then you need to be explicit about it and say so.

    If your theories about optimized settlement patterns are premised on not having automobiles – then you need to disclose that up front – as an honest disclosure…

    .. instead of dancing around and using vague phrases like”
    papier-machae infrastructure.”

    tolls are ONE way to manage existing infrastructure – in terms of use and in terms of generating the funds to pay for it.

    If your concept is that tolls and roads cannot be a valid part of an optimized settlement pattern – then make that statement.

    Be explicit about your vision.

    People can agree or disagree with you but don’t you think you have a responsibility to be up front with critical and relevant aspects of your vision?

    It is your job, IMHO, to be explicit and to not be murky or vague in what your advocate for.

    So I’ll ask you up front:

    In your vision of balanced communities, can people own and operate private automobiles?

    What is your answer?

  63. Anonymous Avatar

    “Many folks will simply not go if it is a discretionary trip and if the trip must be made – they’ll try to defer it or find some other way to accomplish the purpose of the trip.”

    It doesn’t matter how many people don’t go or defer,if the road is still congested. You still have the bad results of congestion.

    Some of those people just won;t go, and there business will not be transacted. Deferring or not going is another COST of HOT lanes, not a benefit.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar

    “show me a definitive study that proves his…”

    It is not a proof, it is a prediction, from MWCOG as reported in WAPO. I don.t have the cite, but I’m sure it can be found.

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar

    “you can get more slots by buying more terminal, more airports, more air-traffic controller labor and infrastructure, etc.”

    Airlines don’t buy terminals or airports. You ever try to get zoning for a new airport? You need to have the slots where people want to go.

    You can only put so many airplanes in an airport at one time. The industry plan was to switch to smaller jets and fly to more regional airports. Notice how similar this is to my call for more jitney’s and more places.

    However, those small jets are far less fuel efficient, and the current economy is throwing that plan in doubt.

    The FAA’s plan is to eliminate controllers and build a neural network style air traffic control system. They would eliminate the skyways and let all planes fly “direct”.

    Each plane would be aware of all of its nearest neighbors, and they woudl self negotiate the most efficient flight paths for avoidance. Some planes would have neither pilots or crew. All planes will be capable of control from the ground, so highjacking is impossible.

    More airports and more runways are not inthe FAA plan, but in the end, most experts recognize that is what is needed. Practically and politically it will be impossible until we have a real traffic manaement crisis. With the current economy, that may be a while.

    RH

  66. Anonymous Avatar

    “that will not be fully utilized except at peak hour.”

    There isn’t ANY transportation system that does not have this problem. Congestion pricing won’t cure it, but it will cost more.

    Even IF you could force uniform usage of a system through extreme tariff management, it would NOT make the system either efficient or cost effective.

    That’s the part you don’t get, because, as usual, you are not considering the whole system.

    RH

  67. Anonymous Avatar

    People respond to higher congestion levels by changing their behaviors.. We know this happens.

    Right. Booze Allen built their new office NOT in Tysons.

    Yes, you are right. People respond to incentives. Where you are wrong is in thinking that a negative incentive has the same economic benefit as a positive one.

    Taxing coal does not make solar more efficient or more economical, for example.

    RH

  68. “fess up. Would your opinion change if the same exact HOT lanes were done by Virginia/VDOT? Are you opposed to the concept itself regardless of who operates them?”

    What I wrote was in response to your questioning those who call what’s going on a SCAM. The give-away of public capital to a private company (that also happens to be an illegal political donor) that is putting up very little capital of its own is outrageous. If VDOT ran the HOT lanes, it would be even less efficient than the massively inefficient Transurban operation. But, it probably would be better on the whole because VDOT would in theory have less incentive to screw up the general purpose lanes. Transurban executives get an extra $1 million each if poor Virginia drivers sit in unbearable traffic. VDOT executives get the same pay either way. Market incentives at work. Your narrow focus on the market incentives for just two out of the six lanes is puzzling.

    We can reduce congestion by dropping bricks from overpasses onto random cars passing below. It becomes a bit of a lottery as to who gets to keep on driving. How about that? This is basically the same principal you’re using to “solve” congestion with the HOT lanes — creating misery. At least the bricks wouldn’t cost $100 million a year in overhead and CEO golden parachutes.

  69. Anonymous Avatar

    Bob is right. Raising the price and misery level of travel is no way to improve things.

    Larry’s focus on two lanes (one of which we already use for breakdowns), is ignoring the total cost, and the total effect.

    Beyond that, he apparently believes that if it costs more, people will travel less, and that is necessarily a good thing.

    RH

Leave a Reply