Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Smooth Test Ride for Potomac Ferry

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Reaching speeds of 31 miles per hour yesterday, a twin-hulled catamaran made a trial run from Quantico to Washington, D.C., in less than an hour. “Not bad,” said Alan Gray, president of MetroMarine, a joint venture partner in the Potomac River Express. “Fifty-eight minutes from Quantico. Beats the blazes out of Route 1, doesn’t it?”

The test cruise was the first of many before Potomac River Express will start carrying commuters, but the performance in rainy and choppy conditions was encouraging. As envisioned, the proposed commuter ferry would target Department of Defense workers, civilian and uniformed commuters who travel the Interstate 95 corridor, reports the Manassas Journal-Messenger.

Richard W. Hausler, the developer of Harbor Station in Woodbridge, is also involved in planning the commuter ferry route and an accompanying dock at Harbor Station. “This is about revisiting the river,” he said. “This is the first step in that effort to try some water transportation.”

If successful, the Potomac River Express could provide a template for other ferry routes. To generate sufficient traffic to support the service, there must be a population mass at both ends of the trip. Existing urban centers — Washington, D.C., downtown Norfolk — could anchor one end of the ferry routes. It’s possible that large, mixed-use developments like Harbor Station, where the ferry dock is within walking distance of hundreds or thousands of residents, could anchor the other end.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

43 responses to “Smooth Test Ride for Potomac Ferry”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s agreat idea.

    I know because I had it thirty years ago: it just wasn’t such a great idea, then.

    No potholes, no intersections. Fuel cost is kind of high, but you got to make some trades. compared to the alternatives, it might be excellent.

    They will need some concession on the existing speed limits.

    It’s almost 200 miles from Norfolk to DC by water. That’s a long haul at 30 knots.

    If they build a commuter terminal (with enough roads and parking) around Fairview Beach, I’d think they could get Fredericksburg residents to DC, Port America, Quantico, and Dahlgren.

    I wish them luck.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, a great idea.

    After the Soveit Union fell apart I once took a commuter hydrofoil from Helsinki to Tallinn, Estonia. Smooth as silk. Service and cuisine to rival the best Metroliner. Took about an hour.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so… just curious…

    is the proper name for this

    1. – water transit
    2. – water highway

    evil question right.. you gotta give me credit..

    🙂

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What’s the differnce? The government subsidizes the river either way. Right?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you only have an hour to eat, that’s fast food, not cuisine.

    🙂

  6. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    They already tried that down here in Tidewater last year. Didn’t work out.

    I used to live on Whidbey Island, Wa. They have a state ferry system that works pretty good. The reason is if you don’t take a ferry, you have a 100 mile drive around to get to your destination.

    With these commuter ferries, there is no competitive advantage for anyone other than the feel good crowd. I guess we could tear up the bridge tunnel system. That would do it. Think how many ferries you could buy with HRTA’s 10 billion dollars.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “100 mile drive around to get to your destination.”

    maybe it’s going in the wrong direction.

    How about a “bypass the 1-95 mess around Washington” Ferry for East Coast drivers?

  8. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    maybe it’s going in the wrong direction.

    Heh… That was usually what the ferry was doing when you tried to take it. Actually the problem up in the NW is Puget Sound. There is only one way in for much of the area. Whidbey has one bridge on the north end. The Olympic Penn. has one way in from Tacoma/Seattle. Both routes entail long drives. The ferry system works because it is a shortcut. Many people live in ‘the woods’ and work in Seattle. They load their cars on the ferry and then drive to their destination from the landing.

    What Nova wants is a passenger only ferry. A quick check will reveal that most ferries haul vehicles and freight in addition to passengers. That’s because there aren’t enough walkons to support the system. Here is a link to the VDOT study on Nova ferries. Somehow it doesn’t appear viable when no more than 600 passengers will ride a ferry per day.

    http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/studynova-ferrytox.asp

    As for EC drivers bypassing I-95 and DC, people can already do that by taking the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and running through Delaware. In any event, they won’t be taking a ferry and leaving their cars behind if they are trying to get to NYC.

  9. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Darrell –

    As a fellow Northwesterner (Portland, aka Moscow on the Willamette), I KNOW this passenger only ferry will work. Just as the light rail and trollies work down here (in this god-forsaken town). That is to say that it will serve less than 5% (in the case of light rail and trollies it’s less than 2%) of the population and will be heavily subsidized by EVERYONE’S taxes.

    You forget, the object is to get people out of their cars; which maybe a fine goal, but the methods are stupid. Yes, most ferries that work work BECAUSE they carry freight and cars; the same reason that roads work so well. However, the planners (who don’t have a clue), continue to waste public money on ‘public transit systems’ that ONLY move people – stupid move but none of the planners admit it.

    The ferry will be a success because the planners (and government) declare it as such. In fact what will happen is that tax subsidies will increase and the system will serve less than 5% of the population.

    Stick freight and cars on that boat you may have a winner – without them, it’s a sucking sound on the tax dollar.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    this is a very familiar refrain.

    It makes one wonder – if roads are the most cost-effective answer – why we don’t build more roads.

    I could buy some conspiracy in Portland or NoVa but it would seem that across the country (world?) in virtually every urban area that elected leaders support subsidized transportation.

    Let me ask those who think Ferries in Portland are ‘ok’ but not ferries on the Potomac.

    Do you think the Ferries in Portland are subsidized?

    Why are ferries subsidized for some reasons acceptable but not for other reasons?

    Should we just say that no transportation subsidy is acceptable and start by shutting down any ferry that does not pay for itself , and then once we do that.. move on to transit. 🙂

    actually it’s a serious question.

    Why is it acceptable for all taxpayers to subsidize ferries for those who don’t want to drive 100 miles but it’s not acceptable to subsidize ferries for those that don’t want to commute in NoVa traffic?

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Accurate, We don’t have quite the same mindset in Virginia as people apparently have in the great Northwest. My hope is that we can find transportation alternatives that stand on their own financially. Personally, I have no interest in subsidizing a water taxi/ferry services, no matter how cool I think it would be to have. Here’s the beauty of capitalism: If someone can show how to actually make a profit with water taxis, you won’t need government to step in to encourage it. People will fall over themselves looking for new water taxi opportunities. Once you start subsidizing something, though, it will always require subsidies, and it won’t ever attract outside, profit-seeking capital.

  12. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    Maybe this saves commuters a little time (the VRE timetable shows the Quantico-L’Enfant run as being 1 hour, twice as long assuming the VRE is on time.), but can they beat the VRE fare of $200 per month?

    Maybe their riders won’t care, like the users on VDOT’s new HOT lanes

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Quick note: The ferries being referred to earlier are in the Seattle-Tacoma Metro not Portland, but it’s possible that Portland has them. Most those ferries cut down about 100 miles or more of driving plus some of the islands don’t have bridges. If you look at the distances between peninsulas it isn’t much longer than in HR, but they didn’t build expensive bridges and tunnels. It’s much easier to add ferry capacity than water tunnel capacity. I’m not sure if they are subsidized or not, but based on prices I would say probably not a lot.

    Now for a Potomac commuter ferry there is no way you can operate this without subsidies when roads, buses, and the commuter rail in the corridor are all being subsidized. That’s not even including the fact that ships have higher maintenance and crew requirements than trains and buses. You can’t draw riders without having low prices, especially since many commuters don’t accurately calculate the total costs of driving (insurance, depreciation, and maintenance).

    On the other hand a car ferry service could be practical at times that are known for being especially heavy such as Friday afternoons, Sunday evenings, and around holidays. Run this from either DC or Alexandria to King George County. This could really supplement other options as during those times most people are taking cars and would be likely to pay a premium a single time to bypass the ridiculous traffic and get on their weekend or vacation. I think MD is looking at this as well for the eastern shore rather than building an expensive bridge.

    ZS

  14. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    “Why is it acceptable for all taxpayers to subsidize ferries for those who don’t want to drive 100 miles but it’s not acceptable to subsidize ferries for those that don’t want to commute in NoVa traffic?”

    I don’t know. Maybe it’s the same reason some people in this state believe that roads should be a regional problem, financed only with regional money.

    You see, some states actually believe that they really are a state, not some hodgepodge of independent fiefdoms with independent ricebowls.

  15. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    ZS,
    You asked I’m not sure if they are subsidized or not, but based on prices I would say probably not a lot.

    Wrong. They have a total operating budget of around $400 million per year, of which fares cover about 80%. (Take a look at pages 10 and 11.) They are trying to deal with this by raising fares to cover the entire amount (an increase of 62% from 2000 to 2006), with the result that ridership has dropped (surprise!) 11%.

    Additionally, they have a $244 million capital expenditures budget, mostly (previously?) funded by automobile excise taxes.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Darrell – regional taxation for roads is the only way that Tidewater and, especially, NoVA can even hope to keep what taxes they pay. These two areas get screwed regularly by the rest of Virginia. Dollars out; pennies in.

    We need more good-paying jobs outside these two areas. That would go a long way to avoiding the bankrupting costs of building sufficient transportation and other infrastructure capacities.

    Virginia has been, is, and will continue to be run for the benefit of a few big landowners/developers.

    TMT

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Michael,

    “Wrong. They have a total operating budget of around $400 million per year, of which fares cover about 80%.”

    This is actually a pretty low subsidy number for just about any transportation system including most of the highway system. Most bus systems are around 70-80% subsidized and most rail systems are around 40-60%, though a few run almost without subsidy. I basically said that it’s not subsidized a lot and you proved my point.

    There could be any number of reasons for WA to subsidize its ferries. They might require them to run during off-peak hours or since I-5 is very jammed and not really expandable it’s cheaper for the state to subsidize the price of using ferries and expanding ferry service than to try and expand the road system or build rail lines. I’m sure there are other benefits of the ferries that aren’t easily captured in the fare price.

    Just because one group subsidizes another group doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits being transferred as well. All costs and benefits of a system aren’t easily captured in a static measurement. Even doing an NPV analysis on something like this can’t capture many costs and benefits since they are either unmeasurable or they are too ambiguous to measure (e.g. measuring cost/benefit of commuting time saved, and don’t say a person’s hourly labor rate)

    ZS

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Straw proposal – since roads are and will continue to be our main source of transportation, their costs should be the standard upon which other modes of transportation are to be measured.

    If the costs for a subsidy for rail, ferry, bus, or what have you, are less than the costs for adding sufficient additional capacity to the alternative road/freeway, the public is better served by the subsidy. Measurements should consider peak travel times. If the costs for the alternative are higher, it gets no subsidy.

    But then, what would the lobbyists do if we made sound economic decisions about tax dollars?

    TMT

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’d be satisfied simply with a standard with which to be able to compare different subsidized projects just to be able to rank THEM as a peer group.

    To know the 5 most cost effective, least subsidized transportation projects… and the 5 worst.

    and more important – why…

  20. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    “regional taxation for roads is the only way that Tidewater and, especially, NoVA can even hope to keep what taxes they pay. “

    But you aren’t ‘keeping’ taxes. You are paying for the state, and paying in addition to meet your needs. But they aren’t really your needs. They are the developers needs.

    Here in Tidewater we have had this running battle with the leaders over development and amenities. The councils approve every project that comes before them, knowing that the state is going to pay for the local roads and infrastructure because that’s the way the system was set up. Meanwhile they get a windfall from the local homeowners that they use to develop even more instead of using it to attract better jobs.

    And that’s where the Republicans come in. They were elected because they campaigned to fix a disfunctional government. Remember that? But they have proven to be the same people we threw out of office in the first place. And why is that? Because they represent the same business interests the other party did. They visit the same country clubs and drink around the same bar. The citizens aren’t invited to the buffet.

    Which is why I’ve had a long standing pattern of voting against the incumbent. It’s not because the opponent is an outsider, he probably gets his money from the same source. No, the reason is that politicians and bureaucrats have a nasty habit of getting into position and staying there for life. They then influence newcomers with their seniority. Under such conditions, changing the governmental dynamic to meet new challenges is utterly impossible.

    A government that governs best is the government that governs least should apply equally as well to our elected and appointed officials.

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Darrells disaffection with Government is not unique for some citizens including those that frequent this blog.

    Voters are viewed by many politicians as not only as gullible but lazy, uninformed by choice … and predictably exploitable with 10 second media messages.

    The basic strategy is ultra simple. There is a vast pool of voters whose opinions are formed by viewing simplistic media sound bites – which is the same exact strategy used to sell consumers toothpaste and car insurance, etc.

    After all.. if the choice is between understanding the issues and slurping down beer in front of sports event or reality shows – it’s a no brainer.

    unresponsive, even corrupt government is the problem but we are trapped because for every citizen who is actually paying attention, there are hundreds/thousands who are well-meaning but clueless rubes who get what they deserve and the others go along for the ride whether they like it or not.

    🙂

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It makes one wonder – if roads are the most cost-effective answer – why we don’t build more roads.”

    Because we have a highly effective anti-road lobby that has been spreading unsuppported half-truths about the road system for decades. They depend on that vast pool of voters whose opinions are formed by viewing simplistic media sound bites.

    They have bee supported in their cause by the “no new taxes” crowd who also support their position with half-truths.

    Only after the economic effects of the alternatives are felt will the political winds change.

    That is going to happen when we know the 5 most cost effective, least subsidized transportation projects… and the 5 worst.

    and more important – why.

    It is not going to happen as long as we think we can REQUIRE some particular political approach based on the unsupported hope that it will eventually pay off. Someone still has to pay the bills in the meantime.

    Otherwise, if we do go that route, what we are doing is usbsidizing our great-grandchildrens lifestyle.

    If that turns out to be the choice, then we might as well recognize that they will be everyone’s great grandchildren and stop arguing about who owes what, and what the payback is.

    In other words, stop trying to stick it to the other guy.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Just because one group subsidizes another group doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits being transferred as well. All costs and benefits of a system aren’t easily captured in a static measurement. Even doing an NPV analysis on something like this can’t capture many costs and benefits since they are either unmeasurable or they are too ambiguous to measure (e.g. measuring cost/benefit of commuting time saved, and don’t say a person’s hourly labor rate)”

    Bingo.

    ZS is exactly correct. We endlessly make arguments about what is wrong with “us subsidizing the other guy” while turning a blind eye to the benefits. Equally we argue about the “external costs” of things we don;t like while ignoring the external costs of those we do like.

    All this pointless arguing costs far more than seeking the correct solution would. Seeking the correct solution requires that we admit we are all in the same boat, Liberals and conservatives, Pubs and Dems, developers and conservationists.

    Each of these groups argues that their position is more important because other groups have not placed a high enough value on their favorite unmeasurable ambiguities.

    ZS is correct, a static anlysis won’t do it: it is a continuing process and one that continually approaches but never quite reaches a complete lifecycle cost analysis.

    The only way we are going to resolve this is to simply place prices on the unmeasurable ambiguites – and use them universally. Eventually, they will work themselves into the continuing analyses, and their prices wil be adjusted as new data becomes available. In a sense, this is what the various pollution credit schemes attempt to do, but it needs to be more generally accepted.

    RH

  24. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    No New Taxes. Anti-Taxer. Yeah, I like that. I’ve been called that more times than I care to remember, simply because I ask questions and point out errors in the government’s plan of the day.

    For instance, we had a big light rail plan several years ago. The bureaucrats offered all this public information to sway the voters to sign on to the plan. But their ridership figures clearly pointed out that after the system was completed a decade later, and all these feeder buses were in place, there would be 12,000 fewer daily riders system wide than rode the current system.

    Another year, the pushers for increased sales taxes, which failed and led to the creation by fiat HRTA, published how much each person would pay in additional taxes. Except they used commodity prices based on a national average instead of actual local data. Data that was readily available but didn’t support their position.

    So am I an anti-taxer? When the plan has flaws and deceit, you bet. I look at myself as the banker, who is going to issue money for a business plan. If the plan is based on sloppy homework and lies, then don’t expect to get any support from me.

    Unfortunately, that’s the way government does business. If the citizens don’t approve their grand scheme, they just go over their heads and approve it anyway. Then the taxpayer wonders why they never seem to get ahead.

  25. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Sorry, guess my attempt at ‘tongue-in-cheek’ didn’t come off as I intended. In Portland we don’t have ferries, I guess they haven’t quite gotten around to that one yet. We WASTED over $57 million on a tram to take, mainly workers to a hospital, up a hill. We have two rivers that cut through our city and have built lots of bridges over one and only two over the other one.

    The point I tried, but failed to make, was that ideas like trollies, light rail, trams and ferries are typically a huge waste of money (in my opinion) when all they do is move people and take a tax subsidy to operate.

    Roads carry goods, services AND people, that is ONE of the reasons that they work. Other reasons you know (you go door to door, it’s faster, etc). The majority (if not all) the mass transit ideas that planners put to use ONLY involves people without including goods and services. The door to door thing is also important, but until you involve, incorporate or some way add and plan for goods and services in your transportation model, the model is a money loser.

    I don’t support any of the present ‘mass transit’ systems that I’ve seen. They can’t and don’t stand on their own and THAT is the true test.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I don’t support any of the present ‘mass transit’ systems that I’ve seen. They can’t and don’t stand on their own and THAT is the true test.”

    If you just look at their yearly balance sheet than this is true, but when you pull out all the costs and benefits of mass transit and the alternatives it changes the equation. As RH says its easy to cherry pick what you like and forget that which you don’t like.

    I can’t speak for Portland as I haven’t been there since I was young, but what are the costs of not having the light rail lines there. How many additional highways and parking garages would have to built to accommodate commuters. How much would property values drop around the new highways and where parking garages are built. From this how much would property tax revenue drop as compared to subsidizing the mass transit system.

    Like I said before there are also a lot of things that are difficult to measure. How many DUIs are reduced by offering an aesthetically desirable mass transit option. What kind of additional businesses and organizations are drawn to a city with good mass transit. What are the savings for households who can reduce their car total due to mass transit. What is the sexiness or non-sexiness of how a metropolitan designs itself so as to draw tourists, conventions, etc.

    I’m not saying the answer is roads, trains, ferries, or whatever, but I know the answer isn’t as simple as just looking at operating, maintenance, and capitalization costs and where that money comes from.

    ZS

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Because we have a highly effective anti-road lobby that has been spreading unsuppported half-truths about the road system for decades. They depend on that vast pool of voters whose opinions are formed by viewing simplistic media sound bites.”

    and then we have folks that just flat don’t understand.

    For instance, the theory is that the vast majority of people who drive everyday and see congestion everyday.. are going to be persuaded to vote against roads because of propoganda put out by anti-road groups.

    Tell me again.. where those groups get their media money from?

    For instance, we know that the folks running for office get on the order of 300,000 dollars for their media ads .. all of it provided by businesses – like road builders.

    RH .. show me in VPAP where all of this media money comes from and show me how it gets funneled from developers to anti-road groups.

    Your ideas are bizarre.

    Do you actually believe that the vast majority of drivers are going to be influenced by 10 second anti-road sound bites as they drive their cars or get home stressed out after their commutes?

    and again. .who finances these messages?

  28. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    According to VPAP:

    Environmental groups have contributed $110,000 to Virginia political campaigns so far in 2007.

    The real estate/construction sector has contributed $5.4 million.

    Does that answer everybody’s questions?

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Has anyone else noticed that if someone wanted to design a strategy to virtually kill efforts for a future statewide gas tax – that one of the most effective…

    might be to give the urban areas the ability to raise their own taxes and after they did.. any efforts to raise gas taxes statewide would run into a hornets nest from the folks who just had their taxes raised in the urban areas – which.. would likely comprise a near majority of voters statewide.

    Most RoVa folks would already be opposed to increased gas taxes also.

    Now… would anyone in our own GA be so smart and nefarious to actually design such a strategy as part and parcel of legislation to enable transportation authorities in NoVa and HR/TW?

    or is this, instead, a purely unintended consequence?

  30. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    ZS,
    I agree that the $80 million subsidy the Washington ferries get isn’t huge in terms of the usual shoveling of the money, but this does come only after 7 years of rate hikes. Note that the user fares went up 62% so that the subsidy could drop from 60% to 20%. So the subsidy was around a quarter billion dollars a year as recently as 2000. On top of this there was another quarter billion capital improvement budget.

    Still, it might be good if it got enough cars off the roads. But does it? Depending on the route, the WA ferries carry about 15% to 50% foot traffic. Does that make it worthwhile? I don’t know.

    The Potomac ferry would be purely for passengers, so it does get cars off the road, though it will need to be set up to link somehow to the existing mass transit system in DC. No one wants to walk the last mile or two to work down the Mall. Where will it dock? Near the Waterfront Metro station in DC? Then it would be 2 blocks to the Metro.

    Even so, what does this mean? You’ve paid a fare to the ferry, and now have to pay Metro or bus fare. This is doable for commuters that just don’t want to drive down town (like me), but seems unlikely to sway new public transit users you are trying to convince to leave their cars behind.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A Google search for “cost of community services” and AFT turned up 701,000 hits. If you just search for cost of community services you get 198 million hits.

    You don’t necessarily have to contribute to political campaigns to have a strong media presence.

    I think I read somewhere that PEC’s budget is aroung $3 million. Compared to my budget, it’s a lot of money. I tend to believe if they want something seen their way, they have a better shot at it then I have.

    Those COCS studies are seriously flawed, but by simply repeating the story 198 million times, the argument has attained a critical mass of veracity based mostly on volume.

    I’m tempted to make a pun about COCS and all the suckers that believe that tripe, but I think I’ll leave it alone.

    RH

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    $300,000 worth of developer-financed radio and cable/tv ads … dozens per day right before election, you’d have to admit, is not only a “strong” media presence but not at all the same as a website that one has to look for on GOGGLE.

    The assertion that anti-road forces are financed and mobilized like these 300K ads is ludicrous.

    Can anyone imagine 300K worth of media ad on drive-time radio and primetime cable/tv urging people who drive congested roads and miserable commute to .. oppose roads.. and these ads run at every commercial brake – like election ads do…

    I don’t doubt for a minute that those with a different view of transportation policy than RH and others of his view – don’t like to hear their message and maybe even fear such views could be “dangerous” if too many people listen and believe

    but I just have a really hard time believing that if for some crazy reason.. these perenially minimally-financed groups are… somehow going to match the developers money … buy gobs of radio/tv ads.. and then “convince” the folks who drive cars to work everday – to oppose roads.

    and gawd-forbid that we actually get down to the “subsidy” issue where roads are concerned… that actually could be “dangerous”.

    we seem to have no problem subsidizing ferries that save people from having to “drive around” a waterway to get to their home… but take the same ferry (or transit) to move people around congestion – and that “subsidy” is not acceptable.

    so.. if we subsidize ferries to allow people to drive from work to home – we think that is a better “value” than ferries than only move people?

    When we provide subsidized car ferries – how do we respond to folks who claim that in doing so, we are promoting exurban sprawl.. not much different from building commuter highways?

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “When we provide subsidized car ferries – how do we respond to folks who claim that in doing so, we are promoting exurban sprawl.. not much different from building commuter highways?”

    You have to first agree on prices for the externalities, such as sprawl, and agree to use those prices universally. What this does is expand the trade space so that it is more difficult to avoid the problem you describe: preferentially arguing in favor of one subsidy while opposing others.

    Pricing the externalities help show that all the subsidies are interlocked.

    —————————-

    My view of transportation policy is simply that it should ensure that the most people get where they want to go at the lowest overall cost. Naturally, you have a problem because where people want to go is influenced by the cost. But, it is absolutely a fallacy to think that you can lower transportation costs by influencing where people want to, or are able to, go.

    Total cost = cost of getting there + cost of not getting there.

    —————————–

    Developers and the building trades represent about 25% of the economy in many places. It isn’t too surprising that they have more money to spend and influence more people, than the perenially underfinanced groups.

    Why is it then, that the perennially underfinanced groups spend so much of their meagre resources publishing polls that show what “most people want” as in more transit?

    If they are perennially underfinanced, maybe there is a reason for it: people do not see the envrironmental movement as good for their economic interests.

    My position is that it is possible to do both, but it will take a sea-change in the way mmost environmentalists seem to think.

    RH

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Total cost = cost of getting there + cost of not getting there.

    Total Cost = cost to the individual who needs to get there + the external costs imposed on others that essentially corrupt the equality of the equation.

    The “cost of not getting there” is legitimately owned by the person trying to get there and not others.

    Are you not saying that if the cost of NOT getting there is higher than the cost of getting there – that subsidies from others is justified?

    It would seem that your concept supports the use of HOT lanes – or variable priced tolls – when the toll will buy you something that is more valuable than not buying it.

    Except – I suspect you would advocate that everyone else pay the HOT lane toll for you – right?

  35. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I thought since this kind of project invariably spurs discussion in BR of government subsidized verses private sector operated, I thought folks might find the following.. interesting.. and at least for me.. some questions…

    “From the early 1930’s to 1954, a private corporation managed scheduled ferry service between Virginia’s Eastern Shore and the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area. With the number of ships (including the number of passengers and vehicles they transported) increasing steadily, the Virginia General Assembly stepped in to create the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District and the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission as the governing body of the District; subsequently the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District and Commission. The Commission was authorized to acquire the private ferry corporation through bond financing, improve existing ferry service and implement a new service between Virginia’s Eastern Shore and the Hampton/Newport News area.

    In 1956, the General Assembly authorized the Ferry Commission to explore the construction of a fixed crossing. Results of the study indicated a crossing was feasible and recommended a series of bridges and tunnels. In the summer of 1960, the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission sold $200 million in revenue bonds to private investors. Monies collected by future tolls were pledged to pay the principal and interest on these bonds.”

    http://www.cbbt.com/history.html

    now there must be something missing here because why would the GA get involved in something that seemed to be working just fine as a private venture…

    but give somebody credit.. the bay-bridge tunnel does not use tax dollars… and is strictly “user pays”.

    the 17 mile structure .. characterized as one of the 7 engineering wonders in the world… cost quite a bit less than the infamous Springfield Interchange in NoVa… and as did not use one penny of the gas tax.

    One has to ask.. if this kind of thing “works” for the Bay-Bridge tunnel.. why can’t it work for U.S. 460, or I-81 or even the Springfield Interchange .. or the Potomac Ferry … and yes… I’ll say it before others do… METRO and VRE…

    still curious.. you got this 17 mile road… and no tax dollars are needed to build nor maintain it.

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You got this 17 mile road and no tax dollars are needed to maintain it because the alternative is so awful. The bridge tunnel provides a superlative benefit for its cost. All we got to do is find the next best ROI project.

    ——————————

    Did it cost less than the Springfield interchange in constant year dollars? Is it of similar complexity? Was it built while traffic was using it? Is the alternative for the springfield interchange any less awful?

    RH

  37. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, I used to ride that Chesapeake Bay ferry when I was a kid. My dad was stationed at the Norfolk Naval Station, and we’d periodically travel up to Sussex County, Delaware. The ferry was the fastest way. It’s interesting to know that it was privately operated. I suspect that the reason the G.A. moved to build the bridge is that the ferry ride lasted a fairly long time. The bridge helped connect Virginia’s Eastern Shore to the rest of the state.

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I road it once also I’m pretty sure.

    I’m not sure why a privately operated ferry could not have also successfully operated the bridge/tunnel.

    I suspect it was the up-front funding that was at issue which nowdays .. the situation has been reversed.. private investors can come up with up-front funding for new projects whereas the state cannot.. for some reason.

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”alternative is so awful. The bridge tunnel provides a superlative benefit for its cost.”

    two points:

    * – how “awful” the alternative does not make an expensive taxpayer response – mandatory

    * – and yes.. a superlative benefit in return for “user pays” rather than all taxpayers paying for it.

    If it “works” for the Chesapeak-Bay-Bridge-Tunnel why can it not work for other places that have “awful” alternatives without such infrastructure?

    re: comparing Springfield cost to CBBT – no need. Each project has it’s own challenges – agreed –

    the issue is.. why should taxpayers fund it instead of the folks who use it?

    If it worked for the CBBT why not other projects?

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The “cost of not getting there” is legitimately owned by the person trying to get there and not others.”

    You have not defined the system correctly.

    I think the cost of not getting there also accrues to whoever owns the intended destination. He is the one who incurs the cost of lost customers, employees or deliveries. You have to consider the entire system, so you need to consider the first players (the travelers) and the second players (businesses or other destinations) at least. Then you usually have to look and see if the effects to third players are worth considering, if they are, then you have to go out to the fourth players, etc. So the effects might extend to the suppliers of the businesses, and the car services for the travelers, etc.

    After you do that, you have defined the boundaries of the system. The boundaris need to be big enough so that the concept of social benefit or public good, has some validity in the context of the proposed change in cost or policy.

    And remember, benefits count as negative costs. If not being able to get there means less car repairs, that’s a benefit that lowers the cost of not getting there. Then you sum all the measurable benefits and all the measurable costs over the whole system. If the total comes out lower, it is a good plan, over all.

    However, it is still possible for the overall costs to come out lower, and have the distribution highly mismatched. That’s why you must first pay off the entities whose costs have increased, to the point that they are no worse off than before. If the overall costs are still lower, then it is a really good plan. Such plans are difficult to achieve.

    Unless you are doing a really big system like global warming, entities that are far removed in distance, degrees of economic separation, or time don’t carry a lot of weight unless their numbers are large.

    ———————————-

    “* – how “awful” the alternative does not make an expensive taxpayer response – mandatory

    * – and yes.. a superlative benefit in return for “user pays” rather than all taxpayers paying for it.”

    True enough, it is not mandatory. But if you remove a really awful disbenefit, you may very well create enough of a system wide improvement that the taxpayers, and therefore the government do recieve some sizable spin off benefit. For that, they should expect to contribute something.

    Auto drivers don’t directly benefit from Metro, but there probably is some beneficial effect, and for that, we expect them to contribute to the metro subsidy. If they didn’t, then Metro users would be overcharged. If you charge the auto drivers too much, they will abandon their cars and flood Metro. In that case youlose the revenue from auto user fees, and you lose the benefit from Metro.

    In the case of the Bay Bridge, it helped open up the Eastern Shore (We can disagree if this is good or not, but economic development happened.) Not everyone who benefited from this was a user of the bridge, and if they don’t kick in something, then the users are being overcharged. If you set the user fees too high, the bridge won’t pay for itself, but the gas and hamburger vendors on the other, longer route get a benefit.

    Question is, what is the cost of the trade off, value judgements notwithstanding.

    RH

    RH

  41. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH, you persist in the idea that if an individual makes expensive choices or a business wants its cost of doing business reduced – that it is the responsibility of others to fork over money to them.

    You clearly do not understand or accept the idea of competition weeding out those who are not fiscally responsible.

    further.. the standard you use is not that the people who are told to fork over the money – get to decide what is “worth it” or not but instead, you say that the person who wants the subsidy gets to say not only whether it is “worth it ” or not but how much.

    In other words, you seem to support an entitlement mindset where others “owe” you something and the something that they owe you is .. what you think.

    How else is one to interpret:

    “…I think the cost of not getting there also accrues to whoever owns the intended destination. He is the one who incurs the cost of lost customers, employees or deliveries. You have to consider the entire system, [ i.e. figure out who shot John and then transfer monies as appropriate”.

    The job of business and individuals is to makes choices that do not exceed their budget.

    They may well have to adapt to things that are not fair but that is never an excuse for essentially going broke if you don’t get what you thing are appropriate subisides.

    The fact that we have a culture of people who think they are entitled to subsidies is NOT a reason to assert more wrongs …

    I think your basic ideas are wrongheaded because you start off assumming that individual and business circumstances are the financial responsibility of others.

    If we followed your reasoning, no business or individual would be allowed to go broke as long as they could state why they went broke and that they needed “x” number of dollars to keep from going broke.

    Basically, people and businesses that think they are entitled to subsidies are a direct threat to others who have to pay them.

    Embracing subsidies is a game plan for failure -and no one is responsible for your own choices or your own refusal to adapt to circumstances even if you believe those circumstances are unfair.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “RH, you persist in the idea that if an individual makes expensive choices or a business wants its cost of doing business reduced – that it is the responsibility of others to fork over money to them.”

    This is simply not true, and you persist in stating my ideas as other than what they are.

    What I have said is that when government makes expensive choices that affect a business, and which are contrary to previous express or implied promises, then the business deserves some compensation.

    Businesses live and die by their own competitive decisions, but when their competitive situation is strongly altered by government, then government is responsible for the results. Government usually doesn’t take responsibility, but that’s an ethics problem. If government doesn’t recognize this, it wont matter in the end because bad decisions will result in less revenue to the government, and that, government will eventually recognize.

    By then it is too late for the individual or business.

    If the government more carefully examined costs as I have described, it would less frequently make mistakes that cause these problems.

    But none of that has anything to do with the Bay Bridge situation.

    All I’m saying here is the same thing I have said in every other situation: the “users” who should pay for a system are really the beneficiaries of the system, and that might include a wider audience than just those we can count on the bridge or subway.

    It might even be such a wide audience of bweneficiaries that we conclude the system should be partly paid for by the general public, possibly in addition to actual user fees.

    This is only a more general and more fair application of your contention that the user should pay. I don’t see why you have a problem with it.

    Except.

    The perfectly logical and generally accepted convention is that the the total costs include costs to those who are negative beneficiaries. This is not my idea, and the general practice has been followed for decades in hundreds of studies. I’m sorry you can’t accept it, but there it is.

    Properly applied, this convention means that some projects we do should never have been done, and properly applied it could prevent a big waste of government money, especially that which is spent at the behest of special interests.

    This convention is specifically designed to address and reinforce the idea that subsidies are a game plan for failure. I tis exactly the entire point of it.

    It does so by addressing both positive and negative subsidies in a way that adresses at least secondary, and possibley tertiary or higher effects if they are large enough to consider. This is a well accepted part of the usual practice, of which I merely postulated a possible example.

    Surely you can’t expect to consider transportation changes without considering the effects on the destination(s). Surely that is exactly the point of considering the linkage between land use and transportation.

    Embracing subsidies is a game plan for failure, and this is the accepted rulebook for identifying and erasing subsidies, including negative subsidies.

    The end result is the actual social benefit that results when a true “sum is greater than the parts” program is properly implemented: no one gets hurt, no one gets a windfall, and yet we are all better off in the end.

    Stop arguing with me. Go read the book. It isn’t my idea, I just think it is a good one.

    It is unfortunate, but it might (sometimes, maybe, in really dumb situations), work against what we feel are usefull environmental initiatives. IF and IF and IF that turns out to be the case, then we need to think about it more, so that we design better initiatives, inst3ead of just spouting off about whatever WE think is good for the public, just like any other special interest.

    RH

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “What I have said is that when government makes expensive choices that affect a business, and which are contrary to previous express or implied promises, then the business deserves some compensation.”

    It’s simply not true.

    Was Johns Mansville “compensated” when asbestos was outlawed?

    Would you like me to list a dozen more like this?

    Are you saying this is a “right” or the reality?

    This kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME … it happens when a locality passes new building codes or a new BPOL tax or the Feds outlaw some product or add a fee to some product for recycling, etc.

    If someone looks to buy your house, they can hire someone to determine code compliance – and in the end require you to fix what no longer conforms – even if it once did.

    In some places, the OP will be revoked if the use of the property no longer conforms with code.

    Using your logic, every single case would require compensation.

    Where would this compensation come from?

    Well, it would come from other taxpayers.

    So.. what you seem to be advocating is that other property owners pay for your expenses because it is not fair for the government to “take” from you in the first place.

    and then.. everyone else including you would pay for their expenses

    and, in effect, everyone would subsidize each other.

    and you seem to be fine with this as long as you can get your favorite “subsidy” also… after all everyone pays and everyone gets.

    This is like saying… I earn money and I spend money.. no problems.

    But it’s not true.. if you spend more than you make you go belly up whether it’s your individual budget or a government budget.

    so the idea that everyone pays taxes and everyone should get something back.. is ..umm nice work if you can get it… but most people don’t.

Leave a Reply

Read More