STIMULATING DISASTER

The following is the headline, byline and the first four paragraphs of the story that was at the top, right of page A 1 in today’s WaPo.

EMR has inserted in brackets [ ] comments in the text and following the quoted material added comments on the “massive” plan to create jobs. We hope these notes make it clear why these ideas, though well intended, are ‘stimulating disaster’ (or perhaps compounding disaster) on the way to Collapse. Since the political leadership of the Commonwealth was an early supporter of the president-elect, one can expect Virginia to be a recipient of some of this job creation stimulus.

……………

Obama Offers First Look at Massive Plan To Create Jobs
Project Would Be the Largest Since the Interstate System

[In retrospect the negative impact the Interstate System on human settlement patterns inside the Clear Edges and outside the Clear Edges is crystal clear. It is also just as clear that a different design for an InterRegional Roadway System – for example one with key elements of the system laid out in 1924 would have had far more beneficial impacts and far fewer negative impacts and it would have created far more jobs.]

By Michael D. Shear

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 7, 2008; A01

On the heels of more grim unemployment news, President-elect Barack Obama yesterday offered the first glimpse of what would be the largest public works program since President Dwight D.
Eisenhower created the federal interstate system in the 1950s.

[Dwight did not “create” the Interstate System.]

Obama said the massive government spending program he proposes to lift the country out of economic recession will include a renewed effort to make public buildings energy-efficient, rebuild the nation’s highways, renovate aging schools and install computers in classrooms, extend high-speed Internet to underserved areas and modernize hospitals by giving them access to electronic medical records.

[See notes below on each element that is listed.]

“We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least 2 ½ million jobs so that the nearly 2 million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future,” Obama said in his weekly address, broadcast on the radio and the Internet.

[See note revised from “Thanksgiving Perspective” below concerning the jobs that are really needed.]

Obama offered few details and no cost estimate for the investment in public infrastructure. But it is intended to be part of a broader effort to stimulate economic activity that will also include tax cuts for middle-class Americans and direct aid to state governments to forestall layoffs as programs shrink.

[The devil – and the path to disaster and Collapse – is in the details.]

……………..

Consider each of the listed elements:

“Make public buildings energy-efficient”

There is nothing ‘wrong’ with trying to make public buildings more energy-efficient. However, what really needs to be made more energy-efficient and less energy-consumptive is the settlement pattern. It is the arrangement of buildings and spaces that is the primary driver of dysfunction and waste, not just of energy but of time and all other resources.

The downside of a focus on public building efficiency is that Agencies have a disastrous record trying to make anything related to buildings and settlement patterns “efficient” due to the pervasive dysfunction in governance structure – Public Housing, Urban Renewal, Zoning and Subdivision Controls, Ag subsidies, roadway, waterway and airport subsides come to mind.

Collectively, Agencies at the federal state and municipal level have created The Mobility and Access Crisis, The Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis and The Helter Skelter Crisis.

“Rebuild the nation’s highways”

Putting more resources into a system to support near exclusive reliance on Large, Private Vehicles (Autonomobiles) for Mobility and Access is an invitation to less Mobility and less Access. See THE PROBLEM WITH CARS

“Renovate aging schools”

Fine idea, most of the investment in schools over the past 30 years has been to support children of those who have been induced to (or had not choice but to) buy the Wrong Size House in the Wrong Location.

The problem with investing in the schools that really need renovation is that the Clusters and Neighborhoods where the children live need ‘renovation’ even more than the schools. Can you say “rebuild the Urban fabric inside the Clear Edges to create Balanced Communities?”

“Install computers in classrooms”

Great idea. But from the advertisements on MainStream Media is appears that the NBA is already doing this.

Perhaps before computers are installed there needs to be a comprehensive strategy to address the results of over technological saturation that is driving Mass OverConsumption. See “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future” by Mark Bauerlein.

Dumping more technology on students may be no better than dumping more asphalt on the landscape or putting every efficient lighting in dysfunctionally scattered buildings.

“Extend high-speed Internet to underserved areas”

Whoa! Here we go again. Unless there is an intelligent nation-state-wide Wright Plan, this program will be subsidizing those who have made bad location decisions with little benefit to any but those who are at the broadband subsidy trough.

“Modernize hospitals by giving them access to electronic medical records.”

This is a real whiz-bang idea. It is the system of delivering medical services that needs Transformation. Electronic medical records are not even a sty on the gnat eye.

The bigger Picture

There is nothing here about bailing out Autonomobile Enterprises or the Shelter Enterprises. That seems strange given the magnitude of the “problem.” EMR will deal with the pitfalls with the current ideas in these areas in due course.

As we noted in Thanksgiving Perspectives what is really needed are sustainable ways to use the US of A’s greatest surplus resource.

That resource is citizens who are not very bright and not very motivated. They:

• Slept through the important parts of high school

• Want to be entertained rather that create their own active, healthful recreation

• Almost all have made location and consumption decisions that they thought were in their best interest, but cumulatively these actions contribute to the growing economic, social and physical dysfunction

Because they happen to be born in US of A they believe “someone” owes them a comfortable life of consumption and entertainment.

They are not willing to work at the jobs that are attractive to those who are bright, resourceful but were unfortunate enough to have been born in some other nation-state.

There is plenty of challenge and opportunity for the bright and the motivated, it is the vast majority of the Running As Hard As They Cans and most of the Losing Grounds in the bottom 90 percent of the Ziggurat that need reorientation and something productive to do.

Telling a large percentage of the population they are fat, under-educated and slothful is not a way to get elected or reelected. “Leading” the citizens out of their self-created wilderness of sloth, indulgence and dysfunctional ways may not be p
ossible with dwindling resources. But this short laundry list of ideas to generate is a not starter.

Note: This post (and “Thanksgiving Perspectives:) was not edited by Jim Bacon so it may not be as clear as it might otherwise be.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

46 responses to “STIMULATING DISASTER”

  1. Good lord, when I find myself agreeing with EMR you know Obama’s proposal is a turd blossom.

    In his defense, this is a first draft and just a rehash of some campaign promises. The actual implementation will look different, although the politics behind it will remain the same (paying off teacher unions, some regional wealth-distribution).

    EMR’s anti-car bias keeps popping up. It is not interstates that are the problem — it is all the regional and state roads that surround them. Very separate beasts. And he never focus on freight, which is the biggest user of the interstate highways.

    His comments on schools are right on.

    Rural broadband is actually something that would help stop small towns from falling apart. In practice it might be used to wire up exurbs, but Verizon is doing a pretty good job with that already.

  2. re: “There is nothing ‘wrong’ with trying to make public buildings more energy-efficient. However, what really needs to be made more energy-efficient and less energy-consumptive is the settlement pattern. It is the arrangement of buildings and spaces that is the primary driver of dysfunction and waste, not just of energy but of time and all other resources.”

    That’s a pretty broad claim especially when we have lots of folks living beyond the urban enclaves.. and they’ve been there for a long time.. their moms/dads and their ancestors.

    The trouble with EMR’s treatise is that he has no definitive criteria that distinguishes between folks who have lived (and worked) for generations in places like Fredericksburg verses the folks who work in an urban enclave like NoVa but commute to their home in Fredericksburg.

    so.. you can have two houses – side-by-side – one of them built in 1790 occupied for generations.. and the one beside it.. built in 1999 and occupied by a NoVa commuter.

    So.. if you ask EMR if the two houses and those around them are functional or disfunctional, he has a problem.

    It’s NOT the location per se that is at the root of the dsyfunctionality.

    If you compare per capita energy usage between folks who live and work in Fredericksburg and those who live and work in NoVa .. AND those who work in NoVa but live in Fredericksburg – you’re not going to be able to point to one of them and show a different use of energy on a per home basis.

    You CAN show a difference in energy use if you INCLUDE the energy used in commuting.

    So.. one could claim …that excessive energy usage whether it be from leaving your windows and doors open with the heat up high.. or driving the wazoo out of your car every day – both are energy-intensive endeavors.

    but the guy who lives and works in Pound, Va .. just as his dad and grandad did.. and who would like to have electricity, phone, and broadband.. that’s not dysfunctional IMHO.

    He might only be 5 miles from his job… and he might be using 1/2 the energy (supplied from a coal plant 20 miles away) of those guys living in McMansions in Warrenton, Va… with their electricity coming from the same coal plant but 100 miles away from where they live.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar

    The negative impact the Interstate System on human settlement patterns inside the Clear Edges and outside the Clear Edges isn’t crystal clear to anyone but EMR. The negative impact of the highway system on settlement patterns is not shown, let alone proven. Without an assessment of its positive impacts as well, such a statement is meaningless.

    The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly called the Interstate Highway System (or simply, the Interstate System), is a network of limited-access highways (also called freeways or expressways) in the United States that is named for the President who championed its creation. (Wikipwedia). The statement that Eisenhower did not “create” the highway system is technically correct, but such statements undermine EMR’s credibility because they clash with history as we know it.

    The single most energy consuming factor in human living is what size house they live in, with how many people. The second most energy consuming factor is what they eat and where it comes from. If you really want to make settlement patterns more efficient then live in a small space near where your food grows, and eat mainly vegetables. 40% of all energy use is residential.

    Cars do not lead to less mobility and access. In fact, many social workers advocate more cars for inner city residents, specifically because they provide them with more mobility and access. Blaming cars for lack of mobility is like blaming women for children. Putting too many resources into a systems to support shared vehicle systems that don’t exist yet, are not cost effective, and are barely more efficient than autos would be equally as much a waste as putting too much reliance on autos. At present, the COST EFFECTIVE market for shared vehicles amounts to only around 2% of transit, and that includes almost none of the fright traffic.

    We need to shred the “urban fabric” that needs renovation and start over. Unfortunately, there will always be unfortunates, and they need to live somewhere. While you are rebuilding the urban fabric, you will have to rebuild the biases and prejudices and financial realities of the more fortunate as well, or they will choose not to live among the unfortunates. Mind control anyone? Homogenized zoning?

    “Subsidizing” high speed internet access will be a good idea if it provides more benefit than it costs. EMR is waving the emotion laden subsidy word as if subsidies are necessarily a bad thing. Given that people already live in what EMR calls wrong locations, internet access will help reduce the amount of unnecessary travel and eliminate wasted time waiting for dial up access to deliver the same goods. However, EMR is right about installing computers in classrooms and modernizing access to medical records. These might be nice, but they won’t do much for saving lives or educating children.

    The real joke is the goal of creating 2.5 million jobs. That is about how many the economy normally generates in a four year period. If Obama does that and claims credit, he will be claiming credit for nothing. If he is really fixing crumbling infrastructure, that is work that needed done anyway – we are not creating jobs, just funding them for a change. Obama is also promoting the idea of new “green” jobs. The problem here is that green jobs will probably replace brown jobs, for no net gain. Then there is the problem that green jobs may be far less efficient, so the economy will wind up paying more for the same or even lesser amounts of goods.

    This brings us to EMR’s overconsumption rant. A clean environment is an expensive luxury and it depends on having a strong economy, and strong property rights. Paradoxically, more efficiency leads to more consumption, not less, because more efficient consumption costs less and you can afford more. But simply consuming less leads to a lesser economy and lesser level of welfare, which is never good for the environment. If you really want a cleaner environment, let people own it and care for it the same way they do their lawns, instead of claiming it belongs to everyone, which guarantees the tragedy of the commons.

    RH

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Larry is overoncentrating on commuters. Commuting is only 20% of all travel and only a couple of percent of combined travel and residential energy usage.

    Even mass transit isn’t all that energy or coast efficient. If you put every commuter in carpools and mass transit, we would still have an energy problem, and our overall transportation costs would be much higher then they are now, popular perceptions aside.

    RH

  5. E M Risse Avatar

    Charlie:

    Thanks for the support.

    “EMR’s anti-car bias keeps popping up.”

    Actually EMR loves “cars.” He has (and does) own some great ones — Austin H., MGB, 2 Porche’s a number of very well built and useful vehicles.

    What EMR hates it the cumulative impact of Large, Private Vehicle on human settlement patterns and the unsustainable trajectory that results from near exclusive of Large, Private Vehicles has on Mobility and Access.”

    “It is not [I]nterstates that are the problem — it is all the regional and state roads that surround them.”

    Not really. Study with care the 1924 InterRegional Roadway progrm.

    The impact inside and outside the Clear Edge would have been far different. That is not to excuse the lack of state Mobility and Access strategies…

    “And he never focus on freight, which is the biggest user of the interstate highways.”

    Oh yes we do. See “Interstate Crime” 28 Feb 2005. Our first proposals for using rail for freigh inside and outside the Clear Edge was in 1967 for a planned Island-wide system in Puerto Rico…

    “His comments on schools are right on.”

    Thank you.

    “Rural broadband is actually something that would help stop small towns from falling apart. In practice it might be used to wire up exurbs, but Verizon is doing a pretty good job with that already.”

    First there is no “rural.”

    Second in the Coutryside of both NURs and USRs there are a lot of small urban enclaves that would benefit from Broadband INSIDE THE CLEAR EDGE.

    That would be a good investment. That is, not what is in the mix. It is putting more bandwidth in the Worng Size House in the Wrong Location.

    EMR

  6. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry:

    If you are not going to bother to try to understand EMRs thinking, it serves no useful purpose to try to comment on your posts.

    EMR has tried to explain and all you do is jump back in the pepper pot and look for more flyspecks.

    There is something wrong, inconsistent or irrelevent with most of your points but there is not use killing more bytes trying to respond when you refuse to step back and try understand.

    Your heart may be in the right place but your posts become just another filibuster of the New Flat Earth Society.

    Have a great Holiday.

    EMR

  7. re: subsidy – by definition you’re paying more than it yields.

    Otherwise, you’d call it an investment to denote the fact that the ROI is beneficial.

    re: commuting

    Okay Ray. I’m calling you on this. Provide a cite.

    and we’re talking about what percentage of the total VMT is commuting not the percentage of cars on the road.

    VMT is what translates into energy usage.

    10 cars commuting 10 miles in NoVa uses 1/5 the energy of 10 cars commuting 50 miles to exurban Va.

    re: flyspecks

    EMR-speak for “don’t interrupt while I’m heating the air around my ears”.

  8. EMR: Your taste in cars in impeccable, and I’d like to kneecap most Chevy Suburban owners. But your bias still leads you astray. The 1924 plan is great: for 1924. No modern country has anything like it. Even European countries, which are “unsustainable” but perhaps not as much as the US, invest more in the road systems than the US. A modest gas tax increase will solve that, and it easier to swallow “infrastructure investments” than as “gas tax increase.” Our interstate system was finished 20 years ago, and while we may agree with don’t need to expand it, it really needs some upkeep.

    Rural broadbrand is a term of art relating to Universal Service fund disposition. In that world, “rural” has been defined. In a better world, we’d kill the USF and let the hicks pay more for their phones. In reality, it is a small pot of money, and again an Obama campaign promise rather than a real action item. technology note: given the size of the US, we are never going to solve the rural broadband issue.

    I don’t see any sign Obama is really interested in investing in a more “sustainable” future. He is interested in urban re-investment, but that is more wealth transfer than moving to sustainability.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar

    No, Larry, it isn’t true that a subsidy means you are paying more than it yields.

    Metro riders are subsidized because they pay only 45% of the cost of their ride. However, METRO as a whole might yield more to all of us than it costs all of us. If that is true, then it is a net social benefit to us all. In that sense the “subsidy” returns more to us than it costs, and yet the riders are still subsidized.

    The question is what are you buying, what does it cost, and what is it worth? EMR thinks that promoting universal coverage of braodband is subsidizing scatteration. That might or might not be true, but it isn’t the full picture of ALL the costs and ALL the benefitis, and as a result EMR’s statement is a distortion.

    Since EMR is such a stickler over core confusing words, he should know better than to attempt to obfuscate the facts this way. However, no one wver accused EMR of confusing truth with reality.

    RH

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “10 cars commuting 10 miles in NoVa uses 1/5 the energy of 10 cars commuting 50 miles to exurban Va.”

    This is simply not true. Neither is it true tha VMT translates to energy usage.

    The ten miles those vehicles travel in NOVA traffice may take as much time and energy as the other 40 miles. It is true that the 50 mile drivers use more energy, but not true that they use 5 times as much.

    RH

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Anyway, direct energy usage is only part of the story. What is the total cost compared to the total benefit? That is the only thing that matters, in the end, because the total costs are going to boil down to and be related to energy usage.

    Metro, for example usea a little bit less energy per passenger (but not as much less as you might think). But Metro has much higher labor costs, and all that labor has to drive to work. When you look at the total system costs, it isn’t near as attractive as it seems if you look only at direct energy usage.

    RH

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Percentage of Total VMT represented by commuting – 27 percent (National Household Transportation Survey, 2001)

    RH

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “There is no Rural”

    The Census Bureau identifies and tabulates data for the urban and rural populations and their associated areas.

    For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classifies as “urban” all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of:

    core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and

    surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile

    In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC.

    “The Census Bureau’s classification of “rural” consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs. The rural component contains both place and nonplace territory. Geographic entities, such as census tracts, counties, metropolitan areas, and the territory outside metropolitan areas, often are “split” between urban and rural territory, and the population and housing units they contain often are partly classified as urban and partly classified as rural. “

    There is EMR’s truth, and then there is the rest of the world.

    RH

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “A transportation infrastructure is valuable to an economy because it facilitates the mobility of goods and services, but congestion increases the cost of mobility to everyone and reduces the efficiency and condition of the roadways. The ability to move goods and people around the Commonwealth at relatively low cost contributes directly to the well-being of citizens, and also reduces the total cost of the goods and services they receive.

    Virginia’s average commute time to work in 2006 was 26.9 minutes, the sixth highest in the nation. While higher than North Carolina (23.4 minutes) and Tennessee (23.5 minutes), the average time is slightly lower than Maryland’s 30.6 minutes. The national average is 25 minutes. North Dakota had the least traffic delays of all states with an average commute time of 15.5 minutes.”

    “The highest average commute times were all in the Northern region with Prince William County (39.5 minutes) and Stafford County (39.2 minutes) leading the way. Lynchburg City (16.3 minutes) in the West Central region had the lowest commute time among the localities measured in the state.”

    “If the population in the area around a roadway increases, the likelihood of congestion increases.”

    “Highway congestion is not just a problem of recurring “rush hour” delay in major cities. More than half of all congestion is non-recurring – caused by crashes, disabled vehicles, adverse weather, work zones, special events and other temporary disruptions …”

    “According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the effect of public transportation improvements in the Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area reduces amount of delay by 25,655 thousand hours.”

    http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/i-trafficCongestion.php

    And yet some morons will continue to insist that density and congestion is our friend: that it increases mobility and access.

    If you figure traffic delay costs an average of $25 an hour, then Metro has saved drivers $641,375, per year. Considering what Metro costs drivers, it is hard to see how that counts as a bargain.

    “Less than half of 1% of the land area in the United States is covered by roads of all kinds, not including rights-of-way, parking lots, and driveways. The United States has 1.2 miles of roads for every square mile of land area, much less than many other developed nations. Japan has a road density approximately 4 times greater than that of the United States. Germany, France, and England have road densities 2.5 times greater than that of the United States, and those densities continue to grow even in Europe’s high-density environments.”

    “The interstate system accounts for only 1.2% of the nation’s total miles of roadway (Table 2-2), yet interstate highways convey 24% of the annual VMT in the United States and 41% of total truck VMT, suggesting their importance to commercial transportation. These statistics also indicate the potential for the interstate system to deliver greater levels of contaminants to air and water than the total miles of interstate roadway would suggest. However, other factors suggest that the contaminant load is not simply proportional to VMT. For example, vehicles traveling at interstate speeds may emit some pollutants at a lower rate than vehicles operating on local streets.”

    “Although more than 70% of NHS miles are in rural areas, almost 60% of VMT on the NHS take place in urban areas (Figure 2-3).”

    “Almost 3/4 of miles traveled are on arterials and collectors (Not interstates) but these roads account for less than 25% of total roadway miles constructed. Local functional systems serve only 13.2% of total VMT, but these roads account for 68.8% of the nation’s total roadway miles “

    Assessing and Managing the Ecological Impacts of Paved Roads (2005).

    ——————————

    If a half-mile radius is the maximum convenient walking distance for a transit station, 7,800 workers would reside in the estimated 400 developed acres encompassing that half-mile radius, Deakin estimated. “If 25 percent take transit to get to work, that is only 2,000 transit commuters, a pretty low number for the transit station … and work trips tend to be half of all trips made by transit,” Deakin said.

    Mass transit accounts for only 1 percent of U.S. travel, so if it increases 20 percent, “it’s still only 1.2 percent of travel,” Pisarski said.

    “We have a long way to go before we would be a transit nation,” Deakin said.

    Seattle Times.

    —————————–

    So, where transit works, (70% of all transit trips are in seven large cities) it accounts for half of travel. This means that, AT MOST, an urban area with transit can be no more than twice as dense in population as an area with adequate auto service but without transit.

    And such an area with transit is going to have to support BOTH mas stransit AND the same roadway system as the control city without transit.

    This is why, regardless of the energy saved, and even including the (modest) time savings for auto drivers, you have to include the entire cost of the transit system in order to make ANY claims about VMT, density, commuting, or congestion.

    RH

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar

    here is what happens to the environment when the economy goes flat:

    “The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals. Across the country, this junk is accumulating by the ton in the yards and warehouses of recycling contractors, which are unable to find buyers or are unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices. …”

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    This is from a reader who has not posted before but has a suggestion.

    Change is not always good. What were two great sites (BR and BRB) that are now in flux.

    Bacon, the “B” in BR and BRB, is gone.

    There is a revolt against the agenda of neo cons who want to create a pseudo big tent that pushes a partisan agenda under the cover of “non-partisanship” and Bacon’s reputation.

    “Groveton” has created his own Blog, we suggest “RH” do the same.

    That way RH, and those who want to argue with him, can pontificate without taking up space that could be devoted to useful discussion of important issues.

  17. E M Risse Avatar

    charlie:

    EMR is going to have to throw the Larry Gross Flag on you here.

    “The 1924 plan is great: for 1924.”

    Did you really study the 1924 plan?

    “No modern country has anything like it.”

    Actually the EU limited access system is very similar to the 1924 concept. Limited access expressways BETWEEN Clear Edges not within them.

    Check out Benton MacKaye’s famous quote on roadways and the Countryside.

    “Even European countries, which are “unsustainable” but perhaps not as much as the US, [ture} invest more in the road systems than the US.”

    Do not disagree. The question is where to invest. The EU is not perfect, for example the ‘Swiss Problem’ and the failure to build enough rail capacity in North to South corridors.

    “A modest gas tax increase will solve that, and it easier to swallow “infrastructure investments” than as “gas tax increase.”

    The issue is what is invested in, more ‘removal of bottlenecks’ within 100 miles of NUR Centroids to subsidize scatteration of Urban Land uses will just make the problem worse.

    While the ton-miles of freight exceed passenger miles on the existing system, the most congested parts are within 100 miles of the Centroids of the 68 largest New Urban Regions. And the congestion is from IntraRegional Autonomobile trips devoted to urban activities, not InterRegional activities.

    “Our interstate system was finished 20 years ago, and while we may agree with don’t need to expand it, it really needs some upkeep.”

    SOME upkeep yes, but where and to provide for what movements?

    No one knows the answer to that without a Wright Plan for all the Urban and NonUrban areas of North America.

    EMR

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar

    This sounds a lot like the county supervisor who told me that I should leave the county. Or the other well-known local who called me a liar and an idiot in the newspaper.

    They are both gone now, and I’m still here.

    It isn’t as if we are going to run out of digital space, and anyway, were I to move it would only mean that different space would be used discussing important issues.

    Considering the amount of space I fill here, there wouldn’t be much discussion left at all, let alone discussion of important issues.

    Discussion requires that both sides participate, so inviting someone to leave does not promote any kind of discussion, let alone of important issues. EMR, for example, has chosen to not engage intellectually with me, so that he can be free to pontificate at will. As far as I can figure out, he intersects reality at right angles, independent of common sense, or utility. But, absent any discussion with him, it is just my observation.

    Like the Jefferson Institute, I support thoughtful, realistic, useful, and non-partisan analysis. I despise liberal and conservative drivel equally. I’m suspicious of conventional wisdom, because too often it boils down to unspportable group-think. I think a good idea, like flood-plain protection is fundamentally dishonest when it is promoted with an ulterior motive such as preventing development.

    People who want to argue with me are not arguing with me: I’m not smart enough to have great ideas, I just pass them on. I only try to to discern the difference between seductively attractive but wrong ideas and the truth, which may not sound all that different yet have major repercussions. I point out what I see as the differencees and back them up with references.

    For example, there is almost no true, verifiable connection between how far people drive and congestion. It seems reasonable that there would be, but there isn’t. Congestion has to do with how many people arrive at the same place and time, not how far they have come.

    For example, mass transit carries at most half of our transit needs, even in the markets where it works. This has major consequences for those that propose more spending on transit, because it means it is pretty easy to build too much transit, and wind up with an unbalanced system that is wasteful, non-productive, and un-green. Despite what some people think, I have nothing against mass transit; I’m in favor of mass transit, but I’m not blind to its shortcomings and I hate waste, especially in the name of efficiency.

    I’m all for discussing important issues: if you have one to bring up other than inviting me to leave, bring it on. It is just that, as a scientist, I am handicapped, by not being able to allow wishful thinking to interfere with reality: something that is often lacking in policy discussions.

    Some people seem to have a problem with that, especially those with an agenda to push.

    So, my suggestion to you is to stop being a lurker and participate, you might find it more stimulating than simply being dismissive of those that try.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar

    I couldn’t find any reference to a 1924 interregional roadway plan, all I found was 1944. Are we talking the same thing?

    Europe has more twice as much roadway per square mile as the U.S. and Japan, four times as much.
    No wonder their gas taxes are higher, look what they have to support!

    Considering the spatial differences, does anything Europe do make sense in the U.S.? Is it really scaleable?

    ——————-

    “the most congested parts are within 100 miles of the Centroids of the 68 largest New Urban Regions”

    Well, no wonder, thats, what 95% of the population? Of course that’s where the congestion is.

    The interstate system accounts for only 1.2% of the nation’s total miles of roadway, yet interstate highways convey 24% of the annual VMT in the United States and 41% of total truck VMT. Combined with your statement that most congestion is in the most populated places, doesn’t that suggest to you what the REAL answer to congestion is?

    Get it out of the cities to where 70% of our road miles have already been built. more balanced nodes does not have to mean more scatteration or less efficiency.

    Anyway, despite what you think, scatteration is not the only problem we have. A fixation on fixing scatteration alone can only result in suboptimal solutions for all of our other problems.

    The methods for determining the optimum amount of scatteration, road density, job density, housing density, and number of nodes exist. All we need is a few hundred years of computing time.

    Then when we eventually agree on an objective optimal answer, all we have to do is modify it to fit the facts on the ground.

    Right now the facts are that North Dakota has the shortest commutes and least traffic delays. New York has the longest, and the most mass transit.

    Instead of looking at the 68 largest NURs, how about if we look at the largest ones that have little traffic congetion, and use THOSE as our model. We do have stuff that works, why try to duplicate or increase the population of the 68 places that are the biggest traffic disasters?

    RH

  20. re: commute VMT

    Ray is essentially correct in terms of the cite:

    % Commute VMT of Total
    VMT
    1969 – 33.60%
    1977 – 31.70%
    1983 – 30.10%
    1990 – 32.14%
    1990 – 26.72% (adjusted)
    1995 – 31.07%
    2001 – 27.02%

    http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf page 42

  21. re: subsidies

    It’s called a subsidy if you cannot demonstrate a documented ROI.

    In other words, you might believe that it has a positive ROI in your own mind ..but unless you can pull up credible data to prove it – then we call it a subsidy.

    When we can pull up real data to demonstrate a higher return, then we can legitimately call it an investment.

    The problem with advocacies for subsidies is that the advocates often seem to not be as concerned with documented ROIs or worse.., they will continue to believe that “other factors” that cannot be documented as ROIs still justify them.

    Of course.. the same folks will claim that subsidies that they don’t like are “not worth it”.

    My point here is that a subsidy is a subsidy in ALL CASES if you cannot demonstrate a legitimate and credible ROI – whether it is for something you like or something you don’t like.

    If you “like” ethanol but you don’t “like” transit – that’s fine – but let’s please admit that if you cannot show a dollars and cents positive ROI, then we call it a subsidy even if you think it’s a “good” but unprovable one..

  22. re: “…Combined with your statement that most congestion is in the most populated places, doesn’t that suggest to you what the REAL answer to congestion is?”

    Once again, we are confusing apples and oranges here.

    Congestion levels per se are not a settlement pattern issue at least not in the same way as the original blog post about dysfunctional settlement patterns based on higher consumption of energy and “waste” of both time and energy.

    Yes.. you could show SOME waste from sitting in traffic.. say on a 10 mile commute but the guy who drives a 50 mile commute will likely sit in the same traffic and the primary difference between the two is not how long they sit in traffic but the 40 mile difference in gasoline (energy) consumption which will compute out to 5 times more energy consumption – in general.

    If two drivers are commuting in the same area – both will experience the same congestion levels.

    If one of those drivers starts 50 miles away from their employment while the other one starts 10 miles away – the difference is not the congestion (which is equivalent) but the total miles driven.

    As far as I can tell – EMR’s concern with the harmful effects of dysfunctional settlement patterns does not include “congestion” per se – only that it’s cause is part and parcel of dysfunctional settlement patterns to start with.

    In other words – the goal of more functional settlement patterns is to reduce consumption of resources – the consumption of .. will not be sustainable…

    “congestion” (and pollution) as a condition associated with solo-driving – can be addressed by less solo-driving at rush hour.

    That is the logic behind HOV and HOT .. and METRO AND Commuter rail/bus/van.

    While commute VMT might be only 27% – it is rush hour where the problem occurs and it is rush hour that drives the advocacy for expansion of highways rather than demand management as a response.

    In other words – it’s a peak-hour phenomena .. really much like cell phone usage and airport usage as well as many other examples.

  23. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “which will compute out to 5 times more energy consumption – in general.”

    Not even close. For the sake of accuracy, go look it up. When we KNOW what the numbers are, there is no point in being wrong. It wrecks credibilty.

    RH

  24. Let’s be clear here.

    All I am saying is that a car that goes 10 miles is going 1/5 as far as a car that goes 50 miles.

    All things being equal – it’s going to use 1/5 the energy.

    no?

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “they will continue to believe that “other factors” that cannot be documented as ROIs still justify them.”

    You are right. As I have said we have an accounting problem. People will believe what they want to, facts be damned. All we can do is insist on accuracy (see above).

    Frequently we CAN document such things, but we have not taken the trouble. Sometimes we come up with an answer with rather large boundaries, but that is better than a WAG. sometmes we just have to take a shot, but we can then measure the results retroactively. sometimes the methods used are upsetting to people, such as the whole concept of statistical value of life.

    But, for the most part, we just don’t try very hard. We can do a lot better.

    My problem is with people who deliberately use words like subsidy and speculator as pejoratives to compromise the discussion, who are not willing to recognize that speculation is part of a properly operating market, or that subsidies sometimes have a valid use. That subsidies sometimes become entitlements or otherwise get out of control is beside the point: that is a governance problem, not an economic one.

    RH

  26. Ray Hyde Avatar

    It is interesting that the percent of commuting as VMT has gone down over the years.

    Are we moving closer to work, or is there a lot more of other traffic happening?

    Given the increase in the economy over that time, I’d suggest the latter.

    Now, how much TIME is spent commuting vs time spent in all VMT?

    RH

  27. I'm a little skeptical of the commuting VMT – decreasing.

    That's an old document – 2001 and the two data points for 1990 are way different.

    in terms of time lost verses energy use.

    we cannot assume that time lost is productivity lost – only the person losing the time knows the answer to that – and one would assume that if productivity is involved – that the person involved has options to avoid time lost.

    In terms of energy – for instance.

    A hybrid that automatically shuts off actually would use LESS energy in congestion and gridlock.

    If all cars.. gridlocked and all of those cars were hybrid plug-ins – and all of them shut off – the energy usage would go almost to zero.

    Pollution (from the cars) would go to almost zero.

    This is part of what I am trying to get EMR to address.

    In a world – ten or twenty years from now where a substantial percentage of the automobile fleet might well be plug-in hybrids and substantially more commuter rail and buses (to avoid paying HOT Lane TOlls) – there is a good likelihood of LESS energy consumption but actually an INCREASE in commuting – because the primary cost of commuting (besides time) is the fuel and if someone can commute in an electric car for 40 miles without using gasoline and with the electricity cost being equivalent to one or two dollars per gallon…

    .. I don't see how that changes … gloom & doom, hellfire & damnation – not withstanding …..

    The question to EMR is:

    If you agree that this is going to be the trend – if no changes from business as usual are made – then what needs to be done to change this?

    If we have a citizenry that votes – what is it that they will actually vote FOR …..?

    would they vote for Regional Government to take the place of the arbitrarily configured current local governments – most of which had their boundaries drawn per the King's handing out of land to the gentry?

    We DO have planning districts and it does appear to me that they actually are drawn somewhat according to NURs…(MSAs).

  28. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Well, it could decrease as a % if other traffic increases a lot.

    Or it could decrease if we are actually moving jobs closer to where people live.

    Or it could decrease if Jim Bacon is right, and people are moving closer to their jobs.

    Of the three, I think the last is least likely.

    RH

  29. Ray Hyde Avatar

    A hybrid that automatically shuts off actually would use LESS energy in congestion and gridlock.

    Mine gets less mileage if I go really fast, or really slow, same as any other car.

    There is a sweeet spot in stop and go traffic where it does really well.

    But you are missing the point. The energy waste and pollution waste are bad, but people’s time is much more valuable – even if it might have only been wasted some other way.

    It is a question of choice. While some people don;t mind their commute, or rationalize it, no one would willingly choose to sit in traffic if there was a valid other choice.

    The fact that so many people do it suggests where the problems might lie.

    RH

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “All things being equal – it’s going to use 1/5 the energy.

    no?”

    No, what we are talking about is a guy driving fifty miles and 10 of it is under congested conditions. That ten might well consume half of his total.

    Likewise, even if some other person drives only ten miles under congested conditions, he might consume half as much as the guy who drives 50 miles.

    Either way, it isn;t even close to 1/5.

    RH

  31. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “but the 40 mile difference in gasoline (energy) consumption which will compute out to 5 times more energy consumption – in general.”

    NO NO NO. Not even close.

    And I’m telling you nad EMR this is a PR problem. Idiotic falsities like this are what make people view those that make your arguments as idiots, nut cases, or liars.

    If we want to make good environmental arguments we need to start, and stick with, arguments that are accurate.

    RH

  32. Ray – you have two people going to the SAME job using the SAME car.

    Everything is the same – including the last 10 miles of congestion.

    Guy one drives 10 miles – through the congestion to his job.

    Guy two drives the same car to the same job but he starts 50 miles away.., and yes.., the last 10 miles he goes through the same congestion.

    The ONLY THING that is different is the total mileage driven – and guy 2 drove 5 times further.

    Now tell me again why he did not use 5 times the energy – all things being equal except for the distance?

  33. re: “people’s time is much more valuable “

    compared to what?

    do you think the guy on the way to visit his girl friend for an afternoon tryst – his time is as valuable as a doctor on his way to do surgery?

    Just because time is valuable to an individual does not mean that it actually has an intrinsic value to anyone else.

    Just because someone thinks their time is valuable – does not justify building more roads to reduce their travel time -if that time does not produce enough money to pay for his share of the expansion.

    That’s what toll roads do. They let each person decide how much their time is worth to them and at the same time does not require others to contribute to pay for something they don’t use.

    Essentially – you are not entitled to more infrastructure to shorten the time in your commute – just because you claim that your time is valuable..

    If your time is so valuable – then you should be willing to pay for things that will give you more of it back.

  34. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Now tell me again why he did not use 5 times the energy – all things being equal except for the distance?”

    Larry, this is simple. We’ve been through this before. Go look it up.

    Whether iit is one guy or two guys, the ten miles driven in congestion takes more time and burns much more fuel than ten miles driven at an optimal 55 MPG.

    That is true whether you drive a hybrid or not, at least in my experience, and according to my MPG computer.

    For a normal car it is because that ten miles takes longer and the enine is running whether the ar is moving or not. The car also uses MORE fuel at low speeds. And it uses MORE fuel stopping and starting.

    The “extra” 40 miles might only be half of the fuel cost and a fraction of the time.

    The actual case is probably al ot worse. Delaplane is 50 miles from the Pentagon, If I woked there I would drive in free-flowing traffic for 25 miles and stop and go for 25 miles, not ten.

    Under those conditions the marginal cost of the first 25 miles is virtually nothing compared to the cost of driving in congested conditions for 25 miles.

    ————————–

    Your argument about people’s time not being worth anything to anyone esle is ridiculous. That argument is beneath contempt.

    Go think about it for ten minutes and then come back.

    One of the “externalities” of auto travel frequently cited is that people do not take into account the cost of congestion they pose on eerybody else.

    If your argument is correct, we can eliminate that externality.

    You may not have any interest in paying to make someone else’s commute shorter, or quicker, but the government does. The government wants you out there making something or consuming something, because that is how the government gets its money, and grows in power.

    Anything the government can do in a cost-effective, ROI-positive way to increase production and consumption is good for the government, good for the economy, and good for individual incomes. Even if it means borrowing money or raising taxes (providing the borrowing or tax increases are less than the increase in the economy).

    The hooker is whether it is, infact cost-effective and ROI positive. We don’t have adequate accounting in place to figure that out, usually.

    RH

  35. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “In other words – it’s a peak-hour phenomena .. really much like cell phone usage and airport usage as well as many other examples.”

    That does not mean it costs any less. Demand management does not solve the problem, it doesn’t get people where they want to go, when they need to be there. Eliminating a problem isn’t the same as solving it.

    All of METRO is constructed to handle basically one peak-hour phenomenon. And at truly enormous expense, for what it does. AND on top of that, it still depends heavily on autos both to support it’s money habit, AND to provide it with subsidized customers.

    If you don’t think that we should build roads to handle rush hour traffic or reduce congestion, then what is the plausible argument for METRO?

    But since more urban roads are not in the cards anwway, and since Demand management is going to move demand someplace else anyway, but at tremendous cost, then shouldn’t we at least be discussing the idea of whther there is a cheaper way to move that demand someplace else?

    That’s all I’m asking.

    RH

  36. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “and at the same time does not require others to contribute to pay for something they don’t use.”

    Simply not true Larry. This is a complete distortion of facts taht anyone cansee through.

    This is EXACTLY what toll roads do. You get to pay for what you use AND you get to pay for all the non-tolled roads you don’t use.

    Groveton is right on this, and so is EMR. If we tolled all roads and if only those that use them paid for them, then your tolls in Fredericksburg and My tolls in Delaplane would be much higher because thee isn’t enough use to pay for them.

    That’s why toll roads went banfrupt in the early days.

    When I hear you calling for universal tolls, and when I stop seeing idiotic claims like this quote, then I’ll begin to believe that the toll road advocates are not raving loonies conspiring to raid NOVA tax dollars once again.

    RH

  37. re: “Whether iit is one guy or two guys, the ten miles driven in congestion takes more time and burns much more fuel than ten miles driven at an optimal 55 MPG.”

    You’re not listening.

    BOTH GUYS drive the SAME CONGESTION the last 10 miles to work.

    The First guy lives 10 miles from work. The second guy lives 50 miles.

    But they BOTH travel the EXACT same route the last 10 miles.

  38. re: “Your argument about people’s time not being worth anything to anyone esle is ridiculous. That argument is beneath contempt.”

    Not true.

    Not every trip is a productive trip that results in a net benefit to society.

    There are many, many trips made – that don’t need to be made.

    for instance, if you drive every day to the same job at the same time – and you encounter congestion…. what exactly are you losing in terms of your time that you could have saved by taking HOV?

    See – you made that choice – to spend your time in congestion rather than not.

    People make these choices all the time.

    do you want to go shopping if it will take you 3 hours in traffic or do you want to wait until traffic is less and you can get there in 30 minutes?

    No one owes you that trip in 30 minutes at any time that you want to take it.

  39. re: “That does not mean it costs any less. Demand management does not solve the problem, it doesn’t get people where they want to go, when they need to be there. Eliminating a problem isn’t the same as solving it.”

    the cost is to you and you are not entitled to have other folks pay to save you the cost which is what you are advocating.

    You want to take money away from other folks who don’t drive during congested times – to pay for more expansion to serve the people who do want to drive during congested hours.

    The cost of congestion on roads is no different that the cost of congestion on cell phones or airports.

    You do not received compensation for your time.

    You do not get to collect money from others to use to lessen your wait time.

    If we did at the airlines and cell phones what you want to do with roads – you’d collect money from the folks who do not fly at peak time periods and use it to provide more capacity for the folks who do fly at peak hours.

  40. “But since more urban roads are not in the cards anwway, and since Demand management is going to move demand someplace else anyway, but at tremendous cost, then shouldn’t we at least be discussing the idea of whther there is a cheaper way to move that demand someplace else?”

    You’re not doing anything different than if you wanted to shop at WalMart at Christmas but did not want to deal with the “congestion”.

    Your solution is to charge all the customers of Walmart MORE for what they buy so that the store can add peak hour parking, and cash registers.

    Instead, Walmart does NOT build peak hour parking and cash registers – because if they did – they’d have to charge EVERYONE more money to pay for it.

    The cell phone companies do not build more and bigger towers just so they can handled peak times.

    Instead they charge you extra to use cell phones at peak hours.

    That way – YOU DECIDE how much YOUR TIME is worth rather than you deciding that your time is worth more than other folks times and have them pay higher rates so that there is enough peak hour capacity to serve you.

    Very simply -you are NOT ENTITLED to peak hour service for no increase in price and you are not entitled to lower travel times at peak hour – for the same price either.

    There is a finite physical and fiscal limit to road capacity in urban areas.

    You get to the point where extra capacity is either ungodly expensive or the right of way is not available unless you tear down existing development.

    At that point – your time – is your business.

    You can choose to wait 3 hours in traffic or you can choose not to and “time shift” but the choice is yours and no one else owes you less time delay.

  41. re: “You get to pay for what you use AND you get to pay for all the non-tolled roads you don’t use.”

    and so how does this work with the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel?

    Isn’t it true that if it were not for tolls that the bridge-tunnel would not exist?

    OR.. if you would use tax money to build it – who would you tax to pay for it and would that be the same group that uses it?

    would you call the tolls on the CBBT or the description of those tolls and how they work – as a “distortion”?

    Fess up guy. Tolls are the most fair way to pay for the CBBT.

    otherwise – the taxpayers of all of Va would have to pay for it.

  42. I long ago conceded your point about the CBT. It is arguably a special case.

    Nothing about the CBT applies to roads in general or toll roads in general.

    When you support universal tolling for ALL roads, with the users paying their own full costs, then I will no longer doubt your sincerity.

    RH

  43. The only thing “special” about the CBBT is the fact that they had a choice when building it.

    It was going to be expensive and their choices were:

    1. – tax people for a long number of years until there was enough money to build it.

    2. – borrow the money and pay it back with tolls.

    Now we are at the point in highway funding where most new roads are in the 2. category unless we raise taxes.

    So what this really boils down to is – do you want to raise taxes or not on ALL Virginians or do you want to tax the folks that actually use the new roads?

    I advocate taxing the folks that actually will use the new roads – not all Virginians.

  44. Ray – what was your response about the two guys commuting the same route and one of them using 5 times as much energy because he is traveling 5 times as far – with the last part – the same exact route as the first guy (so that they both experience the same congestion levels)?

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, look it up. We’ve been over this before.

    Th guy driving five times as far uses no where near five times the energy.

    This is because for 80% of hi trip his vehicle is operating near is most efficient point.

    The last 20% of the tirp might be half of the time involved, or more, and unless he is in a hybrid, the engine is running all that time, and not efficiently.

    Last week I heard the traffic report claim 21 MPH from route 50 to the beltway on 66, and 19 mph inside the beltway.

    Best guess is the guy driving five times as far might be driving twise as long in time and burn twice as much gas, but it is nowhere near 5x.

    Like I say, you can look this up, but it buys you nothing to make claims like that when they are not anywhere close to true.

    And another thing, it takes 15 minutes to get the engine up to operating temp. A short trip is far less efficient than a long one. That guy that pulls out on the highway at speed warms up faster than they guy creeping along as soon as he leaves the driveway.

    During my commuting week I get 47 mpg, typically. On weekend a few quick trips to tractor supply oh Lowes, I might only get 41.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    “do you want to tax the folks that actually use the new roads?”

    The CBBT is stilla special case. It is one where you can actually tell who are the folks that use the new road. And the alternaitve is zilch.

    In the rest of the world the facts are the the folks that use the new roads are most everybody. If youtoll all the roads, you will see that. Otherwise it is a two tier system, those in ROVA that drive on unconested roads paid for by everyone, and those in ROVA that pay tolls to drive on congested roads.

    It is the wrong answer to the wrong problem.

    We have plenty of roads. We can’t put more roads where the jobs are, not even if the road is METRO.

    The jobs are in the wrong place. The places where the jobs are are not paying their full locational costs, and the more we play this game the more they export. Until you have the situation in New York where people live in PA and commute hours to work. And they export city garbage all the way to Virginia.

    What we are doing is nuts. Makes no economic sense, and tolling a few roads won;t change that.

    RH

Leave a Reply