Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Thinking about P3s

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Ron Utt, a Virginia-based Heritage Foundation scholar, and William G. Reinhardt, publisher of Public Works Financing, have offered a balanced appraisal, from a conservative perspective, of public-private partnerships (P3s) as a solution for America’s transportation woes.

They cite Virginia’s successes with the Capital Beltway HOT lanes and Hampton Roads tunnels in their essay, “Can Public-Private Partnerships Fill the Transportation Funding Gap?”

But Utt and Reinhardt acknowledge that there is stiff public resistance to the tolls required to pay for multibillion-dollar improvements.

Policymakers should recognize that P3s are not the solution to the transportation infrastructure investment gap that threatens to undermine commerce in the United States. There are too few financially viable P3 projects to meet the national need for new highway capacity and to modernize existing roads. No amount of enabling legislation will bring private investors into projects that are not financeable, and very few highways could support themselves on tolls alone. Thus, some combination of gas taxes, sales taxes, fees, and appropriations of state funds is necessary to make a creditworthy public–private partnership. …

P3s have demonstrated the ability to raise substantial sums of money for major infrastructure projects, especially to add needed capacity in congested corridors. Experience has also demonstrated that P3 projects can be complicated and time-consuming to create and that not every transportation project is amenable to this approach. As a consequence, other innovative and traditional finance solutions will be needed to meet current and future infrastructure spending plans.

Those are all worthy points but I would append one more critical question: How do we ensure that P3s are economically justified? As Utt and Reinhardt point out, few projects can support themselves on the basis of toll revenues alone. Most P3s require public subsidies to buy down the price of the tolls. If the demand doesn’t exist to support the improvement, or if private-sector players aren’t willing to assume the risk that toll revenues may not materialize, should the project be built at all? I have yet to see a set of clearly articulated principles by which to judge when a public subsidy of a P3 project is warranted.

— JAB

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

25 responses to “Thinking about P3s”

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Jim is DEAD ON! I’m surprised.. no.. I’m SHOCKED that Mr. Utt, a Heritage Icon is advocating …. SUBSIDIES!!! and using the “tax” word.

    Jim asks this: ” How do we ensure that P3s are economically justified? As Utt and Reinhardt point out, few projects can support themselves on the basis of toll revenues alone. Most P3s require public subsidies to buy down the price of the tolls. If the demand doesn’t exist to support the improvement, or if private-sector players aren’t willing to assume the risk that toll revenues may not materialize, should the project be built at all? ”

    What is the answer to Jim’s question?

    If Mr. Utt is going to “fold” on this issue …then does he not undermines all other issues involving the govt, public services and infrastructure …and subsidies?

    No way we should Mr. Utt off by making such a blanket statement that ” few projects can support themselves on the basis of toll revenues alone. ” when both he and the Heritage folks have staked their reputation on market principles driving investments rather than govt fiat.

    Mr. Utt and Heritage are one of the groups that initially convinced the govt that non-govt operated HOT Lanes made economic sense.

    Now.. they seem to have changed their basic philosophy and are advocating subsides for these PPPs.

    It appears to me that Mr. Utt has abandoned his principles here….

  2. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    From a principles perspective, I tend to agree with Larry. While I do believe the Beltway HOT lanes project will prove to be a big success, there is public money involved. There are subsidies. We probably need a public debate over the issue of should there be some taxpayer investment in PPPs and, if so, how much and how do we address the presence of taxpayer subsidies.
    We have reached traffic congestion levels in certain areas where we need to send economic signals for people not to drive to certain locations at certain times. Tolls can be a part of the economic signal.
    In many instances, it is too expensive to add the capacity needed to handle peak period demand. So putting a separate price on travel to specific locations at specific times of day makes economic sense. The cell phone companies do this. Power companies also charge more in summer than in winter. Transportation should do the same.

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the interesting thing to me is that congestion is said to cost people economically and they even can calculate a dollar amount.

    but as TMT points out the cost of the additional infrastructure to mitigate the congestion either exceeds the actual cost of the congestion loss OR people make a choice that they’d rather eat the congestion cost than pay for the infrastructure to relieve it.

    This is where Utt and Heritage have gone off the rails.

    Up until this point – they have viewed the congestion verses infrastructure condundrum as one simply of a market that needed price mechanisms (real time tolling) to let people decide WHEN they wanted to drive verses how much to pay.

    Now, they have come off of that I suspect because of recent investment grade studies of several projects that came to the conclusion that those projects would not be sustainable as toll roads.

    We see this with the ICC in Maryland and we see this with the proposed US 460 from Tidewater to Richmond.

    Md is using toll revenues from other toll roads as well as tax dollars to make up the shortfall and Va proposes to provide a taxpayer subsidy from gas taxes? to the US460 operator.

    But here’s the other kicker. Because it is PPP, the public cannot see the numbers until after the project is well advanced.

    Oh by the way – the Gov”s transpo plan is being promoted JUST LIKE a STIMULUS:

    Economic Benefits of the Governor’s Transportation Program

    http://s351015200.onlinehome.us/VTC/2011-VTC-presentations/Charlie's%20Conference%20Presentation.pdf

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “They cite Virginia’s successes with the Capital Beltway HOT lanes…”.

    The HOT lanes are still being built. Not one HOT lane toll has yet been charged. As for successes – I suspect the biggest success will be the elimination from office of every NoVa politico who voted for this abomination once the full effect of the absurdly high tolls are understood. And these tools don’t pay for a modern mass transit system – they pay for a dereliction of duty by our General Assembly.

    Funny that Jim Bacon, TMT, et al quack like ruptured ducks about the unfairness of raising the tolls on the Dulles Toll Rd to pay for Rail to Dulles. However, the higher projected costs (per mile) of the Beltway HOT lanes are just fine and dandy.

    Perhaps they will claim that those who don’t care to pay the exorbitant prices on the Beltway HOT lanes can always chose to remain in the congested existing lanes. So, all is fair. Let me drop a reality bomb on Jim Bacon and his ilk – The poor “victims” of the Dulles Toll Road hikes can also drive on congested surface streets if they don’t like the prices on the Toll Rd.

    There is no difference. There has never been any difference. There never will be any difference.

    Yet Bacon et al will howl at the Moon about Dulles Toll Road rates while serenely basking in the glow of a worse transportation gouging on the Beltway HOT lanes.

    Why?

    One can only guess that being gouged by a public / private partnership is fine and dandy while being gouged by an agency of the state governments is a hideous miscarriage of justice.

    And some people wonder why Republicans are increasingly perceived as odd and bizarre people with odd and bizarre beliefs.

    Go figure.

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    “… the elimination from office of every NoVa politico who voted for this abomination ”

    who would that be? Looks to be that the folks who made the HOT lanes happen are hidden behind the curtain, eh?

    DJ also makes a good point about the “success”. Do you know why Utt and Reinhardt characterize it as a “success”? Because Heritage considers itself one of the original and key promoters of HOT Lanes so the “success” part is the decision to build them.

    It just occurred to me that I do not know if DTR operates in a HOT mode or not.

    I personally support HOT because it’s physically and fiscally impossible to add enough lanes to the beltway to eliminate or alleviate rush hour congestion.

    Just look at what had to be done just to add one more lane – every single overpass had to be torn down and rebuilt and there are now many places where there just is no more available right of way unless high dollar commercial properties are condemned and torn down.

    I think HOT lanes are going to likely be wildly successful with proviso that they can successfully deal with the switchable HOV/SOLO transponders.

    Utt and Reinhardt though have changed their thinking apparently on the economics of new location toll roads such as the ICC and US 460 and it’s clear to me what they now see that they did not see before that propels them to the idea that some future toll roads will have to be taxpayer-subsidized.

    that’s an astounding about-face from their prior orthodoxy.

    they’ve basically bailed out of the concept that roads can be markets.

  6. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Don, I’ll try one more time… HOT lanes expand highway capacity, the tolls are voluntary, and the HOT lanes create a choice for commuters that did not previously exist. No one is any worse off.

    In the case of the Dulles Toll Road, the tolls do not expand the toll road’s capacity, commuters who use the road have no choice about paying the toll, and they are given no options other than not using the road at all. People are significantly worse off.

    Huge difference, and you are blind not to see it.

  7. HardHatMommy Avatar
    HardHatMommy

    DJRippert,
    Your line regarding the HOT lane tolls, “they pay for a dereliction of duty by our General Assembly”, couldn’t be more true. There are clearly a few heroes in the General Assembly who are ready to actually lead on this issue, but they are routinely squashed by the weight of the collective butt-covering, spineless folks who want to pass our transportation woes down the line.

    I do see a bit of a difference in the Dulles Toll Road and HOT lanes scenarios. The rising tolls on the Toll Road are directly related to paying for an entirely separate transportation solution, Rail to Dulles. I think Rail to Dulles is very important for our region. As the Dulles corridor grows and develops, we will look back and be thankful that we forged ahead with this. But with that said, most users of the Toll Road will not directly benefit from that project. In contrast, the HOT lanes tolls are collected to pay for HOT lanes (unless I missed something which is entirely possible – I cannot keep up with you fellows). Those paying are actually getting a benefit. I think if tolls were rising on 267 on a couple of lanes that relieved a specific congestion nightmare, that would be more acceptable to the users of that road and the land owners and businesses that road feeds. The difference lies in what benefit the people paying the cash are getting from their investment – a metro they aren’t riding or a faster way to where they are going. The problem lies squarely on the General Assembly and Governor of today and yesterday.

  8. HardHatMommy Avatar
    HardHatMommy

    I just read Mr. Bacon’s comment above mine; somehow I missed seeing that. His post expressed what I was trying to get to … in less words and with more clarity. 🙂

  9. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” I have yet to see a set of clearly articulated principles by which to judge when a public subsidy of a P3 project is warranted”

    Mr. Utt and Mr. Reinhardt arrived at their position through some analyses but as Jim points out they went from “no subsidies” to “subsidies are necessary” without really explaining what changed and why they became convinced that in some cases – they are needed.

    I think I would have preferred to see their investigative work that supported their conclusion before I saw their conclusion.

    Since PPP’s are not as transparent as non-PPP transportation projects, this is even more important for the public to understand.

    You can bet the DOTs including VDOT are already incorporating these conclusions without worrying about which PPPs would need to be subsidized and which would not and why.

    Between VDOT’s preference to not really explain the financials of projects and now.. the Heritages de-facto providing of cover for more secrecy .. we end up with a step back on the continuum.

    what has happened is that the whole environment of spend tax money on transportation is being covered up.

    in the future we could see a project like the Charlottesville Bypass have no publically released financials because it will be said to be “proprietary”. The only people who know them will be VDOT and the PPP principle. This is not good.

    If this is how PPPs are going to work in the future – we should reject them totally because they are NOT in the public interest when basic information like cost is hidden at the point when the public, in theory, is supposed to be expressing their views about the costs and benefits of a proposal.

    PPP’s are becoming the preferred VDOT approach to new location roads that have the potential for controversy. This is how they can effectively get around the NEPA process. It may be moot anyhow because the new Transportation Bill in Congress also seeks to mute NEPAs influence.

  10. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: HOT Lanes vs DTR TOlls.

    yup – Jim nailed it on the differences between HOT and DTR.

    but I had a question for folks.

    If HOT Lanes were going to use money for METRO like DTR – would that be supported by the NoVa public?

  11. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    second question – why not combine DTR with HOT lanes as one system and use HOT lane proceeds to pay for METRO?

    get MWAA out of the toll road business all together.

    yes? no? good idea? bad idea?

  12. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    The idea that Virginia could have simply widened the Beltway and not built the HOT Lanes is crazy. First, there is a good chance the federal government would not have allowed the expansion of general purpose lanes because of air quality concerns. This is not Washington, PA. HOT Lanes are viewed differently than GP lanes by the feds.
    The HOT Lanes will also allow reliable bus service on the Beltway. The addition of four GP lanes would not have achieved that result. The HOT Lanes will also create incentives for van and car pools.
    The HOT Lanes give people more choices. They will know the price they would pay before they decide which lanes to take. Those who chose to pay will most certainly travel much faster than those who use the GP lanes.

  13. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    This is news when Utt says it and nonsense when I say it.

    Policymakers should recognize that P3s are not the solution to the transportation infrastructure investment gap that threatens to undermine commerce in the United States. There are too few financially viable P3 projects to meet the national need for new highway capacity and to modernize existing roads.

    P3s will cherry pick the best projects.

    No amount of enabling legislation will bring private investors into projects that are not financeable, and very few highways could support themselves on tolls alone.

    The road users are not the only beneficiaries. Using the [false] argument that [only the direct] users should pay is nothing but a way to prevent roads from being built, which is the actual agenda of those who argur for only toll roads.

    Thus, some combination of gas taxes, sales taxes, fees, and appropriations of state funds is necessary to make a creditworthy public–private partnership. …

    This has nothing to do with whether a P3 is involved: it is true regardless. You need all the beneficiaries [almost everyone] of new roads to pay for them.

    If ou want a nexus between land use and road construction, here it is.

    P3s have demonstrated the ability to raise substantial sums of money for major infrastructure projects, especially to add needed capacity in congested corridors.

    They will be managed for revenue return and not to reduce congestion.

    Experience has also demonstrated that P3 projects can be complicated and time-consuming to create and that not every transportation project is amenable to this approach.

    The more players involved the harder it is to reach a consensus on the rules.

    As a consequence, other innovative and traditional finance solutions will be needed to meet current and future infrastructure spending plans.

    What is nnovative about [public] finance? You borrow money, and then you take more money from other people later, to pay the first people back. Not too complicated, and has not changed for millennia..

    The HOT Lanes will also allow reliable bus service on the Beltway.

    No they won’t. Reliable bus service means they have to be profitable

    The HOT Lanes will also create incentives for van and car pools.

    No they won’t. Studies suggest they [HOT lanes] will reduce car pools. If you want more car pools, do what the MARK center is doing: pay people to operate and ride them.

    The HOT Lanes give people more choices.

    Which is why they will choos not to use car pools. You will have more choices, and you willsee which ones people actually use. It will help you put a price on what the alternative choices are really worth.

    Those who chose to pay will most certainly travel much faster than those who use the GP lanes.

    Yes, that will be one result of managing the HOT lanes for revenue instead of max traffic throughput. Max traffic throughput is what makes the benefit of building the new lanes as high as possible compared to the cost. The result you get instead, will be higher speeds for fewer cars and more money for the P3. It is a situation GUARANTEED to provide a suboptimum result.

    We deserve better.

    If HOT Lanes were going to use money for METRO like DTR – would that be supported by the NoVa public?

    Lord knows. The Virginia public have been fed so much transportation crap for so long, they will swallow nearly anything.

    It may be moot anyhow because the new Transportation Bill in Congress also seeks to mute NEPAs influence.

    Well, gee, Larry, you are the one that has argued with me that we have a process for arguing costs and benefits, whichis the proposed rulemaking and comments method. Here is a situation where i MAY work the opposite direction, and now you seem to be offering up a complaint.

    ” the public is supposed to be expressing their views about the costs and benefits of a proposal.”

    Larry, you have this all wrong. The costs and benefits of a plan are whatever they are. The public views about them make no difference at all: the actual costs will be the actual costs and the actual benefits will be the actual benefits. The only public view that makes any sense is one that asks how we may best go about discovering the truth, as opposed to a public view which consists of inventing some truth and then lobbying it into [a false] existence.

    No way we should Mr. Utt off by making such a blanket statement that ” few projects can support themselves on the basis of toll revenues alone. ” when both he and the Heritage folks have staked their reputation on market principles driving investments rather than govt fiat.

    Larry, larry, larry. this is a prime example of the my last statement. The key phrase here is toll revenues alone. The fact that they cannot pay forthemselves on toll revenues alone DOES NOT mean there is insufficient economic justification, tyet this is an untruth that your public view continually expresses, to the detriment of both public and private coffers.

    HOT lanes expand highway capacity, the tolls are voluntary, and the HOT lanes create a choice for commuters that did not previously exist. No one is any worse off.

    Wrong. The people who are worse off are those that got to help pay down the risk to the P3 but cannot avail themselves of the “choices”. The people who are worse off are those that might have traveled under a max throughput plan, but who will be excluded under a max revenue plan.

    For years you have railed against roads in the exurbs that are too lightly traveled to justify their existence, yet here you are championing a road that will be deliberately less traveled than it could be. This makes no sense.

    Roads are part of the area of densely populated areas. You had better plan on the most densely populated roads to service the most densely populated areas. Otherwise you had better plan on reducing the density. THAT is the nexus between transportation and land use.

  14. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    “Well, gee, Larry, you are the one that has argued with me that we have a process for arguing costs and benefits, whichis the proposed rulemaking and comments method. Here is a situation where i MAY work the opposite direction, and now you seem to be offering up a complaint.”

    I STILL REJECT ..YOUR IDEA of some as-yet-to-be-developed cost/benefit paradigm that are supposed to be developed but never have even from those who say they should be used.

    ” the public is supposed to be expressing their views about the costs and benefits of a proposal.”

    Larry, you have this all wrong. The costs and benefits of a plan are whatever they are. The public views about them make no difference at all: the actual costs will be the actual costs and the actual benefits will be the actual benefits.”

    the process is supposed to include public input. The quality or quantity of it does not change the reason why the public has the opportunity.

    ” The only public view that makes any sense is one that asks how we may best go about discovering the truth, as opposed to a public view which consists of inventing some truth and then lobbying it into [a false] existence.”

    to you – not to most.

    “No way we should Mr. Utt off by making such a blanket statement that ” few projects can support themselves on the basis of toll revenues alone. ” when both he and the Heritage folks have staked their reputation on market principles driving investments rather than govt fiat.

    Larry, larry, larry. this is a prime example of the my last statement. The key phrase here is toll revenues alone. The fact that they cannot pay forthemselves on toll revenues alone DOES NOT mean there is insufficient economic justification, tyet this is an untruth that your public view continually expresses, to the detriment of both public and private coffers.”

    the significance to me was to have someone like Utt who until now, has advocated a market approach to transportation infrastructure is now saying that – no in every case – will a pure market approach “work”.

    “HOT lanes expand highway capacity, the tolls are voluntary, and the HOT lanes create a choice for commuters that did not previously exist. No one is any worse off.

    Wrong. The people who are worse off are those that got to help pay down the risk to the P3 but cannot avail themselves of the “choices”. The people who are worse off are those that might have traveled under a max throughput plan, but who will be excluded under a max revenue plan.”

    there is no way to expand roads to remove or substantially alleviate congestion in places like NoVa where additional right-of-way is either not available or so expensive as to be not practical. That leaves you with the option of trying to manage what you do have available much like you would a parking garage or stadium seats or movie theater seats and that means letting people decide the cost/benefits for themselves.

    “For years you have railed against roads in the exurbs that are too lightly traveled to justify their existence, yet here you are championing a road that will be deliberately less traveled than it could be. This makes no sense.”

    huh? more detail needed here..

    “Roads are part of the area of densely populated areas. You had better plan on the most densely populated roads to service the most densely populated areas. Otherwise you had better plan on reducing the density. THAT is the nexus between transportation and land use”

    can you name some places where that is what was done and it was successful at reducing congestion?

  15. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    .“Roads are part of the area of densely populated areas. You had better plan on the most densely populated roads to service the most densely populated areas. Otherwise you had better plan on reducing the density. THAT is the nexus between transportation and land use”

    can you name some places where that is what was done and it was successful at reducing congestion?

    ================================================

    Can you name a place where they deliberately restricted the carrying capacity of a highway and it reduced congestion?

    There are two different issues here. One issue is how much traffic actually gets through to its destination. That is throughput and you wnat to maximize that in order to get maximum use and maximum benefit from the money you spent on the road. That is why I have said that if you want to do something about the nexus between land use and transportation, the chepaest thing to do is allow more [commercial] growth where the roads are unused and uncongested.

    The second issue is congestion, congestion means how much longer you have to wait for throughput. If you reduce throughput you will have more people backed up in the queue waiting to get to the reduced throughput area. Think of any construction zone. Once you get throught e queue and the merg area, you may zip through the construction area itself, but the overall service is lower.

    Just because you put up the service barrier with a price instead of a barricade, does not change the result.

  16. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I STILL REJECT ..YOUR IDEA of some as-yet-to-be-developed cost/benefit paradigm

    =================================================

    How can you reject a fact? It is a simple, uncontrovertible fact that our Total cost = Production Cost + External Cost + Government Cost

    Just because we do not have the facts we need to solve th equation, does not mean the equation is wrong or does not exist. All that means is that despite, [and probably because of] the partisan whining on every front, that we are exremely unlikely to happen on something close to the correct answer. And we won;t even know how much we are wasting.

    But, here is a case where some people have come to the conclusion that NEPA is costing more than it is worth, so they want to reduce its scope. My problem with this is EXATLY the same as my problem with people who want more NEPA scope.

    How do you know what it is worth? Lets assume that a meiracle happens, and all sides agree on a fair procedure for assessing the costs, without knowing the eventual outcome: all they have agreed is that the procedure is fair.

    You do not for example asssess the cost of industrial accidents related to mining, transportation, and burning of coal to produce power unless you also inculde the costs of industrial accidents related to the manufacture, shipment, construction and maintenance of giant wind turbines. We can agree on how toassess those costs fairly, without knowing the eventual result.

    If that ssumption that such a procedure can be worked out ever happens, then guess what? It becomes a benchmark for other measures of other porblems. the more a fair procedure is refined and approved, the more people will agree on what the costs are. Once you know what costs go on the right side, you know the total costs on the left side.

    The problem we have now is that people look at the equation reflexively[whether they know about it or not] and say something like, “Hey, we can reduce costs by reducing government” . But when you take that idea and run it through the entire agreed upon procedure, you discover that it trigers other issues and the result is not as simple as just cutting government.

    I agree that such a procedure does not exist, but the result of the equation DOES exist, and if we do not know what the result is, it is only because of ignorance.

  17. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    there is no way to expand roads to remove or substantially alleviate congestion in places like NoVa where additional right-of-way is either not available or so expensive as to be not practical.

    ==============================================

    With such a statement you are assuming that you know the result of the equation. How do you know?

    On one side you have costs that we know or can estimate: how much it will cost to condemn land, create right of way and increase transportation. And we know or can estmate how many people will be displaced by this, and all of this is balanced on the other side by this unknown thing which you call “what is practical”.

    Well, it is practical if it coems out cheaper, but unfortunately deciding what is cheaper means that you must have at least some of the “fair proedure” agreed to. You have to agree on what time period is under cosideration, and you have to agree on waht discount rate you will use. Then it is “practical” if the net present value or the IRR of the next thirty yars worth of activity comes out higher than the net present value of the next thirty years of activity having done nothing.

    Those estimates will be wrong, of course. But if they are both made usig the same set of rules, which we agree are fair rules, you will get a better result than jsut waving your hands in the air and saying “not practical”.

    Progress is made by finding an answer that is “less wrong”.

  18. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    is now saying that – no in every case – will a pure market approach “work”.

    ================================================

    That is not what he said. What he said is that considering tolls only is not a pure market approach.

    There are other beneficiairies, and to the extent they benefit, they should pay.

  19. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    ” The only public view that makes any sense is one that asks how we may best go about discovering the truth, as opposed to a public view which consists of inventing some truth and then lobbying it into [a false] existence.”

    to you – not to most.

    ================================================

    What do you not get about PUBLIC view?

    The view I have or most other people have is not the public view. Just like anyone else I am going to tend to agitate for what is good for me.

    those are all private views. The system we have now is that whoever is most adept at selling the private view as a public one, gets what they want, whether it is a good thing or not. Inventing a false truth and then lobbying it into existence, when a better truth might be discovered, if we had a system to do so.

    But the only PUBLIC view that makes any sense is the one that creates the most benefit for the lowest cost, after those that suffer a disbenefit are compensated. havng now maximised the available benefits, people are free to adjust their market behavior to avail themselves of as much as possible.

  20. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I personally support HOT because it’s physically and fiscally impossible to add enough lanes to the beltway to eliminate or alleviate rush hour congestion.

    =============================================

    Hot lanes won’t alleviate the congestion either. If that is your criteria you should support neither solution.

    You should support tearing down the Pentagon, the Agriculture Department, and the Department of Education and moving them out of the city. Then you should support a law that says no registered lobbyist may maintan an office closer than 200 miles from DC.

  21. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    came to the conclusion that those projects would not be sustainable as toll roads.

    ================================================
    We knew they werenot sustainable with toll roads. We used that as a reason the roads should not be built, rather than as a reason to reconsider the [false] idea that users should pay all the costs, even when teh benefits flow to many others.

  22. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Look at the VDOT slides.

    Each project evaluated using the same criteria: call this the VDOT fair procedure. No doubt the Smart Growth Coalition methodology for evelauating projects would look a lto diferent, but they would STILL use a similar method for each project. And, no doubt, SOME of their methodology would in fact consider issues VDOT did not.

    The point here is that is is possible to develop methodology considered fair, without knowledge of the results it might turn out. the second point is, that once such a method is developed, its use will be exapnded to other areas, because other comparisons would not be able to use some completely different method, for fear of being branded unfair by virtue of having violated some part of a proecedure previously agreed to.

    Finally consider these bullets from the slides and compare them to my remarksa above:

    • Higher vehicle density = higher throughput

    •Rural “compressed diamond” interchange is functionally obsolete – insufficient throughput capacity

    • Stationary vehicle queues on exit ramps as far back as main travel lanes of I66

    Having vehcles travel closer together gives higher throughput in spite of lower velocity, up to a point. HOT lane divers are not gong to pay as much toll to travel at the max throughput density, so HOT lanes will be managed to maximize revenue, not throughput and maximum social benefit.

    Now, there are communities all over the US with varing amounts of residential, commercial and street density. I submit that we could pretty easily draw some graphs of street density, residential density and commercial density [and government density] and pretty soon figure out what gives the best overall econmic result.

    I am willing to bet that Tysons is an outlier on those graphs, and so is the Nevada desert.

  23. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Look at the VDOT slides.

    Each project evaluated using the same criteria: call this the VDOT fair procedure. No doubt the Smart Growth Coalition methodology for evelauating projects would look a lto diferent, but they would STILL use a similar method for each project. And, no doubt, SOME of their methodology would in fact consider issues VDOT did not.

    The point here is that is is possible to develop methodology considered fair, without knowledge of the results it might turn out. the second point is, that once such a method is developed, its use will be exapnded to other areas, because other comparisons would not be able to use some completely different method, for fear of being branded unfair by virtue of having violated some part of a proecedure previously agreed to.

    Finally consider these bullets from the slides and compare them to my remarksa above:

    • Higher vehicle density = higher throughput

    •Rural “compressed diamond” interchange is functionally obsolete – insufficient throughput capacity

    • Stationary vehicle queues on exit ramps as far back as main travel lanes of I66

    Having vehcles travel closer together gives higher throughput in spite of lower velocity, up to a point. HOT lane divers are not gong to pay as much toll to travel at the max throughput density, so HOT lanes will be managed to maximize revenue, not throughput and maximum social benefit.

    Now, there are communities all over the US with varing amounts of residential, commercial and street density. I submit that we could pretty easily draw some graphs of street density, residential density and commercial density [and government density] and pretty soon figure out what gives the best overall econmic result.

    I am willing to bet that Tysons is an outlier on those graphs, and so is the Nevada desert.

  24. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Suppose we had those graphs. We already have road construction handbooks, but they serve a different purpose. If youhad those graphs of density vs economic cost/benefit, you would have an objective truth which we do not now have.

    It would be a lot harder for someone to stand up in a meeting and say we have “too much density” or “it is not practical” because the planning staff would whip out the graphs and say, “Look, here are fifty eamples, which suggest your are mistaken”.

    Then the question becomes, do you really want your neighborhood to look lie the one that provides optimum economic benefit, or are you willing to actually pay a little bit MORE for less density? The amount MORE you will pay is the amount of economic benefit lost by not applying the opimum parameters.

  25. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” If youhad those graphs of density vs economic cost/benefit, you would have an objective truth which we do not now have.”

    gee.. you’d think that developers would love to generate those graphs and use them to gain approval of projects, eh?

    why would you think that approach fails a lot?

Leave a Reply

Read More