THE TRANSPORT PROBLEM*

THE TRANSPORT PROBLEM IS NOT WHAT THE POLITICAL CLANS WOULD LIKE VOTERS TO THINK IT IS

The Commonwealth’s quadrennial political football classic is ratcheting up to peak frenzy. Many agree that the number one ‘PROBLEM’ in the state’s most populous New Urban Region is “The Transport Problem”

In the words of WaPo columnist Robert McCartney: “If you’re a candidate for governor coming to debate in Northern Virginia, you’d better be able to say simply and plainly how you’d raise money to repair and improve the roads.” (WaPo B-1 18 Sept 09)

That spin on the “The Transport Problem” (aka, the Mobility and Access Crisis) is in complete harmony with conventional wisdom and spawns questions such as:

“Where will the money come from to fix up and expand the roadway system?”

“What are we going to do to help commuters trapped in congestion?”

As pointed out in “Transport Strategy Disaster” (Bacon’s Rebellion Blog. 1 Sept 2009) both political Clans have been trying to avoid addressing the fundamental realities underlying “The Transport Problem.” Since that essay was completed, the picture has changed but it has not improved in any significant way.

THE ELEPHANT CLAN ANTIPLAN AND THE DONKEY CLAN SOUND BITES PLUS PROCESS.

Jim Bacon’s perspective in “McDonnell’s Transportation Plan: Disaster on Wheels” (Bacon’s Rebellion Blog, 19 Sept 09) are RIGHT ON. The Elephant Clan has NO Mobility and Access strategy beyond – “vote for me. You know you can trust me to find money to fix the transportation problem from sources that are not called a ‘tax’ – really!! You can trust me, I believe the same things you do.”

* This is the second of two Fall 2009 essays on the politics of transport in the Commonwealth of Virginia. “Transport Strategy Disaster” was published 1 September 2009.

WaPo tends to agree on the transparency of the Elephant Clan ploy. See editorial “Drinking Games: Robert F. McDonnell’s transportation plans rest heavily on privatizing hard-liquor sales in Virginia. It is sober?” 26 Sept 09.

The Business-As-Usual interests, including MainStream Media is frustrated that the Elephant Clan is not committed to a new source of revenue to throw at “The Transportation Problem.”

Until very recently the Donkey Clan also had no strategy to solve “The Transport Problem.” As WaPo put it editorially on 20 September: “Mr. Deeds’s Dilemma: It’s Political Suicide To Urge Higher Taxes, and Folly Not To.”

As of 23 September, the Donkey Clan HAS a ‘plan.’ (“My Transportation Plan” Creigh Deeds, (WaPo Page A-29, 23 Sept 09). The plan consists of nine popular transportation sound bites and a ‘bipartisan’ process. The process is based on the program employed by Gov. Gerald Baliles in 1985 / 86. Business-As-Usual interests like to point out that this was the last substantial increase in transportation funding in the Commonwealth. The mid 80s were also the point at which it became very obvious that more money was not ‘the answer’ to the Mobility and Access Crisis.

This has resulted in the evolution of The Three Legged Stalemate. On the one hand are those who want to find money to throw at the problem. On the other hand there are those who, for a variety of reasons – “do not raise taxes,” “let someone else pay” and “starve the beast of government” among them – do not want to spend money. A third perspective is that spending money is needed but spending it on the same things that have not worked in the past will only make things worse. This is the Three Legged Stalemate.

In addition, the climate for bipartisan compromises has changed since the mid 80s as noted below. Before getting to that reality, what about the Donkey Clan transport sound bites?

THE LIMITED VALUE OF SOUND BITES

Every one of the nine Donkey Clan sound bites requires a set of detailed, specific conditions and caveats. The devil is in the details and without the specifics every sound bite could be ‘accomplished’ in a way that makes Mobility and Access worse, NOT better. At first blush, most of the ideas sound ‘good’ but are detrimental unless there is a clear definition of what exactly the sound bites mean.

For example the first Donkey Clan sound bite is “Bring high-speed rail to Virginia.” Here the parameters of success are very clear:

Unless there are supportive land uses in the station areas of a high-speed rail system (including across-the-platform connections to SubRegion-serving shared-vehicle systems) building high-speed rail lines will NOT improve Mobility and Access in the Commonwealth’s three New Urban Regions.

These three New Urban Regions are where over 85 percent of the economic activity is concentrated and nearly that percentage of the population of the Commonwealth lives and works.
Every one of the sound bites requires similar specific caveats.

“SPECIFICS” BEHIND THE GENERALITIES?

On 27 September, WaPo published responses from the Donkey Clan and Elephant Clan candidates titled “My (Specific) Promises to Northern Virginia.” We leave it to others to judge which Clan representative makes the most effective promises.

However, with respect to “The Transport Problem” each trots out a list – or by vague reference embraces – the Business-As-Usual wish list of ‘projects.’ The named projects are examples of just what one would hope were NOT the “content” behind the sound bites – if the objective is Mobility and Access for a majority of the citizens in the Commonwealth.

The Elephant Clan is STILL proud that they unveiled the AntiPlan overlooking I-66 instead of Columbia Pike. For the reasons spelled out in “Transport Strategy Disaster” that is NOT a good thing.

AND THE DONKEY CLAN PROCESS?

After carefully articulating the parameters of the sound bites and a full evaluation of all the projects on the Business-As-Usual wish list, the next hurtle is the probability of having a better outcome from a bipartisan process than was the case over that last four years – or the last two decades.

Based on the last decade of transport funding conflict in Virginia (and almost every other topic on state and national political agendas) signing a bipartisan bill to raise money for the nine sound bites is wildly optimistic – or a good excuse for nothing at all getting done.

There is no question that Business-As-Usual likes the Donkey Clan ‘plan’ better than the Elephant AntiPlan because it is presumed that it would entail spending more money. The 24 September WaPo editorial was titled “Honesty on Transportation: Mr. Deeds has leveled with Virginia voters, Will they listen?” WaPo has consistently confused solving “The Transport Problem” with spending money on what has not worked, is not working and will not work in the future.

The real question is: Will citizens vote for the nine sound bites and a bipartisan process or will they vote for another no tax promise?

BUT WAIT JUST A MINUTE!!

The PROBLEM IS that MONEY is NOT ‘THE PROBLEM’ with Mobility and Access.

Pretending that money is “The Problem” and pretending that building more of the same infrastructure is ‘The Solution” leads to repeating the wrong questions and perpetuating the myths outlined in “The Transport Strategy Disaster.”

The REAL questions are, will Commonwealth Agencies:

“Start to prepare citizens for the future now?, OR

“Will they allow the drivers of the Mobility and Access Crisis to fester for yet another election cycle?

It is just a matter of time – and time is running out – before the lack of Mobility and Access will explode with devastating impact on the economic, social and physical well being of every citizen in Virginia.

STOP LYING TO CITIZENS

The first step is to stop lying to citizens.

Traffic congestion is NOT the problem, and

More roadways for Large, Private vehicles to carry passengers, goods and services are not the ‘answer’ REGARDLESS of who pays or if it is called ‘tax’ or manna.

Of course there is a need to invest in infrastructure.

Of course it will take a lot of money to make up for past neglect of infrastructure.

Of course it would be nice to have a fair distribution of costs and a rational nexus between use of and payment for transport infrastructure. If that had been the strategy for providing Mobility and Access when the Commonwealth took responsibility for roadways 85 years ago there would not be a Mobility and Access Crisis now.

But we are where we are and it is time to come clean:

THE PROBLEM is almost exclusive reliance on Large, Private vehicles to provide citizens with Mobility and Access. It does not work.

Exclusive reliance on Large, Private vehicles did not work in times of cheap energy and it will be a disaster to pretend it is a viable option as the cost of energy goes up.

It turns out that Large, Private vehicles have NEVER been a good option to provide the majority of citizens with Mobility and Access.

Even in relatively Balanced Urban agglomerations – and in spite of massive subsidies, direct and indirect – more that half the citizens are too young, too old, or have other conditions that isolate them when the only source of Mobility and Access is Large, Private vehicles (aka Autonomobiles). It is clear that Autonomobiles have provided Mobility and Access for an even lower percentage of the citizens in intensively developed Urban areas (the ones with the lowest per-capita consumption of energy and resources) and in areas of intensive poverty.

LOOKING BACK

The peak economic and social efficiency for Large, Private vehicles came in the mid-fifties. At that time a junior in high school could earn enough money in one summer to buy a very serviceable Large, Private vehicle. If Junior paid attention in shop class and read the owner’s manual they could keep the vehicle running at an affordable cost. Society wide erosion of Mobility and Access has been caused by two forces over the past 50 years:

• Ever more complex and expensive Autonomobiles

• Ever more dysfunctional settlement patterns

As Urban agglomerations grew larger and higher percentages of Households which are forced to rely on Autonomobiles for their Mobility and Access, congestion, delays and deaths grew.

In every large Urban area in the US of A traffic congestion has grown every year for over two decades in spite of billions is roadway construction. At the same time community and environmental destruction has escalated.

When viewed from a Regional perspective Autonomobiles are a splendid means of driving consumption but they are not an efficient means of Transport. The larger the Urban system (Region), the more inefficient Autonomobiles become. That was true with artificially cheap fuel. As energy cost rise, new technology cannot paper over the fundamental problem with reliance on Autonomobiles for Mobility and Access.

Scholars and independent researchers have been predicting citizens would reach the end of the road for reliance on Autonomobiles since the 1920s. The “non-polluting alternative to the horse” turns out to be no more efficient than its four legged predecessor due to the same reality of physics:

The space to drive and park the Autonomobile disaggregates Urban settlement patterns to the point of gross dysfunction for Urban economic and social activities. (See THE PROBLEM WITH CARS – PART IV of TRILO-G.)THE DEBT CHASM

There is a gaping hole in the road ahead for Large, Private vehicles: It is called debt. This debt chasm is made up of: The rising cost of energy, the rising cost of mitigating of environmental impacts, the growing balance of trade deficit, the growing military costs of energy security, the cost of past deficit spending (Household, Agency, Enterprise and Institution), the Wealth Gap and most of all the cost of evolving functional, sustainable human settlement patterns.

Citizens in Virginia, the US of A and in the First World have burned through Natural Capital in an attempt to cover the costs of patterns and practices of consumption that are unsustainable.

Now humans must learn to live on Natural Income.

Pay for past sins of Mass OverConsumption and debt and start living on income or bid goodby to democracies with market economies. Only brutal, totalitarian, dictatorships can maintain the vast disparities in wealth, happiness and safety that result from an inequitable allocation of resources.

With the rising cost of energy, a growing number of Households will not be able to afford Large, Private vehicles. They will also not be able to pay their fair share of the cost of dysfunctional, scattered settlement patterns. These dysfunctional patterns are dictated by the space needed to drive and park Large, Private vehicles. (See THE PROBLEM WITH CARS noted above.)

As outlined in “Transport Strategy Disaster” (Bacon’s Rebellion Blog, 1 Sept 09) after Agencies stop lying to citizens about the shape of a viable, sustainable future, the next step is to articulate human settlement patterns that are sustainable. A four step process to accomplish this is laid out in “Transport Strategy Disaster.” THEN Mobility and Access systems can be designed to serve these functional settlement patterns.

THE BASIC PARAMETERS

A sustainable future requires a Fundamental Transformation in human settlement patterns. Settlement patterns must accommodate a society in which 95 percent of the citizens rely on Urban activities to support their Households. The way to create places where citizens are happy and safe is to have:

Balanced Communities inside the Clear Edge around the Cores of New Urban Regions and Urban Support Regions, and

Balanced But Disaggregated Communities in the Countryside outside the Clear Edge around the Cores of New Urban Regions and Urban Support Regions.

Some would like to profit from creating more Urban places. There are already too many half-built ‘places’ with vacant and underutilized land. These dysfunctional places must evolve to
become Balanced Places by repairing the scattered and unconnected Urban fabric that now exists.

One of the most effective tools to create more functional settlement patterns is the creation of shared-vehicle systems serving functional and Balanced Urban activities in the station-areas.

Failure to understand this reality is why the Elephant Clan choose the wrong place to announce their AntiPlan as articulated in “Transport Strategy Disaster”

The future will not arrive over night but in the long term there must be:

• Fewer and fewer Large, Private vehicles

• More and more energy efficient shared-vehicle systems for passengers and freight

• Less reliance on vehicles of any kind

The decline in the overall use of vehicles will reflect the fact that vehicles – especially Large, Private vehicles – will become more and more expensive.

In addition, with functional settlement patterns, more and more citizens will already be where they want and need to be, or a short walk away. The human body requires exercise and walking, not vehicles, is the most efficient way to Access nearby destinations for most citizens.

With functional human settlement patterns, shared-vehicle systems can provide high value trips necessary to support quality of life but vehicles will NOT be needed for most trips now requiring Large, Private vehicles due to settlement pattern disaggregation.

A functional Balance of transportation system alternatives will often include:

• A Network of paths and roadways to provide Mobility and Access via walking / human powered vehicles / small self propelled vehicles

• Shared Vehicles – jitneys, short term rental vehicles, car pools / Personal Rapid Transit / street cars / light rial / heavy rail

• IntraRegional Rail (often mischaracterized as ‘commuter rail’)

• InterRegional Rail / High Speed Rail

• Boats

• Aircraft

When the total costs of location decisions are equitably allocated, a diverse, functional system of Mobility and Access options will facilitate the transport of goods, services and passengers by the most efficient and functional mode.

When the total costs are fairly and equitably allocated to support CONSERVATION and NOT CONSUMPTION, Regional and Subregional import replacement will provide a more efficient way to supply many (but not all) Regional needs. This will reduce the total transport demand.

And what about those ‘commuters’ to whom both the Elephant Clan and Donkey Clan pander?

There is no way to ‘help’ those who now rely on Large, Private vehicles for long commutes except to help them become non-commuters by evolving Balanced Communities.

THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACIES WITH MARKET ECONOMIES

What is the alternative to a fair allocation of resources, evolving more effective, democratic governance and creating better informed markets? Totalitarian dictatorships.

Dictatorships from the right or from the left are the only way to forcibly maintain gross disparity in wealth that has been derived from consumption of natural capital by using contemporary technology and abusing economies of scale. The Wealth Gap has been growing for two decades. The Wealth Gap will continue to grow at an accelerating rate due to settlement patterns that require costly and inefficient vehicles to secure Mobility and Access.

Unless there are functional human settlement patterns that facilitate Mobility and Access without resort to inefficient vehicles, only a few at the top of the Ziggurat will be able to rely on vehicles – the rest walk for ALL their trips. There are working models of the future under these conditions – it was formerly called The Third World.

When the majority at the bottom realize there is no way to work their way up, chaos will be the order of the day, of the year and of the decade.

The existence of large, complex Urban agglomerations is the only configuration of human settlement that has demonstrated the capacity to maintain a competitive, technologically driven “modern” society. Large New Urban Regions attract and support not just ‘workers’ but the Creative Class upon which positive evolution of civilization depends.

Evolution of governance cannot not stop with democratic Region structures to govern New Urban Regions and Urban Support Regions but must extend to the smaller scales of organic human settlement.

Governance Agencies close to the governed are an absolute necessity in a society of educated citizens. The most important Agency is at the smallest practical scale for direct democracy, the Cluster. Representative democracy at the Neighborhood, Village, Community, SubRegional and Regional scales are also critical.

Pretending to ‘solve’ The Transportation Problem’ by throwing money in the roadway will only prolong the lies and Myths, perhaps past the point of no return.

There must far more investment in infrastructure in the future. Collectively, citizens and their Organizations have been paying nowhere near the cost of the current trajectory.

A sustainable future will require money to be raised and spent but not for roadways for Large, Private vehicles.

In the short term the problem is how to stop lying to citizens without causing them to abandon all hope. It is unrealistic to assume either Clan will be able to make this change before election day.

However, the next day…

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

65 responses to “THE TRANSPORT PROBLEM*”

  1. I keep looking for the money paragraph – the blueprint to alter the course…

    but I'm getting used to it…

    but with regard to the idea that at some point people will not be able to afford those awful large expensive private vehicles..

    consider the Nano being made and sold in India for $2500. Consider that Ford is going to compete in that market with their own Ford Figo. Both will have to be reconfigured for the US market and it may actually double their prices to 5K or more, perhaps even 8-10K…

    but my point is that if you give many folks the choice between riding a crowded public transport vehicle that will take 2 to 3 times as long to get to where you want to go and a sub 10K car – a small, fuel efficient private car…

    there will be NO contest.

    now the irony here is that the way we currently fund a lot of transit is through taxes on cars and gasoline.

    3 cents of your gas tax – is the reason why you see as many transit buses, VRE, and even METRO – and without it – we'd either have less of it or we'd pay more for it.

    And over in Europe – they fund their rail from the gasoline tax also. About 2 bucks a gallon worth.

    But I have a suggestion for funding NoVa transportation and it only involves a small change to the existing paradigms.

    We already have in the NoVa area a 2% gas tax for the NVTA and PRTC which is used to fund transit.

    why not boost this to 5% or even 7% – that will accrue to NoVa – and not a penny to RoVa?

    It indexes to inflation automatically – and it does a much better job of maintaining a revenue stream when cars get more efficient.

    this is the big change that EMR would need to deal with.

    The reality is that most large public transport systems are funded by taxes on automobile fuel.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The problem remains–how can a resident of NoVA believe that his/her additional tax dollars will be spent to improve traffic congestion and increase safety?

    Case in point, MWAA officials want to divert money from the DTR to fund a road project in Loudoun County. To its credit, the Fairfax County BoS is opposing this.

    Why can't Loudoun County establish special tax district ala Route 28, with benefited landowners paying 80% of the costs?

    This doesn't cause people to trust the process.

    TMT

  3. Larry G Avatar

    Here's the thing with the NVTC/PRTC/VRE 2% tax.

    It goes to the jurisdictions who (after VRE gets their cut) can decide what to spend it on.

    What I would proposed is that the tax goes to 5% or 7% and that it still go to the locality but that it can only be spent on regional projects that are agreed to by a majority of the regional jurisdictions which is how we currently decide transportation priorities at the TPB/MWCOG.

    I am more confident that money raised and spent at the local level is going to have better potential for more scrutiny, more transparency and more accountability than if that money goes off to Richmond where a whole bunch of unelected people including those affiliated with the development communities get involved in deciding priorities – for localities that many of these decision-makers may not even understand.

    I don't think that less skulduggery might occur at the local/regional level – only that there are more eyes on it and that people do have the ability to remove those from office that are fingered as needing to be – whereas decisions at the CTB/VDOT/Richmond level are much less transparent and there is virtually no accountability for the decisions.

    I think the only legitimate interest that VDOT/CTB/Richmond should have – is how to connect the state not in trying to figure out what is best for Fairfax nor even the NoVa region.

    Not all of this is VDOT's fault. For years and years unscrupulous local speculators would build projects with serious transportation consequences and claim that since the locality did not "do" transportation that it was a VDOT responsibility.

    VDOT was more than happy to keep a list of "needed" projects, knowing full well that lists that were 10 times deeper than available funding would never get built.

    It's an awful system that breeds bad behavior on everyone's part.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "And over in Europe – they fund their rail from the gasoline tax also. About 2 bucks a gallon worth."

    Over in Erope their ga taxes go to thegeneral fund, not just the rail fund.

    RH

  5. Larry G Avatar

    well the general fund in most countries is education, law enforcement and multi-modal infrastructure.

    worse things could happen.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Why can't Loudoun County establish special tax district ala Route 28, with benefited landowners paying 80% of the costs?"

    Do you really think the adjacent landowners get 80% of the benefit? After all, once built, anyone can, and will use those roads.

    I don't disagree that landowners should pay SOME of the costs, provided that THEY have an income stream that will allw thm to pay it.

    But I think 80% is too high, especialy for those landowners who will give up land (and setback space) for the right of way.

    What we really need is sufficient dialog and study to figure out what the landowners real benefits are, and that study needs to be rigorouse enough that even those who claim roads only benefit developers can see the truth of the matter.

    My personal guess is that 80% is too high and a figure more like 30%30%-40% is a more likely real number. But even that would depend on how much "through traffic" the road carries.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "well the general fund in most countries is education, law enforcement and multi-modal infrastructure.

    worse things could happen."

    Agreed, but my point is that it is misleading to suggest that a $2.00 gas tax goes only to support other transport modes.

    One reason a $2.00 fuel tax is politically feasible there and not here is that citizens feel they will get at least some benefit from it. Here, it is too easy for ROVA to say, "Why should I pay even a penny for road tax inv NOVA is getting all the benefit?"

    EMR hit it on the head when he said the problem is (or has been made to be) how do you raise money without calling it a tax?

    RH

  8. Larry G Avatar

    well.. it's called – getting agreement from those that you propose to tax – and elections.

    there are no benevolent dictators who will "decide".

    It's the essence of our form of governance.. mob rule ..whatever you want to call it but from the BOS level to the President – a majority of people, taxpayers, property owners get to decide how much tax they want to pay.

    the people in Europe also have elected governance and they also can throw out those whom they do not support.

    The difference is that the folks in Europe approve of the use of those taxes – and they know that they all benefit from them when they see a comprehensive transit and rail network.

    Polls over here show also that the majority of the taxpayers support taxes for transit and rail.

    A majority of US citizens in poll after poll approve the use of road tolls and taxes to be used for rail and transit in much the same way they approve taxes for education and law enforcement and they don't look at any of these functions as "subsidies" but rather necessary investments.

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    You keep forgetting that in the real world there are not short stories. Short stories are by definition FICTION.

    You need to read the 1 Sept post on this question again and then this one to get the 'money graf"

    EMR

  10. Larry G Avatar

    EMR – no one would ever, every, accuse you of sound-bite dialog.

    I can tell when a new post is done to BR who is it when I've gotten to the 3rd and 4th page scrolls.

    To your detriment – you do not get to the point – nor deal with it on it's merits but instead run a almost unending string of paragraphs to discuss – nuances..

    Virginia has some powerful tools for altering governance, including giving voters the right to redefine the boundaries of their jurisdiction.. but you never list them.. and you never explore any of them as potentials for change.

    Instead.. you rail on and on and on and on about how the current governance structure is doomed to fail – and then you go through a never-ending series of chapter and verse that never, ever get to the point what changes are needed and how to achieve them.

    at some point – you need to INCLUDE .. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism… and IMHO, you need to recognize some realities that will not change – like the fact that even people who use transit and rail extensively ALSO want personal mobility – even in countries where transit and rail is well developed and the people much less wealthy and gasoline much more expensive.

    Instead. you keep pointing to the fact that "some day" cars and gasoline will get too expensive and people will drop them like hot potatoes and then we'll finally get serious about change.

    My complaint is that Virginia allows CHANGE right now – with the existing laws – and yet.. you summarily dismiss these – without every really explaining why they won't work nor what would have to change for them to work.

    put some meat on the bones dude.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The model T cost $290 in 1925. That would be only $3,400 in today's prices using the CPI, $2,900 using the GDP deflator, $7,600 using the consumer bundle, $11,700 using the wage indicators, and $17,000 when comparing its cost as a share of GDP per capita.

    Today, you can buy a much nicer car than the Model T for $17,000.

    Babe Ruth's salary today would be the equivalent of $3 million compared to what most people spend, but he could not buy treatment for cancer or a TV set.

    George Washington;s salary today would be $600,000, which is $200,000 more than we pay our current presiddents. Maybe you get what you pay for.

    In any case EMR's image of cars costing much more today than in the 1950's is probably incorrect. One reason we drive so much is that buying, owning, and operating autos is so much MORE efficient today than it was then.

    Jevon's paradox in action.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…and they know that they all benefit from them when they see a comprehensive transit and rail network."

    Well, then they are not very smart, because the ovewhelming evidence is that they get more transport and more access for their money using autos than they do from their train and transport network.

    Polls also say that people hate to see their tax money wasted, and much of what is proposed for the US will be wasted money.

    Mind you, I am in favor of having an integrated train, air and auto network, but I beleive the best and most cost effective rail and transit system will be much smaller than currently envisioned.

    The issue isn't rail vs auto, but what is the best mix, and looking only at dollar based evidence and experience based evidence, that mix still needs to be heavily weighted towards autos.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A third perspective is that spending money is needed but spending it on the same things that have not worked in the past will only make things worse."

    This is a false perspective. Actually, those things worked in the past. It is only because we stopped doing them that they have failed in the present.

    RH

  14. Larry G Avatar

    Most folks believe that a comprehensive transit and rail network is desirable.

    They value it the same way they value schools and law enforcement and not on the criteria that you advocate.

    there is no "best mix" no more or less than folks would think a "best mix" for school curriculum or law enforcement.

    "best mix" is not a concept that the average person knows enough about to be able to render an informed opinion.

  15. Larry G Avatar

    " Actually, those things worked in the past. It is only because we stopped doing them that they have failed in the present."

    that would depend on the folks you're asking for more money to do more of the same – right?

    don't they get to decide if what they pay for is worth it?

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    You also seem to forget that to use any of those tools there must be a majority who belive change is necessary.

    EMR pointed out back in February 2004 how to apply the existing tools in a specific Region. You just do not do your home work.

    A small minority keeps jaming the dialogue becasue they do not want to have to lose the advantage that Business-As-Usual gives them.

    When there is a majority who understand the need for change then it will be time to roll out the process in more detail than the four step process outlined in the 1 September item.

    The more you carp about needing details, the longer it will be until there is a Critical Mass of support for Fundamental Transformation.

    The question is: Will the Critical Mass evolve while there are still the resources to do something about it?

    See our comment on Pax American post.

    EMR

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…don't they get to decide if what they pay for is worth it?"

    No, they get to elect officials who get paid to make those decisions for them. Once elected, those officials have an obligation to represent everyone, not just those who voted.

    Faced with a specific set of facts any official OUGHT to come to the same fact-based conclusion.

    If the eelectorate doesn't like that answer, they can elect someone else, next time around. But if that guy is faced with still the ssame facts, he OUGHT to reach the same conclusion.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " there is no "best mix" no more or less than folks would think a "best mix" for school curriculum or law enforcement."

    Of course there is a best mix. We may not know what it is or agree on what it is, and it may change over time, but certainly there is a best mix.

    There is a maximum amount of law enforcement we can pay for before we start getting diminishing returns for each additional dollar spent.

    Same for schools, same for roads, and same for mass transit.

    The fact taht best mix is not somehting the average person knows enough about to make an informed decision is why we hire people to make those decisions.

    Unfortunately, the people we hire don;t know enough about it either.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A small minority keeps jaming the dialogue becasue they do not want to have to lose the advantage that Business-As-Usual gives them."

    Minorities need the same protection as anyone else – and no more than that. Here you are complaining that a minority has the advantage, which seems unlikely to me.

    ——————————–

    Then you follow it up by saying that when there is a mjority that agrees with me, we will be able to change anything we like… Oh, and we will not tell anyone what the changes are until after we are a majority….. Even if that ever happens, the majority STILL has an obligation to see to it that minorities are equally protected.

    "When there is a majority who understand the need for change then it will be time to roll out the process in more detail than the four step process outlined in the 1 September item."

    RH

  20. Larry G Avatar

    re: " Faced with a specific set of facts any official OUGHT to come to the same fact-based conclusion."

    but they won't and don't and for good reason. No one person knows "the" right answer and anyone who thinks that they do will be invited to step aside forthwith.

    You can only lead folks to where they want to go. You can try to better educate them with the facts but at the end of the day – you DO represent them and if you think your idea of how to best represent them differs from their idea – out you go.

    everyone ..and I mean just about everyone and their dog these days wants "their guy" to someone lie to people ..get in office.. and then do what "needs to be done" no matter what the folks who elect him/her think.

    I understand the frustration – but our system just does not work that way.

    Ask the legislators who thought they could create the 3202 law and people would just accept it.

    As Obama if he can convince all those folks out there that there is a better health care system than the one they have.

    give up on the benign dictator idea guy.

  21. Larry G Avatar

    " Of course there is a best mix. We may not know what it is or agree on what it is, and it may change over time, but certainly there is a best mix."

    the best mix is what people agree on…

    if they think more rail and transit is the "right mix", it will follow…

  22. Larry G Avatar

    "Even if that ever happens, the majority STILL has an obligation to see to it that minorities are equally protected."

    and they do – even if you don't agree.

    We have elected officials, laws, and a court system and the minorities rights do get protected.

    You just don't agree with others on what those "rights" are and are not.

    You've expanded the basic concept of "minority rights" to extend to all sorts of things that few others agree with…

    It's never what you have "proved" to your own satisfaction – it's how many others you have convinced.

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Traffic congestion is NOT the problem…"

    It isn't the ONLY problem, but it is the major problem in this context. It costs time and money, wastes resources, pollutes the atmosphere and raises blood pressure. It is a problem that has already been quantified to cost each of us over $1000 per year.

    If it costs us $500 a year in taxes to fix, then we just gave ourselves an effective $500 tax cut.

    EMR thinks we cans solve this problem by redefining "the problem" as something else, for which the cure is fundamentally changing everything we do and rebuild from the ground up virtually all we have ever done.

    If he can do all of that for $200 a head, then we would have an effective tax cut of $800, and his ideas would be a no-brainer.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "….and the minorities rights do get protected."

    What planet do you live on?

    We have made some gains in protecting minorities based on age, gender, and race. Beyond that it is still majority rule/mob rule, just as you frequently espouse.

    We have a long way to go. Every special interest is a minority lobbying for treatment that is "more fair" — even it it goes beyond fair and into someone else's pocketbook.

    This is exactly the behavior you so often complain about: someone raiding your pocket for their benefit.

    And yet, it is the same behavior you exhibit when you think we should spend more for transit than it is measurably worth, based on a poll of the majority.

    Sorry, I don't get it. How can you expect to protect yourself and all the various minorities you belong to by saying the majority should get their way?

    All I can tell you is that the majority has done very little to protect my interests, and a lot to promote their own.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…and a court system and the minorities rights do get protected."

    Right.

    And the next time a zoning issue gets to the supreme court, or even the state supreme court, you be sure to let me know.

    I'll be happy to hear from you because you will most likely have to wake me from the dead by then.

    RH

  26. Larry G Avatar

    Congestion "costs" is a joke of a concept.

    In reality, it's an accepted cost for most.

    When you take a trip and you know there is congestion – and there are other options available to you – then you make a choice.

    When you do that – day after day after day – you've made a conscious choice.

    In that circumstance saying that congestion "costs" makes about as much sense as driving a vehicle that gets 12mpg and complaining that gasoline "costs".

    You made the choice.

    If it takes you two hours to get to work solo in a car and you chose that trip over the one hour trip in a bus or van then you chose that cost – you agreed to that one hour "cost".

  27. Larry G Avatar

    " We have made some gains in protecting minorities based on age, gender, and race. "

    and that is all you are entitled to – by law.

    everyone and their dog can claim minority status on "something" but the Constitution and Law does not protect you merely because you claim that you are a minority.

    that's the planet I live on – how about you?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Of course there is a need to invest in infrastructure.

    Of course it will take a lot of money to make up for past neglect of infrastructure.

    Of course it would be nice to have a fair distribution of costs and a rational nexus between use of and payment for transport infrastructure…"

    Well at least you got the first two right. On the third one, I'm no so sure. On one hand it sounds like you mean those that drive should pay (more gas tax!) on the other hand it sounds like you are giving developers a pass.

    Who should pay, the users aor the developers? If both, what should be the ratio? And while you are at it, how much for casual (outsider) uses?

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " and that is all you are entitled to – by law."

    Nonsense.

    The government exists to protect all people and all property EQUALLY. One of my dollars should get the same protection as one of your dollars, no more, and no less.

    It is only that we have written new laws spsecifically to protect people by age, race and gender, and we have done that because the EVIDENCE shows that we were previously doing an abysmal job of it.

    But every citizen of whatever age or color deserves equal protection under the law, and that means that NO majority can claim special protection, without stealing from someone else (probably a minority) some part of that equal protection.

    We just don't have the same history and evidence, yet. But eventually, somone will write the "Uncle EMR's Cabin" of zoning or "The Jungle" of regulatory takings.

    Slaves were entitled to freedom a long time before they got it – by law.

    RH

  30. Larry G Avatar

    developers don't pay. they pass the costs on to the buyers.

    the people who want the improvements done on the roads they use – will likely pay.

    that's the nexus.

    that's why people prefer paying a toll on a road they actually use rather than paying increased taxes for promised improvements that often never materialize.

    This is why NoVa citizens voted down the 2002 referenda at the same time Fairfax voters approved referenda.

    The regional referenda talked about improvements that "could" be made while the Fairfax Referenda(s) talked about specific improvements that "would" be made.

    Same deal with the Dulles Toll Road.

    You pay – you get.

    the idea of everyone paying higher road taxes on the vague promise that you "might" see improvements on the road you use ( or perhaps not ) – only gets about a 20% approval rate by most voters.

    Referenda that show specific projects and tolls that provide a quid-pro-quo transaction – are what the majority of those who would end up paying – want.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Congestion "costs" is a joke of a concept.

    In reality, it's an accepted cost for most."

    —————————

    If it is an accepted cost, how is that a joke? I accept my taxes, but I don't think they are a joke.

    If it turned out that I could trade 500 of one for 1000 of the other, I'd be a fool not to take the deal.

    Neither Deeds or McDonnell are offering me a deal I can evaluate, but one of them will be elected. Is this how I get to "choose" how my money will be spent, as Larry suggests?

    I got a robo-call from McDonells office last night. Why somone would think such a call is going to change opinion is beyond me. That call is going to go to someone who is either for MCDonnel or against him, for the most part. If it goes to someone who is for him, then it changes nothing. If it goes to someone against him, then there is a finite chance it maight make a pitch that affects the opposition in your favor.

    So what was in McDonnels call? Did he explain his plan? Nope. Say what he woudl like to do? Nope.

    All it said was that he would "stand up to" the Democrats who are waging an unprecedented and concerted efort to increase the size of government, increase spending and taxes, and reduce our freedoms.

    Now, assuming that you are making this call to change the minds of those in the other camp, why in God's name would you pick THAT as your message? Almost anything else would stand a better chance of at least getting somone not to hang up on the ROBO call.

    Whoever is running that campaign must be a blithering idiot.

    Telling me that you are against the other guy tells me nothing: I already know that. At least lie to me and promise me something I want and need, — like ten minutes off my commute.

    I dont even want you standing up to the other guys, I want you working with them so we can get SOMETHING done, and preferably at least cost.

    And if you ever wise up enough to bring me that message —- don't have a ROBOT do it.

    RH

    PS speaking of commute, they have finished the traffic cirles at Gilberts corner – sorry, roundabouts is the new politically coorect euphemism.

    On Monday there was a big pile of broken glass in the intersection – which the construction workers didn't bother to clean up.

    I'll withhold judgement until I can see if they save time or not, and then report back.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "When you take a trip and you know there is congestion – and there are other options available to you – then you make a choice."

    How about if I make a trip and there is no congestion and the only other options available cost me more than 2/3ds my salary? (There being no transit available)

    Is that really an option?

    Now, suposing I commit to that option and congestion develops later, what "choice" do I have in that development?

    You are really big on people making "choices", but my experience suggest that real choices are limited when you are caught in a trap.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I could show beyond any shadow of anyones doubt that the very best we could expect out of rail transport is that it would accomodate 30% of our travel needs.

    Now suppose that the first 5% of that new rail transport costs about as much as 5% of our present system. That would be a good deal.

    Now suppose that the remaining 25% costs as much as 90% of our present system. To get that 30% accomodation we would need to nearly double our expenditures.

    Does anyone think that would still be a good deal?

    And yet those are the kind of numbers we are looking at. Except, instead of 30% rail accomdation, it is more like 10% – max.

    I'm in favor of anything that looks like a good deal.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We already have a shared vehicle system: it is called ZIP cars.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " it's how many others you have convinced."

    I'm working on it.

    I'm just hopng that the message that mutual protection of property is consistent with mutual sharing of burdens and is also consistent with maximum freedom and minimum cost is seen as a superior argument to mob rule, my property comes first and formeost over anyone else's.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "developers don't pay. they pass the costs on to the buyers."

    Only in good markets. That's why, for example, the elites have been unable to convince enough landowners to form the second special tax district in Fairfax County to fund Dulles Rail's middle section of stations.

    TMT

  37. Larry G Avatar

    developers do not print money and just like any business – the profit is what is left after expenses – and expenses include all costs – including development fees.

    When you charge a developer for a water & sewer connection – you can rest assured that those fees get incorporated into the price of the house.

    For commercial development and transportation districts – the higher property tax is treated just like any other expense – and incorporated into the price of what is sold.

    Any property-owner that ends up with new infrastructure next to their property will more than likely benefit from that new infrastructure – that's why commercial business springs up next to new roads.

    In the more popular commercial areas – there is usually good traffic – i.e. shoppers which allows higher and stronger sales than if they were located in a less visible location.

    this is not rocket science.

    it is the reason why you see large malls and similar located at ramp interchanges.

    In fact, this is the idea behind transportation districts.

    That traffic improvements that benefit commercial development can in turn generate sufficient customers traffic to help pay for the infrastructure.

    And all the other taxpayers usually help pay for it anyhow because the transportation infrastructure is built up front.

    Where do you think the up-front money comes from to build the infrastructure?

    It comes from the county – in the form of bonds that affect their borrowing capacity and the interest rate.

    By having taxpayers obtain the bonds – the commercial district obtains cheaper money than if they had to go out onto the bond market on their own to finance the infrastructure.

    If Deeds or McDonnell wanted to put some REAL transportation reforms on the table – they'd improve the Transportation District concept to make it even easier to form them.

    And again – by using transportation districts – you establish a much closer nexus between the folks who pay the taxes (the customers) and the folks who use the new infrastructure (the same customers) and you never have to go to the other taxpayers and ask for a tax increase.

    Transportation districts are a win-win-win and especially so for folks who want to develop their properties.

  38. Larry G Avatar

    " I'm in favor of anything that looks like a good deal."

    but how do you know what a good deal is?

    You've got your ideas but that does not make it a good deal.

    What would you do to determine what a 'good deal' is for say schools or law enforcement?

    How much money is the "right" amount to spend on schools?

    Do you total up all the prison costs and welfare costs and say that's the "right" amount of money to spend ?

    How about law enforcement? Do you totally up all the damages done by criminals and decide that, that is the "right amount" of law enforcement to have?

    Show me where this is done – anywhere in the world…

    just find a couple of links that document what you say is the "right" way….

    I'm not saying that you are wrong per se – but unless you are a total genius that the likes of this world has never seen – there are quite a few others "out there" who have looked at the same issues and not come up with anything like you are advocating…

    .. and this part is very important…

    IN PRACTICE – not in theory..

    show me where this is more that a theory or a concept

    for instance, the FTA has a criteria for cost-effectiveness for transit.

    If you don't meet the cost-effectiveness criteria they won't approve your project.

    but their cost-effectiveness criteria is not like yours because they actually county benefits that you do not count and that's the problem with your approach… it does not deal with externalities – both benefits and costs….

    right?

    if you could prove your approach – and you do have that opportunity – for instance – the FTA by law must receive comments on their projects…

    you could use any of their projects to submit your criteria of how to rate cost-effectiveness…

    right?

    you could show that building more highways to Dulles is better/cheaper than building more METRO to Dulles – right?

    EMR could use the same approach to prove that the costs of large private cars is higher than the costs of a wider/deeper transit system.

  39. Larry G Avatar

    Speaking of Donkey and Elephant Clan Transportation plans, take a look at the current Georgia Plan – a subsidized toll road:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/hov-toll-lane-network-141000.html

    In other words, their toll studies indicate that they cannot charge high enough tolls to pay for the infrastructure so they are going to charge tolls AND use taxes to backstop the losses.

    this is different from what Maryland is doing with the ICC which will also be a subsidized toll road – they backstop that road with tolls from their more lucrative toll roads via a state-wide toll authority – an approach also used by Florida.

    VDOT just decided not to pursue a US 460 toll road – because it would have had to be subsidized also

    HOWEVER – this is my point :

    Neither McDonnell nor Deeds had anything to say about this concept – of building subsidized toll roads – the subsidy either coming from gas taxes or from a statewide toll authority – an innovative approach and an alternative to Virginia's current funding paradigms.

    Neither Deeds nor McDonnell really impress me as someone who will think outside the box.

    McDonnell is your classic "no mo taxes" but we'll figure out how to raise taxes through sneaky fees…. guy

    and Deeds is a raise taxes and continue business as usual guy.

    I don't have great expectations from either one of them – to move the state forward on transportation issues.

    both of their plans – the sneaky extra fees route or the blatant tax increase route could well fail in the GA and I don't see a Plan B from either one of them.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "but how do you know what a good deal is?"

    You measure. Say you increase the auto safety inspections to every six months, but you can measure no difference in safety defect accidents. Then it isn't a good deal.

    Your position is that we do not know or cannot know the answers, or it is too hard to figure out, and no one will beleive the results anyway, or spin them to their own advantage. That being the case we fall back on political solutions or take the safe risk averse approach.

    My position is that we do have answers, but they may have a good range of uncertainty. All we have to do now is chisel away at the uncertainty. But we cannot get that done because we are so busy postulating this or that, depending on political predispositions. Train utility being an example: we could measure what it is actaully worth if we try, but those in favor of more rail transport don't want to hear the answer. Meanwhile, those who are opposed to transport are throwing up arguments opposed that are just as bogus and incomplete as those in favor.

    We need to first agree on what the acceptance criteria are, and then go measur the costs that apply.

    We know when the ball is hit it is going to left field, but we can't tell until later whether it is in the ppark or out, or inside the foul line or not. And it is later still when we can determine if the fielder has a chance to get it.

    But, long before the ball is pitched, we agree on where the foul line is and where the home run fence is.

    In lawmaking, we hit the ball and never look back to see where it went. There is no success (or failure) criteria written into the bill.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "What would you do to determine what a 'good deal' is for say schools or law enforcement?"

    I think we should give up on public schools and go entirely to a voucher system. Let the parents and the market decide what is a good deal. I figured that one out on my own when "grownups" were first attempting to indoctinate me. My observation of how screwed up the system was never changed, and they were later reinforced when my father became a teacher.

    Law enforcement is a similar black hole: there is virtually no quality control, and law services keep it away by citing confidentiality in their investigations. We have only rudimentary measures of cost effectiveness and success. Cincinatti is the rare exception in which the university there has full access to all police information, which they can use for all manner of study of the system.

    I don't know how you fix it, but I do know we can measure some things better. The number of death sentences that have been overturned by new science is one example. Filming of police beatings become a common occurence with the advent of cell phone video. We know, for example, that there are some very dubious speed traps, that exist in the name of law enforcement, so where is the independent source that ensures the police are actually doing their job?

    Who runs law enforcemnt quality control? In education we have at least have SOL's and even they are subject to a lot of suspicion, moaning and groaning, and manipulation. We have a long way to go, it seems to me.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Do you totally up all the damages done by criminals and decide that, that is the "right amount" of law enforcement to have?

    Show me where this is done – anywhere in the world…"

    We do this all the time: we compare one department's budget and crime rate to other areas. Yes, there are many differences in area, population, education, income, etc, but with enough measuremnts you can back out most of the cultural differences.

    But we could do a lot better if we wanted to, and save a lot of money in the process of finding the right enforcement level for the right amount of loss.

    RH

  43. Larry G Avatar

    I agree on metrics – completely.

    what I don't agree on is what are practical and meaningful (useful) metrics and how to account for externalities.

    the more you study the harder it gets and the more impractical and even if you could collect and account for all of it – you'd still end up making judgments about the "value" of one choice over another and in the end – as you have pointed out – those judgments are made by the folks who make the choices and not well made by folks who at the end of the day are really just guessing.

    For instance, if we REALLY knew EXACTLY how much toll could be charged for a given toll road – then we could know exactly how much financing to obtain and what the max interest rate that could be paid would be.

    but we simply don't know – no matter how much effort we put into the study..

    there are so many other variables that can affect the dynamics.

    simple things.. like the government deciding to move employees to/from one installation to another…

    or the economy tracking in a different direction and people don't drive as much as they used to..

    these are things you can study until the cows comes home – but you wont' get any closer to knowing the "right" answer.. even after you have chewed through a lot of resources.

  44. Larry G Avatar

    " I think we should give up on public schools and go entirely to a voucher system. Let the parents and the market decide what is a good deal"

    you just violated your own premise.

    why would you not "study" this the same way you advocate studying transit and roads?

    why do you decide without a study what the answer should be when at the same time you say that we should not decide without more study?

    seems like an arbitrary and capricious way of processing …

    no?

  45. Larry G Avatar

    " We do this all the time: we compare one department's budget and crime rate to other areas"

    we do indeed but how does that tell you what the right amount to spend is – relative to that cost/benefit that you talk about?

    comparing to others won't tell you anything if all the others are making the same mistake that you are. It will only tell you that they are more efficient (or less) than you but all of you fail in the bigger picture cost/benefit issue.

    right?

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you could show that building more highways to Dulles is better/cheaper than building more METRO to Dulles – right?

    EMR could use the same approach to prove that the costs of large private cars is higher than the costs of a wider/deeper transit system."

    How could he? If we first agree on the approach, then using the same approach we had better get pretty close to the same answer.

    I suspect that rail from Dulles to Union station with minimum stops might ake more sense than say, another Dulles Access road.

    But I don't see anything that suggests that a grand new, antional rail system will be any more cost effective than the European examples. Those examples suggest you can deliver a lot more people and goods to a lot more places with road transport than you can with rail.

    OK, so road transport has problems, lets work on those problems rather than dismiss it as a dead dinosaur and then go try to resurrect a different dead dinosaur. There are times and places where a rail dinosaur can thrive, lets work on those and forget the idea that the environment is universally more favorable to one than another.

    RH

  47. Larry G Avatar

    " How could he? If we first agree on the approach, then using the same approach we had better get pretty close to the same answer.

    ………….

    But I don't see anything that suggests that a grand new, antional rail system will be any more cost effective than the European examples. Those examples suggest you can deliver a lot more people and goods to a lot more places with road transport than you can with rail."

    if that is your only measure – perhaps but EMR would not agree that that is what you should be measuring.

    so you've pointed out one of the bigger problems – and that is getting agreement with respect to what to measure – and how to value the benefits.

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Gross said:

    "In other words, their toll studies indicate that they cannot charge high enough tolls to pay for the infrastructure so they are going to charge tolls AND use taxes to backstop the losses.

    "this is different from what Maryland is doing with the ICC which will also be a subsidized toll road – they backstop that road with tolls from their more lucrative toll roads via a state-wide toll authority – an approach also used by Florida."

    Great point!

    Perhaps Agencies should only buid new roadways where the tolls will pay the FULL cost, including the cost of severance and other costs termed extenalities by the laws establishing the Interstate system.

    These are costs such as air polution impact on the Bay, the cost of splitting Communities, seperating Clusters, from the rest of the Neigborhood, etc.

    If there are enough folks willing to pay ALL the costs there may be a need for the road.

    The ICC helps the East / West problem but is too far from the Centroid and from the Zentrum.

    JSR

  49. Larry G Avatar

    when you say impacts to the Bay – I think you'll find that the urban areas by far have the larger impacts.

    1/3 of the nitrogen deposition in the Bay comes from the generation of electricity – the lion's share of it for the urban areas.

    Then we also have the urban areas contributions to mercury in the rivers and streams across the Commonswealth.

    then we have the mountain-tops that are blown off and the vallleys and rivers below polluted forever to get at the coal needed to power the urban areas.

    Then we have the sewage treatments plants dumping prescription drugs and hormones and other toxics in the rivers and the Bay.

    Then we have the de-forested impervious surfaces and storm water pollution that the urban areas contribute to the destruction of the bays.

    so how about we agree to deal with ALL of these issues IN ADDITION to the highway problem?

    How would you propose to have the centroid and the zentrum lay gently on the land?

    EMR keeps discussing sustainability.

    How can we make our urban areas more sustainable without exporting pollution to the rest of the state?

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Perhaps Agencies should only buid new roadways where the tolls will pay the FULL cost,"

    Your proposal amounts to a rule never to build a new road.

    Aside from that, why should the users pay full cost when many people claim one of the major benefits is to landowners and developers, not road users.

    Of course, if the road is so expensive no one can afford to use it, that might keep the developers our, too.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "EMR would not agree that that is what you should be measuring.

    so you've pointed out one of the bigger problems – and that is getting agreement with respect to what to measure – and how to value the benefits."

    My argument exactly. The first thing you must do is agree on the yardsticks: how to measure benefits.

    The second thing is what to measure with respect to different kinds of projects: for a road example, how much land use things to measure, how much road use things to measure, how much commerce things to measure, and how much externalities to measure, how much time to include.

    The usual rule of thub is three degrees of freedom. Effect on direct users, indirect users, and tertiary users. For road that might be raod users, development used by the road users, and service providers to the developments used by the road users. That will capture 95% of the benefits.

    Do the same thing for rail, and then do the measurements the same way every time. The results might still be wrong, but at least they would be consistent. So you build a dozen light rail systems and discover that your predicted measurements are consistently wrong, now you've got something you can fix, and you can make a better decision next time.

    What we have instead is pure political decision making.

    ———————————

    "" I think we should give up on public schools and go entirely to a voucher system. Let the parents and the market decide what is a good deal"

    you just violated your own premise."

    No. The key words here are "I think" I'm stating up front that this is only my opinion.

    But, it is an opinion that conforms to my major criteria: it is a market based solution. Everyone gets vouchers equivalent to what we pay for student education now, so no one is worse off than before. And the people who can afford to pay a premium above the basic voucher amount are BETTER off because now they have more choices. This will create competition which drives down the price for everyone.

    Notice how similar this is to the proposed health plan. What about the public option? Are public schools the equivalent idea? Have they run private shcools out of buiness? Maybe my idea of a total voucher system would need to have some "public option" schools, based onthe idea that some neighborhoods are so terrible that private schools would not open there.

    Anyway, what have we done with the idea of vouchers? We set up some test cases in some locations so we could study the results.

    Problem is we never agreed on the yardsticks first, and so now having run the tests, we can't agree on the results.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…we do indeed but how does that tell you what the right amount to spend is – relative to that cost/benefit that you talk about?"

    You keep spending more until the next bit of benefit you buy costs more than the benefit is worth.

    All of our cost benefit analyses might be wrong, I think that is one of the main messages Jesus tried to preach. But at least if we do them conistently we will be consistently wrong, and this will make it possible to see the error of our ways.

    Not even attempting to do it because it is "too hard", "too subjective", or "too costly" only guarantees you will be wrong.

    Which is great if you already know that what you want is not cost effective, or does not protect people equally. In that case, of course you want to blow off anyone who wants to do a "study".

    I think you need to make such "studies" as accepted as land surveys, with known and accepted starting points and procedures and generally with predictable results, given the occasional big surprise. Fair, transparent, and predictable.

    Then, if people like EMR have a problem, they can lobby to get the procedures changed. But letws start with something we know works, and not just jump in with fundamental change.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…what I don't agree on is what are practical and meaningful (useful) metrics and how to account for externalities."

    I think this is everyone's hangup. It usually all comes down to the accepted values for a statistical life nad accepted values for morbidity. People have a hard time with those. Strangely, they don't have a problem with costs such as lost wages or pan and suffering.

    But here is the thing. You either pick a value and use it uniersally to rank your priorities, or else you lay yourself open for criticism. That's because we are going to spend more money on some things than others. Then, like the fishing pier example someone is going to back calculate on us and then they are going to point out that we valued some peoples lives and property more than others, and why did we spend money without thinking about that first?

    The Hudson river PCB cleanup debacle is a case in point. The cleanup was being monitored, and it apparently turned out that the cleanup was causing more widespread contamination than it was preventing.

    This put EPA in a tough spot: "We've got to clean up these river deposits because they are so dangerous. Oh never mind about the PCB's this puts in YOUR neighborhood, those are not dangersous.

    I could have predicted that was going to happen, and the result will be another 30 years worth of lawsuits.

    Surely there is SOMETHING more worthwile to do with 60 years worth of effort and lord knows how much money.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It isn't like this is some kind of religion to me. Obviously we use other tools to make decisions as well. I just think this is one area where we could make a lot of improvement, and improve our political discourse at the same time.

    After all, if we are going to spend money, we ought to know as exactly as possible what it is we are buying, and also what it is we are getting.

    Our political process is like a drunk in a whorehouse – buying one thing and getting something else.

    RH

  55. Larry G Avatar

    basically you can choose from one of two political processes.

    One allows citizens to be part of the process – for better or worse.

    the other let's arrogant folks decide what's right for everyone else.

    and a big hint – when you have dictators – the cost-benefit they use – you will like that even less than the ones used in Democratic societies.

    Your dream of of benign and all knowing dictator – alas is still a dream – than gawd.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If hybrids halve consumption and electrics have no oil consumption, then even replacing the entire fleet with a new fleet of 12% hybrids, 12% electrics, and 75% internal combustion engine (which will take over a decade) will reduce consumption only 12%. This cannot compare with increases in demand from the developing world or with falling production.

    The IEA writes that currently producing oil fields have a natural decline rate of 9.1% and after capital investment decline at 6.4%. We need to discover 4 new Saudi Arabias over the next 20 years to offset natural decline rates, and discover 2 additional new Saudi Arabias to meet increased demand.

  57. Larry G Avatar

    have you calculated consumption when gasoline goes to $10 gallon?

    I'll bet it makes a shambles or your projections.

    I'll bet that $5 makes a shambles of your projections.

    If we could produce hydrogen fuel for $10 a gallon – then what happens to oil?

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "One allows citizens to be part of the process – for better or worse.

    the other let's arrogant folks decide what's right for everyone else."

    I don't see it that way at all. What I propose is to allow people to be part of the process by voting with their wallets.

    You can have all the opinion polls or elections you want, but people make real decisisons with their wallet.

    The political process basically makes it possible for people to steal, and make it look legal.

    But, if property rights are truly protected equally, then people will have to pay for what it is they want. Cost/benefit analysis tells you whether there is net benefit to buying a public good, and protection of property rights makes sure the winners compensate the losers along the way.

    Surely you cannot be suggesting that it is OK for the government to go spend money on something we know is a net loss. (Cash for clunkers being a probable recent example.)

    Surely you cannot be suggesting that it is OK for government to acquire a public good that some people pay for and others don't, or even that some people pay for disproportionately.

    Some would argue that we have disproportionate income taxes, for example, but the counter argument is that when it comes to things like national defense, the wealthy have more to protect.

    All I'm suggesting is that we can do a better job of figuing such things out, and of letting people and the market determine the right prices.

    But, as long as a handful of citizens can go to a board meeting and scuttle months of work and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of someone else's effort at little or no cost to themselves: if that is what we call citizen "participation", then we are sunk. Eerything we try to do will turn into a thirty year debacle like the ICC.

    I prefer to think that those protesting citizens do have a legitimate beef, even if it is overstated. We ought to be able to figure out what such beefs are really worth, and make that known to developers (and citizens) up front.

    Now, if your choice is seeing a development go forward and then getting a check for $3000, or protesting the development and getting nothing, I suspect you would see fewer complaints at the board meetings. If you raise the payents higher, youwill get fewer developments and fewer complainers.
    I you (government) raise the payments too high, then revenues (to your citizens) from payments will drop, and you will know that you have gone too far. If people aree showing up ins spite of the payments, you have not gone far eonough.

    That's what I would call citizen participation, combined with cost/benefit analysis.

    RH

  59. Larry G Avatar

    there are only two ways to determine how to best protect property rights.

    one is to have a benevolent dictator.

    the other is to have Democratic Governments.

    But can you point to any country in the world dictatorship or Democracy that does what you say should be done?

    I bet not.

    why is that?

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    $10 oil will probably result in a global recession, and w already know that a recession is a good ay to reduce emisions.

    The question is whether that is the cheapest way, and even if it is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, what about all the other costs (externalities?).

    EMR's Malthusian argument is that we are headed for disaster, we might as well prepare for it.

    RH

  61. Larry G Avatar

    "U.S. gas: So cheap it hurts
    Relatively low taxes have kept pump prices far below most other developed"

    " Out of 155 countries surveyed, U.S. gas prices were the 45th cheapest, according to a recent study from AIRINC, a research firm that tracks cost of living data.

    The difference is staggering. As of late March, U.S. gas prices averaged $3.45 a gallon. That compares to over $8 a gallon across much of Europe.

    The United States has always fought to keep gas prices low, and the current debate among presidential candidates on how to keep them that way has been fierce.

    But those cheap gas prices – which Americans have gotten used to – mean they feel price spikes like the ones we're experiencing now more acutely than citizens from other nations which have had historically more expensive fuel."

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…Relatively low taxes have kept pump prices far below most other developed"

    " Out of 155 countries surveyed, U.S. gas prices were the 45th cheapest, …"

    So you are arguing in fqvor of higher gas taxes now?

    What should we do with all the money?

  63. Larry G Avatar

    I'm saying that other countries have much higher prices on gasoline and the "theory" that higher prices will harm the economy does not seem to be the case in some of those countries so why do we insist that higher prices will harm this country.?

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Even if oil prices hit $200 a barrel by 2020, Lux figures electric cars will make up less than 8% of global new-car sales. If oil stays where it is today, electric cars could make up a mere 3% of the market. With oil at $70 or $140 a barrel, hybrids will likely carry the day. Only with $200 oil will all-electric cars take off."

    Lux Research

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " the "theory" that higher prices will harm the economy does not seem to be the case in some of those countries "

    But it IS the case. Those countries produce less GDP per person, and less GDP per energy used precisely because energy is so expensive. The people are worse off as a result. –
    Eexcept that it might be the case that some other taxes are lower as a result of high gas taxes flooding the general fund. But since their overall tax structure is much higher – approaching 50%, this cannot be the case either.

    RH

Leave a Reply