UPON FURTHER REVIEW

In late September and early October EMR posted four notes on the prospect of obtaining a sustainable trajectory for civilization. These posts generated an inordinate number of unfounded, negative comments. Since Jim Bacon has taken on new responsibilities, he no longer has time for comments such as “… I have been editing EMR’s work for X years and never once have I seen him suggest …” Without these admonitions, the attacks have become more pointed, more personal and farther from the topic of the post.

Based on the tone and content of the comments it appeared useful to more carefully analyze the responses to the four posts: “Fundamental Transformation” (21 September 2008), “Toward a Sustainable Trajectory” (29 September 2008), “Obstacles on the Path to a Sustainable Trajectory” (3 October 2008), and “Worth Noting Again” (3 October 2008).

For reasons noted previously on this Blog, EMR does not read all the comments so did not have a full grasp of how far comments had deteriorated. A comment by comment analysis found there was no basis for many of the attacks and no indication that most commentors had tried to understand or even read the material posted and cited.

The majority – but not all – of the comments had the sole intent on discounting, discrediting and belittling. They included inaccurate summaries of web searches, links to sparky and irrelevant material and gratuitous diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.

A NEW APPROACH

SYNERGY is in the final stages of editing TRILO-G for publication. At this point there is a need for short sections and supplemental text to tie current events to the larger context – the exploration of the economic, social and physical ramifications of functional and dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

After a review of the comments following the four posts noted above it was determined that it would speed up the pre-publication editing process if unedited first drafts of TRILO-G material was posted on the blog.

The trial posts included “It is Elementary,” (10 October 2008), “The Role of the Media,” (11 October 2008), “Swift Boating the Mortgage Crisis,” (12 October 2008) and “The Bottom Line,” 13 October 2008). Other drafts material has also been posted.

Why would someone post these drafts?

This is the free market at work. Posting these drafts is the cheapest and fastest way to sniff out passages and topics that could become targets of intentional misrepresentations and distortions.

TRILO-G is being published with staff support and half a dozen colleagues who read and comment on the material in draft form. None of these reviewers can identify sentences and paragraphs that need armoring against unfounded criticism as fast as Bacons Rebellion commentors.

Posting the draft material is far more efficient than paying additional staff or hiring focus group managers to help sniff out material that is subject to unfounded attack. Bacons Rebellion commentors possess a well honed ability to identify statements that can be maliciously misinterpreted.

The results of the experiment have been spectacular! Thank you.

The statements that have been shown to be vulnerable to intentional misinterpretations and distortions have been and will revised / restated before the Beta draft appears. The content of the four posts noted above will become part of Chapter 29, in a section titled “It Is the Settlement Pattern, Stupid.” Other post will become parts of chapters throughout the text.

THE LARGER QUESTIONS

Having turned lemons to lemonade several larger questions remain. These questions are important if one is to develop an educational program to help citizens understand human settlement patterns and obtaining a sustainable trajectory for society.

What is the motivation for these attacks?

It this a problem with this Blog, with Blogging in general or with all media?

First, how can one be sure that many are intentional misinterpretations and distortions and not just statements of uniformed or misinformed personal opinion? A careful reading suggests that a few do not bother to address the subject of the post and almost no one addresses the core idea. Commentors most often pick a phrase or sentence and then attack. They appear to be sure anything EMR presents is wrong so any attack is justified.

EMR knows from direct feedback that many readers do understand but that is not what comes across in th comments. Some who understand say they do not want to be subject to slings and arrows of the flamers.

It is clear that Flamers desire a forum. There will always be 20 percent who claim the Earth is flat and they find a place to express their views in Blog comments.

In a larger context this “vocal minority” may be a root cause the He Said / She Said “journalism” of MainStream Media profiled in THE ESTATES MATRIX.

(Favorite quote of the weekend: “The public’s frankly gotten frustrated with the conventional of objectivity, the idea that you (journalists) have to present both side of the story, even if one side is completely bogus.” In WaPo Magazine “Onion Nation.”)

In response to the heap of negative comments there are a number of other observations that will be posted from time to time.

In the meantime, here is an example of a brief section of draft material that has been added to Chapter 3:

………………

STRAWPERSONS – RED HERRING EMPLOYED IN DEFENSE OF MYTHS

Beyond the three well articulated diversions noted above there is an avalanche of strawpersons; Red herring tossed up to divert attention from Myths.

One favorite from the realm of blogging is “The Pregnant Mother of Two” championed by Blogger Bob. This strawperson was put forth to justify Autonomobile dominated settlement patterns that would facilitate The Pregnant Mother of Two driving to a supermarket in a Large, Private Vehicle. If anything impedes the use of Large, Private Vehicles it would be a gross affront to civilized society in the view of Blogger Bob because it would make life miserable for The Pregnant Mother of Two.

Shall we consider the real world?

A far smaller percentage of citizens are pregnant at any given time than the percentage who are always isolated by near exclusive dependence on the autonomobile for Access and Mobility.

This reality becomes even more critical as the population ages. Even more important, the number who are isolated by Autocentric settlement patterns rises dramatically as the cost of Autonomobility rises.

Even the most rudimentary calculation of alternative settlement pattern costs demonstrate that it would be far cheaper a build a special environment for pregnant women to shop for necessities than to create millions of acres of dysfunctional settlement patterns.

One could design a Community-serving hyper*mart with isles wide enough to drive to car-window-accessible shelves. The subsidy to make this facility available to certified pregnant women would be paid for by the vast savings due to functional settlement patterns in the rest of the Community. The general public could shop in the Pregnant Woman Center if they paid the full cost. This would work just like the justification for HOT lanes. One can just imagine the opportunities for public private partnerships…

But wait, the Pregnant Mothers of Two can now shop by phone and have the goods delivered. And what is the responsibility to support the Household of the person who got her pregnant? Oh, right, he is so busy overcoming dysfunctional settlement patterns he has no time to help out.

The questions are endless but irrelevant when one understands that it would
be far more effective and far more efficient to evolve functional settlement patterns Community-wide.

A functional environment would be better for all women – pregnant or not – and for all small children – with or without a pregnant mother. The bottom line it would be better for everyone. This better alternative of functional human settlement patterns is explored in the “social impact chapters” (8 and 9) of The Shape of the Future and specifically in the discussion of “It takes a Village” in Chapter 9, Box 3. Also see “A Yard Where Johnny Can Run and Play,” 1 December 2003.

If Blogger Bob would bother to run the numbers, he would understand the need for functional human settlement patterns. Does he do that? No, he parades out The Pregnant Mother of Two who in his mind must be given the opportunity drive a Large, Private Vehicle to a big parking lot outside a store to get provisions for her family regardless of the cumulative consequences.

This is typical of the strawperson tossed up to obfuscate attempts to eliminate settlement pattern Myths.

……………

By the way, if you did not pass the Monday Morning Test you may not understand.

More responses in due course.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

110 responses to “UPON FURTHER REVIEW”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    ” A comment by comment analysis [by EMR] found there was no basis …”

    The comments are their own analysis, and they come from an unbiased source: the reading public. There must be SOME basis, or they would bnot have occurred.

    EMR is avoiding reality, again.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    “Posting these drafts is the cheapest and fastest way to sniff out passages and topics that could become targets of intentional misrepresentations and distortions.”

    And legitimate opions that differ from EMR’s. EMR apparently agrees with the basis of my previous comment that the public might have something to say.

    But by characterizing them as intentional misrepresentations, he apparently assumes that most of it is wrong, or worse.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    “…in his mind must be given the opportunity drive a Large, Private Vehicle to a big parking lot outside a store to get provisions for her family regardless of the cumulative consequences.”

    OK, so in EMR’s mind she must NOT be given that opportunity because of the cumulative consequences, regardless of the ersonal ones.

    Why is one position any more of a straw amn than the other. Why does one have any more data legitimacy than the other? Why does one have any more economic or social legitimacy than the other?

    “Suppose that Jack and Jill draw equal amounts of water from a community well. Jack’s income is $10,000, of which he is taxed 10%, or $1,000, to support the well. Jill’s income is $100,000, of which she is taxed 5%, or $5,000, to support the well. In which direction is the policy unfair?”

    Economist Steven Landsburg.

    I believe that such questions can be answered, but they canot be answered by anyone who suggests that everything has only one answer.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    “A functional environment would be better for all women – pregnant or not – and for all small children – with or without a pregnant mother. The bottom line it would be better for everyone.”

    Here at least, EMR and I agree. But his proposed solutions invariably involve creating winner ans losers (Let’s pay for public education by confiscating the profits of the entertainment and advertising industries.)

    The bottom line has to be better for EVERYONE.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    “Even the most rudimentary calculation of alternative settlement pattern costs demonstrate that it would be far cheaper a build a special environment for pregnant women to shop for necessities than to create millions of acres of dysfunctional settlement patterns. “

    Well, yeah, if you had an internment camp for pregnant women.

    Otherwise they are going to be spread out all over that dysfunctional landscape, in which case the special environment for pregnant women would be a total loss.

    That seems like a rudimentary calculation to me.

    RH

  6. “If Blogger Bob would bother to run the numbers, he would understand the need for functional human settlement patterns. Does he do that? No, he parades out The Pregnant Mother of Two who in his mind must be given the opportunity drive a Large, Private Vehicle to a big parking lot outside a store to get provisions for her family regardless of the cumulative consequences.”

    What numbers? I have never seen numbers in any EMR post.

    And the pregnant mother of two (or of five or seven, which I’m sure would horrify the central planning committee) is just shorthand for anyone who’s physically weak. That includes me when I’m sick or have broken a leg and everyone at some point in their lives. And it is shorthand for more than just a trip to the grocery store or something easily substituted with an order from Amazon.com. It also means things like driving a kid to the hospital or to a soccer game or any number of things normal people do. Use of strawman arguments? EMR should look in the mirror.

    And the pregnant mother of 2+ is not “given” the right to an automobile. It’s her right as the resident of a free country to live in as big a house, drive as big a car, shoot as big a gun, and wear as fluffy a fur coat as she desires.

    Anyone who wants to live in a centrally planned urban utopia is more than welcome to do so. I take issue when the central planning committee decides to impose its ideas on everyone else.

    And when it comes to personal attacks, EMR needs to look in the mirror.

  7. I should add that even if — hypothetically — it were “far more effective and far more efficient” to eliminate personal freedom in matters of transportation and housing, who says that’s a trade worth accepting?

    I’ll take inefficiency and freedom any day of the week.

    (But I’d wager the free choice tends toward more efficiency than central planning)

  8. I don’t mind apologizing for any slight – real or imagined that I am guilty of. I certainly do my share of “blathering” here…

    So Consider it so.

    But EMR, your IDEAS seem just plain nutty to some of us in part because it seems that you just refuse to give plain answers to.

    I’ll buy your basic thesis that our current ways of doing settlement patterns has some serious flaws and further that, yes.. choosing a consumptive lifestyle that relies on cheap energy is not a sustainable path.

    But you’ve got some major unexplained aspects to your theories and yes.. they are going to get whacked here if you essentially refuse to address the obvious questions and instead paint the questioner as if he is dumb, not cooperative or .. attacking you personally.

    I’ll say again, my apologies – but your ideas are not going to get a free ride and they don’t deserve to.

    You’ve been asked a number of direct questions without using strawmen – which you appear (to me) to ignore or evade.. and then respond with a long-winded follow-up blog-post claiming that you have been personally attacked.

    For the record – again – any perceived attacks on you – I apologize for – but your ideas – they’ll continue to be poked, prodded and even ridiculed if direct questions are ignored or evaded.

    Most good ideas – you know – they are “peer reviewed” or if you don’t think those asking questions are your equal then consider the questions to be seeking answers that “pass the smell or common-sense test”.

    If your ideas won’t pass muster here.. any “fundamental transformation” that depends on citizens seeking it.. is a pipe dream.

    You have the opportunity here to convince the skeptics, gain some converts, and have them go out and spread the word – advance the cause…

    If you think this audience is tough – wait till you get out in front of the average guy… or gal…

    So I’ll close on a high note.

    I appreciate your thoughtful approach .. it causes others to think about what you’re saying.

    That’s a worthwhile contribution.

    so thank you.

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    The ‘reading public’ is always right, huh? ‘The bottom line has to be better for EVERYONE.’ ??

    Oh please.

  10. Here’s some interesting reading for those with an interest in settlement patterns:

    “An elaborate modeling of housing prices and traffic congestion in cities across the US concludes that financing roads with comprehensive congestion priced tolls rather than taxes rather would provide major benefits in reducing housing prices and sub-optimal densities – ‘sprawl’ – as well as reducing the familiar delays and uncertain travel times. Moving to tolls or other direct road use charges will significantly improve overall welfare, economic efficiency and standards of living, the study says. Authors are Ashley Langer University of California Berkeley and Clifford Winston, Brookings Institution. The study is reported in Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2008.”

    http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3840

    Now I think I know how Ray will react but to be honest, I don’t think I’ve every heard and EMR view of the merits of congestion pricing – as it might relate to settlement patterns.

  11. Check out the Government accounting office website, the agency that is the watchdog for all government expenditures.

    It basically says that NO GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY IS WARRANTED THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE NET SOCIAL WELFARE.

    Obviously (at least it is obvious to me) if you have a net social benefit, then there is no reason why the winners cannot pay off the losers such that the bottom line is better for everyone.

    Otherwise you have a government policy that is pure wealth transfer.

    Like I said before, these are not my ideas, so if you want to “Oh Please ” someone, try the US Government.

    ————————–

    Don;t like the GAO? Try this:

    “Economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources among competing uses. There are two aspects to the allocation of scarce resources for achieving value: efficiency and equity.

    Efficiency is concerned with producing the greatest total social value (as determined subjectively by individuals and as measured by economists either in markets or by using non-market methods) for the least possible social cost. Efficiency is achieved when all resources are in their most productive use (production efficiency), no mutually beneficial trades of goods and services are possible (exchange efficiency), and net value is maximized. No reallocation of resources or consumption can result in an increase in total value net of cost.

    Equity is concerned with the relative distribution of value and resources among individuals and groups in society according to notions of fairness and justice and interpersonal comparisons of utility.

    …..

    BCA and cost-effectiveness analysis are methods designed to help determine whether social value and social welfare is increased in a Pareto-efficiency sense by a given action. BCA, for example, estimates the increase in value to society (measured in markets or by non-market methods) produced by some action, such as restoration of a wetland, net of the costs necessary to achieve the restoration.

    These are right off of the NOAA web page. Like I said, these are commonly accepted ideas, government policy, and I don’t own them.

    ————————–

    That part oabout no other allocation of resources can increase net benefits is the business I argue with Larry so often. There is one optimal allocation, and any other allocation, even if you think it is better to wpend more on your favorite thing, can only amount to an assault on someone elses property: they will be worse off because of your action.

    If we have too much pollution and not enough pollution control, that assaults people’s property, AND SO DOES THE OPPOSITE CONDITION.

    Too much health care, not enough health care.

    Too much Republican Dogma: Too much Democratic dogma.

    Everyone is a trade off. If you propose a trade off that is NOT better for everyone, then what you are doing is equivalent to proposing theft.

    ——————————

    Never said the reading public as always right, just that they have opinions that count. If EMR chooses not to count them, that doesn’t change reality.

    You don’t believe the government has an oblicgation to try to achieve Kaldor-Hicks efficiency. That is your opinion, and I feel sorry for you. But knowing that there are people with such opinions is useful to me, because it helps me improve my arguments and try to target them in a way that will sello more people.

    I don’t have to sell my ideas to those that agree with me, I have to sell them to those that don’t.
    I don;t see that dumping on them helps.

    And, unlike EMR, I don’t have to be “right”, nor do I think there is a single approach to reacing the optimum net social value.

    I’m satsfied with any direction that can be shown to be incrementally better. From there the next step is incrementally easier to find.

    RH

  12. how about this one:

    “The overall effect of comprehensive road pricing managed for free flow is likely to be decreased housing prices, higher density living especially in middle suburbs. Pricing encourages people to live somewhat closer to their work.

    Toll revenues are put at $120b based on VMT elasticity of -0.3.
    Net social benefit is substantial at around $41b (2000$s).

    Lower assumed elasticity of VMT and higher ceiling densities increase tolls and net social benefit. For example VMT elasticity of -0.1 and a high allowed maximum housing density increases tolls to $146b and net social benefit to $58b. At the lower end with VMT elasticity at -0.5 gross tolls are $102b and social benefits $28b.

    This doesn’t depend on any reduced non-transport infrastructure or service costs claimed by smart growth advocates. If these materialized they would be an additional bonus.

    The modeling focuses on the congestion price benefits of managing the existing roads. Further gains not explored could result from using some of the large toll revenues for improvements to the road network that could be more easily undertaken with a stable source of funding.

    The study doesn’t allow for job-shifting in response to congestion pricing, or relocation of workplaces, but these should add to net benefits also. “

    Winston says a major unmeasured benefit could be that with congestion and ‘sprawl’ issues managed by pricing, there would be far less pressure to use inefficient zonings, growth boundaries, subsidies to transit oriented development and perverse taxes for roads.

    The ‘pork barrel’ and earmarks would take a hit.

    Saaaayyy… isn’t this saying exactly what Ray and EMR have been saying?

    shocking!

  13. Good grief. First, note that Tollroadsnews is on the toll road payroll — site sponsors on the left. No conspiracy theory needed. Haven’t checked which rent-seeker is funding the Brookings researchers yet.

    Second, note that the costs of the tolls is an $80b loss in housing value and tax revenue. The “benefit” is $120b in revenue from tolls for a net “gain” of $40b.

    Um… do you not see the problem here? That’s a $200b in wealth taken away from ordinary people. It’s a $200 billion NET LOSS. Only in the double-plus-ungood Newspeak of the original post can bleeding that much money out of the public’s pocket be considered a good.

    But the middlemen — the ones who sponsor Tollroadsnews — get a 22% cut of that $200 billion. I’m sure that has nothing to do with their advocacy of the idea.

  14. Is this the same Winston I’ve been quoting the past few years?
    What is your cite?

    The jargon sounds right, but as Bob points out there could be a 150 billion error. We need a lot more than partisan accounting.

    But, if it is really a 58 billion net benefit, then sign me up, providing there isn’t some OTHER project with the same costs and a 200 billion net benefit.

    I take it this means you have signed up to the social net benefit bandwagon. Remember, it is across the board: you don’t get to pick and choose.

    RH

  15. http://www.tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/RoadPricing.pdf

    and here’s another I’d like ya’ll opinion of – after you read through it of course…

    http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm

    re: “social benefit bandwagon”

    One of the reasons I posted this was for you Ray – to show you that there are LOTS of different ways to measure….assert… “social benefit” from costs and benefits.

    For instance, from the second cite – you’ll see this:

    ” Congestion can be Measured in various ways, including roadway Level of Service (LOS), average traffic speed, and average congestion delay compared with free-flowing traffic”

    so right off the bat – there might be disagreement on what the impacts of congestion really are.

    NOTE TO EMR –

    EMR, notice in this article that terms are “hot links” to a vocabulary list.

    So, for instance, they use the phrase “shy distance” which might puzzle those not familiar with the term but the phrase is hot linked to a handle reference vocabulary so that the reader.. can derive a better understanding on their own. You ought to consider this approach also.

    Another thing to notice with these cites is the very ample footnoting of other references to back up the assertions that they make.

    In other words, they are not making unsubstantiated assertions but rather building on an existing body of knowledge that has been published and peer reviewed.

    Next, notice the ample use of data – much if not virtually all of it…also from separate cites.

    So.. they still make some conclusions but their conclusions are tentative and suggestive as opposed to bald assertions without foundation.

    I would submit that it could be useful for anyone interested in traffic congestion to read the treatise entitled: “Congestion Reduction Strategies
    Identifying and Evaluating Strategies To Reduce Traffic Congestion”

  16. Grovetons Avatar

    I once again call on Larry G to write and send a signed letter to his elected officials demanding congestion tolling in Fredricksburg. None of the benefits that Larry G cited were particular to core NoVA or any other specific region. They were generalized benefits that are assumed to hold in any situation where there is suburban sprawl, road congestion, cars and a population with sufficient funds to pay the toll. That sounds like Fredricksburg to me. And it sounds like suburban Richmond too (i.e. Henrico County).

    This is another nearly transparent effort to increase the subsidy from core NoVA to elsewhere by making core NoVA residents pay for their roads with tolls while the transportation-related taxes they pay are used to build and maintain roads in places like Fredricksburg and Henrico County. This is not an effort to “help out” poor rural communities that have been devastated by job losses. It is a greasy fingered grab by one group of well to do people against another group of well to do people.

    And please don’t lecture me on the 25 cent tolls on I-95. These congestion tolls are not 25 cent tolls on highways used largely by out-of-state drivers. These are $1/mi tolls (during times of peak usage) charged against the employed men and women who pay the taxes to fund the army of early retirees, part time work at homeers and others who can’t understand that killing the incentive for full time work will kill America.

  17. Groveton – you are clearly not understanding my point of view on this.

    I fully support congestion pricing tolling for I-95 all the way down to Spotsylvania and beyond.

    I favor it because I believe that people that actually use the road, need the infrastructure, want more improvements to reduce congestion – those are the folks who should be paying.

    I suspect that Jim Bacon and I agree substantially …on these issues.

    Maintenance – we all pay..

    New Construction, “improvements”, etc for extra-regional and intra-regional, and interstate – toll those roads. Capture out of state usage and capture commuter usage.

    I’d favor for places like NoVa – a tax rebate – equivalent to the toll costs for “average commute” such that folks that use “more” would pay “more” and in proportion to how much “more”.

    If you have a need to drive a lot – fine – just pay for your usage and impacts.

    If you don’t need to drive a lot OR you want to live closer to work and/or use multiple-passenger vehicles to commute – then you should derive some reward for doing your part to not cause more congestion.

    Funding new construction by taxing everyone – is a corruption machine.

    It’s the government equivalent of the classic “Pigeon Drop Scam” (GOOGLE the term).

    None other than the current USDOT -Mary Peters says the same thing.

    A good example is the Tyson’s scheme – that would be going nowhere fast if it were not for the fact that almost a billion dollars in gas taxes have been diverted from the transportation trust fund.

    The HOT lanes is 2-phased.

    The second phase will take it down to Massaponax in Spotsylvania.

    My ONLY regret is that the HOT Lanes are not a single phase that goes from 495 to Massaponax in one fell swoop.

    and you know… one lane of road will move 1200 cars an hour.

    but that same lane will move twice as many people – if there are two to a car.

    Now Ray.. will tell you that there is no way that someone who drives an SUV SOLO at rush hour to do anything else but that – but experience tells us that many people .. who might actually need to get to work at rush hour -can do it in a multi-passenger vehicle – ESPECIALLY if the SOLO rate is a buck a mile and the multi-passenger rate is ZERO.

    If we do this with airlines and cell phone minutes – and it works very well.. why not with roads?

  18. …”$1/mi tolls (during times of peak usage) charged against the employed men and women who pay the taxes to fund the army of early retirees”

    would you make the same argument about airline fares and cell phone minutes?

    Should the folks who actually use the roads, need the additional infrastructure and desire less congestion – pay their fair share of these things?

    …regardless of an army of retirees? (which has absolutely nothing to do at all with each person paying their fair share of what it takes to provide them with services that they want).

    The BEST system is the one that most closely aligns costs with the person who wants the service.

    Then they can decide how much they want to pay verses how much service they want.

    If we applied our current road pricing concept to cell phones – everyone would have unlimited “free” airtime – and they would all use it.. whenever they wished …regardless of “congestion” and the cell phone companies would be blamed (like we blame VDOT and Va) for not “relieving the congestion”.. and they’d be forced to build more and more cell towers just to keep up with rush hour demand… and then they’d be forced to raise rates on everyone to pay for the additional cell phone towers.

    So.. they did a reasonable and logical thing… they looked at the demand and realized that by building enough cell towers to meet rush hour need – that they’d have to charge higher rates on everyone – so they put a premium price on rush hour – and they let folks decide – for themselves – for each and every call.. how important that call is.

    And no.. in doing this.. they did not kill economic vitality or force people to quit work.

    I did not expect such silliness from Groveton.. of all folks.. I thought he was logical and pragmatic.

  19. Larry, from your congestion measurement link:
    “Road Pricing applied on just one roadway may cause traffic to shift routes, increasing traffic congestion on other roads.”

    In other words, the tolls do NOTHING to reduce congestion. The congestion is moved, not reduced.

    “Should the folks who actually use the roads, need the additional infrastructure and desire less congestion – pay their fair share of these things?”

    They already do. More miles = more gas tax payments. If you want to hit people for not paying their fair share, head over to the nearest bus depot or Metro station.

    We’ve been through this many times. If you think NOVA isn’t carrying its fair share of taxation, you should have no problem with splitting the state. Oh, wait, what’s that? ROVA doesn’t want to lose NOVA?

  20. “to show you that there are LOTS of different ways to measure….assert… “social benefit” from costs and benefits.”

    Absolutely correct. But that does nothing to assert that the governments position: that the government has no business pursuing a policy that does not provide a net social benefit – is wrong.

    All it shows is that some people will try to use it to assert a onesides social benefit for political or monetary gain. That is why I say that we need more transparency, and much better accounting, along with back testing.

    Over time we will see which claims are specious and which are not. We will make errors in the mean time. But the real point is that we need to understand that whenever someone is pushing a particular agenda, it will ultimately be to our detriment, if they push too hard.

    Call this my version of EMR’s call for more “education” if you like.

    But, currently we are too focused on whether our side wins, and not enough on the true goal, which is whether we are REALLY better off, just because our side won. EMR calls it the winner take all syndrome. I call it a recipe for failure.

    RH

  21. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry:

    The team is exploring hot links for the DVD with TRILO-G: Foundations, Bridges, Action. Both high tech and low tech.

    It makes no sense for a Blog where much of the information is already cited and described in earlier posts.

    EMR

  22. “I believe that people that actually use the road, need the infrastructure, want more improvements to reduce congestion – those are the folks who should be paying.”

    And I believe that the benefits go far beyond only those that actually use the road. We may disagree on what those benefits are or what they amount to, but whatever they are (or aren’t) they should be paid for by those that enjoy them.

    You should pay for the benefits, not just the use. MWCOG studies suggest this will increas surface traffic on neighboring roads. This should be good for vendors on those roads, and they should pay part of the price.

    As I see it, your plan to charge only the direct users is really a wealth transfer, plain and simple.

    RH

  23. “Funding new construction by taxing everyone – is a corruption machine.”

    Only if they are taxed more than the benefits they recieve. Anyway, who you tax has nothing to do with whether there is corruption in how it is spent.

    RH

  24. ” Congestion can be Measured in various ways, including roadway Level of Service (LOS), average traffic speed, and average congestion delay compared with free-flowing traffic”

    so right off the bat – there might be disagreement on what the impacts of congestion really are.”

    Right, or it might be just the combined number of minutes spent idling, or some other measure.

    Which is exactly my point, we haven’t yet even agreed on ways to determine what net benefits are: we don;t have a procedure in place. When we have a comprehensive procedure, or recipe, that is agreed on by all parties as generally being a fair method, then it will eliminate a lot of blatantly one-sided “studies”. We have such methods or recipies for many other things that are highly variable in nature, like environmental surveys, we can do it for CBS if we decide to.

    We will still have disagreements, but they will be more at the margin, and less likely to cause major mistakes.

    RH

  25. Lets be clear about this. VTPI is a partisan organization, devoted to reducing sprawl, and increasing mass transit. They do have some excellent data, but htey pick and choose how it is presented in order to promote their agenda.

    They SAY they are in favor of comprehensive analysis of benefits and costs, and yet their approach to problem solving starts off witht the blad headed statement that automobile travel is underpriced. They describe the usual list of automobile externalities and go on to say that more of the same (bhusiness as usual) can only fail.

    “When all impacts are considered, accommodating more vehicle traffic is not necessarily better for society. “

    Or necessarily worse, either. but we won’t find out using their “approach to problem solving.”

    RH

  26. “they are not making unsubstantiated assertions but rather building on an existing body of knowledge that has been published and peer reviewed.”

    There is a difference between being unsubstantiated and one sided. they conveneintly ignore confilcting knowledge, also peer reviewed.

    RH

  27. re: ” ..It makes no sense for a Blog where much of the information is already cited and described in earlier posts.”

    EMR – it makes all the sense in the world – both as an easy way for someone to refresh their understanding but even more important for newbies who wander by.

    Are you really interested in helping ALL your readers better understand what you are saying?

  28. “In other words, the tolls do NOTHING to reduce congestion. The congestion is moved, not reduced.”

    Apparently the word “may” does not mean very much.

    It’s clear and proven that some trips do not need to be made during rush hour.

    Trips may be delayed.. or combined with other errands… or a phone call or an internet access..

    there are NUMEROUS ways to reduce congestion and still accomplish the original intent of the trip.

    What you are arguing is that because airlines charge more for airline tickets at the most popular periods.. that someone will still make the same trip at the same time causing “congestion” on other airlines.

    but at least you apparently read the doc..more than I can say for some…

  29. re: “We’ve been through this many times. If you think NOVA isn’t carrying its fair share of taxation, you should have no problem with splitting the state. Oh, wait, what’s that? ROVA doesn’t want to lose NOVA?”

    NoVa’s “fair share” is whatever NoVa does to deal with it’s own congestion.

    It has nothing to do with RoVa.

    You could tax the bejesus out of RoVa and still not have enough money to reduce congestion in NoVa because congestion won’t be reduced by adding capacity. It will only attract more congestion – because there are ALREADY folks who won’t drive when the roads are congested and they ALREADY defer trips.. and if you add capacity.. they’ll come right back onto the roads.

  30. re: “Absolutely correct. But that does nothing to assert that the governments position: that the government has no business pursuing a policy that does not provide a net social benefit – is wrong.”

    what it means .. is that your idea of what is a net social benefit is not the same as someone’s else and there is not standard way to decide who is correct.

    If your view was so good and correct – it would become the standard.

  31. re: “And I believe that the benefits go far beyond only those that actually use the road.”

    you could make this kind of argument no matter what … schools… ethanol subsidies… lottery tickets..

  32. re: “we haven’t yet even agreed on ways to determine what net benefits are: “

    correct. And until we do.. people are probably not going to agree to more taxes….if most do not see the benefits

    capische?

  33. re: one-sided…

    that’s an opinion – as usual.

    the point is that the assertions are based on a a cite – a referencible study, fact, data, provided by others also with appropriate credentials.

    Yes.. it can be one-sided and reflect a view but when there is peer-reviewed evidence provided…

    then it’s much stronger than a completely unsubstantiated assertion….

    It’s not like “congestion pricing” is an unknown and untried concept.

    It’s the essence of supply and demand – marketplace dynamics.

    It’s the reason an IPHONE costs an ungodly amount of money compared to other phones…

    It’s the reason you can charge more for a bale of hay – when supplies are tight and/or not easily available in bad weather.

    It’s the reason why gasoline costs more at the stations closest to an interstate exit.

    Congestion Pricing “works”.

    The argument here is basically along the lines of – that it’s wrong to put an artificial pricing mechanism on something that it should not be put on.

    This is like arguing that it’s wrong for the airlines to charge more for the same seat …at certain periods.

    That in doing so.. it’s “unfair” because the customer is not getting any more for their money.

    But you’re wrong. They ARE getting something more for their money.

    They are getting from point a to point b in the time frame that was important to them.

    Otherwise – no amount of money would get them a seat on that plane…

    The airlines also offer money to folks willing to get off – because they can sell the ticket for more than what it costs them to bribe you off the plane.

    There are all .. acceptable market principles to essentially ration a scarce resource in a way where people can make their own choices with respect to how much it is worth it to them to do a trip at a particular time.

    You will find a lot of people waiting for the HOT lanes because it will then give them the same option that they have with airlines… the ability to pay for a reliable trip..when that reliability is important to them.

    AND the ability to NOT PAY for it.. when it is not…

    The guy who can make $300 more by paying a toll is being MORE PRODUCTIVE.. making more money.. more GPP (gross personal produt)….

    Companies that make money by providing certain and timely delivery will benefit … as will the folks who are willing to pay them more for guaranteed delivery..at a time-certain…

    You do this every time you order something online.

    They give you a choice – often ranging from “free” to a whole bunch of dollars for “overnight”.

    I suppose what you’d argue for is one set shipping price and everyone get’s it overnight – right … except when there are too many packages and “congestion” delays the trip.

  34. Larry: “NoVa’s ‘fair share’ is whatever NoVa does to deal with it’s own congestion. It has nothing to do with RoVa.”

    Yes it does. When you make the claim that drivers not paying their “fair share” you need to make a full accounting of what they are already paying and where this existing money is already being spent. NOVA drivers do not need to pay more. The people not paying a “fair share” live in ROVA or take the bus.

    So if you’re going to bring in “fairness” let’s see the numbers. I’ve provided mine on several occasions: personal property tax, sales tax on cars, parking/speeding tickets, gas tax, NOVA special gas tax, registration fees. And HB3202 tried to impose even more. I believe most annual reports for bus outfits have a statistic for subsidy per passenger, which is at least $1-$2 per trip.

    In other words, you bring up fairness, it’s only fair to bring up fairness to both sides — I’m picking up on the favorite theme of RH.

    “It’s clear and proven that some trips do not need to be made during rush hour….. congestion won’t be reduced by adding capacity. It will only attract more congestion”

    No it isn’t. This is just like the ‘gas tax is dead’ lie that gets repeated so often as gospel truth (especially around here) that people begin to believe it.

    If the “no more capacity” argument had any validity at all, why would you not advocate reducing I-95 into a two-lane road? After all, reducing capacity should reduce congestion under your argument. This isn’t even a straw man, DC is actively reducing capacity on several major roads.

    Where else does this crazy “no more capacity” principle exist in society? You can’t eat your way out of starvation. You can’t drink your way out of thirst.

    These “arguments” are dreamed up by rent-seekers with their own political agenda. They cook up studies to assist in selling the wealth transfer. These rent-seekers come in three main flavors:

    1. Mass transit hippies who want to steal money from drivers to subsidize their inefficient personal means of transportation. This is a small (but loud) minority, because nobody actually uses mass transit.

    2. Car-hating leftists / socialists / greens. These have an ideological desire to force others (everyone except themselves) into centrally controlled transportation or to punish car use.

    3. Toll profiteers. These are the middlemen who profit from the inefficiency of tolls. So instead of new capacity, you have an expensive boondoggle to “manage” capacity that forges a coalition between groups #1 and #2 while pretending to be free market (when they’re really just rent seekers).

    “It’s not like ‘congestion pricing’ is an unknown and untried concept. It’s the essence of supply and demand – marketplace dynamics.”

    It’s not a marketplace when there’s not just a monopoly on supply, but a monopoly on supply with non-compete provisions written into the contract to ensure there will never be competition of any type. You couldn’t get further from the free market if you tried.

  35. you could make this kind of argument no matter what … schools… ethanol subsidies… lottery tickets..

    But you would have to back it up.

    And the exercise of backing it up would need to cost less than the value of the benefits claimed.

    Now, NOVA and HR provide what 40% of the state GNP? And commerce is almost linearly related to travel. I don;t think that it would be too hard to show at least SOME benefit to nontravelers.

    Otherwise I don’t see your point. Schools are entirely subsidized. Lottery is entirely voluntary.

  36. It has nothing to do with RoVa.

    Well fine. Nova will be pleased to take a refund on all the ROVA roads they paid for. Like you said, reversing an earlier subsidy does not require that the winers pay the losers.

    RH

  37. “re: one-sided…

    that’s an opinion – as usual.”

    Maybe. But look at that site, and then go get a book on argumentative dissertation, and learn how to look for missing pieces. Better yet go read up on systems engineering and learn how to do the same thing.

    For example, read their bit about how to analyze various kinds of TDM. their foregone conclusion is that SOME kind of TDM is required, and there is no discussionof anything else, including the do nothing option.

    If I did a cost analysis like that, I’d get fired.

    Full disclosure VPTI does have good information – like EMR – but they also have an agenda that is NOT based on seeking out the best public policy considering ALL measurable costs and benefits.

    RH

  38. “If we do this with airlines and cell phone minutes – and it works very well.. why not with roads?”

    Because cell phones and Airlines are private businesses, open to new competition at any time, in order to increase capacity.

    Roads are not.

    RH

  39. “The BEST system is the one that most closely aligns costs with the person who wants the service.”

    Wrong, no systems engineer would agree with that appoach. you must have a more holistic view of costs and benefits in order to even recognize where the best system may lie.

    Besides, using your argument greenies who want more pollution control services should be the ones to pay for it, right?

    RH

  40. “It’s the essence of supply and demand – marketplace dynamics.”

    No it isn’t. That is an outright lie.

    In a free market new competitors are free to enter and syphon off Excessive charging through fair competition, which is not true with the road system.

    RH

  41. “It’s the reason why gasoline costs more at the stations closest to an interstate exit.

    Congestion Pricing “works”.”

    It still costs more whether the staation is crowded or not. This example has nothing to do with congestion, and everything to do with trading one cost for another: how far are you willing to drive to save 5 cents per gallon?

    —————————

    In other words, you bring up fairness, it’s only fair to bring up fairness to both sides — I’m picking up on the favorite theme of RH.

    Thank you.

    Now notice this, even after yo uconsider fairness, you may still conclude that there is a net social benefit in that $1 subsidy (to whichever side). Subsidies in themselves are not bad, just subsidies that detract from the net social welfare.

    RH

  42. re: ” .Well fine. Nova will be pleased to take a refund on all the ROVA roads”

    you know… most of RoVa roads were built long, long ago before there was such a thing as NoVa …

    In fact.. way back when… NoVa was part of RoVa.

    Virtually all of the 600 series roads in RoVa pre-date NoVa.

  43. re: “…The people not paying a “fair share” live in ROVA or take the bus.”

    If you are counting NoVa’s exurbs as RoVa… you’re wrong.

    They belong to the NoVa MSA.

    Next.. I agree about the subsidy for bus and VRE.

    I think folks that use them should pay …full boat.. and the subsidy.. Bob.. the subsidy is from the State of Virginia – not NoVa….

    and yes… the folks from the exurbs that are commuters to NoVa – yes they should pay their fair share of NoVa’s roads as they are using them.

    (see,, we actually AGREE!)

    re: capacity… this is not just NoVa – but nationwide in all urban areas.

    Adding more capacity does not relieve congestion because every time you add capacity -you encourage more driving.

    The reverse…taking capacity away actually does work – to a degree.

    For instance, when VDOT had to realign the new WWB lanes – they warned of massive backups and delays.. and guess what happened? Everyone stayed away and the traffic was the lightest seen in a long time.

    re: ” Where else does this crazy “no more capacity” principle exist in society? You can’t eat your way out of starvation. You can’t drink your way out of thirst.”

    You know.. when you having the Reason folks agreeing with the Brookings folks agreeing with EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) it’s an interesting thing. Would you not agree?

    that’s the exact situation you have with the airlines at particular airports…

    same deal with cell phones… cable… land-lines, Dominion, etc.

    re: non-compete

    Realistically Bob – WHERE …geographically in the NoVa Region could you build a competing beltway?

    They’re having enough trouble just finding enough additional r/w to shoehorn the HOT lanes.

    Here’s the truth.

    There is no more room.

    Even if you have room in some places, you don’t have it in other places.. so the idea of adding REGIONAL capacity in an attempt to relieve REGIONAL congestion is physically and fiscally not going to happen.

    Even if you had physical room.. who would pay for the billions required for the new lanes?

    RoVa would not.

    so.. NoVa would have to.

    and so.. NoVa IS going to pay… as well as ANYONE else that uses NoVa roads… exurban commuters, out-of-state thru traffic, visitors, etc.

    You’re actually getting a better deal because you’re getting the added capacity in blinding speed compared to a VDOT project.

  44. re: “But you would have to back it up.”

    do you mean like you have NOT!

    all you’ve done is express an opinion that the benefits are not properly calculated… and that if they were.. in your opinion…they’d show more benefits.

    same deal with other things like schools… police, etc..

    how many dollars of “benefit” do we receive from each dollar of “library”?

  45. re: getting the facts

    I would suggest that a good way to start is to put “road pricing” into GOOGLE and see what pops up.

    Well.. I’ll be Danged… lookee here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_pricing

    jeeezee… double dang…

    LOOK at THESE References:

    ^ “Glossary of Terms for Managed Lanes”. Managed Lanes.
    ^ http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads and HOT Lanes
    ^ http://www.nysun.com/article/68854 Milan Introduces Congestion Charge To Cut Pollution
    ^ Controlled Vehicular Access, CVA Technology, May 1, 2007.
    ^ Road Charging Scheme: Europe – Norway, Bergen, UK Commission for Integrated Transport, June 21, 2006. Retrieved on June 22, 2007.
    ^ “Congestion tax in Stockholm from August 1”. Swedish Road Administration. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
    ^ “Trängselskatt i Stockholm”. Swedish Road Administration. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
    ^ “Odramatisk start för biltullarna”. Dagens Nyheter (2007-08-01). Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
    ^ “Stockholmsförsöket”. Stockholmsförsöket. Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
    ^ “Tider och belopp”. Swedish Road Administration. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
    ^ “Betalning”. Swedish Road Administration. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.

    Oh POOT!

    they don’t reference your favorite “authority” – “Environmental Economics”

    well I guess that shoots WIKI in the butt ..as a credible source.. right?

  46. re:

    “If I did a cost analysis like that, I’d get fired.”

    actually you do… and yes.. you should be fired…

    That Environmental Economics blog is rotting your neurons Ray.

  47. re: "No it isn't. That is an outright lie.

    In a free market new competitors are free to enter and syphon off Excessive charging through fair competition, which is not true with the road system."

    You're confusing "free market" with "supply & demand".

    You don't need competition for supply & demand to be used.

    At most airports – the flights at rush hour are going to cost more regardless of the airline or how many are competing.

    When you pull off the interstate and you need gas and there are two gas stations – what is the usual circumstance with respect to their prices and BOTH of the will be higher than another interchange with 5 or 10 competitors.

  48. re: “Because cell phones and Airlines are private businesses, open to new competition at any time, in order to increase capacity.”

    not true for airlines.

    the slots at any given airport are limited and usually full and do not allow more competitors.

    the point is that PRIVATE business USE congestion pricing as a way to spread out demand and it does work.

    and that same process can be used to spread out demand for ANY service whether it be provided by public or private.

  49. re: “Wrong, no systems engineer would agree with that appoach. you must have a more holistic view of costs and benefits in order to even recognize where the best system may lie.”

    When you have to pay directly for what you use – it’s a better system..

    when you pay into a fund and then get to use the service, you will invariably use more than what you actually pay for.

    It’s human nature.

    It’s exactly why the cell phone companies will not sell you unlimited minutes for the same price as limited minutes.

    If you could get an airline ticket for the same price no matter when you flew.. you’d show up at the same time everyone else did.. so they make you choose… if you want “more” THEN you have to pay more.

  50. re: “how far are you willing to drive to save 5 cents per gallon?”

    not near as far as most folks seem to be.

    I can (and do) save more money by combining errands and doing less car trips.. a lot more money than a few cents or a buck or two.

    Planning ahead.. getting your ducks in a row…saves unnecessary auto trips…

    organizing your errands such that the order you do them makes them all right-in right-out instead of left turns at traffic signals..saves time and money.

    Parking your car by doing less trips.. saves more gas and money that “shopping” for cheap gas.

  51. re: ” ..just subsidies that detract from the net social welfare.”

    right. and we are so good at figuring out which is which.

    right?

    we’re back to which subsidies you favor verses which subsidies others favor…

    and you’re claiming that your way of figuring out “net benefit” is the “correct” way.

    the best way to deal with this – is to not have the subsidies in the first place unless the recipient is destitute and/or unable to fend for themselves.

    All other subsidies are fiscal cockroaches and the only question is how big a cockroach we’re talking about and so we’re allowed to claim that some are “whoppers” ..especially the ones we don’t agree with.

  52. “we’re back to which subsidies you favor verses which subsidies others favor…”

    Nope, you are back to specifying a procedure for how to go about measurng net social benefit according to a systematic approach. You are assuming that there is no such thing as an unbiased answer.

    But, if you believe that there is only one solution that maximises net social benefit, then there is no point in even attempting to sell a biased answer. In the first place the attempt is usaully obvious, as with VPTI, and in the second place it won’t lead you to the best result. Once you understand the inevitability of the math involved, then having a bias or predetermined notion makes not one bit of sense: it is a red badge of stupidity, in fact.

    The sytems approach to an unbiased answer incorporates the costs and the benefits associated with ALL the persons who will be most affected by a proposal, plus all the people they do business with. Usaually two dgrees of freedom is enough, but for bigger proposals you might have to study the third and even the fourth tier beneficiaries.

    It isn’t that hard to come up with a plan that covers all the bases. Then no party can complain that they were left out. This is essential since net social benefits implies that you do the sum of benefits and costs for every individual affected. In practice you do this statistically, but you get the idea.

    What this does is eliminate the pseudo data such as you provided before. It is a pure input output analysis at the individual or family level.

    What you cannot do is what VPTI does, which is say “well we know auto usage is underpriced, so lets go use a systems approach and CBA to prove it.”

    It’s nteresting that when you do such an analysis that, where you live and how far you drive is somethng like number five on the list of what makes you sustainable or not. Number one is how big is your house and how many people live in it. Number two is what you eat, and where it comes from.

    So slap on a meaningful fuel tax that includes the fuel used by homes, and then watch how fast settlement patterns change.

    RH

  53. re: “Nope, you are back to specifying a procedure for how to go about measurng net social benefit according to a systematic approach. You are assuming that there is no such thing as an unbiased answer. “

    no. I’m saying I have not seen such a measure ..forthcoming from you .. or a reference to a procedure that is accepted by all parties as unbiased.

    The Brookings Study claimed net social benefits.. but you don’t agree.. correct?

    What flaws are in the Brookings study that are also not in studies you like?

  54. “the best way to deal with this – is to not have the subsidies in the first place “

    Great. How do you propose to start a process from a place where we are not?

    Lets wipe oput all the subsidies, and while we are at it we will wipe out all the regulations that are really reverse subsidies to a few people who don’t want some other people to do things which would otherwise be allowed.

    We will make sure that everything of any value is owned by someone, and they all have the right to sell and trade whatever it is, whether it is development rights, mineral rights or oxygen molecules, so that there are no subsidies, and everything trades at its market value, as generally agreed by the most people, with the most to sell.

    I’m glad you finally circled around to my way of seeing things.

    RH

  55. re: “But, if you believe that there is only one solution that maximises net social benefit,”

    well.. it’s kind of hard to find multiple solutions that ALL maximum EXACTLY the same…

    I’d be satisfied with several studies – RANKED according to best cost-benefit but I’m betting you don’t know of any.

  56. re: “Once you understand the inevitability of the math involved,”

    there is no inevitability of math except in your own mind.

    Your math is not math others would agree with… “inevitable” or not.

  57. re: ” ..It isn’t that hard to come up with a plan that covers all the bases. Then no party can complain that they were left out.”

    Really?

    What Rubbish RH.

    Where is that plan?

    If it is so easy.. where is the plan? We have hundreds..thousands of folks involved in this.. and not a single “plan”.. why is that?

  58. re: “So slap on a meaningful fuel tax that includes the fuel used by homes, and then watch how fast settlement patterns change.”

    That study says that tolling will have the same effect.

    right?

    why is your opinion about using a tax better than theirs to use tolls?

  59. “If you are counting NoVa’s exurbs as RoVa… you’re wrong.”

    No, I mean the MSA when talking about NOVA. The regional transfer of transportation cash from NOVA to ROVA is an easily proved fact. It’s busywork to document, but for a quickie you can look at this and compare NOVA to ROVA as far as what we’re getting for our money.

    NOVA = Lousy roads (61% score)
    ROVA = Gold-plated (72 – 86% score)

    It’s hard to judge by project numbers because one big project is worth ten little ones, but the project numbers for NOVA aren’t good. Take that with a grain of salt, it’s just what’s available.

    “You know.. when you having the Reason folks agreeing with the Brookings folks agreeing with EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) it’s an interesting thing. Would you not agree?”

    No, see #3 in my list of rent seekers. This is a confluence of monetary interests and nothing more.

    “For instance, when VDOT had to realign the new WWB lanes – they warned of massive backups and delays.. and guess what happened? Everyone stayed away and the traffic was the lightest seen in a long time.”

    No, it made a mess that rippled throughout the entire area.

    “Adding more capacity does not relieve congestion because every time you add capacity -you encourage more driving.”

    That’s just an assertion. I say: prove it.

    “Realistically Bob – WHERE …geographically in the NoVa Region could you build a competing beltway?”

    It may not be realistically possible. That’s why roads are not a market issue. It also kind of like talking about “intellectual property” as if it were real property.

    “You’re actually getting a better deal because you’re getting the added capacity in blinding speed compared to a VDOT project.”

    Speed, yes. Capacity only on 495, NOT 395. And at an absolutely outrageous cost premium.

  60. The Brookings Study claimed net social benefits.. but you don’t agree.. correct?

    I haven’t seen it yet, so no comment, for now.

    If Winston is the same guy that suggested there is almost no social benefit to mass transit, then his study is probably good. If I can’t find any major flaws, then I would agree with the results.

    I’ll say up front that economists generally agree in principle that congestion pricing is a good way to eliminate or reduce congestion. I agree with that as well, but I think it is short sighted. I’m convinced that travel is closely associated with business. Business is not conducted on a 24 hour clock. Therefore reducing congestion will move some travel off peak and some travel elsewhere. If that last thing is the root cause of congestion reduction, then a new congestion tax is a) self defeating, because you won’t have any revenue if it works, and b) the hard way to get the end result that is most likely to happen. It is using a teaspoon for a can opener. It is taxing the people who never caused the problem in the first place, and frankly it is dumb as toast.

    Congestion pricing raises a bunch of revenue. As long as it is used to offset other taxes, that isn’t anet loss by itself, but if th revenues go to the franchisee then……….

    Nevertheless, considering only the economics at hand, the economists are probably right. I don’t deny that. It might be a case where you need to expand the system boundaries. If yo ulook at a stock market graph for the last thirty days it looks like one thing, bu tif you expand the boundaries fo the graph to thirty years, then it looks a lot different.

    By the way, economists are almost uniform in their belief that a fuels tax on all fuels is a good thing. Haven’t heard a word from them on a flat mileage tax, but i’ll bet the environmental economists oppose the idea strongly.

    RH

  61. I support subsidies for those who cannot fend for themselves.

    Kids, the elderly, those who do not have all the necessary parts to function well…etc.

    but I’m opposed to subsidies to folks who just don’t want to pay for the true cost of something and that’s what is going on with road taxes.

    The folks who use the road.. want other folks who do not use the road to pay the same taxes… and then they claim is that THEIR road (as opposed to ALL other roads) provides NET BENEFITS – as if people using other roads that don’t provide “net benefits”.

    Each person should pay for the road they use – each time they use it.

    That is the same way you pay for cell phone minutes, airline tickets, pay-per-view movies, long distance phone calls, etc, etc.

    If you don’t charge people directly on a per use basis – they will strive to get as much as they can back..

    This is why we have folks saying that they ALREADY pay taxes for roads…and they don’t want to pay more… because they have no clue that the amount they now pay will barely cover the maintenance.

    Bob makes the point about property taxes and other taxes being misallocated and it’s true but again this demonstrates exactly what happens when taxes go into a fund that ostensibly will be used to “benefit” the taxpayer for the use that the tax was levied…

    and we all know what happens to this money.

    It’s a bad ..broken system.

    Tolls are not nirvana but when you pay a toll – you’re expecting something in return right then and there…

    and if you don’t get performance… even if it is a private entity.. there are going to be a LOT of complaints and pressure on elected officials to deal with that company..the very same way that the State would deal with Dominion if people were getting bad service.

  62. “I’m saying I have not seen such a measure ..forthcoming from you .. or a reference to a procedure that is accepted by all parties as unbiased.”

    Me either. I think that is the first place to start. The closest thing we have is the legislative and administrative process that accepts comments from all interested parties.

    Unfortuantely you can make any comment you want, even if it is an outright lie. You can pay lobbyists to lie for you. The result is an adversarial situation, ecah side trying to get the “better” of the other side.

    In other words steal some kind of property rights advantage and disrupt the best social benefit for your own. (I’m starting to sound like EMR).

    Surely we can do better than that. Maybe if you submit data later shown to be false, you can be subject to perjury, or damages. Right now there is zero quality control, and you can submit damn near anything.

    I don’t have any answers here, or even suggestions. This is the frontier of my thinking, but I do know that we can write procedures. We do it for the courts, we can do it for other decision making bodies.

    RH

  63. “Tolls are not nirvana but when you pay a toll – you’re expecting something in return right then and there…”

    You mean like how users of the Dulles Toll Road are directly putting money into the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority coffers?

    Sorry. Although as a pragmatic argument, what you say sounds good. It just doesn’t stand the test of reality.

  64. “and then they claim is that THEIR road (as opposed to ALL other roads) provides NET BENEFITS – as if people using other roads that don’t provide “net benefits”.”

    A major part of the procedure must be to define how toset the sytem boundaries.

    If you set the system boundaries the way you propose, pay as you go roads, no roads will ever get built, or maintained. I can;t prove it, but I suspect that setting the marginal cost for each trip to the maximum amount would have huge unforseen social costs that you have not imgained.

    It would b pretty easy to find out. We could set up a six month test case, say in all of Spotsylvania.

    RH

  65. re: ” I’m convinced that travel is closely associated with business. Business is not conducted on a 24 hour clock. Therefore reducing congestion will move some travel off peak and some travel elsewhere.”

    no more or less than airline travel or cell phones or the internet…

    there are multiple ways to productivity and yes.. some times only one path will do.. but the essence of business is to find the ways that raise productivity.

    For instance.

    The newest GPS units that delivery services use – automatically re-order the stops .. in the most efficient ways possible.. and the bleeding edge units.. take into account – CURRENT Traffic conditions…

    Software tells the Delivery Companies .. the best time to START their deliveries.. and to finish them relative to existing congestion patterns.

    The point I am trying to make is that it is a mistake to assume that each and every trip at rush hour MUST be made at that exact time and place.

    The purpose of road pricing is the same as airline ticket pricing… to let people sort out what THEIR priorities are.

    Congestion does this right now.

    There are folks who go to work at 5am .. and leave at 2pm…

    there are folks who work 10 hours a day and take off a whole day.

    There are myriad ways to adapt.

    what we don’t have right now – is a reliable time trip – at any price and that is a valuable commodity for more than a few people and businesses.

    Just like the person or business that needs to be in LA right away.. they want the airline ticket.. even if it costs more.

  66. re: “Speed, yes. Capacity only on 495, NOT 395. And at an absolutely outrageous cost premium.”

    Every car that defers a rush hour trip.. or every car that pays a toll or every car that has multiple occupants to travel free on HOT.. all of these free up slots on the general purpose travel lanes.

    This is undeniable.

    The only question not yet answered is HOW MANY and what affect it will have on congestion both on the mainline and network wide.

    One thing is for sure.. if the HOT lanes do not provide a reliable ..less congested trip – then people will not pay and others will not carpool (this is the concern of the sluggers).

    I think a good question is – What would be the fallback plan B if HOT lanes go belly up along with Transurban?

    If Transurban goes broke – the infrastructure reverts to VDOT – at which point – if that ever happens.. I predict .. VDOT will continue to operate it … hopefully on a break-even basis but almost surely not on a RoVa-subsidized basis…

    Just FYI – The ICC is Maryland will also be a toll facility and it is scheduled to come online somewhere about the same time the initial HOT lanes come online.

    The difference is this.

    They already know that the ICC can be self-sustaining on it’s tolls so Maryland has created a Statewide Toll Authority – where – guess what – some toll roads will be used to subsidize others…

    If this case – would that be a good thing.. since ALL drivers will be paying.. for the roads and people who don’t drive on those toll roads won’t have to pay for them?

  67. “The newest GPS units that delivery services use – automatically re-order the stops .. in the most efficient ways possible.. and the bleeding edge units.. take into account – CURRENT Traffic conditions…”

    Yep. And were these GPS units created to address road pricing? No. They were created to address congestion. Congestion is self-regulating. There’s no need to impose some crooked government scheme on top of it for the benefit of politically powerful middlemen and the state.

    Again, what your GPS units do is MOVE the congestion from one place to another. So your neighborhood side streets become more crowded and more dangerous. Lovely.

    Larry, you’ve also scrupulously avoided the topic of your pro-toll studies just happen to be funded by groups that are also the toll collectors. That’s an awfully important factor to weigh when judging options.

  68. “It’s a bad ..broken system.”

    How would we know? No one has ever done a full, comprehensive, systems analysis. It might turn out to be a lot better than you think.

    After all, it is a system that made us (once) the richest nation in the world. Maybe some other system would workl better, but we have no way of knowing, and we never will, as long as people like yourself continue to make bald headed assertions such as this.

    Instead of “This system is broken, lets trash it.”, How about, “this is what we’ve got. How can we make it a little better, and how do we KNOW the result will be better – for evey single person involved?”

    Then you get my attention. But just throwing soutions over the fence: Tolls, TMD, Mass Transit, HOT lanes, growth restricitons, and sying here, try this on, doesn’t cut it.

    But, I’m a scientist, I’m all in favor of experiments. Lets ban all cars from Warrenton except for through traffic, for three months and provide all transportation with free dial up jitney service with a guaranteed ten minute service interval. You will need al LOT of jitneys. At the end of three months add up the costs and benefits as reproted by each family and decide whether EMR is right, once and for all.

    And you will have one indisputable data point to use for future cost benefit calculations.

    I’m guessing the reason it has never been done is that the results are obvious.

    RH

  69. re: “You mean like how users of the Dulles Toll Road are directly putting money into the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority coffers?”

    Oh I agree. but I’d also say this.

    Apparently the people who use it are not rising up in arms about it..

    and in the end.. whether they use it or not..will boil down to one simple fact – is the trip worth the toll?

    If it is.. people will use it.

    If there are better alternatives then the Airports Authority is going to be in deep doo doo.

    And..rest assured.. the financial folks who are going to capitalize … know full well.. that if the Airports Authority screws up – that the financial backers will be taking the bath…

    I alluded to Toll Authorities in which some toll roads will subsidize others.

    Maryland already does this.

    North Carolina is headed down that same path.

    And I understand that VDOT is also thinking this way … as the study they did on the proposed US 460 parallel alignment with I-64 showed .. DUH.. that folks would not pay tolls on the new road until and unless I-64 was chock-a-block.

    Yes.. some days.. it will happen.. but not likely every day..all day long..

    and that is what the study said.

    so.. VDOT suspects.. that the idea of subsidizing such a road with gas tax revenues is not likely… so their only other option is tolling…

  70. “Congestion does this right now.

    There are folks who go to work at 5am .. and leave at 2pm…

    there are folks who work 10 hours a day and take off a whole day.

    There are myriad ways to adapt.”

    But in NOVA ALL of those ways are getting maxed out. Congestion is mostly job related, even though commuters are but 20% of traffic.

    We need to move jobs someplace else. Which is exactly what tolls and congetion charges will do. It is just a stupid way to do it.

    RH

  71. re: “Yep. And were these GPS units created to address road pricing? No. They were created to address congestion. Congestion is self-regulating. There’s no need to impose some crooked government scheme on top of it for the benefit of politically powerful middlemen and the state.”

    What would you say if the GPS could show you alternative routes and travel times compared to the current TOLLed travel times?

  72. “We need to move jobs someplace else. Which is exactly what tolls and congetion charges will do. It is just a stupid way to do it.”

    Right.. I elect you to go tell the Pentagon that they cannot move jobs to Fort Belvoir and instead must locate outside of the existing congestion.

    And youse guys say the current HOT Lane concept is impractical!

    I’d say on that idea ..ya’ll need to meet up with EMR and go retire to a bar where after one or two Groveton-styled martinis ya’ll will agree on the concept of where jobs oughta be (and not be).

    Lucky for you – that the new HOT Lanes will NOT be named EMR’s Balanced HOT Lanes.

    😉

  73. “Every car that defers a rush hour trip.. or every car that pays a toll or every car that has multiple occupants to travel free on HOT.. all of these free up slots on the general purpose travel lanes. This is undeniable.”

    Yes it is. I deny it. Two issues:

    Currently, HOV opens to general purpose traffic at 9am and 6pm. That incentive to defer rush hour trips goes away with HOT lanes. DENIED.

    And the capacity will be the same on 395, it’s a multi-billion dollar lane restriping effort — i.e., the capacity is physically the same. 495 adds 2 extra lanes in each direction. That is real, new capacity and it is being built as fast as humanly possible — at a price that would make Bill Gates blush. and at a price your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will be paying off.

    “I think a good question is – What would be the fallback plan B if HOT lanes go belly up along with Transurban?”

    You can’t know because the agreements are “trade secrets.” Try to get the 95/395 draft contract, I dare you. As for the 495 contract, it has so many annexes and sub-agreements that you need to be a wizard to figure it out. Nobody independent has bothered reading the 495 deal, and nobody saw it until long, long after it was signed.

    Several toll projects in Australia went bankrupt after a year and quite a few observers expect the taxpayer to bear the burden. These Australians are con artists as you can see in this article about Macquarie Bank, which owns some US toll roads and just sold some Aussie tolls to Transurban. They both use the same accounting gimmicks.

    Dealing with the devil is never a good idea.

  74. re: “But in NOVA ALL of those ways are getting maxed out. Congestion is mostly job related, even though commuters are but 20% of traffic. “

    I’d challenge your oft-cited number if what you are saying is that only 20% of rush hour is home-to-work commuting.

    I think even Bob would call that one a stinker…

  75. “That incentive to defer rush hour trips goes away with HOT lanes. DENIED.”

    you mean they can’t make those trips?

    obviously that’s not true.

    they can still make their trips inside or outside of rush hour ..inside or outside of HOV.

    I agree with the I-395 assessment .. no new capacity but it congestion levels on it.. WILL CHANGE.

    re: the infrastructure reverts to VDOT if Transurban walks away.

    and Transurban WILL go broke if a majority of people do not agree that the HOT lanes are “worth” it.

    They may go broke anyhow.. the way the finance markets are currently operating…

    VDOT might get the whole shebang by default – literally.

  76. re: “Me either. I think that is the first place to start. “

    well jeeesusH…keeeerist…

    are you not the one who says such a process exists ?

    you crack me up guy.. we go through all this “stuff” and then you ask “who’s on first”?

    😉

  77. re: “How would we know? No one has ever done a full, comprehensive, systems analysis. It might turn out to be a lot better than you think.”

    we know because they’ve spent every single penny.. and we still have congestion.. and a 100 billion dollar backlog of unfundable projects.

    THAT’s a broken system.

  78. re: “The result is an adversarial situation, ecah side trying to get the “better” of the other side.”

    No… the result is a wide agreement among the majority of local and state and federal elected officials and transportation planners to do a PILOT project … to see if it works better than what we have now and seeing how there are few other practical alternatives.

  79. re: “Larry, you’ve also scrupulously avoided the topic of your pro-toll studies just happen to be funded by groups that are also the toll collectors. That’s an awfully important factor to weigh when judging options.”

    Are you saying that the Reason folks, Brookings Folks and EDF are in the toll road business?

    News to me.. but hey.. I really like the idea of EDF running the HOT lanes and putting profits into environmental advocacy.. and even sweeter.. it would drive Ray simply bonkers.

  80. re: “Several toll projects in Australia went bankrupt after a year and quite a few observers expect the taxpayer to bear the burden. These Australians are con artists as you can see in this article about Macquarie Bank, which owns some US toll roads and just sold some Aussie tolls to Transurban. They both use the same accounting gimmicks.”

    You mean like the gimmicks used by local officials with your auto taxes.. ??? or the Airports Authority gimmicks.. or how about the “gimmicks” where FHWA takes a billion dollars of your gas tax money and essentially gives it to the developers of Tysons?

    THOSE kinds of gimmicks.. that we’d not have if Transurban is not involved?

    tsk tsk.. Bob… what were you saying about those expensive drapes in the county fat cat offices?

    😉

  81. “Are you saying that the Reason folks, Brookings Folks and EDF are in the toll road business?”

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Look at Reason studies. Look at Reason studies that include Peter Samuel. Look at his website. Look at the advertisements on the left side of the page. That’s a direct payment from tolling companies into the pockets of the co-author of Reason Foundation pro-toll studies.

    Look at the top bankroller of Reason/Heritage/CATO: Koch Industries. They’re in the tolling game.

    Obviously enviros aren’t directly toll collectors, but they’re still rent-seekers. See my list above for an explanation.

    “You mean like the gimmicks used by local officials with your auto taxes.. ??? what were you saying about those expensive drapes in the county fat cat offices?”

    Ha! good one. But, really, Transurban/Macquarie perpetrate fraud on a monumental scale in comparison. Would you compare Enron’s fraud to Fairfax County’s? I wouldn’t. That’s like comparing the lead pitcher on a first-grader T-ball team to Roger Clemens.

    Plus, Fairfax’s waste is out in the open for all to see. Check out the government center some time.

    “he result is a wide agreement among the majority of local and state and federal elected officials and transportation planners to do a PILOT project”

    There’s no such thing as a “pilot project” in government. When’s the last time you saw a government program shut down?

  82. I knew that Samuels was associated with Both Reason and Toll Road News.. but there are other at Reason that are not.. and at Brookings and other groups…

    do you look at wiki?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_pricing

    do you consider them as pro-toll road?

    I think the word PILOT means this.

    They are fairly confident that he concept will not be a monumental failure but they are not 100% that it will function exactly as desired.

    So the “pilot” means what it says.

    It may not end up the way it is intended.. if things go a little or a lot sideways…

    and it’s basically a statement to that effect.. that the option of doing things differently is preserved.

    Could VDOT do a really bad deal?

    yup.. they did so with the Pocahontas Parkway…

  83. “do you look at wiki? do you consider them as pro-toll road?”

    Um, it would violate wikipedia rules if that article were pro-toll road. Hold on a second, I’m going to edit the page to state clearly: “Tolls are for Trolls.” There. I consider that page to be properly anti-toll road now.

    “They are fairly confident that he concept will not be a monumental failure but they are not 100% that it will function exactly as desired.”

    An eighty year pilot? Come on, where’s Mr. Political Realism? Pilot projects are always permanent because they give little people bureaucratic power that they are unwilling to relinquish.

    “I knew that Samuels was associated with Both Reason and Toll Road News.. but there are other at Reason that are not.. “

    Reason Foundation is funded by a toll road company. In fact, ‘founded’ may be the more accurate term. EVERYONE who works for Reason takes toll money. The effect is clear in their work which is transparent cheerleading for tolls. But! not just any tolls. Tolls collected by the state are bad (eg. the Pennsylvania Turnpike). Only private sector tolls are good. You know, the ones that Reason’s backers collect. I do like Reason on topics that do not affect their funding levels.

    I already mentioned that I haven’t done a background check on Brookings (the conclusion, as discussed, is patently absurd), but I have done the check on all the usual suspects. They all fit into one of the three rent-seeker categories. Especially your friend, Mary FORMER TOLL COLLECTOR Peters.

    Seriously, if Joe Camel were sworn in as surgeon general, would you trust his government reports?

  84. Larry, what appears below is a direct quote from The Washington Post (so it must be true). Please note that Koch Industries is the group that founded/funds Reason and CATO.

    Full article

    “As a consequence, private equity funds focused on transportation attracted an estimated $100 billion to $150 billion in 2006, according to industry analysts.

    The new opportunities for private equity have also created job opportunities for government officials. In the past three years, nine current and former top DOT appointees have worked for such funds or for engineering or construction firms interested in tolling projects subject to federal review.

    Gribbin is one of those officials.

    He came to the department in 2003 from Koch Industries, which has a road-building subsidiary and is owned by a prominent donor to Republican and libertarian causes. As general counsel at the Federal Highway Administration, he wrote a report to Congress praising private-public partnerships, citing a study he commissioned on the benefits of tolling while he was at Koch.

    That report also included ideas attributed to Macquarie Holdings, a major toll-road builder based in Australia. Gribbin left the federal government in 2005 to work at Macquarie, where he earned $265,000. He returned to the DOT last year as general counsel.

    Peters followed a similar path. She served as federal highway administrator from 2001 to 2005, then worked as a senior vice president at HDR, a construction firm with several tolling projects, where she was paid a salary and bonus of $225,833 to craft its public policy. She returned to federal government as transportation secretary in 2006.

    Peters said she sees no conflicts.”

  85. First of all a side note – if you see a post from Groveton’s Virginia, it’s me. Why two names? I had been fooling around with the idea of a blog of my own and had even written the first article. When Bacon’s Rebellion went black due to the expired domain name fee I thought Jim had pulled the plug for good. So, I wrote a couple more articles and published the blog. I wanted to use Groveton but that was taken as a WordPress ID by the good people of Groveton, TX. So, I dreamed up Groveton’s Virginia. In WordPress your User ID name is the same as your blog name. Since I was routinely logged on as Groveton’s Virginia my posts defaulted to that ID.

    I am debating whether to keep Groveton’s Virginia or pull the plug now that Bacon’s Rebellion is back on the air. I want to write about a broad set of topics that are not very overlapping with BR so maybe I’ll keep plugging away. My first three entries were a review of Barack Obama’s tenure since he was elected, a story about an NFL player from Chantilly, VA who as passed over by the Redskins and is now Rookie of the Year material in Denver and an analysis of the upcoming Fairfax County BoS chairman election necessitated by Gerry Connolly being kicked upstairs to … err … I mean elected to Congress.

    Anyway, sorry for any confusion.

  86. Bob:

    You are killing me with this thread. A couple of classics:

    “I’m going to edit the page to state clearly: “Tolls are for Trolls.” There. I consider that page to be properly anti-toll road now.”.

    “Larry, what appears below is a direct quote from The Washington Post (so it must be true).”.

    “Seriously, if Joe Camel were sworn in as surgeon general, would you trust his government reports?”.

    Man, that’s good stuff!

  87. Larry:

    Have you picked up a piece work job getting paid by the post? When I use my mouse to scroll up the right side of my browser looks like some demented squad of warplanes is carpetbombing the browser’s digital clock with Larry G daisey cutters. Reverse the scroll and it’s like one of those old cartoons where a cat dies and each of its nine lives takes flight upwards.

  88. Groveton.. I looked for your BLOG… no luck..

    is it online?

    I’ve looked all over.. no luck…

    re: Bob and the Toll Conspiracy

    good detective work.. sounds like there actually is a “usual cast of characters”.

    Read the Wiki for congestion pricing.. for more ….especially the section entitled criticisms.

    …fierce .. worldwide wherever it has been implemented…

    here’s my prediction.

    If tolls end up being a buck a mile – there will be a major backlash.

    It’s one thing for politicians to keep a low profile with respect to their support (or a lack of opposition) in support of the HOT Lanes.

    but with a backlash.. they’ll all be on the HOT seat.

    However.. as I’ve pointed out previously, the folks who will REALLY get it in the neck with a buck a mile tolls are not NoVa folks but exurban commuters …whose elected officials won’t have much of a direct role ….

    Many, many folks will start slugging… and riding commuter buses and VRE… perhaps even new BRT- type bus services will spring up ..

    and Bob.. speaking of subsidies..I’m sure you were/are aware that the Feds and many Fed contractors provide transit vouchers for their employees.

    So.. services like VRE are doubly subsidized. First.. by the levy of a 2% gas tax to the tune of about 1000 per rider..and then a second time with the Feds giving ( perhaps incorrect.. maybe ..providing discounted travel vouchers.)

    VRE ..by the way.. considers HOT Lanes as a huge threat to it’s business model…even though money from HOT Lane tolls will be given to VRE.

  89. Larry:

    Some additional thoughts following along the trajectory of your argument:

    1. Why stop at $1/mi economic vampire-ism? Make car ownership a capital offense. Hang all who are convicted. That should really put a damper on congestion. Oh, sorry … almost forgot, “but only in NoVA.”.

    2. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for new roads in NoVA. Hmmm…. Isn’t VDOT’s annual budget $4B out of a total state budget of $36B? So … it’s 11% of state expenditures. What if it was raised to 22% by cutting other things (like NoVA’s subsidies to school systems in counties with absurdly low property taxes)? Would doubling the budget help? Oh wait, I remember – any slowing in the flow of money from NoVA to RoVA schools will stop the economic miracle that is rural Virginia today.

    3. Maybe Virginia should line up for TARP funding for transportation. I mean like just get in line, look like you are a banker (sneer at everyone else in line), or from California (arrive stoned) or from New York City (drop an f – bomb every third word). When you get to the front of the line just mumble something and ask for $3.5B (like American Express), promise to turn VDOT into a regulated bank in return for the money. Say you cut back on annual bonuses. Then, spend all the money building roads in NoVA and go bankrupt anayway.

    See Larry G – that’s the problem with your arguments – you just don’t think big enough.

  90. re: “Have you picked up a piece work job getting paid by the post?”

    I’m just trying to keep up with Bob and Ray… but yes… we ought to tone it down…and will.

    Are you serious about having a blog or was that blather?

  91. re:” ..any slowing in the flow of money from NoVA to RoVA schools will stop the economic miracle that is rural Virginia today. “

    I’d probably have a more sympathetic view .. if NoVa actually was an economic powerhouse due to honest to pete Entrepreneurial efforts but since the NoVa largess is basically due to sucking on the teat of Fed deficit spending… there’s no reason for pride of ownership…and RoVa can claim that the only thing that NoVa did was manage to be adjacent to Wash DC and the Fed largess belongs as much to all Virginia as to the counties who did nothing different than other Va counties to actually gain it’s wealth…

    Put NoVa in SW Va .. and you’re going have just another county in SW Va with the folks in it fleeing to whatever county was moved to take it’s place.

    With regard to VDOT’s 4 billion budget – you need to go look at how it breaks down….especially with regard to how much money the gas tax itself actually generates.

    Prepare to be shocked.

    Virtually the entire construction budget in VDOT either comes from the Feds are from a separate general fund appropriation both of which are dwindling fast.

    But it would not matter anyhow.

    The problem in NoVa is as much or more so Physical as it is Fiscal.

    The HOT lanes are .. pretty much the last available right-of-way available.

    After that – NoVa is pretty much out of options in terms of adding physical capacity – even if EPA were inclined to grant waivers which did not happen with Bush and I would presume even less likely with Obama.

    Virginia’s Road budget problems …even if solved.. would not help NoVa’s transportation issues.

    but if you really like ironies… the Transurban HOT Lanes were/are financed with over a billion dollars of gas tax money.

    So there you go Groveton.. What RoVa took away .. the Feds gave back…and then some…

    and they took it from those poor folks in RoVa.. and Kentucky and Missouri…

    a subsidy worthy of ranking with the best of the best earmarks.

    actually.. you got two billion because the Feds gave another billion to the Dulles Metro… right..

    so what are you complaining about.. most cities would be jumping for joy if they go 2 billion bucks…

  92. “NoVa largess is basically due to sucking on the teat of Fed deficit spending”

    Very true, but there are probably more tech companies up here in NOVA than down there (ie. non-leeches). Does Hampton Roads’ success not come from the US Navy? Don’t forget the federal teat extends far beyond DC.

    “but if you really like ironies… the Transurban HOT Lanes were/are financed with over a billion dollars of gas tax money.”

    No, it’s worse than that. That’s just the initial cost. Taxpayers are going to be paying $1-5 a mile for this turkey for 80 years. If that Pocahontas thing — which has been empty every time I’ve seen it — makes about $14m/yr, you gotta figure the Beltway can churn out 10x traffic. $50m/yr? $100m/yr? That’s another $4 or $8 billion in cost to the NOVA taxpayers, not counting 80 years of toll increases beyond the rate of inflation.

    What’s the exact cost estimate Transurban and VDOT are using? Who knows. Do you? No, you don’t.

    It’s astonishing that you just trust this fraudulent, illegal-donating, book-cooking company — from an island where everyone’s the descendant of criminals — to cut a deal with the paragon of goodness and virtue and transparency that is Saint Timothy Kaine.

  93. re: tech companies

    How much of this is related to Fed agencies and work?

    If the Feds went away tomorrow would the high tech go with it?

    re: Navy, Hampton Roads, et al

    TRUE! In fact.. they (and Virginia) is having major heartburn at the Navy’s decision to move just one of the carriers to Mayport (Jacksonville) Florida.

    re: toll

    Virginia is not alone in it’s decision to do tolls.

    Are you opposed to ALL private-sector tolling from a concept point of view and THEN find specifics that back up your view..

    OR.. are you just opposed to private tolling done by companies with questionable reputations?

    The answer is important here in terms of your objectivity IMHO.

    If you are opposed to ALL private sector tolling .. or tolling in general then your criticisms of corruption are really no more relevant than someone opposed to most government and then cites specific instances of corrupt government as the basis.

    I support tolling as a concept.

    I think that the gas tax approach creates pots of money..ripe for misuse and inappropriate appropriation and that as long as we do funding this way.. the pots of money will be raided…

    Tolling on the other hand while not totally pure in it’s concept generally brings a quid-pro-quo transaction where the money does not go into a slush fund.. and profits motivate the operator to provide a service that folks are willing to buy.

    It’s true the opportunity to completely avoid the too may not be possible ..i.e. have direct competitors but just like with Dominion and other monopolistic services – you CAN reduce your costs and if the service is really bad and really expensive.. Government can turn some screws on the operation.

    I don’t agree with the basic premise that Transurban is basically a criminal enterprise nor that Australians tend that way because they have a criminal heritage.

    I think when these aspects are include in any discussion of the MERITS of tolling – they act as the equivalent of throwing verbal bombs.. and that the ultimate purpose of doing that – is to undermine the basis .. for tolling as a concept – as opposed to rebutting it on the merits.

    And …on the merits – I think simply that tolling connects the cost with the service better than the gas tax does.

    Is there corruption in tolling?

    In my mind – no more ..or less than other enterprises.. certainly not corruption as an entire industry.

    And if this is the basic theory – what does it say about Federal officials, State officials, the Gov.. U.S. Senators, across the board… KNOWLINGLY agreeing to a financial agreement with a known corrupt enterprise – not only in Va but nationally and worldwide..not only for roads but other public infrastructure like Airports and tunnels?

    At the end of the day.. my suspicion is that you’d be opposed to HOT Lanes tolling no matter how scrupulous the company doing it might be and that arguments opposed are opportunistic .. find the best dirt and apply…

    On the other hand, for myself – I feel that our current gas-tax funding …the entire process itself – regardless of who administers it – is inherently corruptive just due to the plain fact that pots of discretionary funding far from the eyes of those that were taxed – invites mischief but more than that – every penny will get spent – and they will come back for more… because the money was not spent on needs but rather wants.

    I think that in terms of “fixing”.. we have a better chance of “fixing” Transurban Tolling that we do – the current gas-tax funding regime because that opportunity is in play..every single time a customer pays a toll.

  94. Tolling is a fine idea as long as it is done the right way.

    1. Toll receipts are taxes. So, unless you openly admit you are raising taxes, any toll needs to be accompanied by a tax reduction in some other (presumably transportation related) area.

    2. Tolls are not the free market at work nor are they a public – private partnership. They are an outsourcing contract just like when an agency buys a government data center and then sells the use of that data center back to the agency one transaction at a time. The company not only recovers its cost of capital but a profit as well. All of this is brought about because the outsourcer is just that more efficient than the government agency.

    3. The percentage of transportation funding as a part of the state budget is minimal. By my rough calculations – about 11%. Increased funding for transportation will not break the bank. Also, the government is quite capable of borrowing sufficient funds to build roads and charge tolls to recover those funds (and not for 75 years either). Virginia, in particular, has debt capacity. This is not about finance, it is about secretly and permanently raising taxes.

    4. Government payments for accountants in DC, Marines in Norfolk or US Navy SEALs outside Richmond represent employment. People earn an income through their labor. In fact, the salaries paid by the US Government are low vs. the private sector. Contractors make more money but most government contracts are characterized by an overemphasis on cost (sometimes at the expense of quality). Bottom line – the government is an employer – just like Phillip Morris or Geico are employers. Virginia’s budget theivery does not represent employment at all. I would vastly prefer that the state fund jobs in Farmville rather than just paying for much of Farmville’s costs with money taken from urban and suburban Virginia.

    5. Tolling has more of a chance for corruption because it involves third parties – namely toll companies. This means that problems can arise from government – in the letting and managing of the contracts and from the operators themselves. In addition, sunshine laws can be bypassed through the declaration of trade secrets in toll contracts. Government is also inherently corrupt. The misuse of Dulles Toll Road revenues at present is just one example.

    6. Finally, and most importantly, “user pays” is only fair when all users pay. The present tolling scheme (scam?) in Virginia involves a tiny, small percentage of drivers working and/or living in NoVA paying a vast percentage of total toll revenues.

    These tolls are just another example of Virginia’s political elite instituting a tax increase under the cover of darkness using the dishonest term “public – private partnership”. I eagerly await the day when the first $1/mi tolls are charged to drivers in NoVA. NoVA’s politicians – from both sides of the aisle – will have some serious explaining to do.

  95. re: tolls are taxes.

    I agree but they are much more quid-pro-quo per use.

    I agree with number 2.

    3. increased funding – IF specifically targeted and directly accountable to citizens – yes..

    but to a slush fund – no.

    State tax and funding should be limited specifically and ONLY to roads of statewide significance.

    Local roads by tax and referenda.

    and regional roads – by regional concurrence with some direct accountability for citizens.

    government salaries – are fine – deficit spending for salaries is not.

    re: 5. Tolling has more of a chance for corruption because it involves third parties – namely toll companies.

    Groveton – do you know what percentage of VDOT work is ALREADY contracted out?

    Isn’t this ironic as much of the NoVa economy is privately-contracted Government work.

    re:Government is also inherently corrupt.

    Government is not… per se… if we have good accountability and it starts at the beginning with respect to taxes and spending.

    re: 6. Finally, and most importantly, “user pays” is only fair when all users pay.

    not when NoVa users are paying for RoVa roads.. would you not agree?

    What is the justification for localities to send money to Richmond and Washington to have most of it not spend on National and State level roads but instead allocated back to the localities and states?

    Why not restrict National and State taxes ONLY for specific National and State roads and priorities and the rest becomes what a locality and a region agrees to tax itself for the infrastructure that it needs?

    What we have.. is a GIANT Lottery/Ponzi Scheme right now…

    There is a mindset – that it is up to Washington and Richmond to “fund” transportation… and that the money to fund it..does not come from local taxation but instead from some mythical money tree that.. with the right kind of political machinations.. a locality and region can snarf their share and more…

    If we contract out all manner of products and services from taxes – including building and maintaining roads… your view that this is inherently corruptive because of 3rd parties what is your alternative?

    Do you REALLY want VDOT and FHWA Government employees building and maintaining roads?

    I believe you got a little wary of Obama after your initial favorable views.. and wasn’t it the taxation aspect?

    If VDOT and FHWA actually used ONLY Government employees to do roads – your taxes would skyrocket… and … worse.. RoVa would have a bunch of fancy new roads…courtesy of NoVa taxpayers…

  96. Perhaps the dichotomy between government vs private needs further philosophical exploring.

    There are more than a few things that both Government and Private do .. generally acceptably… without corruption.

    as I say that.. there are also obvious counter-examples.

    but isn’t it a bit interesting that the debate on tolls roads here.. will find both sides.. taking one view for one circumstance ..and then the opposite view in another circumstance.

    so.. roads done by VDOT are not near as corruptible as roads operated by private sector..

    but.. we ignore some really obvious counter examples – like the fact that virtually ever mile of asphalt is laid and maintained by the private sector and managed by VDOT.

    And we all have numerous examples of VDOT’s failures in management to include very un-cost-effective work.. moribund and inflexible processes that are not only expensive but non-responsive or snails-pace responsible to changing conditions.

    so here we have.. on the part of Groveton… Bob and Ray this conundrum…

    We cannot trust Transurban to do an honest job.. and .. we cannot trust VDOT to enter into an agreement that protects taxpayers but then we cannot trust VDOT to run a toll road itself.. like the Pocahontas Parkway…

    so.. we default back to the status quo – which is – a funding process that basically allows priorities and needs to be subverted by un-elected decision-makers.. using processes that 99% of the public does not understand.. AND ending up never with enough money and always wanting more…

    And.. as Bob has pointed out.. even local government.. will collect taxes on your car.. and turn around and NOT spend it on transportation infrastructure for your car… all the while complaining that the State has shirked it’s responsibility of funding transportation.

    And what are they asking the State to do?

    They’re asking the State to raise the taxes on their own constituents.. and to send that money to Richmond.. where it will be “reallocated” back to the localities where the tax was originally collected.

    Now I ask all of you.

    Is the process described above a good process?

    and no.. if you agree that it is a terrible process. I will not claim that it means you support tolling..

  97. Anonymous Avatar

    Is the process described above a good process?

    Does it mattter? You can have a terrible process and still manage to get good resuts.

    After the thing is done, no matter haow you go about it, is the general populace better off than otherwise, or not? Given that the average turns out to bepositive, are there significant winners and significant losers? If so, then that needs to be addressed.

    RH

  98. “tolls are taxes.

    I agree but they are much more quid-pro-quo per use.”

    first of all, nonsense. Agas tax is far more quid pro wuo on many different levels than a toll.

    Second, use doesn’t matter, benefit matters. I might drive forty miles to work, but if the service is so bad that it takes me three hours to do it, then where is the benefit I get for the toll (or fuel tax) that I pay?

    RH

  99. As usual Groveton hit the nail on the head.

    RH

  100. LarryG

    I think outsourcing is a fine idea. I just wonder about an outsourcing contract with a 75 year term. I think VA should own the roads and outsource the operation of the tolls with a 5 to 10 year term. My unborn grandchildren will be my age by the time a 75 year contract comes up for renewal. Does that seem right? What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”.

    Maybe the political elite in Virginia should stop dropping Mr. Jefferson’s name and start understanding his philosophy.

    I don’t have a basis to trust or mistrust Transurban. But I do have a basis for mistrusting our political elite entering into binding 75 year contracts with anybody. And that basis is none other than Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson.

  101. well.. it’s not a Virginia-only approach but it’s a relevant issue – I agree.

    But we also do this with Nukes.

    They are very long term investments.

    and probably some other large infrastructure such as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel have very long pay-back of the bonds…

    I plead mostly ignorance on how normal or legitimate such long term arrangements are.. and agree with the concern.

    Hey… take notice of the response in the housing thread – 40 years to provide mature transportation for Tysons.

  102. re: current “good” process.

    RH .. it’s not a good process that works or gives good benefits.

    Two Huge problems:

    1. – the first is that locals make land-use decisions without regard to how costly the infrastructure consequences will be – based on the premise that VDOT will come and fix it no matter what.

    this leads to very irresponsible decision-making on the part of local officials who then shirk accountability by claiming it’s VDOT’s responsibility.

    2. – Six Year Plans – take a look at them.

    http://syip.virginiadot.org/LineItems.asp?syp_scenario_id=127

    then notice that for each and every one of them -there is no start date nor an end date…

    so .. what is the “estimate” ?

    How can you estimate unless you have a start date and use an appropriate inflation factor?

    Then notice that there is an Fy-10 through FY-14 value and then a “Balance” column.

    So.. they’re stretching out the funding for each project over many years .. and I can tell you from experiences that each succeeding year – all these numbers change.

    The “estimates” usually go up (because they’re using a “today’s dollars” value instead of the build date inflation-adjusted date.

    and you know why they do this?

    Because they don’t have a build date to tell the public AND their process for funding can and does vary from year to year and a locality does not know from year to year what will happen much less have a firm idea of a start date.

    And then.. the worst of it.. is because of delays.. some of the projects in the 6yr plan.. that have been on the six year plan for years ..waiting to accumulate enough funding..

    they disappear.. they go away altogether…

    and the reason why this happens is because they have too many projects in the 6 year plan – because they do not account for inflation – with respect to the anticipated build year but instead from year to year.

    So.. year to year.. inflation eats their funding.. and then they have to go back and see what projects are going to get cut.

    Okay.. so you have these two really bad things going on.

    The local government tells it’s citizens that a new road that is needed because of their land-use decisions is “on the list” …to mollify citizens that they actually did not do something so stupid as to necessitate the building of a road that they had no money for.

    Nope.. it’s “on the list” for VDOT to do.

    VDOT…complies by putting it on the list – on the same list that they incorrectly deal with inflation factors…and they know that more than a few projects “on the list” will probably never get built.

    Meanwhile.. back at the ranch… the local elected are telling their voters that it is not their fault that VDOT has delayed or cut the projects “on the list”.

    so Ray.. you tell me this is a good process…

    Is this as bad as giving Transurban a 70 year agreement?

    I don’t know but I can tell you that the only good thing about the current process – is – that they have essentially run out of money.

    If Walmart built stores this way .. they’d go broke.. by low-balling the costs of new stores.. opening them years late.. and those stores would be costing them 3, 4, 5 times their initial planning estimates.

    So.. no.. we don’t get “good” benefits…

    Do you know what happens to things like rights-of-way and utilities and built-environments when you delay a road?

    They get a LOT more expensive.

    your initial estimate for the cost of a right-of-way is a fantasy.. if your project is on a list for 10 years…before you can actually buy that right-of-way … and yes.. VDOT will not buy a right-of-way until the project is at least 80%funded.

    Ask yourself this.

    What if VDOT had signed a contract with Transburan to provide the HOT lanes …using the same process that VDOT does for it’s road proposals.

    Transurban would say that they’d be done “sometime” whenever they saved up enough money to build them.. right?

    So Transurban says.. “no..we’re going to build them right away ..because the longer we wait..the more expensive they’ll be.. so we’ll go to the capital markets and borrow the money..

    ..but the amount is so large that the payback will take ..literally decades because they can only pay back as much as the tolls brings in on average.

    Is this why VDOT can’t successfully build and operate the Pocahontas Parkway.. because the same folks who do their 6yr plan .. applied the same principles to doing funding and tolling and bond payback..and the results of how well they did it – clear?

  103. Anonymous Avatar

    “Two Huge problems:”

    I’m not impressed. Two huge problems don’t say anyting at all about whether the whols sytemis working.

    ———————–

    Re, net social value. A key parameter that must be resolved in assessing many social cost benefit analyses is the statistical value of human life.

    USDOT uses a value of $5.8 million.

    But other agencies use different values. So a life saving polcy at one agency might be “worth more” than another life saving policy at another agency (with the same pricetag) – just because they choose to use a higher SVL.

    I thinke EPA uses 8.8 million, recently revised downward from 10.5 or so.)

    This is a key example of what happens when some property rights are valued more than other property rights of notionally equal value. Someone is going to get ripped off.

    Put another way, 11 million spent at VDOT might save two lives, but only 1.5 if EPA spends the money. On the other hand if both policies or projects are assumed to save the same number of lives, the EPA’s project is more likely to get funded.

    Whether Larry can see it or not, that is the inevitability of the math involved.

    How did USDOT come by their figure?

    They took the average of five metastudies (studies of many more studies):

    -Mrozek and Taylor (2001) — $2.6 million
    -Miller (2000) — $5.2 million
    -Viscusi (2004) — $6.1 million
    K-ochi et al. (2003) — $6.6 million
    -Viscusi and Aldy (2003) — $8.5 million

    Ther emight be a problem with USDOT’s method just because the individual studies overlapped in the metastudies and wer therfore double counted. But we might at leas be able to agree form this that the value isn’t less than one million and probably isn’t over 11 million.

    So, we ave a generally agreed range of values (at least among the practioners that do this work). Now all we need to do is narrow the range, and this alone will do a great deal to minimize arguments over what amounts to the highest net social value, simply because such calculations are heavily dependent on how much we value our skins.

    RH

  104. “How can you estimate unless you have a start date and use an appropriate inflation factor?”

    Exactly right. What you are complining about is what I have been saying all along: we need better accounting and more transparency.

    Better accounting means you need to know what money goes in what box, and who wons or is responsible for the box.

    Property rights, in other words.

    RH

  105. “If Walmart built stores this way .. they’d go broke.. “

    Invalid argument because it is not a systems approach.

    Walmart would lose money under your scenario but other people would make more money.

    Take all the affected people althogether: Walmart, all their customers, and all their vendors (and THEIRvendors), Walmart employees, and THEIR vendors. Analyze both e conditions over ten years or so and see which one provides a better result.

    THEN you can say whether the whole system has a problem or not, based on some percieved problem with WalMart.

    Same goes with VDOT expenditures or any other.

    RH

  106. “BLOOMBERG — Jack Rosser’s doctor says taking Pfizer’s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.’s National Health Service says that’s not worth the expense.

    The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

    Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS — the government agency that funds the nation’s health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.”

    Like I was saying about SVL…..

    “Rosser’s wife, Jenny said “It’s immoral. They are sentencing him to die. The policies seem aimed more at saving cash than treating people.”

    Well, yeah, but how many people?

    RH

  107. “..but the amount is so large that the payback will take ..literally decades “

    This goes to waht Groveton and Jefferson were saying.

    Nowadays we have a lot of talk about not putting our grandchildren in debt (even if we give them a lot of infrastructure), and a lot more talk about sustainability (presumably forever).

    But all of that boils down to what we think is an appropriate discount rate for policy.

    After all, if you try to save something an infinity into the future, then the net present value of that today is zero. Therefore a primary question we as conservationists need to answer is “How long are we saving for?”

    RH

  108. my self-imposed limit on any one thread is 100 comments (and I suspect others here would urge a 50 or 25 comment limit).

    there will be plenty of future threads to continue wider ranging debates..

    so.. I’m outta this thread.

  109. Yeah, well, things like triage, statistical value of human life, and the thermodynamic underpinnings of economics scare a lot of people off.

    RH

Leave a Reply