Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

WaPo SPEAKING

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Summarizing what officials told him without a direct quote, Tim Craig said the following yesterday in a Metro Section story titled “Va. Transportation Bill On Verge of Approval:”
“Traffic congestion will continue, they say, but might not be as bad as it would have been without the new revenue.”

That is a “the glass is way, way half full” statement. It is far more optimistic than any rational person (Craig was paraphrasing “officials”) would describe the situation.

Jim Bacon’s last two posts are right on! Official actions on land use patterns and densities and the transport systems intended to provide access and mobility are taking citizens in the wrong direction at an increasing speed.

There will be no improvement in access and mobility, regardless of how much money is spent on which facilities unless there is a Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and that will require a Fundamental Change in governance structure.

You have heard that before but here is a new twist: In the same paragraph as the above quote, Craig also said the northern part of Virginia population “… is expected to grow by more than 500,000 residents over 20 years…”

In today’s WaPo N. C. Aizenman cites new data from the US Census Bureau suggesting that the “Metro Area Growth Has Scaled Back Considerably” with an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent.

So, not to worry the population is not growing very fast.

But wait! A multiplier of 1.007 results in a population growth of 792,041 over 20 years. If this is true, then population has slowed but is still growing faster than the 500,000 projection suggests.

Then again, the census numbers are for “The Washington area” also called the “the Washington Metropolitan region.” Just what it this? The “new” Washington Primary MSA or something else? See our column “Where is Northern Virginia?” from 11 August 2003.

We have not had a chance to run down the numbers but we would suspect that if one used the Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region for the July 2005 to July 2006 estimates, the growth rate for the real region was a lot higher than 0.7 percent per year.

If you can make sense out of this apply to WaPo for an editors job. Otherwise, stay tuned into Bacons Rebellion.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

19 responses to “WaPo SPEAKING”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The population may or may not grow by 500,000 people in the next 20 years, who really knows.

    I say it won’t if numbers like the ones posted on the blog below continue to be the “new norm”. Look on the right side of the page for the “highlights” if you care to call it that.

    http://novabubblefallout.blogspot.com/

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Let’s set aside, for the moment the idea that we don’t have the most efficient settlement patterns.

    My question is – for the settlement patterns that we do have – have we built an acceptably efficient and effective transportation network to serve it?

    EMR might view this as not possible because of the underlying inefficiency of the settlment patterns but I would suggest that nirvana is not around the bend for neither settlement patterns or transportation network efficiency.

    In the here and now – while we work toward improving settlement patterns – we still have to respond to traffic congestion and transportation network efficiency.

    For what we have right now – for NOVA – what is the appropriate mix of road and rail and (I think) bus rapid transit… ??

    If you’re going to raise 400 million dollars a year – wouldn’t a first step be to set up a process to get the most bang for the buck?

    What are the 10 most congested roadways in the Washington Area and what are the best options (most cost effective responses) for reducing congestion on those roads?

    Does anyone seriously think that building 400 million dollars worth of new roads… picked almost by whimsy in terms of process is a good approach EVEN if the EPA would stand aside on the air quality issue?

    I see the road issue in stark terms.

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Traffic congestion will continue, they say, but might not be as bad as it would have been without the new revenue.”

    That is a “the glass is way, way half full” statement. It is far more optimistic than any rational person (Craig was paraphrasing “officials”) would describe the situation.”.

    “…might not be as bad as it would have been…”?

    That’s far more optimistic than any rational person would describe the situation?

    It seems like a very cautious statement. Hopefully, things will not be as bad as they would have been if we spend more money to address priorities.

    Thing may not be good or good enough or even worth the money spent but “not as bad as they would have been” – I think that’s a safe statement.

    Near term (next 5 years) – fixing road chokepoints and building multi-modal tranportation should be the focus. This period should also see the enactment of “low carbon” legislation and taxes that will, in time, result in the mid term improvement (see below). This period should also see the wholesale changes in zoning laws which will result in the long term solution (see below). So, near term, we fix bottlenecks, build out rail and pass laws that encourage distributed business and more functional zoning.

    Mid-term (5 to 15 years)- we need a combination of legislation, regulation and penalizing taxation to force businesses to distribute their workforces. Take the 10 employers in Farifax, Arlington and DC who employ the most people in Stafford County. Tell them that they are going to pay a large “carbon footprint” tax for every employee who commutes more than 15 miles each way to work. What happens? They could try to fire all of the employees but there aren’t potential employees who live closer, will take the current salary and have the required skills. So – that’s out. They will build satellite offices in places like Stafford, equip them with the new telepresence technology from companies like Cisco, HP, Teliris and Polycom.

    What does the company get?

    Avoids the carbon tax.
    Keeps more employees.
    Trades expensive real estate in NOVA / DC for less expensive real estate in Stafford.
    May be able to pay employees less given better work – life balance.

    What does the employee get?

    His/her life back by not commuting through the teeth of rush hour traffic.
    Lower costs to work with less fuel, less wear and tear on car, etc.

    What does the government get?

    Less pollution and lower carbon emissions.
    Lower costs through a decreased need for road maintenance and build.
    Acceleration of the long term trend toward functional settlement patterns.

    Long term (15 – 50 years) – Functional settlement patterns.

    A combination of zoning, multi-modal transportation, distributed employment and the free market’s reaction to new profit opportunities eventually create a situation where people live, work, play and shop in the same area. People walk and ride bikes some of the time, take mass transit some of the time and driver their cars short distances some of the time. Gone is the gridlock, people driving 25,000 miles per year based on their work commute, etc.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    The reason that “the way way half full statement” is so bad is this:

    As long as “officials” do not call a spade a spade there is no chance for the public to support the sort of measures you outline or the many others that are also needed.

    Most important are to fairly allocate the cost of location-variable goods and services and to change the full impact of transport choices such as private Autonomobiles and air travel.

    Until governace practitioners (“Officials”) are honest, the public will keep doing what they have been in the voting booth and in the market place.

    Larry:

    This is also the reason that your “set aside for the moment” the whale on the beach is a “reasonable” approach but contributes to the slide toward entropy.

    EMR

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    By the way:

    We looked into the numbers and we were right.

    The silly Census Bureau changes to shrink the Washington MSA is the cause of the “decline” in population.

    If you add back in the Hagerstown / Martinsburg, Winchester, Fredericksburg, and Greater Culpeper / Culpeper numbers along with all the others that are in the New Urban Region, the growth has not slowed that much. As noted even if growth had declined it would still far over shoot any 500,000 projection.

    EMR

  6. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 6:48

    Interesting data and not unlike what we have been seing for six months are R=40 + / -.

    This is the fourth such swing we have seen in the northern part of VA and these things always start at the fringe and at the top of the market.

    Your suggestion that the drop in prices will slow population growth (I think that is what you are saying) is not well thought out. The biggest obstical to job growth and population growth is high cost of housing.

    So long as there is a “buy our way out of terrorism” and “subsidize consumption” governments at the federal, state and municipal level job growth will continue.

    EMR

    EMR

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    EM

    I see you point, re: honesty. That’s a huge problem from the incumbent Virginia politicians. No transparancy, no comprehensible analysis. Manipulated statistics. Interntionally dishonest commentary.

    I believe the current crop of Virginia politicians find it much more interesting to play machine / party politics and are willing to be systematically dishonest in order to be good party boys and girls.

    Population growth is a fact of life in America. It will not abate. States and counties can either participate or try to drop out of supporting this inevitable population growth.

    In my opinion, those who want to drop out of supporting the growing US population are not “preserving lifestyles” – they are plainly unpatriotic and un American. There certainly needs to be a lot of better thinking about how to support a growing population. However, in my opinion, all plans should start with the assumption of a growing population and assume that all jurisdictions will participate in supporting this growing population.

  8. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “My question is – for the settlement patterns that we do have – have we built an acceptably efficient and effective transportation network to serve it?
    …. nirvana is not around the bend for neither settlement patterns or transportation network efficiency.”

    Good question. Problem is that if you work both problems simultaneously, you may be working at cross purposes. If you work either one alone you may suffer inefficiency for twice as long.

    “wouldn’t a first step be to set up a process to get the most bang for the buck?”

    Yep, but the problem is that there is no real concensus on what that is, or how to measure it. The scientific evidence is mixed at best, and tainted with political ideology.

    I think Groveton has hit it right on the head and is advocating policies that I was originally roundly derided for proposing back in the days of the infamous HYDE/EMR debates.

    Fix the chokepoints and expand multimodal transportation, being careful not to go off the deep end, with it.

    I think Groveton has accurately suggested wht the government and employers have to gain, as well as the employees. He has suggested that one way to charge the full impact of location variable goods and services is to charge a carbon tax for thos businesses that create the most need for daily movement: this is a lot different than simply sending the bill to commuters.

    “free market’s reaction to new profit opportunities eventually create a situation where people live, work, play and shop in the same area.”

    This is where I fall aff the turnip wagon. I think the free market constantly creates an incentive for people to live, work, play, and shop in different areas. The idea that we can create policy to change this behavior is tantamount to reducing freedom in the free market or reducing freedom to travel.

  9. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Wow, thanks alot Ray 🙂

    In this one post you helped me figure out why I always had this weird feeling about EMR’s plan.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The idea that we can create policy to change this behavior is tantamount to reducing freedom in the free market or reducing freedom to travel.”

    Agree – if the free market is in play to start with.

    Suppose it is not. Suppose policies right now actually encourage and incentivize behaviors that are not in the collective interest?

    For instance, not charging commuters for the air pollution and congestion that they do generate – means there is no reason to not drive SOLO everyday in a SUV at rush hour.

    So the question is – is driving an SUV SOLO 100 miles a day at rush hour – a free market behavior?

    I would submit that if there is no difference in cost incurred between that behavior and someone who does not drive an SUV SOLO at rush hour then it may not be a free market to start with.

    Roads, especially new roads in urban areas with pollution caps are a finite and limited resource.

    Any commodity in a free market that is finite and limited – adjusts demand by price or there are shortages.

    I would posit – that road capacity fits this definition and I would cite even METRO as responding to it by charging higher fees for rush hour on the subway.

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Well, my Toyota Prius is 175 inches long, a Ford Explorer is 189 inches. If we all swithc to shorter cars, that would save us 8 or ten percent of our highway capacity. I don’t know what the difference in pollution is, but I suspect it is significant.

    ————————

    On the subject of reducing VMT, UPS now has customized maps drawn for every drivers route. The route is selected to avoid left hand turns because UPS has found that waiting for a turn wastes fuel and increases pollution.

    What do you suppose this says about grid street layouts and the need to reduce VMT?

    —————————–

    Larry, sometimes your logic is twisted. Who ever said the free market was supposed to incentivize behaviors that are in the best collective interest? I think the idea is specifically that it incentivizes behavior that is in our own best interests. If we all do what is singly in our own best interests then collectively what we will have achieved is in the best interest of all, by definition. The highest social good is merely the sum of all the individual goods.

    We have more pollution in the cities. Until recent times, living in the city meant you lived a shorter life because of it. People moved out of the city to get away from it. Even if they create more pollution traveling back and forth, they are probably better off by spending less time in it: and certainly their families who don’t go to the city are better off. It is an open question whether just because we create more pollution by commuting, that we aren’t still collectively better off by subjecting fewer people to it.

    The market, and the rapid exodus from the cities suggests this is the (perceived) case.

    What we have elected to do is submit to a shortage of highway space and clean air while engaged in the city. Those that can afford it “buy” clean air and more space by escaping from the city, to the extent that they can.

    “not charging commuters for the air pollution and congestion that they do generate – means there is no reason to not drive SOLO everyday in a SUV at rush hour.”

    Sure there is a reason. The SUV costs more to operate and own, but that cost is compensated for with other benefits. Charging someone for using and polluting the air suggests that someone owns it. Charging someone for using the existing road space suggests that someone owns it.

    Who do you suppose that would be? Like Ratso Rizzo said at the party “If it’s free, you ain’t stealing it.” If the air belongs to all of us and we collectively set ourselves up in business to charge for its use, then where does the money go? Who gets the profit? If it is ours and we are charging ourselves to use it, then where is the market in that?

    What you are suggesting is that we charge people who use more than their share. That would imply that the money should go to those who use less than their share: retired people with low metabolism sitting around the nursing home, or something.

    How about those that produce the air? I support and cultivate 180 acres of plants, at no small expense, producing tons of fresh air every day. Meanwhile, somewhere in the city there are 180 people living on one acre using air and producing none, shouldn’t they pay, too?

    You want to create a market in air, hey, I’m all for it. It is exactly what I have been saying: if you want to preserve open space, find a way to make it profitable. I’ll switch to growing bamboo, because it grows four times as fast and creates more clean air.

    Then I’ll sell it to make cellulosic ethanol for the SUV drivers.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Your argument makes it sound as if this is the commuters fault, that they chose this system.

    In fact, the planners and politicians did this by creating enclaves of businesses to which people must travel. Let’s send THEM the bill.

    When we talk about eliminating congestion by kicking the businesses out, then the argument is raised that the businesses have settled there because of the market: it is in their own best interests to be co-located, we say. It is in ther own interest to be centrally located to reduce the diistance to their customers, as in your example of the supermarket refirgeration mechanic.

    So, why do we incentivise such behaviors, which are clearly not in the collective interest?

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Charging someone for using and polluting the air suggests that someone owns it.”

    Who gave anyone the right to pollute?

    When we pollute – we spread harmful substances that harm the health of children and the elderly.

    Who gave you that right and more important what is the reason to not curtail your activities once we have found out that there truly is harm?

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Who ever said the free market was supposed to incentivize behaviors that are in the best collective interest?”

    The free market – by charging a price commenserate with the demand will provide the desired commodity.

    This IS in the collective interest of all .. say for electricity – because if you don’t charge what it actually costs to produce electricity or even worse – you charge those who use more the same as those that use less – then you will end up with shortages and unreliable supplies.

    This DOES harm the collective interests.

    When you charge 17 cents a gallon to use very expensive highway infrastructure – you:

    1. – don’t charge enough to pay for it.

    2. – you charge those that drive at rush hour the same exact amount that those who don’t – even though extra lanes are required for all of those that drive at rush hour.

    This is not about “fault”.

    This is like saying it is your fault that you wish to take advantage of a subsidy.

    It’s not your fault – it’s the fault of those that provide a good or service for less than cost.

    Private companies don’t do this or if they do – they become non-companies in short order.

    Governments do this – obstensibly to provide for the “public good” but is it truly a “public good” if what we end up creating giant congestion “machines” – as a result of NOT using a market based quid pro quo for service?

    If you want to get rid of congestion – do one simple thing:

    Make sure that everyone pays for whatever level of infrastructure is needed to provide them with acceptable service – vice charging a ridiculously low fee that is not equitable with respect to use either.

    Then give folks a choice. Either pay extra for more infrastructure that your SOLO SUV needs at rush hour – or let folks choose what parts of that economic equation they want to use or not use in their own lives.

    This is simple. If you want a car with a navigation system – the cost and the decision belong to you – not the other car buyers.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “The free market – by charging a price commenserate with the demand will provide the desired commodity.”

    Again, this assumes that someone owns the object that has a price set upon it. And it ignores the alternate possibility: that we will simply have shortages and unreliable supply. This only harms the collective interests of those that wish to avail themselves of whatever is in short supply all at once and in one location. Everyone else can go later or go someplace else.

    If we don’t give anyone the right to pollute, then we should shut down all cars indiscriminately, in fact, all transportation, regardless of distance traveled or time of travel.

    That is unlikely.

    Instead we will charge more for driving, which implies that you DO have the right to pollute and congest, provided you pay enough.

    Now the only argument is who pays, on what basis, and how much. I don’t understand why you complain the gas tax is not high enough, and then lobby against increasing it.

    You have said that EPA will not allow more roads, and that roads in the urban areas are fantasticaly exxpensive. Even if you find a way to charge enough for the infrastructure, there is no practical way to build it in the locations it is required.

    The fact remains that congestion and pollution are primarily controlled by the government, not by private businesses, and therefore there is no real market. In order to have a market, you must be willing to allow someone to make a profit.

    So if we pay for the right to congest and pollute, and if the government is not going to provide more infrastructure to reduce either one, then where does the money go? Who gets the profit? The pollution is still going to happen, maybe the money should go to the children and elderly it harms, just as I suggested.

    Even when a profit is allowed, it may not be possible to provide the goods: pollution will still harm children and the elderly, not to mention those that are driving in it. When a company provides a good at its actual cost plus profit, and if that cost is too high for the market to bear, then it also becomes a non-company in short order, Aston-Martin for example. VRE and Metro are others.

    “Governments do this – obstensibly to provide for the “public good” but is it truly a “public good” if what we end up creating giant congestion “machines” – as a result of NOT using a market based quid pro quo for service?”

    Why are we arguing? I agree completely. We have created giant congestion machines, and we are not charging those that benefit from them for the level of infrastructure that is required to provide them with an acceptable levels of services. We are not charging the cogs in the congestion machines the full locational cost of the services they require: that of providing employees. If we did that, then they would move someplace else where the goods can be provided at lower cost.

    ———

    I am required to ensure that the water which leaves my property is clean: I have no right to pollute it. But ensuring that it leaves the property clean comes at a cost. It is not free. Fairfax county later sells the water to people who flush it down their toilets. They do not pay the included market price of obtaining that water: the price that it costs me to supply it.

    I could use the water first, and then clean it up, same as Fairfax does at the sewage treatement plants, but in point of fact, that option is prohibited to me.

    I am required to maintain the plants on my property which clean the air. I am not allowed to use that property for anything else. This is not free either, it comes at a cost.

    So, you cannot claim the “own” right to clean air and clean water unless you are willing to pay what it costs to provide, anymore than you can claim the right to drive on uncongested highways or uncrowded metro cars unless you are willing to pay for what you “own”.

    The demand for a desired commodity, the absence of harm in this case, requires that we charge a price commensurate with the cost of meeting that demand. We already recognize this to some extent through the application of lower “land use” taxes.

    But the demand for the goods and services I supply is increasing, and my ability to supply it is not, meanwhile the costs of providing them are increasing. Like any other business, I cannot continue this way. It is not a question of WHETHER these goods and services will be paid for, it is only a question of the commensurate price, and which market mechanism we will use to pay for them.

    One way we pay for them now is through higher home prices, but that stream of cash flow is diverted from me through prohibition. As a result, the value of my property is artificially low, and the taxes paid are artificially low. This is how everyone else pays for “green infrastructure” at present.

    I’m not convinced they are paying enough. I believe that either the commensurate value is more than is being paid, or it is being paid to someone else.

    If you want to get rid of congestion/pollution – do one simple thing:

    Make sure that everyone pays for whatever level of infrastructure is needed to provide them with acceptable service – vice charging a ridiculously low fee that is not equitable with respect to use either.

    Now all we have to do is figure out who consists of everyone, how much they should pay, and to whom. The market will do that, if we let it.

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    nova_middle_man:

    Sorry to cause unease and a “weird feeling.” It is called “reality.”

    Freedom of movement is not free, it comes at a cost.

    Travel takes interest and health for a short haul.

    It takes time and resources for longer destinations. The farther you go and the faster you want to travel the more resources it takes.

    If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

    In large New Urban Regions reliance on private vehicles (Autonomobility) for more than a few is a dead end. It violates the laws of physics and economics.

    The Private Vehicle Mobility Myth is the obverse of reality.

    “Balance in “Balanced human settlement patterns” means a configuration that suits the largest number of citizens with the least expenditure of time and resources.

    Those who live in a fantasy land and/or make money from dysfunction hope citizens will not come to understand reality before that make as much as they can.

    And, by the way, we do not have a “plan” we have a democratic process based on reality.

    EMR

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “this assumes that someone owns the object that has a price set upon it.”

    do you think the object was not paid for?

    do you think that the state owning it is the same as collective ownership?

    who do you think pays to maintain it?

    do you think that schools and libraries have no owner?

    there is indeed an owner, even if it is the government and no – you don’t have to make a profit to put in place supply/demand market economics.

    Goods and services are indeed supplied at cost for a wide variety of things but no service survives if they don’t charge at least enough to cover the costs.

    In private industry – you go broke.

    In government – you subsidize.

    re: pay to pollute

    wrong again.

    You pay … to clean up.. the pollution you generate.

    That’s why your car costs several hundred dollars more than a model that would have no pollution equipment on it.

    that’s why your electric bill has incorporated into the charges – what it costs Dominion to remove pollution from it’s generating plants.

    The Chesapeake Bay TMDL – nutrient removal will result in increased costs passed on to water users to upgrade the plants to remove nitrogen and phosphorous.

    But be advised – that there are two ways to do this:

    1. – charge on a per user basis according to how much you pollute

    2. – charge everyone the same amount no matter how much you pollute.

    Quess which way results in higher taxes and costs?

    It’s the same with rush hour congestion.

    If you pay the same amount for gasoline no matter when you drive – you don’t care if your own driving habits actually result in the need for additional rush hour capacity infrastructure.

    But if you had to pay directly for that extra infrastructure that YOU need for rush hour – instead of forcing everyone to pay the same – no matter when/where they drove – then since it is YOUR money – and you can control how much you want to spend or not – then you will take a much more personal interest in it.

    and it goes right back to the simple concept that if you have to pay for what you consume and for what you pollute and the cost will vary according to how much you use – then you will make economic choices.

    When something is subsidized by all taxpayers no matter how much is consumed – consumption is almost always higher than tax revenues.

    This is why we have congestion.

    do one simple thing.

    Charge exactly what it costs to provide infrastructure strictly according to how much infrastructure that you individually consume.

    Then you can and should always have the freedom to live, work and play wherever you wish – as long as you bear the financial consequences of doing so.

  18. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    EMR

    I respect you alot

    However, convincing people to give up their cars is going to be a very very tough sell

    Additionally having a majority of citizens trust the government to make the best landuse decisions is another tough sell

    I wish you the best but In general I agree more with Ray Hyde

    I can see how you guys used to argue back and forth :-p

  19. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    nova_middle_man:

    You said:

    “However, convincing people to give up their cars is going to be a very very tough sell

    “Additionally having a majority of citizens trust the government to make the best landuse decisions is another tough sell”

    Both of these statements are not “howevers,” I agree with them.

    First, “they” (nor you and I) will give up our cars or SUVs until they are able to understand reality and do the calculations for themselves. Billions in advertising, including political advertising, convinces them to continue to follow the path of Mass Over-Consumption, Business-As-Usual and Politics-As-Usual.

    Second, no one will trust government (or even governance) until it is restructured to reflect existing economic, social and physical reality.

    Citizens have to first trust the governance closest to their Household and their Dooryard –Cluster and Neighborhood governance — and there is none.

    The system we have is based on the 5% / 95% agricultural economy of 1770 reflected in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789. Citizens of the US of A now live in a 95% / 5% urban society.

    The most important building block of contemporary society is the New Urban Region (or what ever you want to call the dominant urban agglomerations where 85 % of the population live work and seek services and recration). There is no New Urban Region governace structure.

    We hope in TRILO-G, to make it easier to understand reality because now it is, as you note most comfortable to believe those with afflicted with Geographic Illiteracy who make money from Business-As-Usual or have so painted themselves into a idological corner that there is no exit. Even when they make rational observations they have no vocabulary or conceptual framework to express reality.

    EMR

Leave a Reply

Read More