Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

“Well Within Reach”

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia has issued an important new report on transportation, “Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda.” The report is the brainchild of former Gov. Gerald Baliles, the last governor of Virgina to think seriously about transportation.

I haven’t had time to read it closely enough yet to provide any thoughtful comments, but a quick glance suggests that the report does incorporate some new thinking, as evidenced from this quote in the executive summary: “Funding for the Highway System was intended to come from drivers, but the current fuel tax no longer creates a direct link between charges and use. We must return to a ‘pay as you go’ system.”

Emphasis on “user pays” — good.

Ignoring the relationship between transportation and land use — bad.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

38 responses to ““Well Within Reach””

  1. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    A) An adequate fuel tax is the most direct and most efficient and the fairest way to create a link between uses and payers.

    An adequate fuel tax charges simultaneously for weight, horsepower, speed, distance, and driving habits, although it may not charge adequately for weight.

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

    B) Who are the users of the highways other than the users of the land?

    If you choose to manage traffic volume by limiting land use you then violate your own precept that the users should pay, because in this case, the people who will pay the most are the people who are prevented from developing their land and therfore use the roads the least.

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

    C) Recently I was driving on Route 66, the main road into the city from the west. Looking at it I sudenly realized that it is about the same size as any one of the dozen or more east west boulevards in the Phoenix area.

    Suddenly it dawned on me how pitifully inadeuate that road is for the task it has been assigned. If you insist on making a link between land use and highways, then the link that has to be made is the understanding that you need to use a lot more land for highways.

  2. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Transportation Schizophrenia.

    "It [poor transportation] compromises our productivity
    and ability to compete internationally; transportation users pay for the system’s
    inefficiencies in lost time, money and safety. Rural areas are cut off from economic opportunities and even urbanites suffer from inadequate public transportation options. Meanwhile, transportation-related pollution exacts a heavy toll on our environment and public health."

    …………

    "…our system is no longer adequate. During the next two decades, the demand for ransportation in this country is going to more than double. But we are already falling far behind with the demand as it is. Our lifeline is tangled. Today we are
    confronted by traffic jams. Today we are confronted by commuter crises, by crowded airports, by crowded air lanes, by screeching airplanes, by archaic equipment, by safety abuses, and roads that scar our Nation’s beauty.”

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

    Emphasis mine.

    News flash:

    Transportation systems use land that might otherwise be beuatiful, unspoiled, and of little use.

    Transportation systems consume energy, they are dangerous, and generally bad for our health.

    We can work to minimize the effects, but those facts are not going away, and we cannot solve our transportation problems if we first insist upon "no damage".

    The improtant pats are:

    1)Our systemis no longer adequate.
    2) this damages our economy and our ability to compete.
    3)We are paying for new roads whether we get them or not, because without them we pay in inefficiency.
    4) We need TWICE the transportation capacity we have now, and that may be an understatement.

  3. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "…the disparity in transportation investment as a percent of
    GDP is large and shows the United States—at 0.6 percent—lagging well behind major
    trading partners such as Russia (1.4 percent), central and Eastern Europe (1.3 percent),
    and Western Europe (1.85 percent)."

    How about that, Larry?

    Despite the apparent advantage in land use patterns in Western Europe, they are spending THREE TIMES as much as we do on transportation development/investment.

    Forget about saving money with that land use structure, and in fact, plan on spending a lot more because of it.

  4. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Fuzzy thinking

    Realizing such [ a transportation] agenda would have a number of pay-offs—the most important of these benefits are briefly discussed below.

    Payoff #1: Winning in the Global Marketplace
    Payoff #2: Investment in Expanded Transportation Options, Including
    High-Speed Rail and Other Innovations
    Payoff #3: Funding Mechanisms that Get the Incentives Right
    Payoff #4: More Efficient and Reliable Air Travel
    Payoff #5: Less Time Wasted in Traffic
    Payoff #6: Lower Long-Term Costs to U.S. Taxpayers and to the Economy as a Whole

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

    I accept #1, #4, and #5 as benefit, and I'll accept as benefits #3 and #6, with reservations.

    But how do you count investing in high speed rail (and other options) as a benefit?

    That's a COST, folks, not a benefit.

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Bacon – you got to be kidding. You're going to believe anything that comes out of that UVA nest of lying socialists?

    Why I bet they squandered tax money on that fallacious rag.

    Where is Cuccinelli when we REALLY need him?

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The problem with the gas tax is that it gets collected and delivered to unelected people using processes not understood by the public and those funds are vulnerable to being intercepted by private interests seeking to increase the value of their land via transportation infrastructure.

    No better example that the Metro extension taking billions of dollars of gas tax money from other jurisdictions to benefit private developers in Tysons who STILL WANT MORE tax dollars.

    It's just as bad at the State level where the CTB – well represented by developers who believe that highway money should be used as much for economic development as for better, safer, less congested transportation networks.

    The Feds have made it even worse by creating MPOs which are made up of local officials – not elected to the MPO – who often are in cahoots with developers.

    This has totally undermined trust in the MPOs in many places including Hampton Roads where citizens see the MPO as cabal of unelected yahoos who don't really care about the average citizens commute but instead are tuned to port interests – again economic development – but worse than that – economic development based on very questionable premises without a cost-benefit process.

    If we had a profit from every road built to serve economic development – we'd be rolling in excess transportation dollars.

    The truth is the opposite and what has happened is that both Federal and State Gas Tax have been used and abuse for private purposes and not public needs.

    The very best way in my view is to make the locality responsible for locality roads and let them collect the gas tax or that purpose.

    If they want to join other localities to do regional roads – then they better be paying attention to the citizens that pay the taxes.

    I still support tolls on commuter roads and interstates and interstates that have been co-opted for commuting.

    Let the people who want robust rush-hour infrastructure – pay for it.

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The report, by the way, is a picture-book rehash of the problem and the supposed solutions to include a belief that the an increase in the gas tax is fiscally and political not feasible.

    they suggest indexing and VMT.

    I only found two instances of "toll" and not unanimous support.

  8. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "The gasoline tax, which has
    been in place for 56 years, was last increased in 1993. It has lost more than a third of its
    purchasing power since then, resulting in chronic under-funding of the HTF and the
    need for general fund bailouts. Because it is established and familiar,….the gas tax [is] a natural instrument for increasing revenues in the short term.

    Of course, it has been suggested that over a longer period of time, a substantially higher fuel tax ……. would create incentives for higher mileage or alternative fuel
    vehicles. While this might be desirable from a number of policy perspectives….it is politically
    unfeasible and would dampen the net increase in revenues generated by the fuel tax."

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

    Translation:

    The gas tax is the best answer, but we can't sell it so we will go find some other method to take the same amount of money, only that method will be worse and more expensive, but we can sell it because it is new.

  9. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    What's the difference between a VMT tax and a toll?

    Nothing, except the VMT tax is universal and tolls are selective.

    Also the VMT tax encourages people to drive the largest vehicle possible.

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "politically infeasible" is a real phrase with real consequences.

    Neither Clinton nor Bush nor Obama nor Warner nor Kaine nor McDonnell support an increase in the gas tax.

    what part of this is not understood?

    re: VMT

    can be keyed to the vehicle VIN.

    you can actually give lower VMT rates to certain kinds of cars and higher rates to other kinds of cars but what VMT does not do is reward carpooling.

    and that's a big problem in the urban areas where expanding the infrastructure as a response to growing traffic levels is just not going to happen because we're not going to tear down commercial development for highways – which has very conveniently located adjacent to the existing roads – courtesy of our willingness to build roads for economic development rather than reserving future rights-of-ways.

    but if you really want a gas tax increase why not have a referenda?

    after it goes down with an 80% "NO" vote then what will you want?

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    What part of this do you not understand?

    Because it is established and familiar,….the gas tax [is] a natural instrument for increasing revenues in the short term.

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

    Here we go again.

    Yes, you can create any kind of NEW TAX yu like and put all kinds of administrative burdens on it as long as it NETS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY from the people as the required gas tax would do.

    People are going to drive roughly the same amount of miles except, over time, higher prices will cause them to drive less, as noted in the report.

    VMT $/mile * miles/gallon = $/gallon.

    here is what is politically unfeasible. It is politically unfeasible to change that equation. Whatever you do is going to be exactly equal to some amount of dollars per galon (or dollars per unit of energy).

    You can call it whatever you like, collect it as inefficiently as possible, and give away all that is required to private enterprise and at the end of the day it is exactly equivalent to a fuel tax increase.

    Period

    Let's all bury our head in the sands and claim it is infeasible, that people willl refuse to pay it, and fire their representatives.

    We will still pay the same amount or more, and we are talking about $200 billion per year for 25 years.

    Just for federal funded road work. If we make locals py for their own networks, the bill is even higher.

    If we refuse all of the above, then the bill happens anyway.

  12. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the people who live in the smaller towns and counties do not need a gas tax increase.

    The gas tax in Va is about 1/3 of the revenues.

    a 5cent increase on the gas tax in Virginia would yield, on average – about 2.5 million dollars additional for each county – about $250 million statewide.

    The best approach would be to put it in the hands of the voters and provide them with the facts and let them decide.

    And let them decide on a state tax, a regional tax and a local tax.

    No Democrat will win in Va if they advocate a gas tax increase and no Republican that promises they won't raise the gas tax – and gets elected could do it either.

    What we'll probably agree on is that "Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda." is yet another trial balloon that really does not advance the issue very much other than to urge that "something be done".

    You could do what you advocate – just go ahead and do it – if the public was evenly divided but when you have about an 80% opposition rate to increasing the gas tax – you're not dealing with a full deck…if you advocate that.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The problem with the gas tax is that it gets collected and delivered to unelected people using processes not understood by the public and those funds are vulnerable to being intercepted by private interests seeking to increase the value of their land via transportation infrastructure."

    I could not have said this better myself.

    TMT

  14. Waldo Jaquith Avatar
    Waldo Jaquith

    The report doesn't ignore land use—there are actually a couple acknowledgements of the importance of keeping it in mind, specifically that any MPO with a population of greater than one million must use land use patterns as a performance measure. Granted, it's a minor player in the report, but it is there.

    Disclosure: I work for The Miller Center.

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    thanks….. yes…. and congrats on your new job! got some impressive luminaries at the Miller Center.. including T'il Hazel!

    "…. performance measures required to
    be implemented by MPOs larger than 1 million people under the Oberstar bill.

    … examples include
    available housing supply for all income levels,land-use patterns that support a reduction in single-occupant vehicle trips, and livable communities.)"

    Of course the "Oberstar bill" has not passed as far as I know.

    As someone who lives in an exurban bedroom community of NoVa and participates in an MPO that encompasses 300K, we are undergoing an exercise called "Scenario Land-Use Planning" which starts off as a chip game with each chip representing a bunch of people and the participants are given a bunch of chips representing the anticipated growth in the coming decade and ask to 'stack' them on a map of the area on a table.

    The basic premise of the exercise is to identify areas near existing transportation infrastructure to designated as dense zoning areas.

    The assumption is that these same folks will continue to use I-95 or Commuter Rail to get to their NoVa jobs.

    In other words – we are to build "walkable communities" where people live and play – but they hop into their car to drive 100 miles (round-trip) to their NoVa job – every day.

    We have a crapload of buses and vans and a vibrant casual/dynamic carpooling community and HOT Lanes on the way.

    What the document did not really acknowledge is the issue of exurban commuting unless they think they can bend that curve by convincing more people to live in the urban core and not seek the exurbs as places to live.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One major change that might affect the mode split between SOV driving and multi-occupant vehicles & transit is the shift from free to paid parking in these areas that shift from suburban to urban development. Tysons is the prime example. The jury is still out (and will be for 30 years or so) as to whether Tysons will work successfully. But it can work only if there is a drastic change in commuting behaviors.

    Mixed use will help some. Some people will choose to live and work in Tysons. But many will not. Road improvements will help, if they can be afforded. Dulles Rail will help some, but much less than the public thinks.

    A key to Tysons success is a shift in commuting to bus and HOV travel. The arrival of HOT lanes in Virginia and their coming to Maryland some time in the future will enable reliable bus transportation on the Beltway. But free parking for SOV traffic creates a strong incentive to keep SOV traffic high. Charging high parking rates to SOV traffic will be necessary to obtain a significant mode shift, help fund transit, and make Tysons work.

    Of course, paid parking at Tysons makes the area less competitive than other areas with free parking. So the landowners are conflicted. They need paid parking to get the density they want, but need free parking to fill the density.

    TMT

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – that was an EXCELLENT summation and observation!

    The developers do not want to be put at a competitive disadvantage and taxpayers should also want Tyson's developers to not go broke and prosper to the extent that the people in the area around Tysons do not strangle in congestion.

    Why not work to have the parking equivalent of HOT Lanes where the prices vary according to congestion levels?

    It would be in everyone's interests to operate the place at defined congestion levels and to manage it with price.

  18. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "Index user fees to price inflation.

    Given the perennial political difficulty of raising government revenues, any new user-based transportation funding mechanism should be designed to ensure that price inflation over time does not erode its ability to provide adequate resources for future system needs. This objective can be achieved in a straightforward manner by building in an automatic fee escalator tied to changes in
    the consumer price index or some other recognized measure of inflation.

    • Sell the change.

    Political champions are needed to build public support for any major
    change in the nation’s approach to funding transportation investments. This means educating political leaders and their constituents alike about the VMT-fee approach— why it is necessary, what makes it preferable to other potential funding mechanisms,
    and how it will be implemented. To ensure that people understand and are comfortable with the concept and operation of a VMT fee well in advance, the federal government
    should fund and publicize pilot programs while also conducting outreach to key stakeholder
    groups and the general public."

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

    Somebody needs to take these yokels by the collar and shake some sense into them.

    We would not be in this fix in the first place if the gas tax had been indexed to inflation aor tied to the dollar instead of to the gallon.

    Because they did not do that they are going to have a multmillion dollar sales campaign to sell the idea of a VMT and why it is preferable – even thoguh it is not preferable, offers zero avantage over the fuel tax, and in the end boils down to the exact same thing only not as fair and not as good at meeting our objectives and promotes the wrong knd of incentive.

    When they try to sell the change as another new mileage based tax on travel the populace ought to laugh them off the podium and send them pacing.

    These idiots think the gas tax is politicaly unplatable and yet they expect to feed us a whole new tax and not have us gag. For what it is going to cost to SELL this new abomination they could just as likely SELL the needed gas tax increase.

  19. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    It would be in everyone's interests to operate the place at defined congestion levels and to manage it with price.

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

    Or for the same amount of money you could just subsidize some "more places".

    What could possibly be the rationale to permit a place that is going to choke on the congestion it creates, and then manage the congestion thruogh user fees?

    Once you manage the congestion out of Tysons, where do you think it will go?

    Unless we address the
    country’s current needs in a more relevant, more effective, and sustainable way, deficiencies
    in our transportation system will seriously compromise both the near-term prospects for economic recovery and our long-term economic productivity.

    Setting a fee structure that says "don't go there" isn't the way to do that.

    You need $200 billion a year for the next thirty years, and fiddling around on the margin isn't going to do it.

  20. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "…when you have about an 80% opposition rate to increasing the gas tax – you're not dealing with a full deck…if you advocate that."

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

    We don't know yet if we will get an 80% opposition rate to the VMT, or any other taxes we try to raise instead of doing the smart thing and raising the gas tax.

    My guess is that any way you go about trying to get $200 billion a year for 30 years is going to be unpopular.

    There is no reason too think you can sell any of the other taxes easier than you can sell the gas tax, particularly since all of the others will cost more and waste more.

  21. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    " Charging high parking rates to SOV traffic will be necessary to obtain a significant mode shift, help fund transit, and make Tysons work."

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

    Otherwise known as social engineering.

    Take the money from auto driver and force them to pay for transit, which we know is a continuing failure and then brand that as a "success" for Tysons.

    Is there anyone left on this planet who simply calls things what they are?

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well this effort did not break much new ground and did essentially go back over what is already part of the known terrain.

    but for the gas tax – it's not only the political opposition but the fact that it cannot be "fixed" by a modest increase of a couple of pennies or even a nickel and the problem gets worse as cars get better and better mileage.. and we start to see hybrids and maturing plug-in technology.

    It's considered to be ultimately a dead end not worth falling on your sword over to keep it alive a few more years.

    The Democrats have tried in recent years to move the ball… Warner and Kaine tried and Creigh Deeds courageously stated – as a candidate that he would pursue an increase.

    There are few politicians that overtly support an increase in the gas tax.

    an increase in the gas tax is about as politically popular as cap & trade these days.

    But I agree with your assessment of a GPS VMT system.
    I've never seen a poll on that but I'd be surprised to see any more support for it than the gas tax.

    Surprisingly there is SOME support for TOLLs.

    or to put it another way – it has LESS than 80% opposition and many polls show a 50-50 split.

    As a politician, you can sell something that has a 50-50 split.

    You can lead even and argue for support….

    but 80% opposition is only for the politicians who are actively seeking a different line of work.

    If HOT Lanes goes forward in NoVa – and succeeds – it's going to become the defacto model for urban areas.

    Virginia tried to help the urban areas with a supplemental transportation taxing package but it failed legal muster because there was no direct voter accountability for the taxes.

    If Virginia would require than any MPO that is enabled to tax has to have direct-elected leadership – it would probably pass.

    Virginia has a long-standing Constitutional requirement that no entity can tax without the ability of voters to overturn the tax or vote out of office the folks who raise the tax.

    As a Groveton-appointed "liberal" – I certainly support that idea.

    We should be able to toss out – anyone who taxes us – and we disagree.

    Virginia's school boards get all blustery at times about the county BOS "not fully funding" their wants.

    Personally, I'd like to see School Boards given the ability to tax – as I think it would result in some major changes in accountability for school funding.

  23. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "It would be in everyone's interests to operate the place at defined congestion levels and to manage it with price."

    Jeez, if you want to operate it at a defined congestion level, just define the density differently. Put the remaining density and the remaining congestion in more places.

    That is the nexus between land use and road use. Get used to it.

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Or for the same amount of money you could just subsidize some "more places"."

    not if you did not measure.

    we'd just end up with more bogus economic development projects financed with public infrastructure on an unproven and un-demonstrated premise.

    you're not setting a fee that says "don't go there".

    you're setting a fee that says there is only so much capacity there and once it's full – it's full.

    what you're advocating is that a movie theater with a capacity of 1000 be allowed to seat 2000 when a good movie is playing..

    or that the airliners stuff as many as they can onto the planes regardless of whether there is actual capacity.

    What Tysons is saying is that what the developers and taxpayers are offering is a certain amount of capacity.

    exceeding that capacity is not good for anyone… in the longer run.

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    when an airline raises it's fares in response to more demand…and does not have the additional capacity – would you call that social engineering?

    how about a movie theater that can hold 1000 and 2000 want to be seated?

    is it social engineering to charge higher admissions?

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: " Put the remaining density and the remaining congestion in more places.

    That is the nexus between land use and road use. Get used to it. "

    so you are saying to look at the existing capacity and denying density requests that would exceed it thus forcing them to go look somewhere else?

    I thought you were opposed to that?

  27. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    And then, when you do put the remaing density and the remaining congestion in more new places, remember not to go bat guano over the idea that some (new) landowners are getting a windfall, because you only took that "windfall" away fromm some other owners.

  28. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    so you are saying to look at the existing capacity and denying density requests that would exceed it thus forcing them to go look somewhere else?

    I thought you were opposed to that?

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

    What I am opposed to is not having a level playing field.

    I believe that super density in some places is only supported by denying ANY density in others. That is called urban growth boundaries, etc etc. And what this amounts to is a subsidy for those people lucky or perserverent enough to get building permits at the expense of those who couldn;t get a building permit no matter what. And it isn't a matter of capacity or infrastructure expense: it is a matter of NIMBY-TOTIGBWOAP.

    I opposed to claiming that one dwelling on two hundred acres exceeds the capacity. And having made that argument, I'm not sure where you can logically draw the line – Why isn't that argument just as good for tysons as it is for Montana?

    And the answer comes down to what is the price of externalities:

    Total Cost = Production Cost + External Cost + Government Cost.

  29. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    How do you define capacity except in terms of external costs?

    If the total costs per person in Egypt, Virginia are less than the total costs per person in Tysons, and we are still promoting Tysons with density grants and subways and what have you, then the people in Egypt are getting screwed.

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ha ha ha. who pays to build "new places" and "connect" them to other places?

    You could easily call the exurban community of Fredericksburg" a "new" place for people to go besides Tysons.

    They call that "sprawl" and then there's the matter of billion dollar highways to connect the two.

    Fredericksburg would love to be the "new" Tysons's Corner but I'm afraid you cannot tell developers where to develop only that wherever they decide to develop that the public will not be providing them with free infrastructure.

    you complain about the Gas Tax but the "windfall" aspect to developers getting their hands on gas taxes for their own benefit is what has really killed the gas tax as a viable tax.

    Most people suspect that their existing gas taxes don't get spent on the roads they use anyhow so why hand over more to go somewhere else to a "new place"?

  31. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "you're not setting a fee that says "don't go there".

    you're setting a fee that says there is only so much capacity there and once it's full – it's full."

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

    Nonsense. You are creating a tax on parking. If you tax something, you get less of it. You are creating an incentive for people to go somep[lace else.

    Why build something which exceeds the capacity to service it, and then incentivise people to go someplace else? And you are doing this at the same time in Someplace Else you are saying "you can't build here because we don't have any infrastructure.

    What part of stark raving insane is it that you don't get?

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well why would airlines and move theaters essentially do the same thing and charge more during the busy times?

    In a way they _are_ paying people to shift to a different time period and get a lower price.

    right?

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think the concept that we will continue to build big new roads and expand capacity on existing ones is dying. It's too expensive; people don't trust the decision-makers; the decision-making process is corrupt and can be manipulated; there is very little right-of-way left in many areas; etc.

    DOTs need to start thinking more as network operators and less as road-builders. We are going to see more HOT lanes; more congestion-based pricing; more parking taxes; more incentives for companies to decentralize their work locations; more virtual companies; etc.

    The American Legion Bridge is a bottleneck between Maryland and Virginia. It will be replaced someday at today's cost of $500 million. But the new bridge will contain some types of pay lanes.

    TMT

  34. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I pretty much concur with TMT.

    there will still be some isolated "upgrades" but they will be ungodly expensive an there is no money to build them.

    People do not like tolls but they positively do not trust the current way we fund transportation via gas tax.

    I suspect that NoVa would vote in favor of a higher gas tax – if they could see the list of specific projects – and not a list of "what we might do" as was done in the 2002 referenda that got killed.

    And more and more counties are putting the question to their own county voters – i.e. "here's a list of what we'd do and it's cost" – vote yea or nay.

    but the days of sending money to Richmond and Washington are over I'd agree.

    Of course the VMT mileage idea is crap also. There is no way the average American is going to agree to put a "govt" recording device in their car.

    These guys are smoking some good stuff if they think that's more politically feasible than the gas tax.

  35. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    People do not like tolls but they positively do not trust the current way we fund transportation via gas tax.

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

    That problem is not going away with tolls. It will be worse, in fact. You will be advertising a user fee, and then diverting the (excess) fees, otherwise known as taxes, for other purposes.

    tolls are a bad idea, and if it works out as aI described they will be fundamentally dishonest.

  36. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    It's too expensive; people don't trust the decision-makers; the decision-making process is corrupt and can be manipulated; there is very little right-of-way left in many areas; etc.

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

    We are going to pay anyway. We can take right of way if we decide to.
    there are no decisionmakers and the process is corrupted mainly by too much "public participation".

  37. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    In a way they _are_ paying people to shift to a different time period and get a lower price.

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

    They are not paying you, they are charging you more so you will go elsewhere.

    If we charge more for parking and more for travel we are encouraging sprawl. Sprawl is probably cheaper and offers more benefits than charging for parking.

    Also, they do not work under the constraint that there is no more capacitya: they will build when they can.

  38. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "…so you are saying to look at the existing capacity …"

    ==================================
    there is a difference between looking at the existing capacity and looking at the possible capacity.

    There is a difference between deliberately underplanning to control growth, and having so much growth that no amount of planning is sufficient.

    Consider the ancient water main problem in the district. Whose problem is it if the existing capacity is sufficient but crumbling?

Leave a Reply

Read More