Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

When Land Conservation and Sustainability Conflict

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Most people agree that creating a sustainable future means relying less upon cars and trucks and more upon trains. We can disagree on how we reach that future, but there is little dispute that passenger trains can carry people more energy efficiently than cars, and freight trains can move goods long distance more energy efficiently than trucks.

Now comes Norfolk Southern Corp., which wants to expand existing railroad tracks through Warren county. The company, reports the NV Daily, wants to double a stretch of track so two trains can pass at the same time. To build a parallel track, the railroad needs to acquire a strip of land about 20 feet on average for a length of 15 miles.

Here’s the problem: The land would include a 1.5-mile section between Ashby Station Road and Fairground Road in a conservation easement held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. And some people have a problem with that.

A representative from Scenic 340, which aims to preserve the rural character of U.S. 340, expressed opposition to the expansion during the county Board of Supervisors meeting last week. “To take land under easement must be an absolute last resort,” said Bentonville resident Jim Guy. “While we support the railroad’s efforts to remove traffic on the roads, we do not support this application.”

Do you ever get the feeling that the requirements of contemporary civilization are getting so complex and that so many groups and institutions have conflicting interests that it may be impossible to get anything done?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    This is the absolute only place that this can be done?

    This is a very familiar tactic well used by VDOT and other DOTs and basically it boils down to picking a spot that is “open” and/or not generally “valued” by a large constituency.

    This is how freeways got drawn on a map to go through the section of towns and cities that had minority populations.

    Then when that became recognized for what it was.. they would try to route roads through natural areas, battlefields and other historical and cultural areas.. until FHWA came up with the 4F rule which basically states that the chosen route absolutely must be the ONLY feasible path for a given proposal if it goes through a designated/recognized natural/historic/cultural area.

    It’s a high bar and it should be if one looks at what was lost in the past … due to shortsighted decisions.

    Some folks say that I-95 through Richmond is an example of a route that damaged the fabric of the place.

    So NS is basically attempting to do .. what VDOT has been prevented from doing – by law.

    But they are not alone; Dominion is also testing the boundaries of Conservation Easements and while VDOT will not publically admit it – such easements are a concern.

    A “cooperating” group of neighbors could essentially erect a virtual “fence” to force an alternate path.

    What I would favor is Virginia’s own version of the Federal 4F – that the applicant has to demonstrate that the chosen path is the only reasonable and prudent and feasible path AND that they must show at least 2 other alternate paths to compare/contrast cost, benefits and impacts.

    http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd5sec4f.asp

  2. boboroshi Avatar
    boboroshi

    Is there something unique to that specific acerage or is it the concept of any acreage being given up that’ offensive to the group?

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    When I criticized The Journey Through Hallowed Ground for potentially hampering economic development I was labeled an “idealogue” on this site. Now another NIMBY organization wants to preserve “rural character” and can’t imagine expanding a single line rail to a dual line rail.

    Meanwhile, the stocks which make up the pension funds and IRAs of millions of Americans are in “melt down” around the world based on fears of a US economic recession.

    I look forward to the day when the peasants show up at the “gentlemen farms” of the local NIMBY elite – pitchforks in hand.

    This is about adding a 15 foot wide siding next to an already existing rail line across 1.5 miles of a conservation easement – right? I do have this right don’t I?

    15 feet, 5 yards, not even close to enough for a first down. That’s the crisis that will spoil the “rural character” of Rt 340?

    And the Journey Through A Hollowed Out Economy wants $15M in federal funds to (basically) “preserve the rural character of Rt 15”? And this is so future plans calling for miniscule changes like a 15 foot widening of rail lines can be opposed to preserve the “hallowed ground” of a road? Spare me.

    I guess it’s good that the western states didn’t try to exhibit this level of selfishness when the intercontinental railroad was built.

  4. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Virginia SOQ facts:

    Warren County – local contribution per pupil:

    2004 – $2,829
    2005 – $2,686

    Warren County – state contribution per pupil:

    2004 – $2,027
    2005 – $3,337

    Local decrease $143
    State increase $1,310

    Despite these clear numbers some pseudo-academics will claim that Warren County’s decrease in funding its own children is OK using some ridiculous “ability to pay index”.

    Guess what?

    Jurisdictions which choose to stymie economic development in order to preserve “rural character” will continue to siphon money from elsewhere. They will continue to be economic leaches around the neck of the Commonwealth.

    Jim Bacon loves to write about localities recovering local costs. However, his logic does not seem to apply to jurisdictions that intentionally block economic development in order to preserve THEIR “rural character”. That, somehow, is not a location-specific cost. It is this selectiveness in defining location-specific costs that makes that argument inherently self-mocking. The “location-specific” cost crowd is speaking in code. They want localities to revover their location-specific costs only if those costs can be allocated to a few jurisdictions in NoVA and Tidewater. All other location-specific costs are deemed invisible and forgotten.

  5. Kevin Grierson Avatar
    Kevin Grierson

    I am no fan of developments in conservations easements, but let’s be clear about what is proposed: NS is seeking to widen its EXISTING right of way by about 20 feet to lay additional track. It is not seeking to run track through a new area. As Jim rightly points out, an additional line of track is a much more efficient use of space than the widening of an existing road would be–a fully loaded train averages over 400 miles per gallon of fuel per ton of cargo.

    If NS or CSX wanted to run a line through a conservation easement that previously had no rail service through it, the objections would be more valid. But if you can’t increase rail capacity, you are just pushing the development (and a lot more of it, if you’re talking about roads) off somewhere else.

    Finally, comparing rail expansion and road expansion is misleading, at best. If you want to increase road capacity, you generally have lots of options because the existing network of roads already allows a multitude of ways to get from point A to point B, and you can pick a route from among existing roads that offers the least disruption. It’s a fairly simple matter to widen a different road if you want to route traffic around a conservation easement or other protected area. It isn’t nearly as simple when you’re dealing with the limited number of routes available by rail. Even assuming you could route the new rail siding around the easement, you’re talking about a tremendous amount of additional cost in both construction and maintenance, not to mention disruption to the surrounding area because of additional railroad crossings required wherever rail meets road.

    That last point bears some additional emphasis: options for expanding rail are limited, in part, because our network of roads has grown so extensive. Trains and automobiles (not to mention pedestrians) are a very dangerous combination. Trains can be a good alternative to automobiles, but it simply isn’t safe to bring the two together any more than you have to.

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, I’m not sure where you’re coming from when you say that my logic of localities charging location-variable costs “does not seem to apply to jurisdictions that intentionally block economic development in order to preserve THEIR ‘rural character’”.

    What do you base that statement on? I’m not in favor of localities intentionally blocking economic development. I have questions about localities *subsidizing* specific economic development projects, but that’s a far cry from favoring the “blocking” of economic development.

    Are you referring to my support for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground? If so, please explain how JTHG has endeavored to “block” economic development. JTHG does not seek to influence local zoning or land use policies. It seeks to increase the viability of heritage tourism, main street communities and sustainable agriculture, mainly through voluntary community efforts.

    (Yes, I know that JTHG also is applying for federal funds to underwrite educational campaigns and also to preserve U.S. 15. I have gone on the record as not favoring those subsidies. I would add, however, that in the grand scheme of things, those are pretty small potatoes compared to the subsidies and wealth transfers that routinely occur throughout the country and the Commonwealth.)

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I blew right by the part that explained ADDing to an EXISTING right of way and that was not good….

    But, I will point out though that the practice of not allowing even expansions of existing rights-of-way is well established – because it can be a back-door way to upgrade a small-footprint.. unobtrusive right of way .. all the way to an 8-lane interstate or in this case.. a once or twice a day train expanded to a heavily used corridor.. with significant collateral impacts.

    It’s nice to believe that the choice is always a simple binary choice but it almost never is and almost always has a context that is more complex and .. DOES require some judgments to be made..

    The Feds have different levels of NEPA that are keyed to the level of impact…. the less impact.. the less process.. the more impact.. the more process.

    My other thought on this is that Fed-protected land and even much of State-protected land has SOME level of established SIGNIFICANCE <---- NOTE THIS WORD. For instance, the Park Service has a significance designation for all land – and especially so – land that they do not own but has historical significance. they use this rating in a number of ways. First.. to prioritize future land purchases with their very limited money.. but also to make simple decisions about whether or not to merely accept land donations because.. they don’t want to take on more management responsibilities for land not central to their mission. but the significance issue also comes up when there is a proposal to “use”, acquire, “go through” Park Service land. How the Park Service deals with such proposals has a great deal to do with just how significant the land is. For instance, a proposed Rail Line or even an expansion of a grandfathered rail line through.. say Gettysburg or Chancellorsville or Yellowstone is going to be handled in a very different way than a historical site that while significant might be on a minor scale. If the need for the land is high and the significance is low.. approval might be routine… turn it around.. and say.. a new interstate or rail through Yellowstone and you can forget it. The reason why I’ve gone through all the blather up to this point is for me to express MAJOR reservations with the current way that Virginia handles Conservation Easements because as far as I know not only do they not ‘rate” the property as to significance.. but they actually allow private property to be so designated without a clear benefit to the public other than the idea than any land “saved” is a good thing .. which I suspect Groveton would label as a dumb idea if I did not beat him to it first. Virginia needs to have a triage process for accepting Conservation Easements.. using “significance” as a major gatekeeper element. There can be/IS .. the potential for great harm to the process of ‘saving” land… if the “protected” land has little or no specific benefit to the public AND at the same time ..potential beneficial uses are prohibited. The Conservation Easement “idea” was a good-intentioned start but it has some major flaws.. and this may be an example of one…

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Conservation easements have been pretty durable contracts. One problem some pwople may see with this is that it is the camel’s nose under the tent. Once easements start to get broken, you have precedence.

    Groveton is right, though: if some people think they can create an asymmetric argument for location variable costs, then that argument will fail.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There can be/IS .. the potential for great harm to the process of ‘saving” land… if the “protected” land has little or no specific benefit to the public AND at the same time ..potential beneficial uses are prohibited.”

    This statement can be more general: the same idea holds for any conservation plan. If it is percieved that the loss of beneficial uses outweighs the benefit of prohibiting them, people will recognize the fact.

    It also works the other way, beneficial uses cannot ignore their usage of common property.

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the immediate concern should be what happens to the Conservation Easement program if changes are made to allow Eminent Domain which will become more and more likely with every instance of a right-of-way blockage BECAUSE both sides – those who support them and those that don’t will realize that, over time, a patchwork of land so protected will make it very difficult to find straight-line paths for rights-of-way INCLUDING existing ones.

    Some folks will realize that a strategically-located Conservation Easement could potentially undermine a right-of-way proposal necessitating it to be routed “around” .. causing more problems.

    so the folks who need rights-of-ways, VDOT, the rails, utility companies, etc are going to , if they have not already – make clear the potential for problems if the program continues without changes.

    The most obvious answer – to allow ED through ANY Conservation Easements would be very damaging to some easements of land legitimately worthy of protection because it is significant.

    I think we need an Easement program that distinguishes the significance of the land by using a rating system similar to what the Park Service uses to do 2 things:

    1. – RANK prospective candidates and have a “cut off” point that has to be the minimum points to qualify for an easement.

    2. – Allow rights-of-way proposals to be judged on how important they are and what kinds of alternatives there are RELATIVE to how high an Easement Rating is.

    So.. if a Conservation Easement protects an endangered species and the right-of-way proposal is discretionary in terms of location then it will have to be routed around the land.

    Lastly, we should replicated what we do with wetlands and that is .. if a right-of-way “takes” land – that they must replace it with equivalent land on a 2-1 basis.

    The last point could be a win-win because a land-purchase might be necessary anyhow somewhere along the prospective right-of-way and instead of buying part of a parcel, the whole parcel might be purchased – and the excess put into a Conservation Easement that would also function as a buffer.

    At the end of the day – we cannot have a Conservation Easement process that is so inflexible that some necessary rights-of-way are not possible.

    The program cannot stand – on this basis.

  11. Todd Benson Avatar
    Todd Benson

    There is a kind of 4(f) rule in Virginia. It is section 10.1-1704. It requires that before the Virginia Outdoors Foundation release all are part of an easement, the requesting party must show: : 1) partial conversion of the three Warren County easements is essential to the orderly development and growth of the locality; 2) the proposal is consistent with the Warren County Comprehensive Plan; and 3) replacement land is of equivalent usefulness, location, and conservation value. In my opinion, Norfolk Southern’s application, failed on all three points. Norfolk Southern, like Dylan’s Ruthie in her honky-tonk lagoon, seeks to pleasure wants rather than needs.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Thanks for the information. I was not aware of the replacement land aspect.

    with respect to consistency with a local jurisdiction Comp Plan.. there are questions.

    the first is what do existing locality comp plans do with respect to existing rights-of-ways – both in terms of discretionary and state-mandated required?

    because.. obviously rights-of-way may traverse multiple jurisdictions…. and affect more people than just those in a single jurisdiction.

    I note that in my limited local experience that the locality itself was uncertain as to whether only approved rights-of-way be included or also planned rights-of-way.

    I’m talking about externally-driven rights-of-way as opposed to those the county is contemplating for their own anticipated development.

    I know the Feds can pretty much dictate on certain issues.. including most recently the power grid… or at least they imply they probably have the power… until proven otherwise.

    But even the Feds usually will respect one agency’s protected land when in conflict with another agency’s plans.

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    My points were a general sense that your zeal for congestion tolling is unmatched by a similar zeal for other location-specific costs.

    For example, when Warren County has conservation easements that block railway expansion they, in effect, increase road use (since the trains would take traffic off the roads).

    For example, you oppose “abuser fees” even though those fees could logically be seen as a recovery of bad driving costs from bad drivers.

    For example, you support JTHG even though they want $15M in federal funds but have not been specific as to their overall mission, plan or mandate. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that JTHG will try to “preserve the rural character of Rt 15” in the same way that Scenic 340 is preserving the “rural chacter” of Rt 340? Apparently, in a really bizarre turn of events, the feds would approve JTHG (including the funding) and THEN ask JTHG to write its goals and approach. The Department of the Interior can reject the goals and approach after they are written but they are only required after the law has been passed and the money allocated. Right now, we really don’t know what JTHG will do. We’ll only know after they write their plan after they have been written into law – along with $15M in fed funds.

    For example, unlike congestion tolling, you can see all sides in the SOQ based wealth transfer process for education. One day it’s a legitimate process for ensuring the education of Virginia’s children, the next day it’s an unfair wealth transfer from Northern Virginia, the day after that it’s unfair to Tidewater based on an “ability to pay” index. Where do you stand on this locality-based cost?

    For example, you seem to have a generally liberal view toward immigration – legal and illegal. You ask if there is something in the water in Prince William County. However, sanctuary localities like Arlington and Alexandria create a haven for illegal immigrants including the significant educational costs of teaching their children. Meanwhile, the SOQ allocation process takes from all of us to fund Arlington’s county-level foreign policy which provides foreign aid to Mexico (and others) by paying for the education of their citizens. Where is your outrage at this violation of the “localities should pay their own location-specific costs”?

    Your Economy 4.0 series is well balanced and independent. However, your location-specific cost philosophy seems slanted toward NoVA and Tidewater paying for their decisions while other localities do not pay for their decisions.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: locality decisions to “help” themselves and other location-specific cost musings.

    If the underlying premise here is that somehow NoVa has gone to the mat to help itself and other localities have chosen not to.. we might need to send that idea back to school…

    because it apparently assumes that geography itself has little to do with the outcome and until I hear a real strong argument that geography is irrelevant. call me a skeptic.

    in the specifics here.. I don’t see how a rail right-of-way THROUGH the county will ever be a major economic boon that they would be wrong to turn down.

    Now.. if NS needed the r/w so that they could build a major multi-modal transfer point.. and the county was passive about helping with land-use issues then I’d agree.

    and I just do not agree with respect to the SOQ issue at all if the premise is that counties that benefit from SOQs don’t deserve it because they are less committed to economic development than counties that are net donors.

    but even if that were true (and it is not), the state has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that every kid has equitable access to an equivalent education – REGARDLESS of who dropped the ball economically OR where they live – geographically OR the economic circumstances of their household.

    To a certain extent.. it’s like blaming Wise County because they “chose” not to invest in Port Facilities….or an International Airport…

    and nobody knows this more than the Fredericksburg Area – where local officials have moved heaven and earth to convince companies a mere 50 miles away to re-locate to a place that has excellent location, tons of highly-educated workers and lower land/building costs,etc.

    So using Groveton’s idea.. the Fredericksburg Area deserves to be penalized for not “trying hard enough”….

    ok.. so come right back at me – Groveton. 🙂

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Some folks will realize that a strategically-located Conservation Easement could potentially undermine a right-of-way proposal necessitating it to be routed “around” .. causing more problems.”

    That already hppens. It is exactly what happened with the present power line proposal. The firt plan was staight line, but it went through the property of a bunch of well heeled people with easements already on their properties.

    The second plan was to parallel Rte 66, but it immediately spawned a bunch of new conservation easement designed to stop the power line or send it someplace else.

    The third plan was to follow and enlarge an existing power line easement, but that route is much longer than the first, and it will result in more power losses. It’s a clear case of trading one environmental problem for another.

    “The most obvious answer – to allow ED through ANY Conservation Easements” …. already exists. Eminent domain is just that. There are already examples of cases where eminent domain has gone through protected property. The only real problem is that now the condemnor has to deal with two property owners: the owner of the land and the owner of the easement, and therefore they may face two lawsuits instead of one.

    “Significant” is one of those words that is hard to place a value on. Loss of electricity due to distance is pretty easy to calculate the cost of.

    “instead of buying part of a parcel, the whole parcel might be purchased ” In the case of the power line easements, they don;t buy the property, just the easement. The landowner continues to pay property taxes on land he basically can’t use. The requirement that the entire parcel be purchased is one that was recommended by a state pane, and one tht has been adopted in other states.

    There is a replacement land issue. I think the rule noted only applies to VOF easements, and there are many other easement holders. Not all holders think that using (and profiting from) the land is the same as ruining it. As I understand it, Nature Conservancy has some easements where oil drilling is conducted.

    A case in Virginia occurrred in which an owner placed an easement. Subsequently the land around the easement was built up, the owner died, and the vacant land became an unauthoried dump site. The easement owner didn’t want to take responsibility for protecting th easement. The heirs applied to have the easement removed, with a new easement placed on other land further west.

    Somehow that does not seem like the idea of the easment in the first place. But it points out that eventually even easements will have to show their true value, in order to be maintained.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Coming to this late but I thought Jim’s original last paragraph was excellent

    “Do you ever get the feeling that the requirements of contemporary civilization are getting so complex and that so many groups and institutions have conflicting interests that it may be impossible to get anything done?”

    Welcome to Northern Virginia or what I like to call paralysis by analysis :-p

    NMM

  17. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    When counties make an overt decision to “preserve the rural character” of their county by limiting economic development, they have made a local decision. That decision has costs. One cost is a reduced tax base upon which to raise funds for all government services. To the extent that the people living in these counties are willing to live with fewer government services – that’s fine. To the extent that they want people to underwrite their willfull decision to limit economic development – that’s not fine.

    Fredricksburg and Wise County are irrelevent to this discussion. Both are actively pursuing economic development. Both are willing to make the sacrifices required to raise the money needed by their citizens. However, Virginia’s “NIMBY zones” are a different matter altogether. They are actively impeding economic development in order to “preserve rural character”. Your argument about net donors of SOQ funds reverses the point. I do not contend that net donors oppose economic development. I contend that municipalities that use widespread conservation easements to “preserve rural character” oppose economic development. This has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with a small minority of rich NIMBYs in an area trying to dictate their views to everybody else. These NIMBYs almost always made their money somewhere else and then moved to a town and declared it NIMBY-ville. They could care less if the long time residents prosper. They could care less if their decisions are subsidized by others who neither agree nor benefit from those decisions. They could care less that the children of Wise County get fewer dollars from the state because the NIMBYs oppose economic development. They could care less that people lose their property rights as land is “up-zoned” to “preserve the rural character”. They want their bucolic scenery and are willing to throw everybody else down the hopper in order to preserve their scenery. Why not? They’re already rich! They don’t want or need economic development. They want rural scenery. Everyone else can “eat cake”.

    This is not about family farms it is about fundamental fraud.

    I am tired of subsidizing rich NIMBYs. You should be too.

    As for the illegal immigrant sanctuary localities – that’s another local decision. They not only refuse to enforce immigration law they aid and abet those who break the law. They should pay their fair share of taxes to the state and then (over and above that) completely fund the costs of being a sanctuary locality themselves. Once again, there is less for the poor legal residents of Wise County because places like Arlington want to have their own foreign policy (in contradiction to applicable US law). Without commenting on the wisdom of counties making up their own foreign policy I’ll simply state that the residents of those counties should pay all costs of that decision.

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “When counties make an overt decision to “preserve the rural character” of their county by limiting economic development,”

    right.. this is the issue at least in this conversation and context

    and if the situation is that if citizens in a place do not want economic development at all and completely close the doors – I agree completely.

    but it’s almost never an all or nothing … oppose all or oppose none situation either.

    Like the Kalahari WaterPark project in Fredericksburg.. people split on whether it is the “right kind” of economic development.. consistent with the desired “character” of our region.

    but.. I am on the same wavelength of the gentry … preserving the rural character of “their place” as if it were a giant gated community and using laws and regulations designed to benefit the public with regard to land conservation.

    that is why I am opposed to private conservation easements – that have virtually no public benefit other than a fuzzy “feel-good” idea that any land not developed ..is a “good” thing.

    so .. I am opposed to the basic idea of what I call promiscuous preservation because it’s not about preservation of something of value to the public per se; the public does not benefit at all from preventing development – that is needed and appropriate – recognizing as soon as those words are spoken that there are as many opinions on that as there are backsides….

    I think ANY piece of land that is to be preserved needs to have it’s values worthy of preservation – articulated.

    Further, I think the amount of land set aside should be limited, capped and that choices are made with respect to which properties rise to the top as worthy of preservation by an objective process.

    I think it actually harms the cause of preservation to have an advocacy that simply any/all land should be set aside.

    but the JTHG does not advocate “locking up” land per se.

    They want the character preserved and they want every development proposal to be vetted with regard to appropriateness to that character.

    This is really not different than a new resort wanting to tear down the blighted areas near them.. if you think about it.

    or .. when you get right down to it.. what the National Park Service will allow for services within their parks…

    it has to “fit” and integrate with the overall character and I bet even you would agree that a place like Great Falls should not have 15 story condos backing up to either side of the river – right?

    Those condos would fetch astronomical prices.. for a view of the Great Falls.. would they not?

    So are they turning down development that they should not?

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Do you ever get the feeling that the requirements of contemporary civilization are getting so complex and that so many groups and institutions have conflicting interests that it may be impossible to get anything done?”

    This is pretty simple to explain. Contemporary society is significantly wealthier than the past particularly the middle and upper middle class. With pervasive land ownership amongst the masses and a strong ability to organize it really is very difficult to please all. In the past those with power would just bowl over those in the way, now the opposition has as much power.

    Could you imagine if we tried to build the interstate system today. We would be lucky to get from city to city and inner city highways would be non-existent.

    ZS

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: literal and figurative gridlock

    In the past, there were gatekeepers of information that could an did control the decision process.

    The name of the game was to “release” information in such a way that it was difficult to know when it was released or where to obtain a copy and those documents has a 30-day comment period.. no matter how complex the subject.

    So, the name of the game.. for projects that had the potential for controversy and opposition was for the agency to get all their ducks in a row.. and then hit the starting gate fast-tracking as fast as they could.. so that by the time potential objectors got their wheels under them..it was too late.

    It was a BAD process IMHO.

    Good Decisions are hard.. messy.. and involve a better understanding of the benefits and costs… and a good public process – done right – can result in a decision that the public agrees – benefits the public.

    so here’s a piece of the NS Saga:

    Norfolk Southern inks deal to improve 50-mile stretch

    Norfolk Southern Corp. has signed a $57 million agreement with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to improve its railroad tracks between Manassas and Front Royal so the route can handle more freight trains and to help take trucks off congested Interstate 81.

    In the deal, announced Tuesday, Norfolk Southern is providing $17 million, while Virginia is contributing $40 million.

    In exchange, the Norfolk-based railroad agreed to provide certain public benefits, including increasing freight rail shipments to eliminate 597,000 truck trips from Virginia’s highways over the next 15 years, according to the state rail department.

    The 50-mile-long stretch of track between Manassas and Front Royal runs along Interstate 66. The project includes laying more track along that route and modernizing train signals. The route connects to a rail line that parallels I-81.

    Norfolk Southern may begin construction in February, pending approval of environmental permits. Completion is scheduled for late 2008.

    The project is the first in Virginia for Norfolk Southern’s I-81 Crescent Corridor, a roughly $2 billion initiative to improve rail corridors stretching from Louisiana to New Jersey.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/norfolk-southern-inks-deal-improve-50mile-stretch

    What I find interesting is that important information about the “why” behind the proposal was found in a paper far away from where the local paper much nearer to the proposal.. did not cover.

    also interesting, is that the State is kicking in money to do this – more than NS is… and that is troubling to me….

    Supposedly this is to be part of a bigger plan for NS to help take trucks off of I-81.. but to be honest.. I don’t see how that claim is backed up… and in other news accounts.. it states that NS needs to increase capacity so that it can handle a rising tide of coal exports….

    again.. why is the proposal not clear and explicit in the first place so that the public can better understand and hopefully the media can at least focus on relevant information instead of the bandwidth-wasting blather in the referenced paper?

    But I will agree with the underlying concept and that is that if a proposal.. whether it be from Dominion, NS, VDOT, etc – if it has regional and/or statewide implications – then there needs to be a way to incorporate local feedback/opposition into a region/state process framework.

    translation: local interests should not be able to kill a project that affects a region or the state without a process that can properly weight the benefits/costs at the larger scales.

  21. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    15 story condos in Great Falls, VA? Fine by me. If you want a view of the falls you’ll have to build the condos in Great Falls National Park (800 acres) or River Bend Park (Fairfax County Park Authority – 400 acres). I’d be happy to see that land put under development. The “horsey – set” likes those parks since they have mud trails suitable only for horse riding. Too bad. Build the condos.

    ZS says, “Could you imagine if we tried to build the interstate system today. We would be lucky to get from city to city and inner city highways would be non-existent.”.

    Exactly right! And if that would have happened contemporary society would not have gotten so much wealthier. Now that more and more ends in NIMBY – Developer gridlock, what happens? Contemporary society stops getting wealthier – especially the middle class. And when the middle class stops getting wealthier – bad things happen. Barak Obama will look like Ronald Reagan compared to the president who will be elected in 2016. The rich, selfish NIMBYs, having stymied America’s economic future, will simply move to another country (like many rich Englishmen have done). Those of us who stay will be left to pick up the pieces after America’s experiment in post-NIMBY socialism fails.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Most people agree that creating a sustainable future means relying less upon cars and trucks and more upon trains.”

    I don’t agree with that because trains have a different job to do than cars. If trins did the same job as cars, they would be much more expensive and muss less efficient.

    Can we have more reliance on trains? Yes, in some cases. But the blanket expression of more reliance on trains is good for sustainability, is just wrong.

    ———————–

    “When counties make an overt decision to “preserve the rural character” of their county by limiting economic development, they have made a local decision. That decision has costs. One cost is a reduced tax base upon which to raise funds for all government services.”

    I’ve made the comparison previously that Loudoun and Fauquier were once quite similar: rural counties with small populations, incomes, and assessed value. Today, the assessed value in Loudoun is more thant $10,000 higher, per person. The income is more than $4000 higher, per person.

    Loudoun has higher taxes, and more borrowing capacity: it also has more resources to pay the bills. But, Fauquier is behind the curve, and soon they will face large tax rate increases, with little base increase. Already there are calls for Fauquier to stop limiting economic development: there really is no excuse for it to take two years for an existing business to re-design its parking lot.

    “These NIMBYs almost always made their money somewhere else and then moved to a town and declared it NIMBY-ville. They could care less if the long time residents prosper. They could care less if their decisions are subsidized by others who neither agree nor benefit from those decisions.”

    That’s a pretty good descritpion of what I saw happen on Martha’s Vineyard, and now see happeining in Fauquier.

    “They want their bucolic scenery and are willing to throw everybody else down the hopper in order to preserve their scenery.”

    You see how it is described, even by third parties, as “their scenery”. It is not their scenery unless they are willing to support it. I have no problem with being placed in the scenery business, but those in charge had better come up with some paying customers, or the business will fail.

    “I think ANY piece of land that is to be preserved needs to have it’s values worthy of preservation – articulated.”

    And evaluated, and paid for.

    “I think it actually harms the cause of preservation to have an advocacy that simply any/all land should be set aside.”

    I once attended a meeting to promote land conservation, held by PEC and a representative from VOL. When I asked how much was enough land to set aside, you would have thought I had slapped her in the face. The idea that there could be such a thing as too much simply never occurred to her.

    “but the JTHG does not advocate “locking up” land per se.”

    We don’t know what JTHG wants, or will do. However it is pretty clear that JTHG will do the vetting. I don’t thing this is any more appropriate thanb having a polluter do the vetting of his own social costs.

    “Good Decisions are hard.. messy.. and involve a better understanding of the benefits and costs… and a good public process – done right – can result in a decision that the public agrees – benefits the public.”

    Too bad the conventional wisdom is so often wrong, and that public process is so seldom done right.

    “local interests should not be able to kill a project that affects a region or the state without a process that can properly weight the benefits/costs at the larger scales.”

    And my argument right along is that we have no agreed upon process to evaluate benefits and costs. It ought to be a fundamental part of EMR’s “fundamental change”.

    RH

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s a bill that oughta snap some folks socks:

    SJ81:

    Directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study implications of a state income tax credit for homeowners with annual real property taxes exceeding a certain percentage of their annual incomes. In conducting its study, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission shall (i) examine state constitutional and statutory issues regarding real property tax exemptions, (ii) study the effectiveness and efficiency of local real property tax relief programs, (iii) study thresholds for real property tax liability used by other states for triggering eligibility for state income tax credits or other state assistance, (iv) consider the percentage of annual income that annual real property taxes would have to exceed for purposes of determining eligibility for state income tax credits, (v) examine the ability of low and moderate income homeowners to pay real property taxes, and (vi) consider such other issues as it deems appropriate.

    http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2008/sj81/

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s about time.

    There is no reason to send someone a property tax bill that they haven’t the income to pay.

    Especially if a high tax bill is the result of growth that they have not profited from (as evidenced by their income).

    A real estate tax tied to income could provide some relief for the popel Larry is constantly talking about: taking them out of the (immediate) cost increases due to growth.

    If that happens, then the no-growthers will hae to come up with a whole new set of arguments, like “We don’t like growth.”

    Unlike their present arguments, it isn’t very compelling, but at least it’s honest.

    RH

  25. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    This is great!

    My retirement plan revolves around an investment portfolio with equities diversified by country, sector, etc. As with all equities, I won’t recognize any income until I sell the stock, REIT, etc. I need to retire with enough cash to pay the bills for a few years. I’ll keep the cash in a money market account that has a low interest rate (as they all do). That interest will be the only “income” I report. Legally, it will be the only income I have. I will then plead poverty and ask for a rebate on my state income taxes (from the money market interest) due to the high tax bills on my house in Great Falls. I won’t sell my equities until after I sell my house in Great Falls and permanently retire to my second home on Kiawah Island, SC. Virginia will never get their income taxes from me.

    The problem with ideas like this is that you have to worry about people like me.

    If you can’t afford to pay your taxes you should sell your property and move somewhere where you can afford to pay the taxes.

    Sorry but somebody sitting on a multi-million dollar real estate asset trying to get a rebate on their income taxes just doesn’t cut it.

  26. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    In fact, isn’t this another subsidy for land owners? You can deduct the interest on your home loan from your taxes and now some real estate owners can deduct their property taxes from their state income taxes.

    A person of modest means showing fiscal restraint by renting a home gets no break while a property owner of equally modest means who is over-extended to the point of being unable to pay their taxes gets a deduction.

    Hmmmm….

    Maybe we should require land ownership in order to vote.

  27. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, Regarding your remarks of 9:25 in which you specified why you disagree with my arguments regarding “location variable costs”…. I think there is some conceptual confusion about what is meant by “location variable costs.”

    Location-variable costs refer to human settlement patterns — costs associated with the location of houses, stores, offices and other buildings where people live, work, shop, play. These decisions of where to locate real estate have major implications for the cost of providing roads, other transport, utilities, public safety services and schools, among others. Some configurations of human settlement patterns are more cost-efficiently served than others. My argument (and that of Ed Risse, and many others) is that people should be free to build what they want and where they want (subject to certain environmental and public safety considerations) as long as they also are willing to pay the full cost of providing utilities, roads and services to those locations. That logic does not prevail now — the system is rife with massive cross-subsidies — and as a consequence taxpayers living in location-efficient communities are subsidizing those who live in location-inefficient communities. This problem is endemic in our society, and it is a major driver of out-of-control government spending at the local level.

    To this set of costs, you toss in other types of subsidies and wealth transfers, from abuser fees to SOQs, illegal immigration to Journey Through Hallowed Ground’s application for federal funds. While some of those, such as SOQs may involve the transfer of wealth from one political jurisdiction to another, they are a different phenomenon entirely from location-variable costs as I mean them.

    The bottom line: Either we encourage cost-efficient human settlement patterns or we encourage inefficient human settlement patterns.

    As for the specifics of those other costs you mention… I’m no fan of SOQs, I’ve tried to get people to pay attention to their obvious flaws — how would you know anything about them if you hadn’t read this blog?… I like the idea of making reckless drivers pay more, but I have problems with the way Abuser Fees legislation was crafted… I defend the main, free-market thrust of Journey Through Hallowed Ground, but I have never endorsed federal subsidies for the project…

    Far more than most people, I try to be consistent in the applicaton of my core principles.

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    with regard to location-variable costs, I understand the basic premise but in terms of consistency of concept, I cannot figure out how to view things like subsidized electricity and roads to rural areas.

    second.. I still go back to what a particular settlement pattern IS – where IS in the first placed.

    I think we start out assuming that density (a settlement) is a good thing and that “scatterization” is a bad thing but the settlement patterns we have now ..were not designed explicitly to be efficient from the get go.

    For instance, it might be cheaper per citizen to deliver electricity to a town but if that power is generated 100 miles away then why do we treat all settlement patterns as equally good and better than “scatterization” even though some towns are located right next to their power sources and others far, far away – and if you multiple out the efficiency loss of electricity ALSO on a per capita basis – you have a cost.

    Now.. are we SUBSIDIZING the creation of electricity a 100 miles from where it is used?

    and for this entry.. I won’t even get into other geographic realities like watersheds… which affect water supply and water/sewer.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “why do we treat all settlement patterns as equally good and better than “scatterization” even though some towns are located right next to their power sources and others far, far away “

    Thanks, Larry, that’s the argument I have been making. What if the power comes from one direction, the water from another, and the sewer and trash go still somewhere else?

    What if bringing the power in means selctively pasing over places that are in scatteration – because its cheaper that way?

    We assume ertain things like “Some configurations of human settlement patterns are more cost-efficiently served than others.” and yet economists who have tried to measure such things come up with inconsistent results.

    If the system is rife with cross subsidies and we eliminate all of those infavor of user pays, who can say if the end result will be more or less efficient? We THINK those that lice in what we assume are “location efficient” places are subsidizing those that are not.

    But we can’t prove it. When we try to prove it we tend to e selective in our choices of “costs” whil ignoring other benefits. (like having someplace to run our power lines and bury our garbage.)

    We apparently are that transfer of wealth as SOQ’s is OK beause every citizen deserves a basic education, but we don’t think that transfer of wealth is OK for roads because every citizen deserves a basic level of transportation.

    ???

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In fact, isn’t this another subsidy for land owners? “

    I don’t think that having a means tested relationship between income and real estate tax is all that bad. Neither does it have to be permanent.

    But it just isn’t right to have sudden real estate tax increases that far outstrip your ability to increase your income. So, what you have is a cap on the amount of the cash amount paid each year, such that in a single year it cannot go up more than 5%.

    This protects fixed income and preveious owners from the effects of sudden new growth – for a while.

    Eventually, as Groveton points out they will have to move to someplace they can afford.

    And sure, some slickster will find a way to game the system. So we need to continually improve.

    Here’s a problem though. We are unwilling to say that businesses cannot locate where they choose. They choose to co-locate in susch a way that they cause enormous public infrastructure to be built to support them. Housing costs, including rent reflect this, and so do taxes.

    If you cannot afford to live where all the jobs and housing are concentrated, the areas deemed to be most efficient, then how can you live in a “lower cost” place where there are no jobs?

    If we think scatterization is the answer to high taxes—-then why not for a lot of other problems as well?

    RH

    RH

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: transfer of wealth is OK for roads because every citizen deserves a basic level of transportation

    no..local roads that connect and regional roads that connect – but not roads for economic development nor roads for folks who want to drive 50 miles a day solo.

    Just your basic 600 series two-lane roads to allow folks to get around and your basic Primary/rural interstate 4-lane roads for folks to visit grandma or the beach or the Smithsonian, etc.

    roads on steroids for economical development or local commuting – those costs belong to the folks that want them – not others.

    The problem is.. that the interstates were originally designed to allow folks to go from one city to another.. in a timely fashion and what happened is that the interstates morphed into beltways because the original non-beltways got co-opted by the cities for home-to-work commuting.

    so they build beltways to allow folks trying to get from one city to the next to go AROUND the built-up congestion but then folks co-opted the beltways for local commuting also instead of the locality building their own roads for local commuting.

    Very expensive infrastructure – intended to last a long time to allow connecting cities thus got ..essentially ruined for that original purpose.

    Now.. you cannot go from one city to another if there is one or more cities in between… because of the local commuting rush hours.

    It’s like trying to get to upstate New York from Richmond.

    What do folks do?

    Well.. they no longer go through Wash Metro at rush hour if they have half a brain…

    so.. someone who lives in rural NC pays 17 cents a gallon tax that does not benefit them at all and goes to pay for the interstate highways – ON THE THEORY – that those interstates would also benefit him when he wants to go to a city.

    If those 17 cents went to him locally… what would happen to the beltways in terms of funding improvements?

    it’s easy to say everyone pays and everyone benefits but when you get down to specifics.. it’s not as an equitable proposition.

    We keep advocating figuring out what is fair but we don’t even know.. if under the status quo – things are fair; we know more about even the SOQs.

    Do you know how much each county in Virginia gets back from the gas taxes that their citizens pay?

    Do you know if Facquier gets back MORE or LESS than the gas taxes that it’s citizens paid?

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not supporting one side or the other, just pointing out that the arguments are not consistent.

    “local roads that connect and regional roads that connect – but not roads for economic development nor roads for folks who want to drive 50 miles a day solo.”

    But its OK to provide a basic education for someone who grows up and decides to commute 50 miles?

    (The average commute is still onley 23 miles, why constantly beat up on the minority?)

    “…roads on steroids for economical development or local commuting – those costs belong to the folks that want them – not others.”

    This statement is unsupportable. I really don’t know what you mean here. All I know is that I use a mix of roads – for a mix of purposes. Frankly, I have very littls compunction about using a road on stroids that they took 60 acres to build. I use 600 series roads to support the farm deliveries. And I use roads on steroids OR sub 600 roads to commute – and it isn’t 50 miles.

    It’s farther than it might be if I lived someplace else. It’s farther than it might be if my job was closer. As soon as someone builds a job in a location that changes my cost/benefit equation – I’ll quit my job.

    “that the interstates were originally designed to allow folks to go from one city to another”

    Agreed. Can we move on to the next lesson in unanticipated consequences? People game the system. We need a better system.

    “the original non-beltways got co-opted by the cities for home-to-work commuting.”

    You assume they were co-opted. Maybe it was just a more valuable use. The intrstates were built, not for inter city traffic, but for national defense. I suspect that when we need them for national defense, they will kick the commuters off.

    “…but then folks co-opted the beltways for local commuting also…”

    We got to the next lesson in unanticipated consequences and gaming the system so soon?

    “Very expensive infrastructure – intended to last a long time to allow connecting cities thus got ..essentially ruined for that original purpose.”

    It got ruined by finding a more valuable purpose sooner, is that it?

    What if we had just done NOTHING. No interstates. Let those who need local commuting build their own roads and PAY THEIR OWN WAY.

    What kind of interstates would we have then?

    What if we proposed to build the interstates ONLY for national defense? What kind of interstates would we have then?

    What if we built them for national defense, but said, anyone who wants to use them has to pay a toll to be contributed to national defense?

    What actually happened was we bought something that turned out to be so valuable, we didn’t buy near enough. We bought one share of Google, and now we have buyer’s remorse.

    “Now.. you cannot go from one city to another if there is one or more cities in between… because of the local commuting rush hours.”

    THAT is what they have trains for.

    “…they no longer go through Wash Metro at rush hour if they have half a brain…”

    Right. From my house to New England it is 40 miles diffence driving through DC, Philly, New York, Boston, as it is driving through PA. and Connecticut. I take th longer route every time – if I drive.

    “..someone who lives in rural NC pays 17 cents a gallon tax that does not benefit them at all “

    How do you know that? He buys stuff at Wal-Mart, I imagine. How do you knopw what the theory of benefit is? Since the theory has been so thoroughly co-opted according to your description (and proablay for better value) what difference does it make. We got something other than what we thought we were paying for – and it is more valuable.

    “…it’s easy to say everyone pays and everyone benefits but when you get down to specifics.. it’s not as an equitable proposition.”

    I agree. The more you have of everyone pays and everyone benefits, the higher the risk that SOMEONE will get screwed. As long as they have a reasonable chance of joining the game fairly, I donlt have an issue.

    The more you have of everyone pays for only what they can afford, the higher the risk that you lose out on benefits of scale and EVERYONE gets less thn they might.

    Where I have a problem is when a FEW pay, have NO CHANCE of joining the game, and everyone benefits.

    “Do you know if Facquier gets back MORE or LESS than the gas taxes that it’s citizens paid?”

    I don’t know why it’s an issue, or why you worry about it. A lot of gas tax paid in Fauquier is paid by foreigners. Gas taxes are ONE source of revenue. Anyone who pays gas taxes gets a fair exchange for what they pay, based on weight and mileage. I don’t think it’s enough, but at least it is rational.

    I can’t say the same for real estate taxes. With real estate taxes we KNOW that those in rural areas are supporting the residential areas, because our leaders tell us so.

    When I ask my leaders why they are so unfair, they look at me like I’m either nuts or the antichrist.

    So, back to may question: why is a basic level of education as a generalized requirement OK, but a basic level of transportation, housing, clothing, or health care, is not?

    RH

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “But its OK to provide a basic education for someone who grows up and decides to commute 50 miles?”

    a basic education allows someone to be employable.

    what they are entitled to is ACCESS to an equivalent education…and equitable mobility – the ability to go from one place to another.

    …not unlimited usage

    you’re confusing access with usage.

    they get their education and basic mobility and then they pay for what more they want/consume.

    If we did that, then there would be no point and no reward to “gaming” the system.

    Everyone gets to start at the same starting line – how fast and how far you go is up to you and no one else owes you anything to “help”.

    If you want to live 50 miles from where you work – that is fine – but it is also your choice, your responsibility and your cost.

    Charging everyone across the state to pay for roads that connect if fair and equitable.

    Charging everyone across the state to pay for commuting infrastructure for those that choose to drive 50 miles a day is not.

    and the problem is – that if you don’t get charged for doing that and you also have that same option then to NOT use it .. is opportunity lost… you’d not getting the same amount of “free” that others are getting.

    no matter that many others are not also using it.. and at the same time paying for it…

    that’s why I asked how much gas tax money is paid by Facuqier folks and how much do you get back?

    HINT: you don’t get it all back so how is the part you don’t get back – spent?

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you want to live 50 miles from where you work – that is fine – but it is also your choice, your responsibility and your cost.

    Charging everyone across the state to pay for roads that connect if fair and equitable.

    Charging everyone across the state to pay for commuting infrastructure for those that choose to drive 50 miles a day is not.”

    Those who drive 50 miles a day are a small minority. Usually, they do so for a period of time, and then make adjustments. I don’t understand your preoccupation with them.

    But, let’s accept your argument. How would you go about charging extra for those who use more and rebate to those who use less than the “basic amount”? Isn’t this an example of a Coasian “winners pay the losers such that all come out ahead”?

    What about those who use a basic amount in a very expensive, or high demand area vs those that use a basic amount in an area that is underused generally, and therefore costs more per use?

    Isn’t this argument very similar to what I say should happen to landowners who use far less services than they pay for?

    If some users (even those who use less than normal) save money by restricting the use of others, how should that savings be shared? Those with restricted use suddenly incur additional costs associated with the restriction.

    As far as I cans see this isn’t a question of right or fair, but one of practicalities: how do you honestly (and not politically) solve the problem of figuring out who is paying too much and who to little?

    Even if you know that, how do you collect, efficiently?

    I know you are going to say GPS tolling, smart cards, or somethng like it. Right now, we don’t have that system in place, and it will take far longer than you imagine.

    What do we do until then?

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How do you know we don’t get it all back?

    I don’t see the point. Whoever pays gas tax pays it according to his use.

    We may have a problem in distributng the money that is collected, we may not be collecting the right amount, but whatever is collected from the as tax IS collected according to use.

    RH

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    we do nothing.. but we make plans and carry them out.

    re: gas tax per use

    not true.

    those that drive solo at rush hour pay no more gas tax that those that don’t and yet the cost of the infrastructure to serve their commute is more expensive.

    this is the entire rationale behind HOT lanes.

    You provide the infrastructure that is needed and you charge what it costs to provide that infrastructure.

    And the way this is playing out.. some folks won’t care for it but if you look at how they are financing the ICC, you’ll get a clue.

    The ICC is not financially viable on tolls alone so Maryland plans on tolling other roads also – and making up the difference.

    New Jersey and North Carolina are doing the same thing as both plan to toll many roads and to balance out the money losers with the money-makers… aka a bigger version of the Dulles Toll road idea.

    get ready to get your wallet out.

    🙂

    One of the biggest emerging markets will be for GPS units that have an option that says .. “find shortest time to destination on non-toll roads”.

    🙂

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “those that drive solo at rush hour pay no more gas tax that those that don’t “

    Ridiculous. Of course they pay more: they don’t travel anywhere neare as far for the same gallon of gas.

    Is it enough more? Probably not, but it is NOT “no more”.

    “The cost of the infrastructure to serve their commute is more expensive.”

    EMR would argue the opposite. Those that have free flowing infrastucture have the benefit of investment that far exceeds the peak needs. That is expensive infrastructure, as even you have argued.

    What is really expensive, is not having enough, as any business school would point out, concerning inventory management.

    would the ICC have been financially viable if we had not fought over it for thirty years? We could have paid for it with the lawsuits.

    At least if they pay for the money losers with the money makers, the cards will be on the table. I assume the money makers are the ones that have been around for thirty years.

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are right about the GPS units, but they will be sophisticated enough to decide if the toll is worthwhile, for the time saved.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Icc is not financially viable, how?

    Tolls alone? Tolls plus as tax? Plus additional sales tax? Plus additional property tax? Plus time saved and pollution reduced?

    What is the standard?

    RH

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    the standard?

    “pay as you go”

    if you want a gallon of milk – pay for it and don’t expect 2 gallons.

    Two people with the same car that gets the same mileage and both drive the same distance and both pay the same gas tax.

    One drives on a lightly traveled road and the other drives at the height of rush hour.

    One drives at 55 and the other moves at 25.

    The guy moving at 25 demands more more money for more roads and so the gas tax is raised.

    The guy driving on the lightly traveled road now starts paying more for gasoline but he gets nothing for it.

    Where does that increased money go if it is not spent on his road?

    It goes to the area identified as congested and needing expansion.

    RH – this is why the Transportation Authorities were created.

    RoVA sees no need for an increase in taxes for roads…and they know that any increase will not likely benefit them because the roads they want are not considered as urgent a priority as the urban roads – like the Springfield interchange, the ICC, widening I-66, etc.

    If we raised gas taxes ONLY on those that wanted more/better/expanded roads then the folks who chose to live in RoVa under much more modest circumstances would not have to pay increased gas taxes at all.

    The System we have is predicated on collecting from everyone to benefit others… it’s not an equitable proposition and will never be untl the folks who choose to live and work in areas with congested roads ..themselves.. pay for the upgrades.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the standard?

    “pay as you go”

    You are avoiding the question: How is ICC not financially viable?

    Do you mean just on the basis that it won’t pay for itself from tolls?

    What about the gas tax collected, the time saved, enhanced property values and all the other “externalities”?

    ————————-

    Two people with the same car that gets the same mileage and both drive the same distance and both pay the same gas tax.

    “One drives on a lightly traveled road and the other drives at the height of rush hour.”

    In that case the guy driving on the lightlytraveled road is being highly subsidized because his peak hour needs have been greatly overconstructed

    One drives at 55 and the other moves at 25.

    In that case, the guy driving 25 is using a lot more gas to go the same distance, because his engine is running twice as long, so your argument he is paying the same gas tax is inaccurate.

    The guy moving at 25 demands more more money for more roads and so the gas tax is raised.

    That guy and the thousands of others traveling to nearly the same destination he is. It isn’t a one on one argument. What we are looking for is the best for the most people, with the fewest people getting hurt – preferably with those getting hurt being compensated.

    The guy driving on the lightly traveled road now starts paying more for gasoline but he gets nothing for it. Not true. What he gets is to pay more closely the correct amount for the excellent conditions he enjoys. The system we have is predicated on collecting from everyone to benefit others: in this case he is getting far more benefit, would’t you say?

    Since those guys on the congested road proabably are not going to get a new road anyway, will still be in congested conditions, it is THEY who pay more and get nothing.

    But, they will be incentivized to drive less, or move to someplace the roads are less crowded, and that is when your first guy is REALLY going to be unhappy: “We have to stop this rampant growth.”

    The real point is that we are arguing the wrong issue. This should have been stopped before there was so much demand in one location that it could not be met without heroic and expensive measures.

    And that is exactly what our first friend is going to try to do whne growth hits his street.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More