You Can Teach Old Dogs New Tricks

The Roanoke Times editorial page has consistently supported Business As Usual transportation policies of tax-build, tax-build. I once deemed its writers impervious to logic. But now Dan Radmacher has proven me wrong. Dan hasn’t totally embraced the side of goodness and light, but at least he has glimpsed it. Indeed, he has demonstrated that he understands the arguments we have been making, even if, in the final analysis, he gives other considerations greater weight.

In a column published this morning, “What If We’re Having the Wrong Transportation Debate?,” Dan does a good job of summarizing the thrust of the arguments I’ve been making in Bacon’s Rebellion. He even agrees that my arguments have merit and should be part of the mix of any long-term solution to Virginia’s transportation problems.

Thank you, Dan, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Here’s where he parts company. “If the state has been building an autocentric infrastructure for the last 50 years,” he asks, “how long will it take to replace and rebuild that infrastructure into something more suited for the expensive-energy world of tomorrow? Finally, what do we do in the meantime?”

Legitimate questions. If other proponents of raising taxes and adding more transportation capacity framed the issue this way, I would have much more respect for their arguments. Here’s how I would respond to Dan’s question.

First, it won’t take 50 years of building functional human settlement patterns to ameliorate traffic congestion. New projects with the right balance of housing/jobs/retail/amenities, set in the right location, and utilizing the right type of urban design, can transform transportation-inefficient neighborhoods into transportation-efficient neighborhoods and take cars off roads as soon as they’re built. So what if it takes 50 years to reap 100 percent of the benefit? In five years, we can reap 10 percent of the benefit — and that’s enough to cut significantly into projected travel demand.

Second, there are strategies that will allow us to cope until the fundamental land use reforms take hold on a widespread scale: using tolls to finance new construction, embracing telework, liberating mass transit from innovation-stifling government monopolies, adopting congestion tolls to encourage people to seek transportation alternatives like carpooling, investing in corridor management and Intelligent Transportation Systems. None of these alternative strategies will take “decades” to put into place or to make a difference.

At some point, Virginia will have to raise its gasoline tax in order to fund the rising cost of road maintenance. But not yet. There is plenty of inefficiency to be wrung out of VDOT’s maintenance spending by implementing asset-based management tools and outsourcing maintenance to the private sector. Only when those efficiencies have been exhausted should we consider raising the gasoline tax.

Thanks for asking.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

9 responses to “You Can Teach Old Dogs New Tricks”

  1. Bob Griendling Avatar
    Bob Griendling

    “In five years, we can reap 10 percent of the benefit — and that’s enough to cut significantly into project travel demand.” Other than your guess, what empirical data do you have to back that up? And excatly what and where — with places named — can be done to help in Fairfax County? And what is 10% of the benefit?

    Jim, I’m with you ideally, but I’m not convinced that we’ll fix our problems by doing what you propose and not need to raise taxes to build and widen more roads and add transit capacity.

    Tolls to finance new construction? I’m with you but how much can we realistically raise? Telework? We agree. Liberating mass transit from innovation-stifling government monopolies and outsourcing maintenance? If we continue reforming VDOT, how can we save money by using a system that has a cost VDOT doesn’t — profit. Given the waster, fraud and abuse Halliburton has demonstrated in Iraq, why should we trust the private sector to fix our roads? Adopting congestion tolls to encourage people to seek transportation alternatives like carpooling, investing in corridor management and Intelligent Transportation Systems? Again, they sound good, but how much an impact will they have and we’re doing some of it already.

    “Only when those efficiencies have been exhausted should we consider raising the gasoline tax.” We’ll be dead and gone by then, probably starved to death in our car that never made it home.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    In principle, I don’t disagree, but in practice I believe you are being hopelessly optimistic. That 100% of the benefit you talk about making in 50 years may well amount to only a 10% decrease in what we would otherwise be using then: that is, it is a decrease in the rate of increase.

    Furthermore, considering the rate of change, it is more likely to take fifty years than five years to get ten percent of the benefit, and again, that ten percent of the benefit is only going to amount to a 1% decrease in the overall problem. For crying out loud, it can take five years to get one development project approved and forty years to get one road project approved. Your time scale is all out of whack, except for the simplest and easiest to implement of your proposals.

    We’ve got structural problems that are a hundred years in the making. It is easily going to take two hundred years to undo them and rebuild or interlace what we have with something different or additional.

    The idea that you can accomplish anything measurable in the real world in five years is just not credible. If you built MetroWest and Albemarle place, and a few other such projects and studied them for five years, you might begin to get some idea of what you are up against, and what you might achieve.

    It could take two hundred years just to finance all the changes. If you think it might involve inventing, authorizing, emplacing, and funding a couple of more levels of government, then it could take even longer.

    So the question the RTD posted still stands, what do we do in the mean time?

    And Griendling is right, it is going to take a LOT of money. It might be that Anthony Downs is right and we have already found the best, least cost answer, and that the answer is the disaster we already have. I think EMR said, this is as good as it gets.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Arrrhhhhhgggg –

    Raising taxes at the state level WILL perpetuate our dysfunctional system of treating roads as separate issues from settlement patterns.

    As long as localities believe that the state will fund their local roads – they have NO DOG in the transportation/land-use hunt and will continue to view them as totally separate, disconneted issues.

    Exerpts from the Gainsville Times:

    “new developments meant that 388 new lane miles had to be built and maintained (by VDOT) last year alone.”

    “But Prince William is in a better position than most localities to pick up the difference with local tax money.”

    “… the Board of County Supervisors plans to include project(s) in the 2006 road bond referendum, which means local, not state taxes, will keep construction on track”

    http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab6.cfm?newsid=16819544&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506105&rfi=6

    The point is that one Virgnia County – Prince William DOES have a major dog in the hunt – and since they are spending their own local tax money – one can bet that they are going to not only exercise extreme due diligence in approving new development BUT they will also ensure that new development will pay it’s fair share in mitigating it’s impact.

    This is what every locality in Virginia should be doing.

    Only when their own local tax dollars are at stake for road projects – will localities start connecting the dots with respect to land-use decisions.

    Raising taxes at the state level will only perpetuate our failed system that encourages localities to be irresponsible when they make land-use decisions.

  4. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Larry is right – again – the system is broken. Feeding it more tax dollars without first making fundamental reforms would do no good and make future reforms even more difficult to achieve.

    Reform of government operations is difficult because of the existence of those who benefit from the status quo. This is not meant to demonize anyone, but rather, to recognize that, under any set of rules, some people win and others lose. When the rules are changed, some people who have been winning will lose or, at least, win less. Those who perceive they have something to lose with reform tend to fight change. Why would it make sense to help entrench those opposed to change by feeding the broken system with even more tax dollars?

    Most people would agree that Virginia’s transportation system/process is broken. It wastes money because VDOT has no cost controls. We fund projects based on whose lobbyist does the best job with the CTB. (This does not just apply to roads either. Look at the multi-billion boondoggle known as the extension of Metrorail to Dulles that does not improve traffic congestion, but will obligate taxpayers to fund the likely cost overruns with money that cannot be spent elsewhere.)

    Applicable laws permit private parties to impose higher costs on state and local government (and, of course, taxpayers) by allowing development to occur without regard to the impact on public infrastructure.

    More signficant, many elected and appointed officials make matters worse by playing the blame game instead of using the legal authority that they already possess. Probably the worst offender in Virginia is Fairfax County Chairman Gerry Connolly. Mr. Connolly, who does not even have a target proffer for transportation, prefers to blame Richmond for failing to raise taxes for transportation, while he leads a “lap-dog” Board of Supervisors in approving virtually any land use change requested.

    Interestingly, some local governments seem willing to try to make positive changes. Stafford County, for example, has adopted transportation impact fees, as permitted by law, and has dedicated those fees to several specific transportation improvements. What is more, Stafford’s target proffer for homes is in the high $30s. Prince William County, as noted by Larry, has been willing to fund some transportation infrastructure regularly with bonds and is seeking more than $17,000 per new single family home for transportation.

    On the other hand, since 1993, Fairfax County has proposed but a single bond issue for transportation and regularly trails some of its smaller neighbors in the collection of cash proffers. Since fiscal 2003, taxpayers have been subsidizing land development and zoning services by more than $43 million. If transportation is so important, why didn’t the Board of Supervisors set those fees to cost and use the proceeds for transportation?

    We need the Governor and the Senate to fix the problems before they try to dig more deeply into our wallets. We also need to clean house in Fairfax County.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I only disagree as a matter of degree. Raising proffers IS raising taxes, just on somebody behind the tree.

    Certainly new residents contribute to the need for sudden and large capital expenditures. It is frequently said that residences (all residences existing or new) do not pay sufficient taxes to cover their costs. Properly managed, some of that cost would be for new capital improvements. If you place the burden for capital improvements *inordinately* on newcomers, then you are promoting business as usual: a system that is biased and unfair. I think where we disagree is how the costs should be assessed, not whether they should be assessed.

    The recent article on the financing problems in existing planned communities makes this issue crystal clear. I don’t know wha the right balance is, but I’d maintain that arguing that existing residents should be totally protected agains new or higher taxes by overly taxing newcomers is both shortsighted and simply a means to enjoy the benefits while avoiding our responsibilities.

    Roads and development are circularly co-dependent. Prince William is in a better position thatn most to pay for road improvements precisely because they have enjoyed substantial growth.

    In turn, this plays back directly to home assessments, and therefore, taxes. (Yeah, I know, theoretically assessments and taxesm are not related. Try telling that to anyone whose assesments have gone up more than their rate has gon down.) I guarantee, those proffers will be directly reflected in assessments, not only through added cost, but also through reduced housing availability.

    Reduced availability means people will move farther afield and that leads to more roads. That would be OK if only those new roads wee where the traffic problems are. Instead, proffers lead to new people getting new roads that they enjoy and we get stuck with both the additional overall travel, and that portion of it that overlaps into our (already congested) communities.

    We don’t have to pay more taxes. We can continue to be mired in congestion. We can foist the new taxes we approve of off on people who are not here yet to vote on the issue. We can *try* to fix a system we think is broken, although no one has ever proven that the net results of any other system are any better.

    But the idea that we can magically solve all our problems in fifty years or ten percent of our problems in five years through application of these unproven theories simply has no basis in fact – especially if the theories are not backed up with lots of money.

    What this boils down to is making a lot of other people do what you want them to do, and have them pay you money for the privilege. I like apple pie in the sky as much as the next guy. I hope your plan works, but I sure wouldn’t place a bet on it.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Only when a locality directly bears the transportation financial consequences of their land-use decisions – will they have an incentive to decide what kind, scope, scale, development is a true “benefit” to their community and not a loss.

    Only then, will they even care if compact development is “better” than traditional development.

    Only then will they look long and hard at a major road widening – that THEY – their taxpayers will have to pay for.

    We can argue about whether newcomers should pay for all of it or not but there is no question that more infrastructure would not be needed if the rezones for newcomers is turned down.

    I’m not advocating that – but if a 1000 home new development – requires 50 million dollars in road widenings to accomodate it – then what should a locality and it’s current taxpayers do?

    Do they say yes.. to every new rezone knowing that there may be no hope of getting the infrastructure upgraded without major tax increases?

    Do they approve rezones even though they know that the roads that serve them are already past capacity?

    To date – proffers have been mostly for schools and other community infrastructure and not roads – since the “theory” was that VDOT would do them.

    Now – the door to the closet where the elephant lives – has been opened wide and the answer is:

    VDOT is broke and it is going to take a LOT of money to fix roads.

    Would you rather:

    1. – pay VDOT/RICHMOND that money
    2. – pay your own locality that money and hold your local elected accountable

    If you choose #1 – do you think you’ll get your money back anytime soon or will you instead get the usual IOU wish-list?

    What has the GA done to make one believe that anything about choice #1 has changed from before?

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Gentlemen, This is a really interesting discussion: Do counties pay more attention to the impact of their land use decisions if they have to pay for the transportation consequences themselves? It goes to the root of Gov. Kaine’s logic of linking land use and transportation planning. Prince William County would be an excellent case study. Now that the county plans to invest mega-millions of its own funds in transportation improvements, is it taking a different approach to zoning, comprehensive plans, etc.?

    That’ll make a good topic to assign to one of our Road to Ruin writers. We’ll see if we can line up an interview with Sean Connaughton and see what he says.

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bob, I don’t have much empirical data to back up my statement that reforming land use will significantly alter Vehicle Miles Traveled. But there is some. I would point to the Pulte Homes project, which we’ve written and blogged about, as an example of how a developer and county planners believe that a transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly can cut the number of trips significantly. Of course, we’ll have to see if Pulte lives up to its promises.

    Also, please note that I blogged a month ago, promoting the idea of using DMV data to start examining the relationship between different patterns of land use and VMT on a systematic and scientific basis. No one thought it worthy of comment. And only geeks like us would have any interest in such a project. But I think it’s something worth considering.

    Moving forward, the Road to Ruin project will begin looking at the kinds of development we believe to be transportation-efficient and inquire into the existence of any metrics that would measure the impact on VMT.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    That’s right, Jim. We now have enough mixed use projects, TOD projects, and new urbanist projects on the map that someone ought to be able to do a comprehensive study of what happens.

    My reading of the research indicates that there has been considerable back and forth on this. Initial studies found a correlation between density and reduced auto use, and these have been widely used to promote certain ideas. Later studies found different or additional results. these indicated that there might be other factors at play, such as economic ones, or demographics. further studies tried to deconfound those issues in various ways, and they generally found thaat when other factors were accounted for, there was still some reduction in vehicle use, but not as great as previously thought.

    Furthermore, it was found that the same studies conducted in different but similar areas gave conflicting results, so it is not easy to predict what the results will be.

    Some studies have shown that where walkable destinations are available, those destinations are used in addition to, and not in place of, other travel. Others have shown that suburban residents do drive slightly more than urban residents, and do use more fuel, but most of the difference is based on their preference for larger vehicles. The time they spend traveling is only slightly more, and the greatest correlation is related to income. Those with higher incomes prefer more spacious homes in the suburbs.

    The jury is still out as far as I can tell, but the best and most recent projections suggest that energy use and travel are going to continue to go up, one recent report said anergy use worldwide could double by 2030.

    That is a sobering thought.

Leave a Reply