|
Nearly
everyone agrees that improving mobility and
access in the Commonwealth is a priority.
Relieving transport congestion is critical to
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of the Commonwealth and to the prosperity of
families, enterprises, institutions and
agencies. Beyond
that threshold agreement, however, most of what one hears
about transportation -- in particular the common
refrain, “we need more money to
fix the problem” -- is debatable, if not
outright wrong.
More money is not the
solution. More roads and rail lines are not the
solution. In the absence of Fundamental Changes
in human settlement patterns, many of the pet
projects touted by legislators would only make matters worse.
This
column is the second of three detailing overarching issues that
candidates for election in November need to
confront, and that state and
local governments have the power to address:
Understanding
Mobility and Access
When forced to
consider the
mobility and access issue comprehensively, most professionals and
citizens see the need to establish a balance
between transportation system capacity and
travel demand. Travel demand is determined
by the pattern and density of land use. In
recognition of this fact the mantra at the
Virginia Department of Transportation has
morphed from “We build roads” to “We
cannot build our way out of congestion.”
However, almost no one is willing to say
what this glib slogan really means. What it means is that more money (regardless of
the source) or new facilities (regardless of the
design or mode) will not improve mobility and
access (aka, reduce traffic congestion) without
Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns.
Period.
Improved transport
systems will require future investments.
Right now there is no way to know which
projects it would be wise to spend money on.
There will be no way to determine where to spend
money until there are truly comprehensive plans
for functional human settlement patterns and for
transport systems that serve
the travel demand generated by these patterns.
Realistic
comprehensive plans must be
created for every New Urban Region and the Urban
Support Regions that include the Virginia
Countryside. Likewise, there must be plans for
interregional and interstate transport.
Only then will the Commonwealth have a sound
basis for decisions on where to spend money for
transport facilities. If past experience is a guide,
spending money before the plans are in place
actually will make congestion worse.
As
luck would have it, money is not likely to be
available any time soon. Two of the three
candidates for governor are pledging
“no new taxes” and the third one would have
a hard time passing any quick-and-dirty revenue
measure given the current voter view of
government and its ability to spend money
wisely. The 2003 sales tax votes in the
northern part of Virginia and in the Hampton
Roads New Urban Region demonstrate that voters
will not approve new taxes unless they know
what they are getting. Citizens are far ahead of
governance practitioners in understanding the
futility of tossing money at congestion.
Many already understand that this tactic creates
more problems than it solves.
Before
examining what the candidates' would do if elected,
let us first consider
what is being put forward as the facility
“solution” and a “painless” way to raise
money to pay for the “solution.”
The
HOT Solution
The primary facility
“solution” for improved mobility being
advocated in the current political climate is
toll roads and high occupancy toll lanes (aka,
HOT lanes). VDOT is exploring HOT lanes on
the Beltway, I-95/I-395, I-81 and elsewhere. Will HOT lanes work or will they just make
things worse?
Before we
go any farther, let us make it very clear we do
not reject the use of HOT lanes on philosophical
grounds as some opponents do. As outlined
in End Note One, we, in concert with
others, advocated the idea of toll HOV lanes in
the mid 1980s. Our idea was to collect tolls
that varied by time and number of occupants on
the Shirley Highway
HOV lanes
in Fairfax County. The goal was to
expand the use and utility of the
“underused” lanes and generate revenue for
needed transport improvements.
Like telework, shared-vehicle systems and other
ideas, HOT lanes have a roll in a region’s
transport system. They can provide
increased capacity on a specific link while
functional human settlement patterns evolve.
Our mid-80s proposal was shortsighted in that it
was not coupled with a strategy to evolve
Balanced Communities in the I-395/I-95
corridor.
More
than a decade after our
idea was discussed in Fairfax County, the HOT
lanes idea was applied on a bottleneck stretch
of California Route 91 County in the Los Angles
New Urban Region. California Route 91
links bedroom urban enclaves in eastern San
Bernardino and western Riverside Counties and
employment enclaves in Orange County.
In mid June
The Washington Post provided a
snapshot of what has happen in the decade since
the Route 91 HOT lanes opened. (See End
Note Two.) Every person interested in
mobility and access should understand the
context and results of the California Route 91
HOT lanes. Perhaps not surprisingly, The
Post reporters provide facts and feelings about
California Route 91 HOT lanes but missed the big
story: HOT lanes are not a solution
to regional and subregional traffic
congestion.
The California Route 91
HOT lanes proved that some citizens people will
pay more and more money to escape congestion. (Some also will drive far out of their way to
avoid the HOT lane tolls thus adding to the
total Vehicle Miles Traveled in the
subregion.) That some will pay a lot of
money is good news for bond holders but not for
citizens of the region. HOT lanes really
do become “Lexis Lanes” – $7.50 for a
one-way, 10-mile trip. That is up from
$2.50 when the lanes opened in 1995 -- despite Orange County also adding more
capacity to the non-toll lanes.
We
recall the early fear among HOT lane advocates
that not enough drivers would pay the tolls. If
getting drivers on the road is the measure, the HOT lanes are a “success.”
But the goal should not be to get the greatest
number of people on one road at one time.
The goal should be to provide mobility and
access for all citizens in the region with the
smallest expenditure of public funds and
non-renewable resources.
The California Route 91 experience proves that
creating HOT lanes induced tens of thousands of
citizens to invest in houses and business in
locations that cannot be served by functional or
efficient transportation systems.
More lanes (HOT lanes or cold lanes) without
Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns
do NOT address the problem of regional traffic
congestion. HOT lanes provide temporary
relief in a specific corridor for those who can
afford to pay the toll. In the long run,
however, they induce more bad location decisions
by both public and private decision makers.
The HOT lanes have resulted in greater
dependence on foreign oil, more air pollution
and more dysfunctional scatteration of urban
land uses. In fact, HOT lanes have
generated more of all the bad things that
traffic congestion brings to a region.
The Washington Post points out another downside
of the HOT lanes in the I-395/I-95 Corridor. (See
End Note Three.) In a story
that appeared on the same day as the California
Route 91 HOT lane story, The Post outlined the
negative impact on “Slugs” who take
advantage of the HOV rules to create a
voluntary, free-market ridesharing program that
has almost no public cost. (For another
perspective of the HOT lanes see “Proposed
I-95 HOT Lanes A Mixed Bag: They’d Pay Their
Own Way but Inspire More Sprawl,” by Bob Burke
published under the "Road To Ruin"
initiative.) We
examine below whether HOT lanes in fact “pay
their own way.”
Public-Private
Partnerships
The 2003 sales tax votes and
the last two legislative sessions show there
will be no easy sources of money, so the
“we-need-money-now” advocates are looking
for other ways to raise funds. The
discussion often turns to the topic of
“public-private partnerships” and to
“private investment” in public
transportation infrastructure. Pat
McSweeney’s Bacons Rebellion columns have
offered a number observations on the inherent
dangers of this tactic. So have some
Virginia editorial writers. On 30 June Jim
Bacon tied together a number of these issues in
a post on Road To Ruin Blog titled
“Public-Private Partnerships and Assumption of
Risk.”
The
biggest problem, as noted in Bob Burke’s story
on I-95 HOT lanes ("Proposed
I-95 HOT Lanes a Mixed Bag," June 27,
2005) is the negative impact on
settlement patterns. Close behind is
the risk to citizens and to the Commonwealth
caused by private profit incentives skewing the
location and design of public infrastructure --
putting roads in the wrong
location. Also, after toll roads are
built, a shortfall in tolls can be used as an
excuse for new development in dysfunctional
locations, as illustrated illustrated by
the proposal of Australia-based Transurban to
buy out the Pocahontas Parkway southeast of
Richmond.
Another problem is
that public-private partnerships are proposed
only where traffic congestion will
support toll collections or where someone can make a lot of money from
speculative land development. It is clear
that no one will invest in bonds for toll roads,
toll lanes, rail lines or new bridges where
there is no demand.
Then there is
the problem of eminent domain. Those
concerned with use of the power of eminent
domain recently sanctioned by the Supreme Court
in Kelso v. New London (taking the homes of the
less well to do for profit- making businesses)
should have a field day about using the power to take homes along the Beltway
so private companies can make money building
toll lanes that in the long term do not improve
mobility. One must ask how is it better to
wipe out private holdings so a big company can
build and operate a toll road for profit than
for a public agency to wipe out private holdings
so a private company can build buildings and
create jobs? The real issue is, of course,
whether the activity serves the long-term public
interest. HOT lanes fail that test, and so
will other transport projects that are not
planned in conjunction with new settlement
patterns that reduce per capita and per vehicle
travel.
Public-private
partnerships, including those to create HOT
lanes, do many things:
The problem is: Without Fundamental Change in
settlement patterns these projects do not
improve mobility and access. In fact, without Fundamental Change in human settlement
patterns, they make things worse over the long
run. By contrast, if settlement patterns were made more functional and more transportable,
then citizens would support public-private
partnerships and tolls.
Without a balance between transport
system capacity and travel demand, new
facilities encourage an untransportable
distribution of trip origins and destinations.
This causes citizens to make bad location
decisions which in turn generate the demand for
more dysfunctional facilities.
No
Exit
We have explored the reality
of mobility and access improvement, of HOT
lanes and of public-private partnerships before
looking at what the candidates for state wide
office are saying for one simple reason: There is no exit. There is no way for
politicians to escape facing the real need to
balance the trip generation of human settlement
patterns and the capacity of transport systems.
The tactic of planning and building transport
facilities on an ad hoc, “where we think
people want to go” basis is a dead end.
More facilities like the ones we have been
building for the past 80 years do not improve
mobility and access. The mainstream media and politicians continue to
try to ignore reality. For instance, one
thing all three candidates agree on, according to
the media, is that the private sector should
invest in public transport projects. Why
not? By the time it is clear these
projects do not work they will be retired.
HOT lane and public-private partnerships give
politicians cover that they are “doing
something,” and they provide road builders
with big, profitable projects.
At a
30 June forum on transportation solutions in
Prince William County, The Washington Post
reported that: “Former state
transportation secretary John G. Milliken
promoted public-private partnerships while C.
Kenneth Orski, editor of the Innovative Briefs
transportation newsletter, pointed to
high-occupancy toll lanes as an answer to
funding and traffic problems.”
The
transportation “solutions” that are being
put forth by the media, politicians and the
transport professionals who live off of USDOT
and VDOT programs suggest what a drug
rehabilitation program would be like if it were
run by the addicts. “Just give us more money
to buy more of what I have been buying and we
will be fine and so will you.” The Post
wastes tons of ink and paper on editorials
claiming the earth is flat and that what we need
is more money to solve the mobility problem. (See
End Note Four.)
As noted in the
summary of “Regional Rigor Mortis”
(June 6, 2005), Tony Downs of the
Brookings Institution says congestion is
inevitable result of choices that citizens make
concerning the way they want to live. He
cites the desire for large individual lots and
scattered locations for jobs, homes, good and
services, recreation. Downs never examines
the question: “What would happen if citizens
were required to paid full, fair price for
location decisions?”
Actually,
the market demonstrates that only a small
percentage of the population wants to live the way Downs and others
suggest. Many have no choice about living
in scattered, low-density subdivisions due to
the Shelter Crisis. The free
market would support sustainable human
settlement patterns if the playing field were
level and those who make location decisions paid
the full cost of their choices.
What
the Candidates Are Saying So Far
On property tax reform all three
gubernatorial candidate have
completely missed the issue. There is no
talk of reform, just “relief.” (See
“Reforming the Property
Tax,” 20 June 2005.) On transport, all three
candidates agree that is is important to offer a “solution.”
They all hope to get elected by expressing
empathy for those stuck in traffic and without
having to articulate a specific program.
That is because specifics give the opposition
something to shoot at. On the other hand
without specifics voters have only slogans like
“car tax” to go on.
With three
candidates that means if someone steps forward
with a program and the others have to do it too
or lose. One candidate has already
started to take stands on some key issues.
The others must follow or they will be
lost.
Because
Virginia's governor is a lame duck the moment he is
elected, some pundits counsel mumbling about feeling the voters' pain and then
tossing the problem to the legislature.
Voters will recall that it was the General
Assembly that robbed the transport fund to pay for
other programs even though it was clear that mobility and
access threatened economic prosperity and
quality of life of vast majority of citizens of
the Commonwealth.
Since recent
Virginia governors -- Robb, Allen and now Warner
-- find higher office attractive after their term,
transportation provides candidates with a golden
opportunity. If they spell out a real
mobility solution, the strategy would work for
every New Urban Region where the vast majority
of Virginians live and the Urban Support
Regions where the rest of them live. Such a
strategy could establish a
landmark for entire nation.
So
what are the candidates saying to date?
Michael D. Shear, a reporter for
The Washington
Post who is covering the election, put it this
way in a recent summary:
“Former
attorney general Jerry W. Kilgore (R) wants to
create regional road authorities that could hold
referendums on raising taxes. Lt. Gov. Timothy
M. Kaine (D) promises a personal tour
statewide in which he would listen to concerns
about traffic. Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr. , the
Republican from Winchester who is running as an
independent, says he would call a special
legislative session.”
Shear
has been more specific in
other stories but none of the
three candidates has a definitive, realistic
plan that will improve mobility and access.
We first examine what each candidate has put on
the table and then what they need to add to
create a creditable program.
Tim
Kaine. Kaine’s program is the most
definitive now in play. Kaine’s
four-point program as outlined in his press
release of 23 June 2005:
1.
Veto any new tax until there is constitutional
amendment to prevent raiding of the
transportation trust fund. One voter
observed: “Great, we have to have
constitutional amendment to protect citizens
from the representatives we send to Richmond.”
S/PI and others have argued that a rational
annual increase in the gas tax would be a good
idea–and has been since at least 1973.
But while we need increased levies on
non-renewable resources, Kaine’s idea of not
adding new transportation revenue right now is a
good one. It will be 2009 (the soonest
there could be a constitutional amendment)
before there could be plans for transportable
settlement patterns and transport systems on a regional scale
necessary to
achieve mobility and access.
2.
Continue the improvement in VDOT budgeting and
scheduling that Warner and his appointees have
achieved. No one could argue with this.
It is just a shame good people like Dave Gher
had to be sacrificed on the alter of political
expediency by past Governors.
3.
Integrate transportation (planning) with land
use planning. Now there is an idea that
should have been on the books since 1920.
Better late than never, but how to do it?
What are the details? (See “The Shape of
Richmond’s Future,” Feb. 16, 2004.)
4.
Improve Virginia train service. Yes, but:
Trains are imperative for long-haul freight
(I-81 and I-95) and for mid- and some long-haul
passenger travel. Extensions of
“commuter” and other “trains” has to be
coordinated closely with the settlement pattern.
(See “The Commuting Problem,”
Jan. 17, 2005)
“Reconnecting Virginia” has
a lot of good ideas but is far from a
implementable plan. Kaine
needs to scrap the promise to travel around the
state listening to citizens tell him about their
transport related pain. If citizens knew
the root cause of transport dysfunction they
would not have made the location decisions that
caused the pain in the first place. A
series of town meetings across the Commonwealth
is akin to plotting a medical strategy for
stomach cancer by asking people to tell how they
feel about their stomach aches.
Tim
Kaine needs to add other elements spelled out
below and state clearly that without Fundamental
Change in human settlement patterns more money
will not help. In our view, the Enviros
jumped on the Kaine bandwagon before it had all
its wheels. He could do better and they
could have helped make it happen. They
still can, but have lost leverage and
credibility.
Jerry Kilgore.
Kilgore has echoed Kaine’s promise to veto a
statewide tax increase. Beyond that he has
come forward with nothing but “regional
agencies” and a promise not to interfere with
regional tax votes. The regional agency
idea is not one to be discounted, it just needs
a lot of specifics and must address both
transport and settlement patterns to achieve a
balance.
Kilgore has not
pleased many of his party's biggest funders who
want a “road governor” and know, based on
the 2003 referenda in Hampton Roads and the
northern part of Virginia, that citizen
votes on a regional scale are not likely to
build the scatteration-inducing
“roads-to- nowhere” that they seek.
Russ
Potts. Most agree with Til Hazel that
neither Kaine nor Kilgore now have a “plan”
for mobility and access. The problem is
that Potts, who Hazel supports, has even less of
a “plan.” Appointing a
“commission” and calling the legislature
into session do not constitute a plan.
There are a lot of questions about who might be
on a commission. Is not the legislature
the same group that some think a constitutional
amendment is needed to protect against
continuing past practices?
What
Each Gubernatorial Candidate Can Do to Create a
Plan
Tim Kaine. Kaine needs to start by admitting the obvious:
More money alone will not help. Next he
needs to detail how transport and settlement
pattern are going to be brought into balance.
A regional agency is not enough. He needs to
articulate how neighborhoods, villages and
communities will decide the path to achieve
access and mobility while preserving prosperity,
stability and achieving sustainability.
Jerry Kilgore.
The Kilgore program has to start
with far more detail on the “regional
agency” idea that includes a way to achieve a
balance between land use trip generation and
transportation system capacity. Then he
needs to endorse Kaine’s four points as
augmented above. Oh yes, he must also take
the “money is not enough” pledge.
Russ Potts. By having no plan, Potts has left
himself a lot of flexibility and so could come
up with a plan. Potts needs to start by
admitting that more money without Fundamental
Change will not help and by embracing the Kaine
and Kilgore modified positions outlined above.
He also needs to be specific about the
principles that would guide his administration
on transportation and who he would appoint to
help him establish policy and execute programs.
Where
to From Here
Wait a minute!
Under the above prescriptions for a viable
transport position all the candidates would have
the same position! Why not? Everyone
agrees transport is critically important.
There are not a lot of choices if you want to
solve the problem as opposed to just creating
smoke screens.
Let transport be a “non
political” issue as columnist Barnie Day suggested
before Potts got into the race and Kilgore gave
him exposure by refusing to debate him.
Now with three candidates in the race, it is
more important than ever to have an agreed-to
agenda on access and mobility.
Let
voters choose between the three candidates based
on Property Tax Reform and solving the Shelter
Crisis where there are a lot more options and
the issues are not as clear. Next time we
look at the Shelter Crisis.
--
July 11, 2005
End
Notes
1.
Some have suggested that the idea for HOT lanes was
conceived in the 90s. In fact in the early
and mid 1980s while serving as co-chair of the Fairfax County
Chamber of Commerce’s Transportation committee
and a member of the Board of Directors, EMR and
other committee members proposed tolls on the
Shirley Highway
that varied by how crowed the
lanes were and by the number of riders in the
vehicle. Buses, vans and 4 persons would
go free, those with 3, 2 or 1 rider would pay a
sliding scale fee depending on the level of
traffic at the time to keep the lanes from ever
becoming congested. We even had ideas for
collecting the toll which since have been eclipsed
by new toll collection technology. The
California Route 91 experiment shows the need
for dynamic pricing with changes in the fee
depending on the level of traffic at any given
time.
2. Argetsinger, Amy and Steven Ginsberg.
“Lessons of California’s Toll Lands: Appeal
and Hazards Offer Glimpse of Virginia Beltway to
Come;” The Washington Post; June 20,
2005, Page
A-1.
3. Ginsberg, Steven. “New HOT Lanes Could
Imperil Carpool Practice;” The
Washington Post; June 20, 2005 Page B-1
4.
"Lane Gains," The Washington Post;
June 24, 2005; Page A 30.
|
