|
A
couple of weeks ago, a group of conservatives
issued what they called a “Conservative
Transportation Alternative.” It got a bit of
notice and even a bit of praise for its approach
to the commonwealth’s evergreen transportation
problems.
However,
after reading the document, I am left asking one
of those “first things” kind of questions,
namely, is this plan really conservative? And even
more, would this plan do much, if anything, to
improve Virginia’s transportation system?
The
first question is really one of perspective. In
general, conservatives believe in a government
structure that is both limited in its scope and
powers, and thus is able to live within its
proscribed fiscal means. On that account, the plan
is hardly one that most conservatives would
recognize as either embracing or advancing those
ideas.
One
of the biggest stumbling blocks is the plan’s
seeming infatuation with, and disdain for,
development, which is derisively termed
“sprawl.” Now “sprawl,” as commonly
understood, is caused by two things: increasing
population and/or increasing prosperity. Opponents
of “sprawl” face the unenviable task of trying
to control either population growth or a rising
standard of living. Attempts at controlling either
can be quite unpopular in a free country.
The
use of the term “sprawl” begs several
questions, but the most fundamental is: What is
the proper role of government? The author of this
plan makes the tacit assumption that individuals
-- exercising their freedom of choice -- are
somehow making life too inconvenient for VDOT. By
choosing to live in homes they can afford in
communities they find desirable, the author
implies that what we really have is a bad case of
market failure. People want affordable homes.
Developers are building willy-nilly wherever land
is cheap. The old systems cannot keep up with this
dynamic and everyone suffers. Like generations of
central planners before him, the author believes
that addressing this failure requires development
decisions be taken out of the hands of individuals
and transferred to governments.
The
idea of wedding land use and transportation
policies at the local level has a definite allure
for some. It makes things neater, it makes them
more predictable. It cannot be any worse than the
status quo, can it?
Though
consider this: Several counties in Northern
Virginia and elsewhere are doing all they can to
stop growth. In part, this is a reaction to what
some believe was unwarranted and ill-considered
expansion in recent years.
While
this political turn may be short lived, the
decisions made while it is in force will have
long-term consequences. Giving local governments
additional powers to enact policies that further
their momentary political ends – in this case,
through control of road construction -- would make
it even easier for them to halt growth within
their own borders.
You
want a new subdivision? We’d like to help,
really, but we can’t get the roads out to you
right now. Sorry. Have you tried the county next
door?
Thus,
while they achieve their own end of halting
growth, they have created an incentive for
builders and home seekers alike to build and buy
even further out in counties that have fewer
growth restrictions. Has the more restrictive
county actually solved its road problem? Most
likely not. Those residents in the far-flung
counties still have to get to work. They will
still want to go into “town” to see friends,
attend events and much more. In other words, they
may not be able to buy a home in the restrictive
county, but they will most certainly use its
roads.
So,
to the extent we give local governments powers
over land and transportation, we increase the odds
that congestion will get worse. People will have
to drive far more, over greater distances, to get
to their jobs. This not only puts more people on
the roads at all times of day, it acts as an
additional tax upon them (through lost personal
time and productivity). The process continues
until those rural counties decide they want to
enact restrictive zoning and transportation
policies, forcing people to move even farther out
than before.
In
addition, let’s not kid ourselves about the
wisdom of local government land use policies.
Henrico County is held up as a model of local land
use and transportation integration. However, a
small item that came along with last
fall’s election results ought to give us all
pause:
The
election came close on the heels of news that a
federal investigation is under way into prices the
county paid developers for land.
While
no School Board member or Board of Supervisors
member has been publicly identified as a target of
the investigation, incumbents McBride and Myers
acknowledged recently that they have been
subpoenaed to testify.
If
that’s in a county with a good reputation for
management, one can only imagine what might occur
in a county that is somewhat less reputable.
Linking land use and road building at the county
courthouse, then, is not without its pitfalls, or
its potential for grievous mischief. Conservatives
should, by nature, be leery of concentrating power
in any government entity. Local governments are no
exception.
What
about the other portions of the “conservative”
plan?
There
was this:
Compounding
this factor is the tendency of our transportation
funding approach to encourage an increase in daily
trips by automobile, vehicle miles traveled by
automobile, and the number of lane miles added to
the state secondary road system in the form of new
subdivision streets. Each of these factors has
contributed to widely scattered development, which
in turn makes transportation solutions more
difficult and expensive to provide.
What
does this mean? Your guess is as good as mine. An
earlier version of the plan made the rounds and
struck a far different tone. In an earlier draft,
this particular section railed against adding more
capacity, which is baffling, because VDOT itself
has added very little new road capacity in many
years. Now it’s reduced, again, to a matter of
sprawl.
The
author seems to be troubled by development, which
is odd, considering that developers have added
road capacity as they build new homes and
businesses. Under the current system, these roads,
once completed, are added to the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s grid, and then
the folks at VDOT take responsibility for
maintenance. Does this place a burden on VDOT’s
budget? Sure. Just the same, under the current,
Byrd-era system, VDOT is on the hook for such
maintenance. Should it be? No. Even so, breaking
up the anachronistic system of a bygone era is a
political problem – one Virginia’s political
class seems unwilling to face because the current
system – for all its flaws – is not without
its political benefits.
Nevertheless,
on we go, looking for the conservativism. Maybe
it’s here:
Elected
officials have been too quick to pass over the
most equitable, efficient and disciplined option
for paying the staggering cost of transportation
projects. That option is
tolls or other user charges, land or cash
contributions by adjacent property owners who will
benefit or other methods of having special
beneficiaries rather than taxpayers pay for new
projects.
This
is the only proactive section of the entire plan.
It recognizes that tolls may be needed. And while
tolls and congestion pricing are important tools
that must be considered, it’s important to
realize that tolling is just that: A tool. It is
not a silver bullet. And in Virginia, it faces a
number of political obstacles.
The
state’s major road corridors have been built and
paid for through other means. Maintaining these
roads is the difficult question. The tolerance,
public and political, for adding tolls to such
roads is very small. A plan floated to toll
existing roads and bridges in Northern Virginia
suggested that nearly $3 billion could be raised
for transportation projects. While the figure is
enticing, its chances of coming to pass are close
to zero. Drivers who have paid, and continue to
pay, state and federal gasoline taxes are highly
unlikely to want to pay a second or third time for
the same routes.
Virginia
has considered and rejected tolling on roads like
I-81 and others when debating transportation fixes
in previous legislative sessions. Businesses
fought the idea as did local road users. The idea
was mothballed.
So,
where can we toll? New construction is a likely
option, but even here, there are problems. Tolls
can only be economically justified if there is
sufficient traffic to generate enough money to
maintain the road. That leaves very few options
– tunnels and bridges being the notable
exceptions. Tolls could also possibly be applied
to HOT lanes, where congestion could justify the
cost.
But
even if we overcome the bias against tolls, we
must still overcome the politics of road funds.
Some toll roads might be capable of generating
large amounts of cash. And like the sweetest
nectar, this money will attract all sorts of eager
government bees, looking for a taste. The most
likely result would be a diversion of toll funds
away from road maintenance and into any number of
other projects that do not benefit the toll
payers.
For
example, monies from the Dulles Toll Road are
being used to support a multi-billion dollar rail
project. This means toll paying drivers, who have
at least the expectation that their toll money
will be used to maintain the road, are instead
being taxed to subsidize rail passengers.
Even
on tolled HOT lanes, $132 million of the monies
generated there may be transferred to support bus
transit. Again, drivers will be subsidizing bus
riders, and the tacit promise that their money
will be used for road maintenance is undermined to
suit the needs of transit-obsessed planners.
The
report in many ways relies upon the Bush
Administration for support of its argument on
congestion pricing. Yet even under the
Administration’s proposals, those funds will not
be used to build more capacity or maintain roads.
They are a simple tax. Does that make this
Virginia plan anti-tax? Not really. It merely uses
the idea of tolls to cover the very real wealth
transfers that are already occurring.
The
nagging impression I get from reading this plan is
that it’s scarcely a conservative vision because
it assumes people are incapable of making
decisions about where and how they want to live.
Those decisions must be made by “communities”
and VDOT. If this is a conservative vision, then
conservativism as we know it is dead. Rather, this
is the vision of the anointed – the masses are
too ignorant or too irresponsible to determine
where they want to live, so let’s deny their
freedom and make this choice for them.
It’s
the last point that really makes this plan neither
conservative nor an alternative to the existing
transportation order. The bizarre assumption that
development creates people, roads magically create
cars, and both create congestion, ignores both
biology and personal choice. People create people.
They have families and want to live in homes they
can afford that are somewhat close to work, and
school, and more. Under this plan, people are
inconvenient costs on VDOT’s balance sheet, but
this can be easily remedied by taking away the
citizens’ rights and freedoms, and by
transferring power to local governments.
Development
controlled. The demand for roads controlled.
Prosperity controlled. Population controlled.
These are not conservative ideas. They are the
dreams of a central planner.
--
April 7, 2008
|
