Category Archives: Transportation

Where’re My Cars, Dude?

Washington state HOT lane revenues — actual collections versus forecast.

by James A. Bacon

In 2008 the Washington Department of Transportation converted 10 miles of HOV lanes in the Seattle metro region to tolled HOT lanes. If the experiment was successful, the state  planned to expand the HOT lane concept around the state. After four years of experience, the verdict is in: People aren’t willing to pay nearly as much to avoid congestion as assumed.

According to Washington DOT data (see chart at right), toll revenues are coming in at less than half of the worst case forecast. Two factors seems to be at work, sums up Angie Schmitt with D.C. Streets Blog: “People are driving less, and they aren’t as willing to pay their way out of congestion as was assumed.”

Less congestion means less incentive to pay for [Route] 167′s HOT lanes. But there’s more going on than that: Not only are fewer people choosing to use the priced lanes than expected, those who do are paying lower prices than expected. The lanes are dynamically priced, with the costs rising — and falling — based on demand. …

The prevailing theory about HOT pricing is that people would be willing to pay half their hourly wage rate to avoid sitting in traffic. But based on income data from WSDOT, far more commuters earn more than $24 per hour than are opting for the priced lanes.”

HOT lanes represent a real-world test for how much value drivers place on cutting their commuting time. Virginians should pay heed. While everybody complains about congestion, when push comes to shove, they may not be willing to pay much to avoid it.

What it means to Virginia. Virginia and its private-sector partners have made a huge commitment to HOT lanes — both for the recently opened Capital Beltway and the I-95 project under construction. The Downtown-Midtown Tunnel in Norfolk also varies toll prices by time of day.

No one has officially acknowledged it yet but I’m willing to bet that toll revenues on the Capital Beltway express lanes are running below expectations. According to a Public Works Financing newsletter article published in 2007, the project was expected to generate $335,000 daily in toll revenue by 2015. That’s roughly $10 million monthly or $30 million quarterly. While the 495 expressways are still in their ramp-up stage, they have a long way to go.

In their first quarter of reported results, Capital Beltway Express LLC reported total revenue of $828,000. As Washington-area drivers became more aware of the expressway option, traffic volume picked up considerably. The quarter ending March 31, 2013 yielded $2,475,000 in revenues. “Consistent with other express lane facilities, the 495 Express Lanes are still within the expected ramp-up period with both usage and pricing expected to increase progressively over time,” the report stated.

Please note what the report did not say: It did not say that traffic volumes and revenue were meeting forecasts. Revenue must quadruple within two years to meet expectations.

In a possible hint that revenues have proven disappointing, Capital Beltway Express made the express lanes open to drivers for free April 6 and 7. The stated justification: “The free weekend is part of an educational campaign to encourage Beltway drivers to try the new travel option on the Virginia side of the Capital Beltway and see how the Express Lanes can work for them.”

I have been a big supporter of the theory of using dynamic pricing to ration scarce highway capacity and the concrete application of that theory with the I-495 and I-95 HOT lanes projects. Further, from everything I’ve seen, Capital Beltway Express is a highly professional and well-run organization. But the situation bears watching as Northern Virginia politicians line up with their pet projects to get a piece of Governor Bob McDonnell’s transportation funding package.

Last year’s debate over transportation funding took place in a reality warp. Even  as the special interests and their toady politicians worked themselves into a frenzy over congestion, statewide congestion costs were dramatically lower than they had been five years previously. (See “Can We Have a Reality Check, Please?“)

But even I, as skeptical as I was, missed a critical part of the picture. I accepted the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimate of how much congestion cost Washington-region motorists, which the McDonnell administration routinely trotted out to justify the need for more transportation spending. But what if it turns out that motorists don’t value congestion relief as much as TTI thought they do? What if it turns out that motorists aren’t willing to pay hard cash just to drive a little faster, and they’re just as content to sit in their air-conditioned cars listening to talk radio, NPR or their iPod play list?

The beauty of the 495 express lanes is that it will provide a reality-based B.S. detector. By tracking what Washingtonians are willing to pay in expressway tolls, we can measure how much monetary value they place on reducing their drive time. That information will prove invaluable as the commonwealth — and Northern Virginia in particular — plans billions of dollars on transportation projects that no one would want if they had to pay for them themselves. As Angie Schmitt put it, “If drivers won’t pay to bypass congestion, why should taxpayers?”

Dude! WaPo Columnist Ventures Look at Downstate Road Project!

Robert McCartney, a Washington Post columnist, has done a remarkable thing: He has taken a look at a transportation project outside the Washington region and decided he didn’t like what he saw. Not only is the Charlottesville Bypass ill conceived, it is part of a pattern in which the McDonnell administration “relentlessly pushes a major highway project despite abundant evidence that the money could be spent more wisely elsewhere.” By way of specifics, he also cites the U.S. 460 upgrade between Suffolk and Petersburg and the Bi-County Parkway.

What makes the column remarkable is that McCartney escapes the usual myopia in which the newspapers serving Virginia markets focus monomaniacally on transportation projects in their readership zones without the slightest interest in anything occurring anywhere else. Thus, the Rail-to-Dulles rail project and the Bi-County Parkway receive heavy coverage from Washington-area media but other newspapers are no more interested than if they occurred in Boston or New York. It amazes me that Rail-to-Dulles, perhaps the biggest infrastructure project in Virginia history, has gotten zero visibility downstate.

Likewise, the Charlottesville Bypass has gotten no attention outside Charlottesville, the Midtown-Downtown Tunnel has garnered none outside Hampton Roads, and U.S. 460, which is outside any major newspaper’s circulation zone, has generated minimal coverage by any major metro daily.

Thus, no one gets the big picture. No one tunes into how mega-projects of questionable value around the state have consumed a disproportionate share of state transportation resources. No one questions the processes that determine how transportation funding priorities are set. And no one wonders if governance of the system needs reform. Instead, everyone goes along — baah, baah, baah — and agrees to raise taxes.

So, thank you Mr. McCartney, for proving to be a rare exception to the rule. Not that the media’s approach to covering transportation will change. But the column was a refreshing departure from the norm.

– JAB

Yet Another Owner for Richmond’s Unwanted Road

pocahontasBy Peter Galuszka

Richmond’s “Road to Nowhere” is about to get yet another owner, showing again how the public-private partnership craze can result in unneeded transportation projects while denying resources elsewhere.

Australia’s Transurban which owns Route 895, otherwise known as “Pocahontas Parkway” is dumping the tollroad it picked up in an emergency financial deal in 2006. At that time, the highway that connects Interstates 95 and 295 southeast of Richmond was so underused that it was about to take down the state’s stellar credit rating.

But Transurban hasn’t been able to make a go of it despite tolls of up to $3.25 per car for a short drive through the fields of eastern Henrico County. The firm plans on selling it to a consortium of European banks that have $300 million in debt. The project also owes the feds $150 million for a loan.

The Pocahontas Parkway was the pioneer project for the Public-Private Partnership Transportation Act of 1995, which has been heralded as a nation-beater and a way to have your cake and eat it too as far as road financing. The allure was that you could build roads and have the private sector manage them and help pay for them through tolls.

Problem was, nobody seems to need the highway. It was billed as a way to expedite I-95 traffic to I-64 and I-95 around Richmond and perhaps open up relatively untapped areas east of the city for suburban sprawl development which hasn’t really happened.

The Richmond Establishment is loath to admit this, but the Richmond airport which has undergone a big expansion is not getting the flights and traffic it had hoped for. The Parkway was supposed to have helped promote the airport by providing easier access to it.

PPPT funding has been replicated in other areas in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, but a Portsmouth judge seems to have finally put a legal dagger through  the heart of the program by ruling that in the case of a local tunnel project, the state had unconstitutionally given its authority to tax to a private entity.

It isn’t clear what the ruling means for the PPT program, but the gist is clear. Democrats and Republicans alike want to live a fiction that you can transfer the state’s traditional responsibility to raise taxes and build roads and hand it over to private interests. It seems such a sweet arrangement – you get to keep Virginia from having to raise taxes, avoid violating the no-tax dogma  and not piss off voters while getting highways and construction jobs. It sounds too good to be true and it is.

Oh well. I wonder who will inherit the White Elephant when the European banks can’t make it work either.

Demand Surges for Transit-Oriented Housing

In theory, property values should be rising around The Tide's 10 transit stops in Norfolk. Has anyone studied this? Has it happened? Are renters being displaced?

In theory, property values should be rising around The Tide’s 10 transit stops in Norfolk. Has anyone studied this? Has it happened? Are renters being displaced?

Speaking of the economics of mass transit (see previous post)… The good news is that residential property prices are surging around mass transit stations. In the clearest of possible signals, the marketplace is telling us that there is strong demand among large swaths of the American population for access to mass transit service. People are willing to pay a lot more for the convenience.

The bad news (there had to be a downside) is that affluent Americans are displacing poor and working-class residents from transit-accessible housing. Thus, the population that relies upon transit the most has less access than before, the Wall Street Journal today. Writes the Journal:

Professors at Northeastern University in Boston examined 42 neighborhoods in 12 U.S. cities in 2010 and found that housing costs near rail stops increased after light-rail service started in many markets. “A new transit station can set in motion a cycle of unintended consequences in which core transit users…are priced out in favor of higher-income, car-owning residents,” the authors wrote.

The Journal focused on Rainer Valley, a racially mixed neighborhood in Seattle.

Rainier Valley … had a median per-capita income roughly 40% below the citywide median from 2007 to 2011, census figures show. But the announcement of the rail-line route, in 1999, and its launch 10 years later boosted rents in the area. A report by the Puget Sound Regional Council shows assessed values for certain parcels around one Rainier Valley station rose by an average of 513% since 1999.

Part of that increase, the Journal acknowledges, can be attributed to the construction of new, high-end apartment buildings that pushed the average rent higher without displacing anybody. Still, rents are rising in other Rainer Valley apartment buildings as well.

Bacon’s bottom line: One predictable set of responses to this dilemma would be to impose rent controls, force developers to provide low-rent “workforce” housing as a condition for building, or impose some other command-and-control solution. There is a less obvious alternative, however. Loosen zoning codes and other restrictions that make it difficult for developers to build around transit stations! Insofar as the displacement of transit-dependent residents is a function of housing shortages caused by surging demand and restricted supply, the answer is obvious: Allow more supply.

A second critical point: If you want to build more mass transit, rising property prices suggest a way to pay for it without bilking taxpayers. Create a special taxing district around the proposed station, issue bonds backed by revenues from that district, and increase density around the station. Property owners will come out winners, taxpayers won’t get stuck with the tab for the improvement, and citizens will enjoy a transportation option they did not have before.

– JAB

How Federal Safety Regs Hurt Passenger Rail

European train design -- faster, safer, lighter, cheaper...

European train design — faster, safer, lighter, cheaper…

by James A. Bacon

There has been increasing interest in passenger rail around the United States in recent years but the high cost of building and operating rail systems has posed a major barrier. One reason rail service is so expensive, writes David Edmondson for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is that Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety regulations lock U.S. trains into antiquated standards based on 1945 technology.

FRA regulations require train undercarriages to withstand 800,000 pounds of force without permanent defamation, explains Edmondson in “Reducing Passenger Train Procurement Costs.” The purpose of this “buff strength” requirement is to ensure that train cars can resist the impact of other cars. That may have made sense in 1945 when the standard was implemented, but European and Japanese train design has taken very different directions since then. In Europe train cars are built with crumple zones in non-occupied areas, reducing the need for rigid buff strength of only 337,200 pounds. Not only are European cars just as safe, Edmonson asserts, but trains are lighter, allowing them to decelerate and stop more quickly, and they are less prone to “telescoping,” in which the force of a crash causes passenger cars to climb over one another with devastating effect.

As a result, American trains are more expensive to build, weigh twice as much, require more energy to move, wreak havoc on rail infrastructure built for lighter cars, degrade performance and cost more to operate. Perhaps worst of all, because European (and Japanese) train designs are effectively precluded from the U.S. market, foreign manufacturers anticipate shorter manufacturing runs and charge more per train.

Thus, when Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) purchased trains for its new system in 2009, the least expensive option came from a Japanese coalition that charged 50% more, $3.3 million per unit. When Acela ordered trains from a European consortium, Edmondson contends, the result was a “Frankenstein’s monster” that today faces frequent breakdowns and incurs expensive maintenance.

The FRA, suggests Edmondson, “could easily address this problem by adopting European design standards. This would give U.S. transit agencies access to a vast array of more affordable and effective vehicles. … The FRA should also move beyond crash survival and start to focus on crash prevention. Positive train control, which can significantly reduce the incidence of crashes, is an important piece in this puzzle, but the FRA does not take stopping distance into account when evaluating a train’s safety.” He continues:

The requirements force Amtrak and transit authorities across the country to purchase custom-made trains that are unnecessarily expensive, underperform, and do not meet the best safety practices of the rest of the world.

Bacon’s bottom line: As I have argued repeatedly, the United States needs to invest in rail mass transit and inter-city rail — but we cannot afford the massive capital and operating subsidies that rail requires. One approach — the brain-dead approach — is simply to lobby for bigger grants and subsidies from federal and state governments whose finances are increasingly precarious and unsustainable. Even if we get the rail service established, if it loses money, there is no assurance that we can maintain it in the future.

A better approach is to understand why rail is so economically uncompetitive. How can taxpayers capture more of the economic value created by their infrastructure investments? How can we reduce union featherbedding and improve labor productivity? And how can we reform federal regulations to encourage more design innovation and promote competition? Edmondson addresses the third of those questions. As a society, we must confront them all. If we don’t re-think passenger rail transportation from stem to stern, rail will never amount to more than a costly, niche transportation option.

Gearing up for the Smart Car/Road Revolution

by James A. Bacon

The automobile industry is undergoing the greatest technological revolution since… well, probably since the invention of the automobile. Cars are getting “smarter,” as in embedded with more powerful sensors and artificial intelligence, and they are getting more connected — with other cars and with roads, which are getting smarter as well. The way people drive 10 years from now will be radically different from the way they drive today, especially if driverless cars become the norm.

Will Virginia be ready? That’s the question I frequently ask on this blog. I don’t know the answer, but I will say this: If Virginia is prepared a decade from now, it will owe a lot to the Connected Vehicle/Infrastructure University Transportation Center, a research consortium supported by Virginia Tech, the University of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Transportation and Morgan State University.

Last week the Center strutted its stuff in Northern Virginia, putting on a demonstration of emerging connectivity technologies. Dave Forster has the story for the Virginian-Pilot:

To “connect” the car and the motorcycle, they equipped each with a small antenna and a black boxlike device. That allowed them to talk using what’s known as Dedicated Short Range Communications.

“Think of it as robust roadside Wi-Fi,” said Andrew Petersen, the director of technology development at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. …

Another device …looked like a large Wi-Fi router. …  That was the roadside part of the equation. It sent alerts to the vehicles as they passed, including one for a work zone and another for a stopped vehicle.

VDOT has installed 43 of those devices on a stretch of Interstate 66 and nearby roads close to the Capital Beltway. For researchers, it’s a real-world lab to test and collect data with a fleet of 12 connected vehicles, including four motorcycles, a semitruck and two SUVs.

Technology connecting cars and smart roads will be widely available to the public within five to ten years, researchers predict. The potential exists to make roads a lot safer, and perhaps to squeeze more capacity out of the existing road network.

Right now, the commonwealth is ramping up to spend billions of dollars to address Virginia’s transportation needs based on the assumption that future roads will be as stupid as today’s roads, that the revolution in automobile/infrastructure technology won’t change much of anything. Why? Because transportation funding is driven by a bureaucratic process in which projects inch through endless review and funding hurdles. Once a project enters this pipeline, rarely is it dropped. Projects conceived today, based upon today’s technology and land-use realities, will be extruded through this process a decade or two from now, when the transportation environment will be totally different. It’s depressing to think how many billions of dollars will be mal-invested.

A critical transportation challenge at this juncture is to figure out how to make that approval process more flexible, allowing future administrations to yank projects that no longer make sense and to accelerate projects that do.

Floyd, a Street Cyclists Can Call their Own

Design options for the Floyd Bicycle Boulevard include car diverters like this...

Design options for the Floyd Bicycle Boulevard include car diverters like this…

by James A. Bacon

The City of Richmond doesn’t have many tangible results to show for its bicycle-friendly policies so far. Painting white bicycle symbols on a few streets to designate sharrows — lanes where cars should be on the look-out for bicycles — contributes only marginally to making streets safer for cyclists. But the city soon could create a street corridor that prioritizes bicycles over cars.

City Council voted last month to ask the Commonwealth Transportation Board to approve the Floyd Avenue Bike Boulevard project to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility on Floyd Avenue in the city’s Fan and Museum districts.

As described in Richmond Connects, the city’s strategic multimodal transportation plan, a bicycle boulevard is a low volume, low-speed street that is “redesigned with features to further reduce the speed and volume of traffic and give priority to bicycles.”

speed lumps like this...

…speed lumps like this…

The plan would convert Floyd to a bicycle boulevard for 27 blocks between Dooley Avenue and Laurel Street. The details remain to be seen. But traffic “diverters” could be installed at intersections to force local car traffic from Floyd onto other streets after a block or two. The diverters would be designed so that bicycles could ride through them. Another technique for slowing speeds might be to install speed lumps — like speed bumps but with cutouts for bicycles. Traffic islands at intersections are another option. Good signage and lane markings are critical.

“Residents and businesses would still retain access [to Floyd Avenue] but in some cases that access may be less direct than before the conversion,” states the transportation plan.

...and traffic signals like this.

…and traffic signals like this.

Floyd Avenue is  well suited for such a project. The mainly residential street has a low volume of automobile traffic at present, and is little used by commuters driving into and out of Richmond’s central business district. The bicycle boulevard would terminate at Virginia Commonwealth University, where it would plug into the bicycle-friendly VCU campus. Moreover, it would run 27 blocks through the Fan and Museum districts, two of the most densely settled  neighborhoods in Richmond, where cyclists can access a wide range of amenities.

The Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization has recommended approval of $50,000 to pay for preliminary engineering. Assuming the scope and cost of the project stays on target, the MPO will recommend approval for the balance of the project cost, an additional $300,000. Eighty percent of the street makeover will be funded through the federal Transportation Alternative program; the city will pay the rest.

The Fan and Museum districts have a fair volume of bicycle traffic already, but streets are not designed to accommodate bicycles. Cyclists blowing through intersections are a frequent irritant to drivers. It is hoped that many cyclists will divert to the Floyd Bike Boulevard, where they will come into less conflict with cars.

Some residents of Floyd Avenue likely will complain that tilting the rules of the road in favor of bicycles and against cars will inconvenience them and diminish their property values. But the bother to motorists is marginal. And it is entirely possible that enhancing bicycle accessibility could bolster property values. This project will make an interesting experiment. I hope that city officials track property valuations over the next several years. Floyd Avenue could well prove to be the template for other bicycle boulevards.

VDOT Terms Conservationist Alternative an Impractical “Thought Exercise”

Traffic on I-66

Traffic on I-66

by James A. Bacon

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has fired back at conservation groups opposing Northern Virginia’s Tri-County Parkway, asserting that their proposed alternatives would cost $6 billion to implement compared to an estimated $450 million to build the parkway. Ignoring the realities of the transportation planning process, says VDOT, the “substitute vision” amounts to little more than an impractical “thought exercise.”

“The suggested improvements represent not a simple alternative to the TCI project, but more of a substitute transportation vision (such as might be found in a regional or sub-regional transportation plan) rather than a transportation improvement alternative that could be implemented as a single project or a single project package in lieu of the proposed TCI,” states a newly published VDOT memorandum, “Analysis of the Substitute Vision Provided By SELC Et Al. As An Alternative To The Tri-County Parkway.”

“Efforts to combine a package of disparate components of a Substitute Vision into an alternative to a single proposed action (such as the proposed Tri-County Parkway) do not reflect the realities of the transportation planning process and, other than serving as a sensitivity analysis and planning/thought exercise, are largely impractical,” states the document.

The Tri-County Parkway (also referred to as the Bi-County Parkway) is a key link in a proposed North-South Corridor running west of Washington Dulles International Airport down to Manassas and Interstate 95. The project has provoked a strong reaction among citizens living around the Manassas National Battlefield Park and the designated Rural Crescent in western prince William County.

In January the Southern Environmental Council (SELC), Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG) and other preservation groups issued a document, an “Updated Composite Alternative,” that detailed alternatives to the proposed parkway. Ideas included making major upgrades to existing roads, such as improvements to the I-66/Route 28 interchange, HOV lanes and mass transit on major arteries, and installing roundabouts to reduce congestion at intersections of heavily traveled two-lane roads.

Conservation groups contend that the parkway is a speculative project designed to address population growth forecast to occur over the next three decades in Loudoun and Prince William counties, draining money from projects needed to ameliorate the congestion that already exists in Northern Virginia’s east-west corridors.

To analyze the Updated Composite Alternative, VDOT broke the ideas into specific projects, identifying specific improvements and start- and end-points for each. Then it used the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments traffic and land-use model to analyze the results. “The most notable conclusion is that, even with the changes assumed for the Substitute Vision, travel demand on the Tri-County Parkway remains relatively unchanged,” the memo states.

Further, the document added, “The components of the Substitute Vision do not take into account any elements of actual project development, which are factors that are critical to the realistic recommendation of an alternative/set of alternatives. Such factors include … funding, assessment of potential environmental impacts or constraints, and public/agency involvement and comment. In contrast, the Tri-County Parkway has been undergoing the NEPA process since 2001.”

Concludes the memo: “The Substitute Vision clearly is not a ‘low build’ alternative that could be implemented easily in a timely fashion.”

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said that the conservation groups behind the Updated Composite Alternative have not had an opportunity to study the highly technical VDOT memo in detail. However, he did offer this response to some of the memo’s more general comments:

We included projects that are common sense priorities that VDOT has left out of both short-term and long-term plans and priority lists.  What stands out from their report is the number of projects which they have NOT placed on the region’s Constrained Long Range Plan and/or are not included in their new draft six-year construction plan,  but would offer real benefits for commuters today.  These include projects like the Route 28/I-66 interchange to address the demand to reach jobs east of Dulles Airport and reduce delays on I-66, and the Route 28/Braddock Road interchange to replace a traffic light-induced bottleneck.  Our list also includes projects that Loudoun has placed on its County Transportation Plan to fix the Route 50 corridor, and critical transit investments to help Prince William commuters, like extending VRE and adding express bus service, and in the future extending Metrorail to Centerville.  Why aren’t these projects VDOT priorities?

It’s simply misleading of VDOT to call our alternative a $6 billion package as compared to their $450 million TCP.   In a number of cases, it is VDOT that defined oversized, more costly versions of what we proposed.  But more importantly, as I just said above, the many projects we list are necessary to address the primary problem of east-west congestion and other current and future needs.  Therefore, they should and would naturally be included a similar area-wide package by VDOT totaling in the billions as well.

It is because of these significant needs, that we and others are questioning why VDOT would spend not just $450 million on the TCP but $1 billion or more on the Outer  Beltway from I-95 to Route 7 and the associated Dulles Connector that could cost another $500 million.   Note that the Outer Beltway would likely cost much more than $1 billion if the TCP is indeed now estimated at $450 million for the ten miles from I-66 to Route 50. But whichever way you cut it, VDOT is proposing $1.5 billion or more for a highway that doesn’t address priority commuter needs.

What we expect to find when we complete our technical review of VDOT’s report on our alternative and their other report updating their traffic numbers for their Draft Environmental Impact Statement is that the new north-south highway through the Prince William Rural Crescent and rural Loudoun Transition Area will itself induce new development and create new traffic.  So, not only does the TCP not address priority transportation needs, the highway will make traffic worse.

Who’s Got More Smart Growth – MD or VA?

Smart growth in Bethesda, not the norm in Maryland.

Smart growth in Bethesda, not the norm in Maryland.

by James A. Bacon

State-level incentives to encourage smart growth proved to be of limited effectiveness in Maryland because they did not dissuade local governments from pursuing local priorities, according to a new study of the Washington metropolitan area scheduled to be published in Urban Studies.

The study by Amal K. Ali, a geography professor at Salisbury University, compared development patterns in Washington’s Maryland suburbs, which provides state-level incentives for localities to pursue smart growth, with development patterns in the region’s Virginia suburbs, where no such state-level inducements exist.

States the article abstract: “While statewide incentive programmes/policies help Maryland’s counties to preserve their farmlands, they seem insufficient to change sprawling development patterns. County applications of smart growth policies are mainly driven by local needs and priorities.”

I was unable to obtain a free copy of the study (you can download one for $25), but Eric Jaffe summarized the findings for the Atlantic Cities blog.

Maryland tries to steer development into “priority funding areas” where infrastructure to handle increased density already exists. While some counties pursued smart growth development — Montgomery County is the leading example — about 21% of new residential parcels were built outside priority funding areas between 1997 and 2007. The incentives did work to preserve farmland but in other measures, such as density, “the Maryland counties didn’t perform so well,” Jaffe writes.

The recently approved PlanMaryland combines carrots and sticks, adding mandates such as requiring localities to link growth with water resources, limiting the ability to expand into remote areas. But the plan is generating pushback as localities complain about excessive state control.

Bacon’s bottom line: Sprawl is an incredibly complex phenomenon, influenced not only by state policies but federal policies, transportation policies and market forces. But the most important influences — politics, zoning codes, infrastructure investments, permitting processes and regulations (like minimum parking requirements) — are local.

If local governments don’t get on board, smart growth won’t happen. Montgomery County, Md., has smart growth because there is strong local support for it. Charles County, Md., by contrast, has sprawl that’s even worse than anything I’ve seen in Virginia.

Maryland has pursued smart growth more aggressively than almost any other state but doesn’t have much to show for it. It appears that the state is doubling down on its top-down approach with PlanMaryland. It will be interesting to see if more mandates and tougher regulations make a difference or whether they have perverse and unintended consequences that undermine the smart-growth goal. Someone needs to articulate a conservative, market-based approach to smart growth. Gee, that would be me. I’ll get on it.

Has Washington Reached Escape Velocity?

Achieving orbital escape velocity. Orbital Science Corp.'s Antares rocket is just one sign of the Washington region's economic dynamism.

Achieving orbital escape velocity: The Antares rocket, designed by Orbital Sciences Corp., is just one sign of the Washington region’s economic vitality.

by James A. Bacon

It was long the conventional wisdom — which I shared, by the way — that the Washington regional economy was cruising for a bruising when the federal government encountered its inevitable reckoning with fiscal reality. Well, sequestration, a sort of semi-reckoning, has kicked in, and the Washington economy appears to be shrugging it off.

Indeed, the main thesis of a front-page Wall Street Journal this morning is that private-sector growth is replacing government growth as a source of economic dynamism. Federal spending as a proportion of the regional economy has slipped from 40% to 36% since 2010 — yet the regional economy continues to grow faster than the national average.

What’s happened? The region’s deep talent base is part of the story. But Washington has had a deep talent base for decades. What’s different is that the region now has a generation of successful entrepreneurs who have cashed in their chips from the government-contracting businesses they built and now are investing in start-ups that have no government connections at all.

Writes Elizabeth Williamson:

More than a generation of heavy federal spending, it turns out, has provided the seed money for a Washington economy that now operates globally—less tied to the vicissitudes of the capital’s political rhythms.

The new moneyed brain trust is being led by professionals in defense, intelligence and data—many of whom excelled initially due to government ties. They’ve propelled the D.C. region as a leader in the cybersecurity and data sectors, as well as in more-specialized arenas including educational products and health-care data management.

Along those lines, Stephen Fuller, George Mason University’s regional economist, attributes the economic dynamism to the fact that the region has  “become more business-based. … The stuff we learned how to do for the federal government can be sold to other people—a different economy is going to emerge that in the long run may be a better-balanced economy than the one we have now.”

Bacon’s bottom line: If Fuller’s thesis is correct, if the Washington regional economy has reached escape velocity from federal spending, then that is positive news indeed, both for Northern Virginia and for Virginia as a whole. One of my nightmares, frequently articulated on this blog, is that a slowdown in federal spending would have devastating consequences for the economy, tax revenues and the fiscal strength of state and local governments. The WSJ article awakens me to the possibility that those fears may be exaggerated.

There is a second level of re-appraisal that must occur. I have frequently raised the specter of slower economic growth in Northern Virginia as justification for mistrusting the long-range job and population forecasts that underpin infrastructure spending (especially transportation spending) plans for the region. If the region continues to grow like gangbusters, I’ll have to scrap that argument.

Whatever the region’s growth rate, the debate over transportation and land-use policy in Northern Virginia will continue without let-up.