Bacon's Rebellion

Following the death of Dr. John Bell in a biking accident last month, Carrie Sidener with the Lynchburg News & Advance has written a thoughtful article examining the competing rights of automobiles and bicyclists on the road.

When automobiles first entered the American scene a century ago, they shared streets and roads with horses, horse-drawn carts, electric-powered trolleys, bicyclists and pedestrians. It took a couple of decades of conflict before automobiles emerged on top, their supremacy buttressed by a combination of city ordinances and roadway design. Since then, two or three generations of Americans have lived in an environment in which the primacy of automobiles on streets and roads is taken utterly forgranted.

But times are changing. Although automobiles dominate transportation more than ever, there is increasing recognition that society cannot rely upon a single transportation mode. While automobiles have undisputed advantages — route/time flexibility and wide-ranging mobility foremost among them — they also impose once-unappreciated costs on society: They pollute, they create congestion, and they require roads and parking spaces that consume vast amounts of land that could be applied to other uses.

Currently, only a trivial percentage of the American population uses bicycles to ride to work. But other countries, mostly notably the Netherlands and Denmark, have shown that the potential cycling population is much larger. As automobile congestion worsens in Virginia and the rest of the United States, there is increasing interest in redesigning communities to make them more bicycle friendly. Above all else, bicycling must be made safe.

In most communities, that debate has hardly begun. As Sidener observes, Arlington is the only city in Virginia recognized by The League of American Bicyclists as a bicycle-friendly community. Lynchburg is beginning to have that conversation. Other communities in Virginia should broach the topic before tragedy strikes them as well.

The anonymous blogger who publishes the “Urban Richmond” blog loathes the four- and six-lane highways that slice through America’s cities. In this recent post, “Good Idea #1: Hide Your Highways,” he explores ideas for diminishing the disruption of highways on the urban fabric. Drawing examples from different cities, he proposes two solutions: (1) Elevate the highways and build underneath them, or (2) sink the highways so you can build over them.

Ambivalent Richmonder cites approvingly the practice in Columbus, Ohio, where the Ohio Department of Transportation hid an elevated highway by building retail shops underneath. From the street level, you can hardly tell there’s a highway at all — the shops are knitted into the urban fabric.

The author also cites the City of Richmond, where structures have been built over Interstate 195 through downtown. One is a parking deck and sidewalk that connects the twin Riverside towers to the rest of downtown; the other is the Kanawha Plaza, which does the same for the Federal Reserve Bank. Such structures are expensive, of course, so they can’t be built everywhere. But they do create economic value by preserving the integrity of the urban fabric.

Ambivalent Richmonder travels far and wide in his quest for good ideas for urban transportation and land use. Readers of this blog should add him to their bookmarks. (Hat tip to Jon Baliles for steering me to this website.)

I’m a big believer in the potential for mass transit to help alleviate traffic congestion, but I’m not blind. Heavy rail, light rail and buses are huge money losers. Not only do they fail to pay their capital costs, they don’t even pay their operating costs.

Is that a problem intrinsic to rail and buses, or does it reflect the inability of government to run business enterprises? For a case study, let’s look at the situation at Washington Metro, where labor costs have gotten so out of control that even Washington Post editorial writers are outraged:

SOMETHING IS wrong at Metro when almost 9 percent of its $1 billion operating budget goes to pay overtime to employees. Something is wrong when Metro, whose workforce is comparable to the Los Angeles transit system’s, has at least 10 times as many workers clearing $110,000 a year, thanks largely to profligate overtime policies and practices. And something is wrong when some Metro employees receive overtime pay even while on vacation based on the fact that their usual workweek includes extra hours on the job…

Something is out of whack when one bus driver was able to command $143,000 last year, an income approaching that of the chief operating officer of Metro’s bus division.

Until the Metro gets its act together, Virginians should be very leery of investing more than $5 billion in the Rail-to-Dulles expansion of Metro heavy rail. Not only are the project’s up-front construction costs seemingly escalating with no end in sight, Virginia taxpayers (or Dulles Toll Road commuters) face the prospect of subsidizing an out-of-control Metro workforce.

Amy Biegelsen with Style Weekly has written a solid piece about the challenges facing John Lewis as he seeks to modernize the GRTC, the Richmond regional bus system. Lewis, who took on the CEO post two years ago, has big ambitions. Writes Biegelsen:

Lewis dreams of turning GRTC into a bus rapid transit system such as those available in Cleveland or Los Angeles. Such systems basically try to offer riders the speed and psychological comforts of a rail system. … The buses come with electronic devices that prompt traffic lights to remain green as the bus approaches, greatly reducing commute times. “We can make a great-looking vehicle almost look like a rail line,” Lewis says, “but it’s still a bus so that you have a lot of flexibility.” By designing the buses to look more trainlike, he says, “you get away from the stigma of regular buses.” …

Lewis is in the process of adding global positioning system (GPS) capacity to all city buses, giving GRTC the ability to tell its customers exactly where the buses are at all times. … Buses with GPS onboard can broadcast stops out loud for blind riders and flash them on display boards for the deaf. … With the full fleet beaming back information about their exact whereabouts to GRTC headquarters, it’s only a short jump for Lewis to be able to provide updated information to riders on their cell phones and BlackBerries. By next year, he expects the system to be capable of texting riders directly. For example, the system could alert a specific rider when the bus is five minutes from a stop close to his office, allowing him to orchestrate his schedule without having to block out waiting time.

But the challenges are formidable. Despite its reputation as one of the best-run ransit systems in the country, GRTC takes in only 25 percent of its revenue through passenger fares. GRTC’s public ownership is a huge problem. Decision-making is hobbled by joint ownership by the City of Richmond and the counties of Henrico and Chesterfield, which often have conflicting agendas. Also, as a government entity, GRTC is strapped for cash and has limited latitude to experiment with new ideas to attract riders.

The route structure is archaic. Says Lewis: “Our route system right now pretty much exactly follows the route systems of our old trolleys that were here 50 years ago. Basically, all we did was rip out the rails and put a bus on there. Well, traveling habits have changed. People’s living and commuting patterns have changed. We’ve got to change along with it.”

Lewis would like to provide new kinds of services for affluent, Internet-savvy, Blackberry-carrying riders living in low-density suburbs. In one innovation, GRTC has launched a service ferrying Richmonders to Fredericksburg where they can connect with the Virginia Railway Express. It’s a sad commentary that connecting Richmonders with Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., is easier to accomplish than to connect them with suburban malls in Henrico and Chesterfield.

Norfolk Southern Corp. has proposed a $2 billion upgrade for a rail corridor between Louisiana and New Jersey that could divert as many as one million trucks per year from roads and highways, including Interstate 81 in Virginia.

The railroad company, reports the Roanoke Times, says it is prepared to “invest a lot in this corridor … up to an amount that provides us an acceptable return on our investment.” Beyond that amount, the Norfolk Southern expects the public sector to step in. Virginia has pledged $40 million towards upgrades in the portion of the 1,400-mile corridor that runs through the state.

The idea is certainly worth examining. On the surface at least, it seems vastly preferable to the two grotesquely expensive public-private partnership proposals that have been submitted for I-81 in Virginia. But all expenditures must be scrutinized on a return-on-investment basis. Before Virginia commits to this project, we need to know how many trucks will we get off Virginia highways for that $40 million through this approach, and how does that compare to alternative investments of $40 million?

Let’s see the numbers. If the numbers look good, then it’s full speed ahead!

A week ago John J. McGlennon, chairman of the James City County Board, summed up the attitude that many Hampton Roads residents take toward the proposed plan to create a regional transportation authority and empower it to raise roughly $170 million a year in new levies: “Everyone understands that this is pretty terrible legislation,” he told the Virginian-Pilot. “The real question is whether anything better will emerge if we reject it.”

Jim Bowden and other bloggers have attacked the regional transportation authority for its lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers. I share those concerns. But my problems with the transportation authority run even deeper: By raising revenues through a variety of sources, most of which have nothing to do with when or how far people drive, the funding mechanisms would sever the connection between those who pay for Hampton Roads transportation projects and those who use/benefit from them. Furthermore, there is nothing in the plan that acknowledges the connection between transportation and land use. It’s the same old tax-and-build policy that has gotten the region into its current predicament.

There is no escaping the necessity of raising money from some source in order to build infrastructure for a growing population. There is no free lunch. But it matters very much how the money is raised and what it pays for. To answer McGlennon’s question, almost anything that emerges from a rejection of the transportation authority would be better than the plan now under consideration.

Conceptually, the solution is simple: Devise a system where road users and beneficiaries (property owners whose land is made more valuable by transportation improvements) pay for the improvements. The more direct and transparent the connection between using the roads and paying for them, the better.

Where would the money come from?

1. Congestion tolls — user pays. Create transportation corridor authorities empowered to implement time-of-day pricing on the most congested bridges and thoroughfares. Tolls that vary according to the level of congestion would: (1) reduce reduce traffic to the level of optimal throughput, thus maximizing capacity; (2) allow the authorities to fund transportation improvements within the corridor such as adding extra lanes, setting up Bus Rapid Transit bus stations, synchronizing stop lights, or making micro-improvements to improve traffic flow; and (3) incentivize drivers to seek alternatives to the one-car-one-rider commute.
2. Community Development Authorities — property owners pay. Encourage builders of large projects, such as Pat Robertson’s proposed 500-acre Blenheim development, to pay for Interstate interchanges and secondary road upgrades by creating CDAs and issuing bonds.
3. Hampton Roads Foundation — community pays. Privatize the Ports of Virginia, an idea that has been raised recently, and use the proceeds, conceivably as much as $5 billion, to endow a regional foundation. The foundation could underwrite projects, such as the Third Crossing, an upgraded U.S. 460, or improved rail freight to the ports, that could not support themselves through a user-pays system but might have overriding public benefits such as economic development or hurricane evacuation.

Charging people the full cost of their transportation choices will have beneficial long-term effects. Hampton Roads would see more entrepreneurial approaches to shared ridership systems. Developers would devise communities with a better match between jobs, housing and amenities. Local governments would encourage more transportation-efficient patterns of development. The region would match its commitment to increasing transportation capacity with a commitment to reduce transportation demand.

Jerry Deem may be the only golf cart owner legally driving on public roads in Fairview Beach. That’s because, technically, his golf cart is not a golf cart. It’s defined under state law as a “low speed vehicle.” The critical differentiator: The golf cart abides by state safety requirements to be equipped with “head lights, brake lights, tail lights, reflex reflectors, an emergency brake, an externally mounted rearview mirror, an internally mounted rearview mirror, a windshield, one or more windshield wipers, a speedometer, an odometer, braking for each wheel, a safety belt system, and a vehicle identification number.”

The Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project looks like it is careening toward disaster. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote June 18 on committing to the first installment of the county’s $900 million share of the project — but it has yet to see a copy of the $2.65 billion construction contract! Worse, the price of the contract is good only through June 19, so the supervisors are under intense pressure not to delay their approval.

A number of the supervisors have said they must see a copy of the contract negotiated between the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and Dulles Transit Partners, the construction entity, before committing county funds. MWAA representatives insist that they will be able to share the contract before June 18. According to Examiner.com:

“If you want this board to move, we’re going to have access to documents or we’re not going to move,” Connolly told Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority General Counsel Ed Faggen.

But even if the MWAA courier delivers a copy this afternooon, Fairfax supervisors will have less than two weeks to read, digest and debate the merits of what assuredly will be a highly complex document.

Especially outraged are supporters of the underground option: running the heavy rail underneath the Tysons Corner segment instead of down the median of Route 7 (Leesburg Pike), as envisioned in the MWAA contract. Tunnel backers believe an aerial route will destroy a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-develop Tysons into a walkable, transit-oriented mixed-use district. A June 18 decision would allow no time to reconsider.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, attended a board hearing yesterday along with hundreds of other citizens to press their case. Said Schwartz: “I am astounded that Fairfax County’s elected officials have not seen the contract yet and that a gun is being held to their heads to vote on June 18th.”

Toot! Toot! Can you hear the sound of citizens getting railroaded?