Here at SYNERGY/Planning we are a little weary of “new” as well as used ideas to solve the mobility and access crisis. We suggest all must be wary of those proposing “solutions” that do not include Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and Fundamental Change in governance structure.
First let us outline some of the background for our position on access and mobility innovation:
We have advocated village and community scale applications of telework to eliminate vehicular trip demand since 1969. All we have seen so far are pork barrel “telework centers” and individual / small scale, scattered-site applications which do little to address core mobility and access dysfunction. The number of “telecommuters” seem impressive to those who do not take into account the impact of the scattered location of the users.
In the early 70s we supervised and coordinated the development of a sketch plan for a 150,000 population energy self-sufficient Planned New Community for our client Weyerhaeuser Corp which owned the 26,000 acre site. Food, fiber and employment would be based on the resources of the site and adjacent land owned by Weyerhaeuser. Energy was to come from a combination of solar applications and waste recycling. Mobility and access was to be provided by a hybrid private / shared vehicle system designed by project-partner Ford Motor Co. Ironically, Fordโs reaction to the October 1973 Arab Oil Embargo killed that project.
One of our efforts to articulate region-wide settlement pattern and mobility / access solutions was outlined in “Down Memory Lane with Katrina,” 5 September 2005″ at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com .
Since the 80s we have advocated weight-distance fees to pay for the maintenance of roadways. In 1984 we outlined, with others, a proposal to use the reversible lanes on Shirley Highway / I-395 as variable-fee HOV lanes (aka, Hot Lanes). That was over 20 years ago and these are now among the “new” ideas on the table.
We have advanced these “new” ideas not just as a consultant, a professor and an author but also as a board member, committee chair and committee member of some of the largest business organizations in the Commonwealth and as a representative of one of the most influential enterprises in the northern part of Virginia.
Now there is a fresh generation of advocates of “new” ideas like public-private partnerships and private sector funding of transport facilities. These acolytes seem to be driven as much by ideology as by the desire to improve mobility and access. But are they “new” ideas and will they improve mobility and access?
The advocates of “new” ideas were well represented at the recent conference on public-private partnerships. As we note in the End Note Two of “The Devilโs Dance,” (3 January 2006 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com ), this conference addressed a number of topics that need to be considered if we are to solve mobility and access dysfunction. The ideas put on the table were summarized in three columns in the 3 January issue of Bacons Rebellion.
Here are some thoughts on the “new” ideas that were raised at the conference:
First it is not the 19th century where we find the most widespread application of private sector construction of roadways in the Commonwealth. Between 1965 and 2005 far more lane miles of roadway in Virginia were designed, paid-for and built by the private sector than by public funds.
Prof. Gary Johnson provides data on the extent of some of these roadways in his guest column “A Modest Plan” in the 16 June issue of Bacons Rebellion.
Most of those miles of new roadways were turned over to VDOT to maintain. Others were turned over to quasi governments created to own and maintain common roadways, parking lots and openspace for which existing municipalities and the state were unwilling to assume responsibility. Some of the roadways are still owned and maintained by private enterprises.
In summary, far more lane-miles of roadway and acres of asphalt to support autonomobility were designed and paid for by the private sector that the public sector. We believe that a good argument can be made that, had the public been required to pay for these roadways (much less understood the settlement pattern impact of these facilities), there may well have been far more public scrutiny and a greater understanding that this “private” contribution was building the wrong system in wrong place.
This is why understanding the big picture is important: Over the past 85 years the governance structure has failed to evolve. Elected and appointed governance practitioners have ducked their responsibility to create new governance structures at regional level and at neighborhood, village and community scales. They have left it to the private sector to do what the private sector does best: Lobbying for and establishing land use and transport processes that make the most money possible in the shortest period of time for those in control.
Citizens have been hoodwinked because governance practitioners have left it to private sector to create quasi governments (aka, Homes Associations) to be responsible for many small scale governance responsibilities. These same governance practitioners have completely failed to evolve village, community, subregional and regional governance structure. One major aspect of this failure is that the majority of a transport system that does not work. See “From Myth to Law,” 29 November 2004 and “Regional Rigor Mortis,” 6 June 2005.
In his column on the public-private partnership conference (“Roads and Reason,” 3 January 2006), Jim Bacon articulated the core principle with which most participants agree:
“From the standpoint of economic efficiency, transportation should be a โuser payโ system.”
Who could disagree with that?
Well, before we figure out how to pay, we need to figure out what to pay for. Any transport system in which there is public or private investment should provide mobility and access for a desired human settlement pattern.
Let us get first things first. Lets answer first order questions before we answer fourth, fifth and sixth order questions. Before we come up with slick ways to raise money, there must be a plan for what will be done with the money. The National Capital Subregion is marching toward the implementation of a system of Hot Lanes build by public-private partnerships before anyone has considered how these new facilities will impact the existing human settlement patterns much less whether HOT lanes will contribute to the evolution of functional and sustainable patterns and densities of land use.
As noted in our last post ( “The Short Term Fix For Kaine” ) we must understand the impact and functionality of all VDOT programs before we spend public or private funds on them.
So much for the “new” ideas. Now what about the “used” ideas? The 16 January issue of Bacons Rebellion offers three columns on mobility and access that are a dictionary of “used” ideas:
Guest Columnist William Vincent offers three: Improved “buses”, “transit” as part of HOT lanes and telecommuting. Setting aside the problems with language, the three ideas are an absolute sink-hole for public money without Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns.
Stalwart Columnist Patrick McSweeney is still mired in vocabulary issues. See “Babble Postscript,” 3 January 2006 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com. For this reason it is not as clear as it could be that, as noted above, the next step is not to “tap the creativity of the private sector” but to understand what settlement pattern is desired on a regional scale and then what system of transport will provide mobility and access to that configuration of human activity. Finally society must allocated the costs of that system fairly and equitably.
Guest Columnist Prof. Gary Johnson offers a “Modest Proposal.” His ten points are not as radical as those of Jonathan Swift, in fact they are downright reasonable. Most of his points are well taken and his historical perspective is sound.
It is not until one gets to Johnsonโs last point about the transportation problems in “rural” Virginia that it is clear that “new” or “used” ideas have no chance of solving the problems of mobility and access unless there is an understanding of the need for Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and Fundamental Change in governance structure. So long as persons of good will believe that “rural” still exists in 2006, society will never solve the mobility and access crisis or the equally critical shelter crisis. That is the challenge of PROPERTY DYNAMICS.
In the meantime, more money or ways to raise money will make both mobility / access and shelter worse until there is a rational basis for spending the money. As the “private” investment in “suburban” / subdivision roadways shows, money paves the road to nowhere.
EMR