Transportation and Generational Analysis, Part 2

Where will the impetus for Fundamental Change in Virginia come from? One source is concern about climate change, and the resulting push to conserve energy. Another is the price of gasoline, which, though temporarily depressed, will shoot back up again as soon as the economy recovers. To those two, we can add a third: the age wave.

We all know our society is aging. While we can make intelligent guesses about energy prices and climate change, we can predict with near certainty that the inexorable advance of Baby Boomers into their 70s and 80s will swamp America’s existing institutions. Yet, as acutely aware as we are of the age wave’s ramifications wave for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we have given little thought to its implications for transportation and land use.

It’s inevitable: As Boomers get older, their cognitive processes will decline, their reaction times will slow, and increasing numbers they will be unable to drive. Unless technology reaches the point where drivers can punch a destination into a dashboard, turn over the driving to a computer and lean back to enjoy the ride, Virginia will find itself with unprecedented numbers of old Boomers living in social isolation, unable to care for themselves.

At the same time, there will be dearth of caregivers. As my Boomer Project compadre Matt Thornhill observed in a recent column in the Times-Dispatch, the front-line caregivers — spouses and children — are shrinking in numbers. More Baby Boomers than ever are foregoing marriage, and they’re having fewer children. (See his Thanksgiving-inspired piece, “By 2028, Boomers Will Be Most Thankful for Friends.”)

Meanwhile, as my other Boomer Project compadre, John W. Martin, writes in a follow-up column, “It takes a Village,” the G.I. and Silent generations were willing to be sequestered in “geezer ghettoes” like nursing homes and extended care facilities. But Boomers reject that model of aging. They want to “age in place” — to grow old in their own homes, remaining connected to family, friends and community.

In a survey that BP conducted earlier this year for the Older Dominion Partnership, 88 percent of Boomers responded that they want to live in their own home in their later years. For 70 percent, that holds true even if they become ill or disabled. If white-haired Boomers (or blue-haired, in the case of their wives) refuse to be warehoused in age-segregated communities, and they also have fewer family caregivers to look after them, what options do they have?

The only viable option is to stay independent as long as possible. Unfortunately, Virginia’s auto-centric human settlement patterns make oldsters dependent upon others for transportation, not independent.

At some point, Virginians will wake up to the reality that the Age Wave bearing down on us is incompatible with scattered, low-density and auto-dependent human settlement patterns. People who think about the Age Wave are advocating ideas such as “universal design,” adapting houses to the needs of the elderly and disabled, and “intergenerational living,” in which oldsters provide free living quarters in their big, drafty buildings to young people in exchange for their personal assistance.

Ultimately, though, John writes, the solution resides not in retrofitting houses with grab bars in bathrooms and monitoring devices but in retrofitting communities to enable the elderly to walk, take the bus or ride the subway when they are too old to drive. To remain independent longer, old people need to live in mixed-use communities where important services, from grocery stores to libraries, are within short walking distance, streestscapes are pedestrian friendly and transportation alternatives are abundant. John envisions more urban “village” like those in Arlington, which has labored for decades to emancipate its residents from automobile dependency.

The Age Wave is coming, and Virginia communities are beginning to plan for it. The Older Dominion Partnership is emerging as a vehicle for the collection of data and dissemination of best practices. Under the ODP umbrella, task forces are examining vital age-related issues from medical care to community readiness. No group has yet focused on transportation and urban design, but John’s column suggests that such a perspective may not be long in coming. Indeed, I will boldly (recklessly?) predict that Age Wave planning will soon join energy and environmental issues in the near future as an impetus for Fundamental Change.


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

50 responses to “Transportation and Generational Analysis, Part 2”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    What would it cost to abandon today’s housing and rebuild at EMR’s 20 people per acre? Let’s say over 20 years? Who bears the sunk costs?

    Most people would need to sell their existing home in order to move to compact living. Who is going to buy the existing housing stock? And if it’s purchased, don’t we maintain the status quo?

    TMT

  2. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell -- Chesapeake

    Personally I’d rather choke on a San Miguel preserved mouse while playing a rousing game of Smiles with a table full of other feeble cretins than to spend my last days in a nursing home.

    I’ve seen how the last generation went out, sitting in their own falling down home, eating cat food until the day the Geriatric Police hauled them away. Now maybe there are some Boomers out there that have that goal in life, but it ain’t me. Nope, it’s party till you puke. Then pick up your dentures and do it again.

  3. I suppose much of one’s interpretation here depends on your definition of “old” (mine used to be “over 30” — oops).

    But from experience with my own family, once the driver’s license is turned in (80ish) there is very little desire to ever go strolling around town. The same feebleness that inhibits driving makes walking a significant distance unpleasant. Those old-age car trips were never more than a few miles away in broad daylight on a well-known route. Not exactly safe, but the state of California seemed to think renewing that license up to 100 was a good idea anyway.

    Social engineering always sounds great, but it doesn’t work in practice.

    A car-centric old folks home with a shuttle to the shopping center and to Las Vegas/Atlantic City is all the ‘active lifestyle’ most seniors can handle.

    “intergenerational living” is better than banishment to a home if it’s family based, but there’s no WAY I can imagine it working with random geezers.

    I feel like renting Logan’s Run for some reason.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar

    TMT, No one says you have to “abandon” the existing housing stock. What we need is to eliminate the zoning/regulatory barriers that inhibit the recycling aging subdivisions, malls, shopping centers and office parks. If we allow the market to work, human settlement patterns will evolve into the kind of communities that people want — including communities that are more elder friendly.

    Bob, You’re right: Once someone is too old enough to drive, they’re almost too old enough to walk very far. But there’s a window (it varies, depending on the individual) of maybe three, four or five years where oldsters can still get around on foot. My mother won’t drive long distances any more. She’ll still drive around town (she lives in Fredericksburg). Although her reflexes are slowing, she’s physically robust. I can envision her being able to walk for years after she can drive.

    There’s another factor to consider: In an auto-centric society, people don’t even try to walk. Consequently, they lose physical strength and stamina. In communities that give them the opportunity to walk more, old people will retain their strength and stamina more.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    I am beginning to see class warfare starting already

    All these new services are going to cost money which means higher taxes. So are boomers going to move to the democratic party en masse.

    My generation isn’t particularly excited about supporting all of these new services and infrastructure upgrades but it looks like we won’t have much of a choice. Yall have too many votes :-p.

    Its sad really people like to say Generation X was the me generation. I would argue its the boomers. You guys raped the environment and spent more than you could afford (via federal governmenet deficit spending) and left us to pick up the pieces.

    As long as I am sterotyping Generation Y and Millenlials like to get along and share. For some reason I think many in my generation either aren’t married and worried about supporting a family and basically renting and partying it up able to live off of minimum income. It remains to be seen what will happen when we actually “grow up” and get more concerned about takehome pay and tax policy.

    NMM

  6. E M Risse Avatar

    Jim Bacon:

    Many good and correct perspetvies.

    However:

    “Another is the price of gasoline, which, though temporarily depressed, will shoot back up again as soon as the economy recovers.”

    With OPEC cutting supplies the price will go up AND there may be no “recovery” in sight.

    With no one yet in jail for CDOs, the future is not bright.

    TMT:

    Even with the no “recovery” senerio the cost of evolving functional settlement patterns will be less than trying to maintain the existing dysfunctional ones.

    Jim Bacon hits all the right points but so long as the 12.5 Percenters keep throwing up red herring the vast majority will sit on their hands — or race for the cliff with the lemmings, depending on the analogy you like best. They are all hoping what they have done in the past can keep going — Riding the Tiger.

    There is some good news being reported by the likes of New Urban News although they are stuck on New Urbanism, and do not yet grasp Balanced Communities or sustainable New Urban Regions.

    EMR

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    “Even with the no “recovery” senerio the cost of evolving functional settlement patterns will be less than trying to maintain the existing dysfunctional ones.”

    Nonsense.

    Higher fuel prices wll be the best thing to happen for replacements to fossil fuels, but homes farther from jobs won’t go empty.

    They will rent for lower prices: enoough lower to cover the cost of higher fuel. the economic dyamic will be the same, but the ratios will be different.

    ARTIFICIALLY raising fossil fuel prices will amount to a wealth transfer, not a net change in wealth.

    RH

  8. geezers are consumptive of medical and other personal services not transportation services.

    But I don’t know how many folks realize that most communities have vans for the elderly and others classified as “underserved” – generously provided from your gas taxes.

    And many assisted care and other ancillary type residential also provide shuttles.

    Further – retirees tend to NOT travel at the peak rush hours.. they wait in the wings until the coast is clear and then they hit the roads for the medical and other services appointments.

    walking – folks – as you get older – walking can keep you younger and active.

    some are not so fortunate and sooner or later age will get you anyhow..but as long as you walk.. they have a much harder time putting those hoses in your orifices….

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    Jim & EMR – I'd like to see the cost study that demonstrates rebuilding a "functional settlement" pattern as you describe it is less expensive than maintaining the current dysfunctional one. I don't think that would be correct, but I'd sure take a look at a study.

    Suppose we could take a huge map of NoVA, put a yellow pin for every house, apartment, condo, town house in NoVA. Then replace those yellow pins with green ones for every functional unit. What would that look like?

    Then, replace other yellow pins with blue ones to represent what a truly functional housing pattern would look like. Then we could calculate the costs for replacing the second batch of yellow pins with blue ones. Then offset the costs with those that would be saved by eliminating the dysfunctional units.

    TMT

  10. Great idea TMT.

    I also have asked for a comparison of consumption (and other relevant) metrics between various kinds of settlement patterns rather than vague references that some folks who choose to live in “un” functional settlement patterns are not paying their fair share of variable location costs without ever really showing what metrics are at issue and a convincing accounting of those metrics.

    After all of these words – we still don’t know by what criteria we prove that “balanced communities” are superior to one’s that are not.

    Developers think “functional” means a certain mixture of residential and commercial in so-called ‘mixed-use’ develops like the proposed Tysons but what exactly is the standard by which we judge?

    Where is that rank order listing of the 10 most functional settlement patterns in existence and the criteria by which we generated that list?

    How do we know where the proposed Tysons would fall in that rank order listing?

    Here’s a good comparative example.

    A LEED structure has very specific criteria by which it is rated and there are even different levels of LEED with the top level being Platinum.

    Where is that rating system for settlement patterns?

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    Speaking of Tysons, last evening the Fairfax County Planning Commission’s new committee for Tysons Corner held a public meeting for comments the Task Force’s vision. The meeting was open and fair to everyone.

    Interestingly, many of the landowners and developers presented their current ideas for building. A couple of themes were clearly present: 1) each development proposal included massive new underground parking structures — confirming qualitatively that urbanizing Tysons Corner would result in huge increases in traffic, despite the hollow rhetoric to the contrary; 2) everyone wants high density extending well beyond the immediate confines of the rail stations (such that, because of the high cost for land at the stations, those locations are likely to be the last developed); and 3) there are absolutely no plans to address public facility needs.

    Yet again, another farce in Fairfax. Hopefully, the Planning Commission will exercise adult leadership and downsize the plan.

    TMT

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    “After all of these words – we still don’t know by what criteria we prove that “balanced communities” are superior to one’s that are not.”

    There is some data. I have preveiously referenced works from Europe and Scandinavia in which development was studied from the standpoint of consmed and embedded energy costs.

    Ranked according to cost the lartgest cost is the size of your home and how many people live in it (square feet per person), second is what you eat and where it comes from (Eat more local vegetables!), I forget three and four but fifth was how far you travel to work.

    since living closer to wrok in NOVA means you will have less space, this ought to represent a net savings. Problem is, you will need to earn more money to afford that lesser space, and earning money translates into energy costs somewhere.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    “Where is that rank order listing of the 10 most functional settlement patterns in existence and the criteria by which we generated that list?”

    Excellent question.

    I’d add one more. Where is the EMPIRICAL evidence that it is truly more functional, as opposed to functionality graded on some theoretical features?

    Where does Fruitvale fall in this?

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry asked in another thread how to get businesses to move to more functional places.

    How about a cap and trade plan?

    Calcualte how many businesses can be supported by the road and rail networkin place and place a cap at that amount. Companies that really need that location would have to pay a tax premium to stay there as long as the cap is over limit. Those that can effectively move elsewhere can do so and sell their pemrits to those that stay.

    Beats the heck out of taxing all the commuters that try to go to where the jobs create attractive nuisances.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Humm that sounds like the proffer system for houses and Ray you usually rightly like to argue why you should punish the newcomers only.

    So my argument would then be should Booz Allen and SAIC and Capitol One and MITRE and everyone else in Tysons Corner have to pay a premium for being located there. Booz Allen for one would just pick up and totally move out to Dulles since they have a major presence there already.

    I understand the concept that you are trying to incentivize companies to relocate to say Fredrickburg but like always the devil is in the details.

    Let me also pile on the chorus bandwagon. From the first thread EMR substituted the second half of my langugage.

    What we need to know is what is the total cost of transforming Tysons. Including upgrading the transportation networks

    vs

    The cost of doing nothing and letting development continue out along the toll road in the Reston to Ashburn and 28 corridors.

    I have a strong feeling the second option is much cheaper.

    The real irony to Tysons Corner is that there really isn’t going to be that much new business space added anyway. Its almost all commerical and residential. And like many on here expecting even 25% of the Tysons traffic to use metro is a joke. You are going to create an even bigger bottleneck. If 7 and 123 and 495 cant handle traffic now how are they going to magically handle even more without serious upgrades (which are not funded or even talked about in the master plan). Don’t think metro can even begin to handle the increase.

    NMM

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    “sounds like the proffer system for houses “

    I don’t see it. How is that?

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    “Booz Allen for one would just pick up and totally move out to Dulles since they have a major presence there already.”

    Yes, but once they move out, they could sell their permits under the cap, to someone who cannot move so easily. The price would adjust so that it would be beneficial to both parties. Same as an air pollution cap and trade.

    Since F’burg has no problem, the permits would be priced very low until the cap is met.

    If it works for air pollution, why not for the causes of air pollution, too much stuff in one place?

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “I have a strong feeling the second option is much cheaper.”

    I (tend) to agree, but we really don’t have accurate prices on all the (claimed) externalities, so it is hard to tell. teh way I figure you do that is make sure someone owns them, and then allow trading.

    ———————

    I obviously haven’t thought throught the cap and trade on building or occupancy permits, I just threw it out to see what kind of objections came up.

    Still don’t see how it is anything like the proffer system, though.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Maybe I’m not understanding cap and trade quite right

    With Proffers you basically have to pay a premium to locate in a certain area. Under cap and trade it looks like the same principle.

    I think I get it with cap and trade everyone has to pay the premium. With proffers its only the new development that pays.

    Does that make sense or am I still confused?

    So then cap and trade is like proffers across the board for everyone which is fair.

    NMM

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    A proffer is more like a bribe. think of a night club.

    Without the bribe, you don’t get in. With the bribe they let you in, whether there is room or not. in the case of infrastructure,yo pay proffers for infrastructure, whether it will ever be adequate,or not.

    Under cap and trade the legal load limit is enforced. (Usually people who are already in are granted some credits, to prevent the problem of vested interests being violated. With proffers, those who get in early get in free, and those who conserved their opportuinites till later suddenly have to pay for them – again.)

    Now, someone new arrives at the door, and wants in. They can “Buy Off” somone who has a permit and doesn’t need it. (Undeveloped land that will stay undeveloped while some other spot gets higher density) or from someone who is willing to move out (leave the nightclub). They can use what they got paid to help move to a nother business district, for example.

    Someone moving in gets a guarantee tht traffic will never get much worse than now. the overall value of their property can still go up, but now it might be viewed as two pieces: the value of the property itself, and the right to operate the property where it is. It becomes more clear what it is that you own, and what it is worth.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Some economists argue that it is mroe efficient to just levy a tax until you get the right level. But what business district would do that to itself?

    If cap and trade is environmentally based (sustainability and all that) then the cap can be imposed exteranlly, and the business district would have to deal with it. (Dunno, just thinking.) it would help if we could show the environmental argument is ALSO the best economic one.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    http://www.rff.org/News/Features/Documents/110th_Legislation_Table_Graph.pdf

    Is a summary of cap and trade proposals, so you can see how it would work. The allowance allocation column is how you decide on vested interests.

    If you have cap and trade on carbon emissions, then those that drive long distances might have to buy credits from those that drive short distances and don’t need them.

    RH

  23. geeze…

    Isn’t the problem with Tysons and more employers in general the LACK of adequate infrastructure?

    Isn’t that the same problem being addressed with proffers?

    Ray thinks that proffers for residential are bribes but penalty fees based on the lack of available infrastructure are fine?

    In both cases, Ray – it’s the lack of adequate infrastructure that is the problem.

    right?

    let’s go through this carefully so that we understand clearly what we are saying.

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    “Isn’t that the same problem being addressed with proffers?”

    No.

    Proffers assume that you can collect enough money to build any amount of infrastructure – and that it will get built,and tht it will be adeuate when it is built. We still have to argue about who pays, and we know it is never adequate.

    Cap and Trade assumes there is a finite limit as to what you can put in a place, and place has a value distinct from real estate. Just like the maximum daily limits for streams. Your property has two values: one for being alongside the stream and the other for beaing able to USE some of the streams capacity. In this case, the maximum daily limit could be set by parking spaces, air pollution, traffic congestion delays, or some combination.

    The initial allowances under the cap are usually GIVEN to existing owners/users, in order to avoid having problems with voiding vested interests.

    Proffers do just the opposite. By INCREASING the costs for newcomers (who actaully already exist but have not exercised and development yet) proffers solidify vested and developed interests of already developed properties, but it eliminates vested interests in undeveloped properties.

    Proffers go right to the municipality, never to be seen again. Their value, does not accrue to the proerty, and as we have seen recently, a lot of formerly assumed proerty “value” has disappeared for just this reason.

    But under a cap and trade scheme you OWN the rights to usage, and the value of those rights may change over time or based on other conditions like telecommuting.

    If you are ready to retire and sell out, you can sell your usage rights to the highest bidder, but it won’t affect the total usage, congestion, pollution, or what have you.

    You can move to F’burg where usage rights cost much less.

    If you are a big heavy hitter, you really need this location, and don’t want to move, then you can offer whatever it is worth for more rights. Eventually, you will make it profitable for someone to move to F’burg.

    In Delaplane and Marshall and Paris, VA, the problem is lack of infrastructure. In Ballston it is lack of space to put any more infrastructure and next to impossible price to do so.

    Cap and trade recognizes the difference and tries to solve a problem. Proffers are just a money grab combined with a new and assymetric proerty rights claim (I got here first and I didn’t have to pay.)

    If you go back to my car pool suggestion, you will see it is a cap and trade situation. We have x amount of capacity in all the lanes. Whatever that is has a finite limite. We have unused capacity in the carpool lanes, which amounts to a waste of capacity. We have overuse of the single lanes which results in waste. So we charge people for driving in the single lanes and pay people to ride in car pools until the total capacity is well used. Just like the example above, the heavy hitters who NEED more capacity pay the others (with different utility values) to get out of their way – subject to system limits. The system limit is the number of carpools we can carry inthe carpol lanes combined with the number of single drivers.

    The HOT lane concept is bass ackwards. Under that concept you get to buy additonal property rights that DECREASE the total system capacity by decreasing the number of carpools. Which wasn’t really the point of building car pool lanes. We have gotten lost and tripped up by a bunch of crappy (and wrong) free market nonsense.

    The good (and the bad) part of HOT lanes is that you can charge whatever someone is willing to pay. But under Cap and trade there is no reason to charge the single drivers any more than it takes to fill the car pool lanes with paid drivers: there is no further benefit to be had.

    With HOT lanes, there is plenty of benefit, but it goes to the contractors, out of our pockets.

    ————————–

    That ought to be enough to throw Larry in a tizzy for a week.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    Some places lack nfrastructure (and money to build it). Other places lack the imagination to see that usable space has economic and environmental limits.

    RH

  26. the idea behind proffers is to charge for the infrastructure that will be needed to serve the new development.

    and to assign the costs to the folks that need the infrastructure.

    Now.. Ray thinks that charging for infrastructure is wrong because that's not the way it used to be done and further that anyone who charges for proffers is really after bribes and not money to build infrastructure.

    Of course he has zero proof for his suspicions and the reality is that proffers must go into a separate fund and there is full accountability for it's use for infrastructure.

    I agree with his description of cap & trade and Total maximum daily loads as they both function similarly in that in theory a scientific approach determines how much total pollution can be safely release and then they allow for "hot spots" – like municipal discharge pipes or industrial smokestacks to essentially buy credits from areas that don't pollute.

    there are some problems with this but I won't go into them here …so that we can bring back the discussion to a place like Tysons that is proposed to be more intensely developed by lacks the infrastructure to do so…

    The question is – if you want to more intensely develop a place like Tysons (or NoVa) but you lack the infrastructure to do so – what do you do about it?

    TMT is concerned that they'll allow the development to go forward without a viable plan for upgrading the infrastructure and the reason is that the developers don't want to pay for the needed infrastructure and want taxes to be used to pay for it -gradually…after the development is built.

    Well.. that's exactly what happened before some localities started charging proffers to pay UP FRONT for the infrastructure to be built at the same time the new development went forward.

    Ok.. now what NNM and TMT have advocated is that.. you reach a point where there is simply more development than infrastructure can be provided for – no matter who pays – that the financial costs and the physical availability of more roads rules out new roads and that ….

    the more companies that locate in that location… the worse the traffic will become….with no hope of mitigating it – again – no matter who might pay.

    So… the "more places" idea is basically to establish a limit – that is determined by the point that is reached when there will be a lack of adequate public facilities (and no one to catch them up) and at that point limit development.

    Now there is a fly in the ointment here.

    Using the "more places" …"stop development" approach – how would we ever get a place like NYC or Chicago?

    Further…. "more places" also is a concept for residential if you think about it.

    TMT and NMM are focused on Tysons and NoVa but I can assure you that in the Fredericksburg Area that more residential …ironically… for those folks who work in Tysons and NoVa has direct transportation impacts also…

    we also have overwhelmed roads…filled with folks … not commuting to local jobs but commuting to Tysons and NoVa ALSO.

    Finally..could we say..agree… that "more places" is just another way of saying "no more development here – go somewhere else"?

  27. I don’t know the Tyson’s specifics but down our way in Fredericksburg – when it comes to transportation improvements associated with development –

    what has been happening the last few years has been that the developers will put together a CDA and/or a Transportation District which then will charge extra taxes for the period of time it would take to pay back the bonds.

    The county (and taxpayers) help out by allowing the county’s credit rating to be used to lower the interest rate.

    And, of course, if you think about this – the developers and the businesses do not pay the taxes – they merely pass them on .. embedded in the purchase prices of the items that citizens buy.

    Of late, a new financial instrument has come to the fore.

    Called a TIF – which stands for Tax Increment Financing.

    What this does is it allows the INCREASED Taxes for newly developed land …the increased taxes that result from going from raw land to – improved land to be “captured” and used to pay off the bonds instead of going into the county coffers – and again for the period of time it takes to pay off the bonds.

    What I LIKE about this approach is that is allows the infrastructure to be built up front and to come online at the same time the development comes on line – and it does – by design – mitigate the increased traffic.

    … at the site of the increased traffic resulting fro the development…

    what it does not do – and what is part of the Tysons issue is ..those transportation improvements specific to a particular development …

    do not address network-wide traffic and congestion….of which Tysons would also affect…

    In other words.. Tysons would generate new, additional traffic ..that COULD be mitigated with a proper CDA/TD/TIF but even if that is done.. it would not mitigate that additional traffic on I-66 and other major roads that converge on Tysons…

    and that’s true in the Fredericksburg (and all other areas) also…

    it’s the region-wide, network traffic that grows as a result of increased development through out the region that specific developments.. and proffers, CDAs, TD, and TIFs do not address and will not mitigate that is the issue that folks here are talking about when they advocate “more places”.

    In other words, no matter where you put a new Tysons or Fort Belvoir it will have two important and distinct impacts:

    1. – the area in the immediate vicinity of the deveopment

    2. – impacts to the wider, regional network…

    do we all agree on this?

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry,

    I agree.

    I strongly agree with number 2. That is the reason proposals have been rightly shot down in Loudoun county. Its not enough to have number 1 only.

    The problem is I and I strongly would put TMT in this as well We don’t trust Fairfax to get what they need out of the new development.

    As the plan stands know there is no proposed improvements to the main arterials running through Tysons.

    Everyone on the committee seemed to think the new traffic is going to be handled by Metro. There is no way that is going to happen.

    The reason New York and Chicago and also Washington DC and Arlington work is that they have a huge transit system AND a system of city street grids.

    Google Tysons and you can see the problems. Hemeed in by 495 and the Toll Road with 7 and 123 being the only way to get around. With no improvements to 7 or 123 its game over especially coupled with a very nonspecific “plan” to add a grid system of streets.

    NMM

  29. “the idea behind proffers is to charge for the infrastructure that will be needed to serve the new development.”

    Except as we have readily seen, that hasn’t worked.

    ————————-

    “and to assign the costs to the folks that need the infrastructure.”

    When the infrastructure is needed, everyone neeeds it and everyone uses it. The idea that new infrastructure needs are caused only by new people is false and selfish. A call for proffers is a call for unequal property rights and responsibilites. Proffers raise the price of new homes, and therefroe the value of older homes that paid no proffers. The existence of proffers cost buried in the price of homes where the value is not, has exacerbated the collapse in home values leading to our current predicament.

    larry talks about thisas if it affects only the new guys, but proffers affect local, existing residents who own undevelopped land. The introduction of Proffers therefore create two classes of existing residents.

    It is false and misleading to present proffers as if they apply to those big bad outside developers.

    —————————

    “Now. Ray thinks that charging for infrastructure is wrong because that’s not the way it used to be done”

    I never said that. You can charge all you want for proffers, just not to anyone who owned the land before the rule was changed. Otherwise the proffers reduce the value of land that was purchased with a different set of promises and expectations in place. this amounts to stealing.

    You can change the rules, if you can make an argument for public benefit. As the GAO points out, there is no reason to change the rules otherwise. But simple fairness demands that if that is the case, then tose who are losers as a result of the rule must be compensated. otherwise the rule is a wealth transfer that amounts to stealing.

    “Ray thinks …further that anyone who charges for proffers is really after bribes and not money to build infrastructure.”

    No I don’t think that. There are rules in place to insure that the money is used for infrastructure, and relatively soon. However, if the government does not enforce its own rules it is unlikely that anyone other than the developer would notice. I can easily imagine there are plenty of cases where the money is used “fungibly” by government, without anyone raising the alarm.

    Bribe is the wrong word, anyway. suppose I go for a zoing change and the government “suggests” a profer of $250 million, which I refuse.

    What are my chances of getting my zoning change, absent this “voluntary proffer”.

    The operative word is not bribery, but extortion.

    —————————-

    “The question is – if you want to more intensely develop a place like Tysons (or NoVa) but you lack the infrastructure to do so – what do you do about it?”

    Why would you want to do that? There isn’t enough infrastructure, and won’t be, even if you had plenty of money, which you don’t.

    There is, according tothe GAO and other stated government policies, no reason to change the development rules unless it creates a net social benefit. how can there be a net social benefit to develop a place with insufficient infrastructure.

    The problem with this question has nothing to do with infrastructure, it has to do with property rights, which are exemplified in the phrase “if you want”.

    ————————

    “and want taxes to be used to pay for it -gradually…after the development is built.”

    And as we have seen, that doesn’t work.

    “..some localities started charging proffers to pay UP FRONT for the infrastructure to be built at the same time the new development went forward….”

    Except they did not charge all of the right people, which would include all existing residdents, not just some, as well as the putative new residents.

    ——————————

    “So… the “more places” idea is basically to establish a limit – that is determined by the point that is reached when there will be a lack of adequate public facilities “

    I knew you would try that.

    The more places idea and the cap and trade idea are independent. Cap and trade assumes there is an absolute limit that can be met. It is set at the point where no more infrastructure is likely, posssible, or cost effective. Just like the maximum stream loadings.

    I’ve never seen it done, but I suspect that an absolute value can be calculated based on physical limitations, which no amount of infrastructure spending can alleviate. You are not likely to build a new stream from scratch, just so you can carry twice as much pollution.

    —————————–

    “Using the “more places” …”stop development” approach – how would we ever get a place like NYC or Chicago?”

    We don’t know if you would, or why you would eant to. What would we do if we back-calculated for sustainability and found there is no way to make Chicago or New York work? We would abandon or dismantle them.

    Why would you ever purposely design a city where people travel hours to get to work? I for one would HOPE that some kind of cap and trade could prevent Chicago or New York.

    Don’t get me wrong, some people love such huge and dynamic places, but is it only because we don’t have anything better? What would New York look like if it had enough green space and you still didn’t have to travel more than a half hour to work, and still had the same GD and was sustainable in its own right?

    —————————

    “Finally..could we say..agree… that “more places” is just another way of saying “no more development here – go somewhere else”?”

    Certainly there is an element of that in it. But I think that basing it on physical limitations, like stream loading, makes a difference. What we have now has nothing to do with that, as we can easly see. people in remote and undeveloped Fauquier scream “no more development” just as loud or louder than residents near Tysons.

    It would be more accurate to say no more development is sutaianbly possible here because…….(auto trffic throughput maxes out at 35 MPH and three car lengths distant; impervious runnoff control costs go exponential when…; air quality indxes cannot support…; ladder trucks reach only ten stories, and they need x feet to swing corners; X road density supports Y GDP and road density cannot be increased beyond Z miles per square mile.)

    Those limits would be actual physical limits, and they would be pretty near the same everywhere. At some level I have to agree with EMR, at the root we are talking about energy and physics, but so far we haven’t got past money, politics and property.

    Beyond those limits the CAP kicks in and TRADE insures no one gets hurt.

    Until then, maybe we still need something like proffers but a lot less cycical and self serving. WE still need a full understanding of all the costs and all the benefits of incrementally adding infrastructure until the cap is met. We cannot allow only the cost side of the story as we have in the past.

    —————————

    Anyway, the whole cap and trade thing was just a gedanken experiment to try to think out what it would take to try to unstick the imbalances we have already built, and do it in a way that benefits most of the players, and disadvantages none.

    RH

  30. “The reason New York and Chicago and also Washington DC and Arlington work is that they have a huge transit system AND a system of city street grids. “

    I would deny that they work all that well. We just don’t have anything better to compare with.

    Without double tracking, Metro is reaching capacity, reliability, and service life issues.

    RH

  31. http://www.nhc.org/pdf/chp-pub-hl06-washingtondc.pdf

    If you look at the map you can see th result of 30 years of Fauquier policy: they have deliberately made it an expensive housing area. They have also deliberately kept out any concentration of jobs, making it a high transportation cost area as well.

    Compare that with Stafford, Spotsy, and King George which have high transportation costs but moderate housing.

    If you don’t ahve ANYTHING, then it is pretty easy to be “balanced”, I suppose. But if you are like Stafford and spotsy where homes can actually be bought, then you have a much bigger transportation problem.

    In Fauquier it has gotten so bad that one Supervisor wants to close the office of Community Development entirely, lay off the staff including the economic development director, and just start over.

    I’m not so sure I don’t agree with him. What is the point of paying a staff in these hard times, when their main job seems to consist of saying “You can’t do that.”

    But the cyinical Ray says this is their excuse to shut down development permanently: just don’t have a staff.

    But then look at Fairfax and southern Loudoun. Virtually all of it in the low cost housing and travel regime, yet who thinks of Fairax as being “affordable”? Where does the often stated “drive till you qualify” feature fit on this map?

  32. the difference between a proffer and an impact fee is that impact fees apply to all undeveloped land to be developed including by-right uses.

    Proffers are used ONLY for re zonings.

    Ray – you would not need new infrastructure if you did not have new development.

    The new development brings with it – additional traffic.

    Now why would the folks who already live there “benefit” from new infrastructure if the purpose of it is to mitigate the new additional impacts that the development would cause?

    Proffers are specific to the development.

    If you say that the money spent on new infrastructure is not enough to fully mitigate the additional traffic – what would be your solution?

    keep the rope-a-dope blather about property rights to a minimum.

    I’m asking you basically what process should be used to mitigate the NEW/ADDITIONAL impacts brought by NEW development.

    How should this be done if not with proffers?

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray,

    Yes metro is already basically at capacity

    For affordable housing I am sure you know the line you can draw a semi circle start out at Ashburn then swoop down Gunsprings Road and then 234 settle down in Manassas and then kepp going to connect Dale City and eventually Woodbridge.

    Most of the young professionals I know are choosing Ashburn because most of the jobs are out along 28 or the Greenway.

    Prince William actually has enough housing and now its really affordable with the housing correction. But, in Manassas and Dale City and Woodbridge most of the good high-paying jobs are in Alexandria and further North into Arlington and Downtown.

    I am kind of suprised why more people dont settle in Southern Fairfax which has afforadble housing. I think there might be some racial stuff going on and a concern about perceived higher crime rates and lower school performance. Its Fairfax county there are no really low performing schools and outside a couple neighborhoods there is no crime to speak of as well

    Also gotta love Tranist at 12%. I guess that means the new 50 billion or so SuperHighway should be coming online to offset the 5 billion and climbing being spent on the Silver Line.

    NMM

  34. “Ray – you would not need new infrastructure if you did not have new development.”

    This is a fundamental disagreement between us. I believe that infrastructure has been seriously underfunded for decades, and that PART of current proffers are really costs that existing residents should have incurred.

    You start with the (unfounded) presumption that everything was hunky dory and paid up before the first “new guy” showed up. “New guy” is defined as the first guy to show up after a regulation for proffers is made.

    You also ignore the fact that existing but undeveloped residents have been paying for infrastructure, maybe for decades, without receiving any.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    “Now why would the folks who already live there “benefit” from new infrastructure if the purpose of it is to mitigate the new additional impacts that the development would cause?”

    Circular logic, built on a faulty premise. Why would I stop beating my wife if I had not already started?

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar

    ” blather about property rights to a minimum.”

    Property rights are not blather. They are the most basic foundation for any kind of conservation.

    How do you know who owns what without property rights? You can’t very well claim the right to clean air, without proerty rights.

    Who will protect property without they know who owns it – tragedy of the commons and all that.

    How do you separate development rights from land ownership rights, otherwise? Or Riparian rights for that matter.

    At least that is what I was taught in conservation school. And economics.

    Divisisble and tradeable property rights are a done deal: they already exist and are enforceable.

    But it is ignorance about their importance and general misunderstanfing on the part of conservationists (along with some hard-core nut-case propertyrights activists that also don’t underst and) that has given the topic a bad name, similar to “short term profits”.

    As a result of this prejudice and misunderstanding we are missing out on good opportunities to further declare property rights in such a way to help ensure MORE conservation, not less.

    But, first and foremost we must take up an ethical stance towards ALL property rights that says it is the governments obligation to protect and not steal them. That we as conservationists have no “higher standing” based on environmental prerogatives that gives us the right to steal property no matter how noble the ends.

    Blather, indeed. THAT is the problem, thinking that it is blather.

    Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.

    RH

  37. “I’m asking you basically what process should be used to mitigate the NEW/ADDITIONAL impacts brought by NEW development.”

    That wasn’t the question I attempted to raise or answer. My question was “How do you know when you are done, and what then?”

    I asked that question because there doesn’t seem to be any acceptable answer to your question, which I believe is based on a faulty premise.

    My comments were based on the idea of how DO yo manage the endgame, especially if you believe sustainability is paramount? By examining the endgame I had hoped to shed some light on the strategy of what we do until then (which is what I think your question is).

    I had hoped that by starting from a pretty obvious end situation we might work backwrds until we se where your premise fails. Maybe it is reductio ad absurdium, but sometimes it is still a useful exercise.

    I dont think you can determine the “NEW/ADDITIONAL impacts brought by NEW development.” until you at least consider that there might be impacts that already exist and don’t belong strictly to newcomers. Likewise there may be benefits newcomers bring that existing residents have no intention of paying for.

    I see where you are coming from, but it is a foreign place to me because it is so different rom what I have been taught. Your question causes my “TILT” light to go off.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar

    “Also gotta love Tranist at 12%. I guess that means the new 50 billion or so SuperHighway should be coming online to offset the 5 billion and climbing being spent on the Silver Line.”

    Dreamer.

    I wonder how that 12% was caclulated: it seems optimistic to me.

    But you are right, otherwise. And it raises the question of when, exactly, are we finished?

    Here.

  39. “Proffers are used ONLY for re zonings.”

    That is a big part of the problem.

    There is no reverse proffer for “de-zonings”.

    So, we de-zone something for free, onvenieintly forget about it after 30 or 40 years, and then if someone wants to re-zone we demand a proffer.

    And you don’t see anything cynical, assymetric, or unfair in this?

    RH

  40. there is no such thing as "de-zoning" EXISTING – BUILT DEVELOPMENT that paid proffers for the infrastructure.

    You don't nuke the property and the accompanying infrastructure and give a refund.

    Once the property is developed it will stay developed and the new infrastructure will be used for whatever businesses follow in the development.

    and it's not my view..

    I'm telling you how it works – how it has been designed to work – legally and done so by elected government and validated by the courts.

    Existing residents – Ray – DO GET to decide if the claimed "benefits" are worth it to them and most of the time – existing residents do not believe that new development will "benefit" them if it overloads the existing infrastructure and no mitigation is done or what is done has to be paid for by the existing residents.

    Why would they think that paying higher taxes to provide infrastructure for a private development is a "benefit" to them in the first place?

    Again.. it's not what your logic or the logic of the developer is in terms of what is a "benefit".

    It is in the eyes of the existing residents as to what is a real "benefit" to them.

    You keep thinking that the process should to be force the existing residents to accept the development because the landowner who wants to develop – claims it is a benefit.

    This is the exact issue at Tysons.

    You've got the proponents saying that it will be a benefit – and of course those same proponents don't want to pay for the infrastructure that will be needed to mitigate it's impacts.

    The folks who live there and will experience the impacts are rightly skeptical.

    What they are being offered, in essence is more traffic ..that they will have to deal with – and higher taxes to pay for the additional infrastructure that will be needed to mitigate those impacts.

    What I was asking you was – for any development that will have impacts – what is a fair way to pay for the infrastructure that will be needed to maintain the existing LOS?

    And let's be clear – all that the developer is being asked to pay for is to maintain the existing LOS – as it is – before his development goes in.

    Water & Sewer lines and roads cost money. they don't appear by snapping one's fingers.

    When a new development is proposed, who is supposed to pay for these things?

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, I think you’ve got it. A number of Tysons Corner neighbors testified before a committee of the Fairfax County Planning Commission the other night. It wasn’t a formal hearing per se.

    The basic request of many people and organizations was: don’t let Tysons get bigger than the supporting infrastructure. Don’t let LOS decrease. No one was asking for developers to pay for improving level of service, but just to keep LOS where it is today. That seems very reasonable to me and even to some of the Commissioners.

    Of course, the landowners don’t want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to keep LOS constant for the added amount of density that they want. No one could afford to pay for that amount of infrastructure. Sensible people would, therefore, scale back the density to a point where infrastructure could be added in an affordable manner.

    But that causes the pipe dreams of the landowners to implode. After all, they are making a walkable Manhattan for us. Why won’t we just step up and pay for the infrastructure? The armies have started to engage each other. The war begins.

    TMT

  42. TMT – I still have some open questions about how a place like Tysons but located in New York …got to be New York City … or a hundred other places – like Tysons also morphed from “flat” to skyscraper… with private autos replaced by buses, cabs and “ELs”.

    Here’s a fair question (I Hope):

    Would we call a place like NYC “auto centric”?

    Is it fair to call Tysons in it’s current form factor – “auto centric”?

    Here’s another fair question:

    If Tysons were to become more like NYC – what path would it take?

    Would it take a different path that it is now on?

    Is there something fundamentally wrong with the current path … that a different path would be “correct”?

    These are questions..

    I don’t know the answers to them but think if we are to better understand that we must ask them and we must fairly answer them.

    When we use the LOS criteria that we are using now for Tysons. Are those the same criteria that we’d use for a place like NYC?

    NYC and places like it are an enigma as they seem to violate all the rules that we say need to exist for a place like Tysons.

    In other words, beyond the Tysons land-owners, there are apparently a wide range of elected officials who envision Tysons as becoming a NoVa version of a NYC-like urban area.

    That’s my question I guess.

    Can an area like Tysons change from an auto-centric mess to a a NYC-like mess?

    should it?

  43. Could NYC function without transit?

    Would NYC without transit look like Tysons without transit?

    or am I on a really, really wrong track here?

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    “there is no such thing as “de-zoning” EXISTING – BUILT DEVELOPMENT that paid proffers for the infrastructure.”

    Now you are being silly. that isn’t what I said and isn’t what I meant, and you know it.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    “Would we call a place like NYC “auto centric”?”

    Absolutely. Desite it’s massive transit systemthe vast majority of NYC trips are by auto.

    RH

  46. more than that – no matter what is proposed – it will cause an adverse impact to LOS….and the folks who will benefit from the increased density and intensity are expecting the current residents to pay for the additional infrastructure.

    There are two distinct issues.

    The first is ..if there is going to be development in an area – and that development will degrade the existing LOS – who is responsible for mitigating the impacts to hold the LOS level.

    We are not talking about IMPROVING the LOS from the current levels but instead keeping it form falling even lower as a consequence of the development.

    who is responsible ?

    the second issue – which is way different from the above issue –

    is …how does any place grow from a relatively “flat” less dense place to become an ultra-dense place like NYC… ???

    We know that places like NYC, in the past.. may well have looked like the area around Tysons looks right now.

    but they grew.. they transitioned from a less dense to an ultra dense place…

    I am not advocating this for Tysons ..but the folks who are advocating … believe that Tysons is destined to be a NYC-like place.. and they are looking at how to make it much more dense … on purpose… so that it could become a NoVa version of NYC ( or pick your favorite urbanized area)…

    I can understand how the folks who consider the area around Tysons – their home, their community do not share the vision of those who want to transform Tysons.

    And I would agree.. that the developers are the ones who should be responsible for paying for the infrastructure necessary.

    And I would.. further agree.. that no amount of money can deal with some of the LOS impacts such as open space and regional traffic….

    and that’s where I compare .. other urban areas in terms of open space and traffic ..and there are few urban areas that if you judge them on suburban LOS for open space and traffic that they would meet those LOS.

    and that’s why I ask ..if you are developing a skyscraper in NYC… would they expect you to mitigate auto traffic in the same way that it might be mitigated in a relatively less urbanized area such as Tysons.

    and I’m also paying attention to the grid-street criteria…

    and that’s where I know for a fact that I do not know enough to have an intelligent opinion… because then we’d be talking about what the right “size” is for grid streets..

    In other words how big can a grid be and still perform whatever it is that grid streets are supposed to perform.

    is there an optimal size for grid streets?

  47. re: bill of goods and transit

    Is the transit proposed for Tysons … fundamentally different than say the transit that exists for current urbanized areas?

    In other words – if transit won’t “work” for Tysons..is it because it’s the wrong scope/scale or is it because transit does not “work” for places like NYC either?

    If it is the former then what would transit need to look like to make it comparative to what ‘works” for other urbanized areas with transit?

    if it is the latter.. then if one believes that transit is a failure in most urban circumstances.. where does that leave us with regard to the success or failure of places like NYC and Chicago that do have transit?

    Do we think that NYC would function just fine without it?

    Do we think there are places as dense and prosperous as NYC that don’t have transit?

    I’m asking questions… here…

    my basic premise is that as messy and dysfunctional as one might think that NYC is – that, in fact, it does exist.. it is prosperous.. and it does have transit… and when the union strikes transit – the place shuts down…

    but of course.. there are other views.. which need to be also represented …..so sally forth

  48. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry,

    All excellent questions

    We need to start with data which I am not sure if it exists

    This sounds like a thesis statment for some urban planning graduate students :-p

    To take a limited crack at it. New York evolved gradually. It would be unreasonable to expect New York to pop up overnight… and yet I would argue that is exaclty what is being proposed for Tysons. Who in their right mind would pay for the New York City subway and city grid system??? I cant even imagine how much that would all cost in todays dollars.

    To your last post about transit. I think for transit to work you need a critical mass of people and access from multiple directions which is why San Francisco and New York both work so well. With Tysons you have people coming in for simplicity North South East and West.

    From the North nothing (eventual Circle line metro or HOT lanes/buses?)

    From the East metro

    From the South HOT Lanes/Buses

    From the NorthWest Metro

    From the SouthWest nothing (Eventually extend the Orange Line???)

    The problem with Metro is that you are reaching max capacity. To me that says its time to raise fares. We are going to need a doubletracking system in the next 25 years. Can you say $$$$. See my point above about trying to pay for New York city system in todays dollars.

    NMM

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    “who is responsible for mitigating the impacts to hold the LOS level.”

    But, you are assuming that this can, or will, be done.

    “to become an ultra-dense place like NYC… ???”

    Depends on what you measure, doesn’t it? If you include all of what it takes to sustain NYC, then suddenly it is much les dense a system.

    If you include only Manhattan, then you have a density and economic system that is not sustainable.

    “is there an optimal size for grid streets?”

    Yes, but it might depend on what you are optimizing FOR. Downtown Houston is close to 75% streets, mostly connected to underground parking garages. Houston is optimized for air conditioning.

    “Do we think there are places as dense and prosperous as NYC that don’t have transit?”

    No. Clearly there are places with enough density to support transit. So, why is it that transit is nearly universally subsidized? Because we try to operate it where we should not.

    “Is the transit proposed for Tysons … fundamentally different than say the transit that exists for current urbanized areas?”

    Transit for tyson’s is a pink petticoat on an elephant. Rail to Dulles got sidetracked with rail to Tyson’s. The reusult will be rail that is neither optimal for Tyson’s nor for Dulles. Even worse the transportation system including aut usage will be optimized for nothing like Tysons’s or Dulles. Transit needs to be entirely re-thunk with respect to what it can and cannot do for an area.

    I think NMM is on target here. In effect, if you had to plan and build New York today, would you do it, and why?

    I don’t think it would ever get past the first environmental review, just as you would never be able to build Back Bay in Boston, today.

    RH

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT