Government
Mobility, and livability, is about more than roads and cars
The US Department of Transportation has announced a third round of its TIGER grant program. Critics of TIGER, like CEI's Marc Scribner, are again bashing the program, this time because it focuses on "livability" instead of exclusively pushing driving.
Salt Lake City light rail. Photo by steve_w on Flickr.
To Scribner, driving everywhere is what real Americans want, while anyone who prefers the ability to walk to stores and parks is just following a "fad" that's best mocked with the tired old anti-urban tropes like "schlepping organic groceries" and "yuppies slumming in 1980s New York."
He criticizes TIGER for not giving more money to car infrastructure even though it got more funding than any other mode, and calls past TIGER projects "duds" just because they don't meet his personal goals while achieving just what the cities and states, and people living there, had hoped. Who's pushing a lifestyle now?
Scribner's first criticism is that not enough money is going to cars, the mode he wants to put above all. He writes, "When TIGER II grants were announced, only a third of funding went to road projects. 'Livability,' you see, really means, 'go to hell, drivers!'"
If getting one third of transportation money is being told to go to hell, cyclists would love to be asked to go there.
While he is correct that roads only got 29% of the money, what he doesn't mention is that it got more than any other mode, which hardly sounds like the anti-car agenda he makes it out to be. Roads received 29 percent of TIGER II funding, while 26 percent went to transit, 20 percent to rail, 16 percent to ports, four percent to bicycle and pedestrian projects, and five percent for planning grants.
In TIGER I, the three largest projects were freight rail projects. Perhaps Scibner thinks moving freight more efficiently is "anti-mobility."
And some projects that aren't labelled as "road" projects will actually improve driving. For example, the CREATE project in Chicago, which received money in TIGER I, lists "reducing motorist delay due to rail conflict at grade crossings" as one of their top goals.
Thus, it's laughable to state that roads and drivers are being ignored, but for Scribner getting anything less than 100% of the money is to be ignored. State and local DOTs see it differently. In the first round of TIGER funding, only 57% of the money applied for was for roads.
Scribner makes much of the fact that some modes of transportation are used by a small group. Only 5.5% of commuters in Salt Lake City, which won money for a streetcar, use transit. Only 0.3% of commuters bike commute in Fayettville, AR, which won a grant for a 36-mile bike trail.
But this only proves that we've done a lousy job of creating choices. We built entire regions of our country around driving, built roads designed to maximize driver speed, didn't bother with sidewalks or creating roads that invited cyclists, created a fractured and slow transit system and look, now no one takes transit or walks or bikes. That no one uses a non-existent option is not evidence that the option shouldn't exist.
Scribner's other criticism is that the process uses livability as a standard for making grants. In his usual self-contradictory style, he frequently refers to "livability" as vague and meaningless, while simultaneously linking to a USDOT definition of the term.
"We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live."
(That same link is tied to the words "all sorts of silly investments" even though the author at the link only worries that it will cause silly investments. There is no evidence of such investments. One person's worries hardly constitutes fact.)
USDOT even has a detailed website that more clearly defines what livability means.
And there's a technical reason why livability matters for these grants. In TIGER II, HUD kicked in $40 million to encourage transit-oriented development (one part of livability according to DOT's definition).
Scribner refers to the Razorback Greenway and Salt Lake City Streetcar as "duds" which, considering that neither has finished construction yet, is a bit premature. To Scribner, even if both projects meet or exceed the goals outlined in their TIGER grant applications they'll be duds because they don't meet his goals. It's like calling the Apollo program a dud because it didn't cure cancer.
But $15 million for a 36 mile transportation project compares pretty favorably to something like the 18-mile, $2.566 billion Intercounty Connector. The Greenway will only need 321 users per day to match the user/dollar ratio of the ICC.
Luckily, USDOT is moving away from the windshield perspective of Marc Scribner, and TIGER III has the potential to be a real success, as long as you don't define success only in terms of moving cars.
 | David Cranor is an operations engineer with NASA. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate and also writes the WashCycle.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
by cmc on Jul 7, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
by engrish_major on Jul 7, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report
by Adam L on Jul 7, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report
by Redline SOS on Jul 7, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report
There are quite a few SLC residents who are getting sick of the sprawl and smog and my impression is that the light rail is being well-received. It will be interesting to see how the connection to the Daybreak development shapes up.
by anon on Jul 7, 2011 4:14 pm • link • report
I almost immediately dismiss anybody who says they espouse the principles of the free market and limited government and in the same breath turn around and ask for government funds.
----------------------
Indeed. If only Scribner were a true Scotsman.
By the way, where is Scribner asking for government funds? Just curious, maybe I missed it in his article.
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report
Fitz157, I'm not sure that vague accusations without examples is an effective method of criticism.
-------------------------------------
Fair enough. The opening paragraph states:
Critics of TIGER, like CEI's Marc Scribner, are again bashing the program, this time because it focuses on "livability" instead of exclusively pushing driving.
----------------------------
From the onset you make it clear you're just interested in misrepresenting what Scribner posted on his blog, because nowhere in there did he state that he wanted TIGER to, in your words, exclusively push driving.
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report
It was certainly implied in his two articles. He creates supporting drivers or livability as a false zero sum game (one where he clearly supports drivers). He laments more than once that only a third of the money goes to roads. He notes that the problem with spending money on biking, walking and transit is that "most Americans prefer to drive." Every single project he criticizes is tranist, biking or walking related. He lumps them all together as wrong and bad.
So he criticizes every single non-road project, and laments that the money is not spent on roads. No where does he say that he supports some other balance that doesn't put 100% of the money in roads. No where does he voice support for any other kind of project.
100% of his criticism was directed at non-road projects.
100% of his support was for driving and roads.
If he supports some other balance, he certainly does not give that impression.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report
In TIGER I, the three largest projects were freight rail projects. Perhaps Scibner thinks moving freight more efficiently is "anti-mobility."
-------------------------
That's a non-sequitur. What percentage of freight in the US is moved by rail? How much funding was provided for the 3 freight rail projects? What efficiencies were established from these projects?
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report
"By the way, where is Scribner asking for government funds? Just curious, maybe I missed it in his article."
-------------------
He doesn't directly ask for government funds, since that would be openly hypocritical. He merely advocates "the next suburban boom", which he wants us to believe would happen without massive government assistance (it wouldn't).
by engrish_major on Jul 7, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report
The big issue is to deal with center cities, towns, various subdistricts, and "suburbs" differentially, depending on the opportunity for sustainable transportation mode split, quality of life considerations, and spatial characteristics.
Since we don't have a national liveability plan and a national transportation plan comparable to the Arlington County plan, one also focused on true priorities, as discussed by Robert Puentes (not as authoritatively as I would have liked) in the Wall Street Journal, and organized by scale of the connection, we are stuck in these circular debates.
- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/05/wall-street-journals-special-section-on.html
- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/10/reprint-with-editing-meta-regional.html
If the nat. transpo plan would be focused on maximizing quality of life, minimizing travel, and maximizing exchange, then the policy responses would be obvious. In the meantime, how much $ does the CEI get from motor vehicle related interests?
by Richard Layman on Jul 7, 2011 4:48 pm • link • report
In any case, just to make it clear, there is a lot of frustration with drivers. They know that gas taxes are a big component of what they pay at the pump (although not a big as percentage from 10 years ago) but roads are being improved mostly for commercial trucking. Maybe that is the way it should be -- roads for commerce, not traveling -- but it does get you into a knot when you're stuck in traffic for an hour a day.
The cognitive dissonance is Obama has probably presided over the biggest asphalt paving project in the world. ON many major interstates,the road service is better shape than years. He gets zero credit for that, however.
by charlie on Jul 7, 2011 4:51 pm • link • report
How is it a non-sequiter? He's criticizing the whole TIGER program as "anti-mobility". These are some of the largest projects funded by the first round of the program. I think that very much follows.
As for your questions, I'm not sure the relevancy, but you can find the answers here.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 4:52 pm • link • report
by Jason Frantz on Jul 7, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report
If he supports some other balance, he certainly does not give that impression.
-----------------------------
Then perhaps you should have stated that instead of just making thing up in the opening paragraph.
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report
David nil
by TGEoA on Jul 7, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report
And, isn't an investment in roads a giveaway to trucking companies?
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report
It's not "making things up," he's advocating against any change to the status quo, which right now is massive subsidy towards auto-oriented everything. Did you read the Examiner piece? He says that “livability” doesn’t mean infrastructure investments that can increase Americans’ mobility and broaden their opportunities because it doesn't prioritize auto travel.
Livability projects like TIGER get knocked because they are easy to quantify and point at (costs are documented), and the massive subsidy towards the auto-oriented lifestyle is not.
He claims that somehow the auto-oriented lifestyle is the free "choice" that America has made, completely ignoring the fact that that choice is hugely influenced by the last 60 years of transportation policy in this country.
by MLD on Jul 7, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
How is it a non-sequiter? He's criticizing the whole TIGER program as "anti-mobility". These are some of the largest projects funded by the first round of the program. I think that very much follows.
As for your questions, I'm not sure the relevancy, but you can find the answers here.
-----------------------------------
It's a non-sequitur because you assume that overall size of funding is somehow is an automatic indicator of greater efficiency. It doesn't follow.
As to your link it actually doesn't help answer the 2nd or 3rd questions I asked. Thanks for the sincere effort though. I appreciate it.
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report
Never heard of the guy, is he on FIX News or something?
If this was Ken Orski, Pete Ruane (ARTBA), Greg Cohen (AHUA)Emil Frankel (BPC), or John Horsley (AASHTO) saying this, it would be an entirely different thing.
by Some Ideas on Jul 7, 2011 5:14 pm • link • report
I stand behind what I wrote as an accurate summation of Scribner's stated position. He does bash it. He does so because it supports livability. He thinks livability policies make it harder to drive. He thinks federal transportation money should make it easier to drive and not consider other goals. Therefore he's bashing it because it focuses on "livability" instead of exclusively pushing driving.
No strawman there.
@TGEoA, I don't think anyone sees you as a credible referee.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:14 pm • link • report
No that's not my point. The overall size of funding is an indicator of how important a project is deemed. It is indicative of priorities. In this case, mobility.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:17 pm • link • report
It's not "making things up," he's advocating against any change to the status quo, which right now is massive subsidy towards auto-oriented everything.
----------------------
That's your myopic and obtuse interpretation of it. He's criticizing the fact that that only 29% of funding is going towards a mode of transportation that an overwhelming majority of individuals use between given sets of destinations on a day-to-day basis.
by Fitz157 on Jul 7, 2011 5:17 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:18 pm • link • report
Yes, (you failed to flip the staff of Ra headpiece over) AND he's criticizing every dollar that goes to anything else.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report
But yes, I do think there are a lot of daily drivers who look out the roads they drive everyday and realize that their gas taxes are going to truckers or transit users and not being spent on them.
Clearly NOT the case in the Obama. They should be selling it to the roof they are spending more on roads than the last 10 put together. Instead they are wasting money on marginal rail projects in Ohio or Florida...win the future, my ass.
Layman is right -- a more holistic approach is better. How do we get a family of 5 across the country -- or to work -- in a cheaper, better, faster, and more pleasant way. Sometimes it is by transit, sometimes by road.*
*GPS navigation, which was developed by the USG but privately commercialized, is a great example. Why aren't we charging a licensing fee for every GPS chip is beyond me.
by charlie on Jul 7, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report
And your myopic viewpoint refuses to consider the fact that if you look at the percentage funded (in all transportation spending) vs. need for different modes, perhaps 29% for roads under TIGER doesn't look so bad. Maybe TIGER is just making up a fraction of the shortfall that transit has compared to roads.
You are also picking just one sentence of his argument (29% for roads) and trying to say it's the whole thing instead of considering the entirety of both pieces Scribner wrote. Both repeat the "livability is worthless" sentiment as the entire sentiment of the articles.
by MLD on Jul 7, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report
I read it and does seem like he's certainly a "car advocate" and while I understand how someone would criticize that, it's no different than the car-bias found on this board and your current article. Unfortunately, you guys here never seem to think that your digs at those who don't see cycling in the way that you do, is a bad thing. Instead you seem to believe that because you feel as if your position is progressive, that it's always the right position.
That is a consistent theme on this board..which I fervently believe creates an unnecessary us vs. them dynamic.
We, the smart people, are right about transit while you others are wrong.
I've yet to read an article here that doesn't bash any idea that involves cars and roads.
by HogWash on Jul 7, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 7, 2011 5:27 pm • link • report
---------------------
At the risk of being accused of making "ad hominem attacks", I will say that I see a lot of that very sentimant expressed in this blog by the contributors as well as the followers.
by ceefer66 on Jul 7, 2011 5:30 pm • link • report
Bring on the doom. We'll deal with it when it gets here.
by greent on Jul 7, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 7, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report
But to clarify a few things:
-In my libertarian fantasy world, there would be no development or transportation subsidies or land-use regulations. USDOT wouldn't exist (although I think that's probably a more realistic goal than getting to the point when one could drive solely on private roads to the local 711 to purchase heroin). But if we're going to have all these awful subsidies for awful plans dreamed up by awful planners, we might as well look for returns on investment, right? DOT under LaHood has been so nonsensical with its spending that I can't be pleased enough with Mica's proposed 42% CPI-adjusted, annualized cuts to SAFETEA-LU-level surface transportation expenditures.
-I don't advocate the "next suburban boom," I just expect it will happen as economic growth rebounds and wealth creation continues. If it doesn't, I'll be surprised and wrong, I guess.
-Don't conflate my dislike of dumb TIGER grants (I consider all of them dumb, but highlighted the dumbest ones) with support of dumb road projects such as the ICC.
-The four major Class I railroads should not be getting any handouts. Staggers gave them protection from the FTC and DOJ and rent-seeking shippers for a reason: fix your rail networks with your own money. If you look at the federal HSIPR program (particularly the 110-mph max corridors) or many of the commuter rail projects in the country (*cough* SunRail), they're really just corporate welfare for CSX, BNSF, UP, and NS.
by Marc Scribner on Jul 7, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report
by RJ on Jul 7, 2011 5:38 pm • link • report
In a truly "market" driven libertarian fantasy you could get your heroin delivered to your house, just like now.
by Tina on Jul 7, 2011 5:40 pm • link • report
No, I don't. And the comments above show that it does invite discussion. Which of his positions do you support?
t's no different than the car-bias found on this board and your current article.
I assume you mean anti-car bias, but bias is sort of a loaded word. Instead of attacking a nebulous idea, how about specific examples.
Instead you seem to believe that because you feel as if your position is progressive, that it's always the right position.
No, I think I'm right because of the facts.
We, the smart people, are right about transit while you others are wrong.
In this case I think Scribner is smart. He's smart enough to hide all the facts that undermine his argument. Mostly what I did was dig those facts up. So he's not wrong as much as he is deceptive - which is so much worse.
I've yet to read an article here that doesn't bash any idea that involves cars and roads.
Look up David A's article against opportunistic speed cameras (for one). And I'd argue that anything for smarter parking is pro-car/roads.
by David C on Jul 7, 2011 5:40 pm • link • report
by Marc Scribner on Jul 7, 2011 5:51 pm • link • report
Glad to hear you're just a plain ol' libertarian as opposed to a hypocrite. :-)
by Adam L on Jul 7, 2011 5:53 pm • link • report
by Adam L on Jul 7, 2011 5:54 pm • link • report
This is not a forum for discussing the merits of his belief system-- the post was to highlight an example of someone advocating for an ideology opposed to those concerned with livability and transit issues. It wasn't there to give him a forum, which he obviously already has. The guy has a mouthpiece provided by the Examiner along with his own public spokespeople advocating for him. He doesn't need GGW to serve as a surrogate advocate for him. The point of highlighting his essay was to subject his viewpoints to public criticism and mockery, as they deserve. His views are wrong and should be criticized. That's what this blog post was for-- to criticize him.
by JustMe on Jul 7, 2011 5:57 pm • link • report
by Some Ideas on Jul 7, 2011 6:01 pm • link • report
Any public advocacy opposed to this goal, such as one denouncing any funding directed towards creating built environments that make walking a reasonable transportation option is going to get criticized on this blog.
by Tina on Jul 7, 2011 6:11 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Jul 7, 2011 9:07 pm • link • report
1. Congestion on freeways;
2. congestion in cities.
I push time-shifting of freight delivery in cities as a congestion measure.
WRT inter-state transportation of freight, for energy conservation and congestion reasons, it's better for more freight to move by rail, especially for long distance trips.
Rail interests push for funding support for railroads in part as a highway safety and congestion measure (e.g., http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/11/transportation-frankness.html, which discusses CSX and Norfolk Southern initiatives in particular).
Interestingly I read an article somewhere last week about how private haulers (e.g., Walmart) are trying to get 90' trucks legalized and the truck carriers (e.g., JB Hunt) are against. Road interests argue the heavier trucks will disproportionately damage roads. But the legislation is not expected to pass.
Anyway, in terms of an ideal national transportation plan, freight is a big component, as is funding, as is transpo throughput metrics, applied to the various modes, and then optimal policy for the various modes would be developed accordingly.
by Richard Layman on Jul 7, 2011 9:18 pm • link • report
Nothing substantive to contribute, but this comment made my day. Thanks. (Although I may be dating myself - many GGW readers likely have no idea to what it refers.)
by dcd on Jul 8, 2011 7:05 am • link • report
Only b/c for so many trips the transportation policies over the last 40-60 years or more have focused exclusively on driving in a private auto, thus giving us a built environment and transit system that takes away any reasonable choice in how to transport between places. There are many, many trips I take by auto not b/c its my preference but only b/c of the myopic policies from before and during my lifetime that only focused on that single mode and so thats what I'm left with. I think you are the one with an obtuse perception of why there isn't greater mode share today.
----------------------------
No offense, but that comes across as nothing but New Urbanist boilerplate. There is no mode of transportation that can match the flexibility and freedom of travel provided by a private auto. It is only faced with limitations when travel is within a high density area with parking restrictions. The overwhelming majority of individuals and families in this country have chosen to not live in high density areas. The explosive growth of single-family homes within suburban sprawl instead of nothing but mixed-use condos and townhomes is continually dismissed on this blog as narrow-minded and wrong. Suburban sprawl developments aren't the result of some nationwide zoning conspiracy, they're a function of constituents demands and market signals. This is a nation that doesn't have a lot of space constraints and when given the choice most families have decided that they'd rather have space than share a wall with neighbors.
I like mixed-use developments, I would strongly consider living in one when given the choice to move again, but I think their scope is much more limited than their proponents would like to believe.
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 10:11 am • link • report
Really? What about a bike?
It's pretty flexible. I can park it almost anywhere - any time. For free. I can ride on almost every road, most sidewalks and a whole bunch of trails - I have probably have more mile options available on a bike than I do in a car. I Can take it on trains, I can box it up and take on an airplane with me, I can take it on a ferry - even one that doesn't allow for cars. I can store it in my house. Heck I have four in my house now.
As for freedom - nothing compares. No license needed. No inspection. No parking restrictions (again). I can often bike through barricades or past traffic congestion. There are so many areas offlimits to my car that I can take my bike to. I can even take it inside buildings or grocery stores with me.
Flexibility and freedom - sorry, the winner is bike (or perhaps foot). If you want to talk about speed, that's different, but not these two features.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 10:44 am • link • report
Yes, but Tina is talking about policy. You're talking about the market, and talking about it like policy doesn't matter. But it does. When we build roads without sidewalks and traffic sewers, that changes the market. What if we had decided that roads should be built and owned by private businesses. That they should have to acquire land without the help of eminent domain and the add tolls to pay for it all, while trying to make a profit. That would have been one policy choice and it would very much change where people choose to live. I'm glad we didn't do that, but my point is that policy drives the market and vice-versa. In this case policy has been inadequate at giving people what they actually want. Once policy started to change in the 90's to add more sidewalks and more transit and make places easier to bike all of those modes began to take a larger mode share. So there was pent-up demand.
We'll always have cars and need cars (and we have for the last 4000 years) but not to the degree that we did in the late 20th century. That got nuts.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 11:07 am • link • report
I agree with you that rail is the best way to move freight (especially bulk cargo) over land, although I still oppose subsidizing the railroad industry. The U.S. freight rail system blows the rest of the industrialized world's systems out of the water. The railroad industry has done quite well since being liberated from rigid price controls and from operating extremely inefficient passenger rail, and as a general rule of thumb, freight is best moved by rail and water and people are best moved by auto and air (of course, there are some major counterexamples).
Have you been following STB's Ex Parte 705 proceeding? A handful of shippers -- mainly western coal producers in the Powder River Basin, western and southern coal-fired power plants, agribusiness, and chemical companies led by DuPont -- are again trying to roll back the progress made over the last 30 years. A bill introduced by retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (S.49) would go even further backwards and remove the limited antitrust exemptions granted to the railroads (shielding from DOJ and FTC) and roll back previous STB rulings. Here are a couple of comment letters I've submitted to the STB in EP 705:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52869993/Marc-Scribner-Railroad-Competition-Comment-Letter-EP-705-April-12
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56474918/Marc-Scribner-Railroad-Competition-Comment-Letter-EP-705-May-27
by Marc Scribner on Jul 8, 2011 11:10 am • link • report
by Jasper on Jul 8, 2011 11:14 am • link • report
Plus you completely ignore other limitations such as longer distances, payload, weather, the number of individuals going, age of the individuals, attire for the destination, the stops between destinations, etc.
In all of those aspects the private auto for most individuals and families provides the most flexibility over a bicycle.
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 11:18 am • link • report
It's telling that on three corridors I know the ADT for, 1/3 of the passenger throughput occurs on buses, say about 300 daily (22 hours), each ranging from 40 to 60 feet in length. The rest of the people move through the corridor on 20,000 to 30,000 motor vehicles. Each takes up a minimum of 20 feet of space (vehicles are 12-16 feet long on avg. plus there is space between cars).
When mobility costs money in terms of roads, airports, railroad track, subways, buses, etc., in theory we have to make rational choices as an economy.
Unless of course you are willing for people to pay full cost for their mobility freedom--that means the cost of roads, the military costs around maintaining access to oil, parking etc. Plus the environmental impact. It would be much much much higher. Most people couldn't afford it probably.
by Richard Layman on Jul 8, 2011 11:35 am • link • report
Single family homes are not condemned in the way you seem to think. To think so rather sounds like someone seeing a conspiracy thats not there. Its other policies that accompanies that "traditional" model, primarily the status quo transportation options and built environmnet/land use that are criticized. Its the car-dependent suburban sprawl that is indeed narrow minded, myopic and obtuse and constricts personal freedom. People who want to live in single family homes with yards should not be faced with having to use the car for every trip - even trips<1mi. -because the built environment and transportation infrastructure investment does not allow for another choice.
Suburban sprawl developments aren't the result of some nationwide zoning conspiracy, they're a function of constituents demands and market signals.Please check restriction policies for housing in the GI Bill from the '40's as one example of a policy that helped spur suburban sprawl. You can call it conspiracy. I call it a widespread adoption of policies that became status quo and had unintended consequences, one of which is constricted freedom of choice, and reasonably ought to be revisited after 60 years. This blog advocates policies that seek to balance freedom of choice and that would enhance both car-driving and suburban standard of living by making other options more available and thus remove cars from existing roads.
The US census reports that 3/4's of the US population lives in urbanized areas. Your assertion that people don't want to live in those types of areas is not based on data. Again, the transportation and land use and built-environment policies advocated by here seek to expand freedom of choice for, well, ~3/4's of the population and at the same time reduce the negative externalities and negative unintended consequences caused by the near total emphasis on car-dependent design that has dominated for the last 60 years.
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
I'm glad we didn't do that, but my point is that policy drives the market and vice-versa.
--------------------------------
Understood, hence why I stated that development is a function of constituent demands and market signals.
David C wrote:
In this case policy has been inadequate at giving people what they actually want.
-----------------------------------
Yet despite this 90's revival that you speak of growth in the suburbs still continues to outpace metropolitan areas.
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 11:53 am • link • report
You probably oppose subsidizing any industry, but I disagree. There are several situations where I think subsidies make sense. Here is one scenario.
A railroad has two choices, and can only raise the capital for one.
(a) make a $10B investment that will bring a $0.1B return and a reduction in pollution and road congestion that is worth $2B
(b) make a $10B investment that will bring a $1B return and no social benefit.
They don't care about the pollution and road congestion, so they aren't going to choose (a) on their own. But if the government offers to kick in $1B for the first project then it becomes
(a) make a $9B investment that will bring a $1.1B return and a reduction in pollution and road congestion that is worth $2B
The government is getting an ROI of 100% and the railroad's ROI goes up. It is a win-win. We should be in the business of doing win-wins.
The other way to do this is by making the RR pay for pollution and congestion, through things like cap and trade, taxes on pollutants, fees for grade crossing closures etc... or through regulation, but I bet you oppose those things as well.
There are other scenarios where it makes sense, like in CREATE where it will also make commuter rail more efficient.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
That is very much in debate.
"population growth is an unreliable indicator of demand, because of the all important supply side of the market. Imagine two areas: Gotham and Pleasantville. Say the demand to live in Pleasantville increases a little while the demand to live in Gotham soars. And say that due to differences in land use restrictions, housing supply responds dramatically in Pleasantville and very little in Gotham. Then what we'll observe in Pleasantville is a rapid increase in population and slower growth in prices, and what we'll observe in Gotham is rapid growth in prices and slower growth in population. And this is exactly what we have observed in the real world. Suburbs have seen massive housing growth and rapid population growth, but prices in central cities have soared, even in many places where population numbers are level or falling. If no one wanted to live in central cities, prices for homes there would not rise. And indeed, several decades ago, prices for homes in big central cities were dropping. But that trend has clearly reversed. You can't draw conclusions about demand shifts from population numbers alone. This is a very simple point, and yet its repeatedly ignored."
And even in the suburbs, people are looking to live in a more urban suburb, hence the rise or "town centers" and more commuter rail. Biking and walking is up in the suburbs. Just because people live in the suburbs, that doesn't mean they want to drive everywhere.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report
In your example, a $1B cash infusion to the railroad would result in:
A $9B investment that will bring a $.1B return and $2B in externality reductions.
But your externality business just reveals the limits of that logic.
What do railroads carry -- coal. And junk from China. Very little coal is trucked around, and once you start to factor in ALL the externalities investing in rail looks sillier.
Now your point about commuter rail is very true, and a larger investment program geared toward reducing truck traffic by say 5% might make sense. Direct intermodal or something. And the traffic reductions also might include grade crossing and what not.
But assuming investment in rail means less truck traffic? I doubt it.
Externalities seen a neat way to justify paying off corporations. I know liberal love them because they look like economic tools, and so they can talk with the CEIs of the world, but don't get stuck on them.
Isn't CSX a major funder of CEI?
by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report
$10B spent would result in $10.1 billion in new revenue which is a $0.1B return. So, the $10B spent is merely divided between $9B for the RR and $1B by the govt. but new revenue remains the same - hence a $1.1B return for the RR, since the govt won't take any of that revenue.
Railroads do ship coal, and as long as that's what they're doing, they should do it as cleanly as possible. There are better ways to limit the burning of coal than making it inefficient to transport. I have no problems with stuff from China.
Externalities matter. Ignore them at your own risk.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report
This blog advocates policies that seek to balance freedom of choice and that would enhance both car-driving and suburban standard of living by making other options more available and thus remove cars from existing roads.
-------------------------------------
Relieving congestion on existing roads is reasonable to advocate, but has this blog ever endorsed the expansion or addition of a road to achieve this?
Tina wrote:
The US census reports that 3/4's of the US population lives in urbanized areas. Your assertion that people don't want to live in those types of areas is not based on data.
-----------------------------------------
Where did I assert that?
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report
What do railroads carry -- coal. And junk from China. Very little coal is trucked around, and once you start to factor in ALL the externalities investing in rail looks sillier.
You are falling into your usual pattern of taking a reasonable assertion and then tweaking it slightly in every post until it becomes completely and totally ridiculous. This one started as "coal makes up most of rail freight tonnage" and has now evolved into the ridiculous "trains only carry coal and chinese junk." No clue where the second part comes from.
Anyway, top 5 categories carried by rail freight:
47.2%: Coal
9.7%: Chemicals
8.2%: Farm Products
6.3%: Nonmetallic Minerals
6.1%: Food and kindred products
Dunno where "junk from China" fits in there but maybe you can educate the rest of us.
by MLD on Jul 8, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
You can't draw conclusions about demand shifts from population numbers alone. This is a very simple point, and yet its repeatedly ignored."
----------------------------
I realize that's quoted from the blog but I'm not suggesting that conclusions should only be drawn from population numbers. It makes an interesting case but it also ignore other aspects of life in Gotham that influence prices up such as tax burdens, median incomes, rent controls, etc. versus those in Pleasantville.
David C wrote:
And even in the suburbs, people are looking to live in a more urban suburb, hence the rise or "town centers" and more commuter rail. Biking and walking is up in the suburbs. Just because people live in the suburbs, that doesn't mean they want to drive everywhere.
-----------------------------
I like the town center concept too but I think their demand is overstated. I lived on the peninsula side of Hampton Roads from '04 to last year and they built 3 of those developments while I lived there, while 1 other stalled b/c of the crash. The most recently one built, Peninsula Town Center in Hampton, seemed to be doing well but most of those people who shopped and ate there had to drive to get there. The other two developments, Port Warwick and Oyster Point in Newport News, seem like busts. Both had high turnover in leases and the latter had low vacancy rates too. It was a ghost town.
I know that's anecdotal, but that's an area with a fairly large population (over 1 million in the entire Hampton Roads region), and it seems like that should be a prime target for the town center concept. I'm rooting for the concept, just not sure that it can work in too many places.
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report
Re: bicycles (and walking): You are completely ignoring the number of trips <1 mi taken by car b/c the built environmnet doesn't allow another choice (as a result of deacdes of transportation/land-use policies focused solely on individual driving), and reasons many people may want to pedal/walk instead of drive including getting excercise and saving money. Do you argue that personal health and economics are not significant factors in decision making? I argue that staus quo policies that create barriers to walking 1/2 mile or biking 5 miles confound my individual freedom to act in my own best interest.
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report
Your first model is assuming .1B in return, so even with a $1b cash infusion it is still .1B in new returns.
Certainly, if you believe in externalities -- and more importantly, you can measure those externalities -- $2B is a lot. But from a revenue projection, it doesn't change.
Go ask your wife about law and economics and how wonderful externalities got us into that mess. Liberals talking about externalities reminds me of Obama taking the best GOP talking points.
Depending on the cost of capital, I'd rather $1B in revenue than .1B. If there is an argument that railroads can't raise that money, or the cost is too high, well, perhaps I'd be more sympathetic.
* Depending on how you measure return. If you saying the railroad gets $1B in cash, then a $10B project with a .1B return becomes a $10B project with a 1.1B return. Rather more if you factor time value of money in. However, I think you are double dipping....
by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report
1. No Subsidy: RR pays $10B. Railroad gets $10.1 B back and the governement gets $2B worth of externalities. Return to RR: $0.1B. Return to Government: $2B Total cost: $10B Total return: $12.1B
2. Subsidy; RR pays $9B and government pays $1B. Railroad gets $10.1 B back and the government gets $2B worth of externalities. Return to RR: $1.1B. Return to Government: $1B Total cost: $10B Total return: $12.1B
So yes. The government is basically transferring half their return to the railroad - and doing it at the investment point. No double dipping needed.
You can tone down the condescending talk about asking my wife stuff. If you can't explain it, then you must not understand it.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report
In any case there is plenty of dispute over whether or not building more roads is indeed a reasonable solution to relieving congestion. If it were then there wouldn't be congestion because we've been building roads for 70 years now but congestion is worse than ever. Don't you think it's reasonable to take a step back and re-evalute this "solution" given the outcome? The population continues to grow. There will never be enough roads unless whole swaths of currently standing buildings are knocked down. We need other things in our built environment besides roads and parking, and we need other choices besides driving everywhere, everytime, even for short trips.
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 1:38 pm • link • report
by Fitz157 on Jul 8, 2011 2:07 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
In your two models, your originally posited .1B in returns -- not 10.1. A 10B project that earns .1B is still going to earn .1B if it costs 9B. At a percentage (say a 1% return) then you math might work better.
9B+1B=10B project + 1% return = 10.1 = 1.1B to railroad
But that isn't the facts out....
minor point anyway. The larger point is any discussion of externalities can be pulled both ways, and it is a fools errand to take them into account. Externalities work well for their initial purpose (how to properly measure and reduce transaction costs) but when applied outside that field they get very unwieldy.
by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report
Yes.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report
If you spend 10B and only get 0.1B back, you lost 9.9B. So the return was the amount of money gained. You have to make the investment back to get to the gain. So the revenue was 10.1B and that doesn't change if two people split the costs.
My wife is a lawyer, but if you think she's going to make your point for you, I think you're going to be disappointed. In fact, I just talked to her and she says your wrong. If you have a point about the weaknesses of externalities, you'll have to make it yourself.
To try and account for every cost and every benefit in a project is not a fool's errand. It may be impossible to get wrong, but if you ignore sizeable costs and benefits you're going to make huge mistakes (see: global warming, DDT, etc...)
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report
"In any case there is plenty of dispute over whether or not building more roads is indeed a reasonable solution to relieving congestion. If it were then there wouldn't be congestion because we've been building roads for 70 years now but congestion is worse than ever."
THIS region certainly hasn't built roads willy-nilly over the last 70 years.
In fact, we've hardly built any to speak of. The DC region canceled 1500 lane-miles of limited-access highway - more than it built and more than any other major city - under its universally-adopted Metro-only transportatation policy.
Not to mention our propensity to indulge road opponents of every stripe. That's why it took - quite literally - a Supreme Court ruling to build the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge any why it took 50 years to turn the first spade of earth to build the ICC.
@Tina
"Don't you think it's reasonable to take a step back and re-evalute this "solution" given the outcome? The population continues to grow."
I think it would be reasonable to scrap the same old insisted-upon "solution" of "let's do ANYTHING but build or significantly expand roads, starting with building transit and considering every other possible alternative". That, so far, hasn't worked.
The fact that this region has the nation's worst traffic can hardly be blamed on growth and "sprawl" alone. It's primarily because we've spent over 2 generations focusing too much on "alternatives" and not enough on SOLUTIONS.
Metro DC has the nation's worst traffic in spite of building its second-largest subway and in spite of leading the nation in "alternatives" like car-pooling and telecommuting AND in spite of having the nation's second-largest proportion of transit use.
I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me that we don't have the nation's worst traffic because of a failure to "promote other choices" and "provide alternatives".
It makes me think that maybe, just perhaps, we should have built at least some of the freeways that were canceled in addition to providing "alternatives". It makes me think that it never should have been an about either/or. Not during the 1950's-70's when the freeways were planned and fought over and certainly not now considering the results of that folly.
@Tina
"There will never be enough roads unless whole swaths of currently standing buildings are knocked down"
Not so.
The right-of-way for the canceled I-95 through NE DC and Takoma Park-College Park is STILL vacant; the NE DC portion consists of the brownfields along the path of the Red Line to Silver Spring and the Tacoma-College Park section is a Pepco easement (ever seen the transmission towers?).
Furthermore, connecting the truncated sections of I-395 with I-295 and the Route 50/BW Parkway interchange via Barney Circle wouldn't require taking so much as a mole hill.
I've often heard that the simplest definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Continuing the same old pattern of canceling highways to please agenda-based groups while we spend increasingly scarce resources on "giving people other choices besides driving" and anything-but-a-new-road "alternatives" is quite frankly insane.
The so-called "sprawl" is here. It didn't sprout overnight and it's not going away overnight if ever. Fact is, the MAJORITY of people in this region - in fact in the entire nation - live in suburban areas. As desirable as the city has become - and I'm happy to see that - it will NEVER, at least not in our lifetime, contain the majority of the region's population. Not in an area of only 68 square miles and not with height restrictions - unless "whole swaths of currently standing buildings are knocked down".
"Density" and "livability" don't have an infinite capacity. The sooner we accept that reality - and plan accordingly - the better for everyone.
by ceefer66 on Jul 8, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
The traffic, though I'm not sure we're #1, is all far from the Metro core. It's the beltway, I-395 and I-66 outside the Beltway. Places where there is little transit. None of the worst congested roads are in DC proper.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 3:06 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 8, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Jul 8, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
by snowpeas on Jul 8, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report
Wow! Talk about a strawman argument.
Have you ever BEEN along the planned I-95 route - or evenv looked at it on a map?
The NE DC portion consists almost entirely of brownfields.
Here's a test: compare the areas of NE DC that were "saved" by killing I-95 with the section of North Arlington that was "destroyed" by building I-66.
"I can only respond that i have a very different set of values than you; and giggle at your rant in which roads and the individual car as a focus of transportation plans generally (save the metro) are victims of underrepresentation. "
Go ahead. Giggle, That's exactly why you and your ilk aren't taken seriously and why YOUR own rants against drivers and suburbs is viewed as myopic, faddish nonsense.
by ceefer66 on Jul 8, 2011 5:01 pm • link • report
The traffic, though I'm not sure we're #1, is all far from the Metro core. It's the beltway, I-395 and I-66 outside the Beltway. Places where there is little transit. None of the worst congested roads are in DC proper.
-----------------------------
I suppose you've never been on NY Avenue or the SW Freeway. Or for that matter, East Capitol Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, Constituion Avenue, 14th Street, Wisconsin Avenue or M Street in Georgetown. If you don't call those roads "congested", I shudder to think of what it would take to impress you.
Let's lok at the rest of that "Metro core".
It could be argued that most of those stranded in gridlock on I-395 are commuting to/from DC. I-395 is one of the region's worst-congested roads - even with the many transit alternatives - Metro along with VRE and express buses that come all the way from Fredricksburg (so much for your congestion ocurring only in "Places where there is little transit"). Not to mention the HOV "alternative".
Then there's the Beltway. It's not in DC, but one could reasonably argue that it's in the core. Every Metro line, except the southern leg of the Gree Line, goes at least to within a mile inside the Beltway; several go pretty far outside of it. In other words, traffic where transit is available is just as bad as traffic where it isn't available if not worse.
Ever been on Rockville Pike or Georgia where the Red Line runs under/along them?
I-66 inside the Beltway, restricted to HOV during rush hours, is also one of the worst-congested. Even with the Orange Line running concurrently. Ever seen 66 just after rush hour? Tell you what: I'm glad I don't have to do it every day.
Finally, the badly-congested suburban Dulles Toll Road also knocks your argument on its face. Express Park and Ride buses to the West Fall Church Metro have been available at least since 1988 when I used them to commute from Reston to Pentagon City. There are also commuter buses that go all the way out to Leesburg.
Now I don't know about you, but those examples tell me that the reality of bad congestion - ESPECIALLY in the Metro core where transit is plentiful - tells me that transit availability is no substitute for road capacity.
It also begs the question:
If transit cannot solve the congestion problems of the dense core where it's plentiful and practical, how can any reasonable person expect it to cure suburban congestion?
Why any one not suspect that the claim this region's worst congestion occurs in "Places where there is little transit" anything but just another laughable anti-car/anti-road fallacy?
As a matter of fact, there isn't any suburban road in "places where there is little transit" that's as badly-congested as the badly-congested roads in the core. None, except for perhaps I-66 beyong the Orange Line terminus at Vienna.
With all due respect, your statement makes it look like you don't get out of DC very much.
BTW, the Texas TRansportation Institute, widely rearded as the premier expert on the subject of traffic congestion, recently ranked the DC metroploitan area#1 - worse than Los Angeles or Houston. Interestingly, New York - the poster child of the urbanists and transit advocates, was ranked as having the longest commute.
Just the facts.
by ceefer66 on Jul 8, 2011 5:45 pm • link • report
"We don't want to build roads or do anything else to benefit drivers. We want to get people out of their cars by making driving as expensive and as miserable as we possibly can".
Orwellian newspeak:
"We want to expand choices and flexibility".
by ceefer66 on Jul 8, 2011 5:53 pm • link • report
Where to start.
1. There are roads in DC that are congested at times. But none of them rank among the nation's worst. In fact, not one of the 100 worst bottlenecks in America are in the DC area.
2. You can't have gridlock on an interstate because there is no grid
3. Metro does not parallel I-395, and it isn't nearly as congested as I-495 which also has no transit alternative.
4. It's not in DC, but one could reasonably argue that it's in the core. No. One could not.
5. I-66 inside the Beltway, restricted to HOV during rush hours, is also one of the worst-congested. No. It isn't.
6. Finally, the badly-congested suburban Dulles Toll Road also knocks your argument on its face. Express Park and Ride buses to the West Fall Church Metro have been available at least since 1988
When your only option to DC is mutli-seat transit, you aren't in the metro core.
7. Again, all of the worst roads, according to experts are outside of DC. If I'm wrong show me a listing that contradicts it.
8 Why any one not suspect that the claim this region's worst congestion occurs in "Places where there is little transit" anything but just another laughable anti-car/anti-road fallacy?
Because it's a fact, as I've cited above.
9. the Texas TRansportation Institute, widely rearded as the premier expert on the subject of traffic congestion, recently ranked the DC metroploitan area#1
Really? When? [Also, their methodology is questionable, and they're dirty Aggies]
10Just the facts.
It would be nice if you included some.
by David C on Jul 8, 2011 11:25 pm • link • report
The interstates that were cancelled that you cite were planned through Takoma Park, and continuing into Ward 4 and through NE (planned to bisect Ward 5). Granted I assumed you would also like to see the planned-but-cancelled interstates through Ward 3, Dupont Circle and Capitol Hill too.
Is there another way to interpret your statement, quoted above, than to conclude you think the community would be improved with those interstates?
by Tina on Jul 9, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report
"If transit cannot solve the congestion problems of the dense core where it's plentiful and practical"
But it did. Traffic within DC was approaching critical mass and perpetual gridlock, even during non-rush hour times, before metrorail came in. The dense network of metrobuses already in place were stuck in that mess. Your examples of commuter routes in DC during rush hour being slow don't change this fact. Seriously, look at the commuter metrorail lines during rush hour, then transpose that to one person per car being dumped on the roads. You'd have to either be an idiot or have an agenda to not acknowledge how much of a difference it's made.
*not.
by Bob See on Jul 9, 2011 5:09 pm • link • report
Add a Comment