Washington Post: Everyone wants change in transportation system, but most don't want to pay for it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/everyone-wants-change-in-transportation-system-but-most-dont-want-to-pay-for-it/2013/01/22/b5c1b114-63da-11e2-b84d-21c7b65985ee_story.html)
QuoteWith both Maryland and Virginia puzzling over how to come up with billions of dollars for transportation, local transportation planners have found little public support for an alternative to the gasoline tax that could raise a lot of money.
QuoteAlthough neither state nor federal gas taxes are bringing in enough money to pay to restore worn-out roadways, bridges and transit systems, some people would rather see those taxes go up than embrace a new system in which drivers would pay for each mile they travel, according to a report to be issued Wednesday by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
QuoteOverall, the 300 people from the two states and the District who participated in focus groups convened by the planning board said they wanted better transportation and less congestion but showed little will to pay more for them.
QuoteThe report offers a timely perspective as state and federal officials grapple with massive funding shortfalls, in large part because greater fuel efficiencies have reduced revenue from the gas tax that paid for the interstate highway system and hundreds of thousands of miles of roadway and transit lines.
Could be that most people assume there is overspending in all areas of government, and would rather save the wasted money than spend more. Maybe not.
Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2013, 09:33:31 AM
Could be that most people assume there is overspending in all areas of government, and would rather save the wasted money than spend more. Maybe not.
Most people do not seem to understand that transit (and
especially rail transit) financially burdens highway users in two ways.
First, all of the money to pay for transit capital spending (including new rail transit projects) comes from sources of money other than the fares paid by transit patrons. Frequently that involves diversion of highway user revenues (including fuel taxes and tolls). In most U.S. transit systems, patrons don't pay even one cent of the capital cost associated with the systems that they ride.
Second, once a transit line is in operation, very nearly all of them will need operating subsidies (which usually come from highway users as well).
What is curious about the above is that transit boosters (and especially rail transit boosters) will oppose any and all new highway projects, citing "peak oil," global climate change and other environmental impacts as reasons not to ever build any new highway capacity or improve what is already there. But these same boosters happily talk about "dedicated funding" and "stable source of funding," which consist of money collected from highway users.
^ There is a lot of truth to that statement. Currently, in Toronto, the provincial and federal government are spending billions of dollars to build a new rapid transit line on Eglinton Avenue. The line is a good idea, it will be well utilized, and I am of the opinion that in dense neighbourhoods transit is a worthwhile investment.
The problem is, that this money is coming out of provincial coffers for a local project, while roads in other areas of the Greater Toronto Area are suffering from extreme congestion with no end in sight. The province has found the money to subsidize a local railway when it doesn't have the revenue for any capital expansion projects to address provincial highway congestion in the Greater Toronto Area in its five year forcasts.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 23, 2013, 10:12:16 AM
^ There is a lot of truth to that statement. Currently, in Toronto, the provincial and federal government are spending billions of dollars to build a new rapid transit line on Eglinton Avenue. The line is a good idea, it will be well utilized, and I am of the opinion that in dense neighbourhoods transit is a worthwhile investment.
Wasn't Eglinton one of the terminal stations on the TTC subway system (it may well be an end-of-the-line station even now)?
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 23, 2013, 10:12:16 AM
The problem is, that this money is coming out of provincial coffers for a local project, while roads in other areas of the Greater Toronto Area are suffering from extreme congestion with no end in sight. The province has found the money to subsidize a local railway when it doesn't have the revenue for any capital expansion projects to address provincial highway congestion in the Greater Toronto Area in its five year forcasts.
Even though the transportation planning process in Canada is not exactly the same as it is south of the border, we have the same problem down here. With one exception, all of the major transportation improvements completed (or under construction) in the Washington, D.C. area in the past 10 years are mostly toll-financed.
The only exception is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Alexandria, Va. and Oxon Hill, Md.). Even the Silver Line (Metro) extension to Dulles Airport is mostly funded by toll revenues collected on the Dulles Toll Road.
Are elected officials at the provincial and federal level in Canada as
terrified of raising motor fuel tax rates as they are in the United States?
Everyone wants more services from the government if they don't have to pay for them. The other problem is when there is significant support and the funds to do it, there are NIMBYs that get in the way. Examples: US-7 Expressway in CT, any other canceled project ever.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
Are elected officials at the provincial and federal level in Canada as terrified of raising motor fuel tax rates as they are in the United States?
My guess would be no; Canadians seem to be less militant against taxes than Americans. However, they do have a different problem: if taxes got too high, people would just cross the border for cheaper gas.
I'm not sure if Canada has a federal gas tax or not.
TOLLROADSnews: Focus groups in Washington DC metro area show support for toll express lanes network, strong opposition to VMT charges (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6372)
QuoteFocus group discussions conducted for the National Capital Region transport planning board (TPB) show deep and wide public opposition to any mileage based road charges but clear support for networks of premium service toll lanes in existing highways. The report titled "What do people think about congestion pricing?" was released today.
QuoteThree scenarios were presented to "deliberative forums" or small focus groups of 8 or 10 persons around separate tables.
Quote"Deliberative forums" as they are called involved some 300 people engaged in multiple extended discussions over 4 1/2 hours in five locations 2 VA, 2 MD, 1 DC. Invitees were chosen to be "broadly representative" of the mix of economic and social background of the region. Presentations on the issues were fed into the discussion process to see how responsive people were to expert opinion and data.
QuoteThose involved were polled before and after.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
Wasn't Eglinton one of the terminal stations on the TTC subway system (it may well be an end-of-the-line station even now)?
The Bloor Danforth (east-west) line terminates at Eglinton in the city's east end. So does the Scarborough Toy Train set (more commonly known as the RT). Decades ago, the Yonge Line terminated at Eglinton Avenue as well.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
Are elected officials at the provincial and federal level in Canada as terrified of raising motor fuel tax rates as they are in the United States?
No, without getting too political, there seems to be more of an understanding in Canada that services do actually cost money, and that not all government spending is wasteful. A few years ago, Ontario effectively raised gasoline taxes by introducing a new gas structure at the pumps. On one side it is a bit frustrating, but on the other, the province
is significantly expanding its highway infrastructure, just not so much in the GTA.
Quote from: deanej on January 23, 2013, 05:15:20 PM
My guess would be no; Canadians seem to be less militant against taxes than Americans. However, they do have a different problem: if taxes got too high, people would just cross the border for cheaper gas.
Maybe a small percentage can, but most Canadians don't live close enough to the border that the extra fuel burned to drive across the border would be outweighed by the cost savings of buying cheaper fuel.
Quote from: deanej on January 23, 2013, 05:15:20 PM
I'm not sure if Canada has a federal gas tax or not.
We do. http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx (http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
What is curious about the above is that transit boosters (and especially rail transit boosters) will oppose any and all new highway projects, citing "peak oil," global climate change and other environmental impacts as reasons not to ever build any new highway capacity or improve what is already there. But these same boosters happily talk about "dedicated funding" and "stable source of funding," which consist of money collected from highway users.
I was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine over a few pints last night. I work in the environmental field, so I feel like I do have an environmental conscious, but
nobody benefits from tens of thousands of vehicles idling on congested roads. Nobody! Cars are pretty efficient while in normal operation, and do not emit excessive amounts of pollutants. Cars really start to pollute when they are at idle or stuck in traffic. So why is there so much resistance from so called environmentalists to meet the needs of auto drivers? Somewhere along the way it became unfashionable to drive to work.
Another thing I was discussing was the idea of induced demand from highway widening. I am of the opinion that induced demand is a real phenomenon -- but why does it happen? Because the average person prefers to drive to work, and will, if given choice, drive to work instead of taking transit. So if the average individuals preference is to drive to work, why is the collective individual so adamantly against building adequate roadway capacity to meet this need? </rant>
One thing I have not heard brought up recently is using the gold old fashion income tax base to support more interest cost on new debt. States (especially VA) generally have good credit ratings and seem to have no trouble issuing billions in new debt to cover general fund budget shortfalls year after year. Most borrow billions as well and just dump the money into state pension funds. In either case it just raises the interest expense that state has to pay annually and increases the net debt outstanding that will have to be rolled into new bonds when the existing bonds mature in future years. Why doesn't VA just issue 10B in new debt and dump it into the transit fund and simply raise any/all existing taxes to cover the bills as they come due? It seems to work when bridging general budget shortfalls as well as pension shortfalls.
This strategy is also known as a ponzi scheme. SHHH!! Don't tell the 300 million americans who are fully hooked on this system about it...we cannot afford to have people start backing out now.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
So if the average individuals preference is to drive to work, why is the collective individual so adamantly against building adequate roadway capacity to meet this need?
Most people don't want the asphalt planet that will result from building enough capacity for current rush hour volumes, plus the iterated induced demand that then results.
How could we be so sure? Induced demand to me means that people have a demand for a "better" lifestyle that suburban living affords. It seems like historical development patterns support that. Why not give the people what they want and build them roads so they can gobble up open space to support their preference for suburban living?
I am not trying to get too political for anyone, I am just saying that the demand already exists for sprawl. Not building roads does nothing to change that demand. It just creates market distorting conditions like families living in crowded city conditions that would prefer to live in a suburb. Or it creates the opposite, families living in suburbs with inadequate roads spending hours of time in traffic that would otherwise be spent in other (hopefully productive) ways.
Quote from: mc78andrew on January 24, 2013, 10:19:46 PM
How could we be so sure? Induced demand to me means that people have a demand for a "better" lifestyle that suburban living affords. It seems like historical development patterns support that. Why not give the people what they want and build them roads so they can gobble up open space to support their preference for suburban living?
Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? It's something to do with goats eating all the grass in Alanland.
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2013, 09:29:16 PM
Most people don't want the asphalt planet that will result from building enough capacity for current rush hour volumes, plus the iterated induced demand that then results.
That's the hypocrisy of it, because they do. The demand for suburban development is still very strong, so while there isn't resistance to the house farms that chew up huge tracks of land, there is for some reason resistance to the transportation networks to support it.
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2013, 10:26:21 PM
Quote from: mc78andrew on January 24, 2013, 10:19:46 PM
How could we be so sure? Induced demand to me means that people have a demand for a "better" lifestyle that suburban living affords. It seems like historical development patterns support that. Why not give the people what they want and build them roads so they can gobble up open space to support their preference for suburban living?
Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? It's something to do with goats eating all the grass in Alanland.
I have heard of that. Ever hear of Thomas Malthus? His quote "The power of the population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man." He wrote that 200 years and 6 billion people ago. He even went as far to say we should sterilize the poor to prevent such a fate. I hate to think what he would say now about our modern road network let alone everything else we have created through innovation to boost living standards. I'm pretty sure there will be enough grass in Alanland or Virginia for years to come...and when it runs out humans will as they have for centuries find a way to adapt through innovation to better their condition.
dude, what are you even arguing? first you rail against borrowing, and then you rail against austerity in building sprawl.
are you imagining suburban couples hooking backhoes to their stick-figure-family minivans and building the roads themselves?
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
Wasn't Eglinton one of the terminal stations on the TTC subway system (it may well be an end-of-the-line station even now)?
The Bloor Danforth (east-west) line terminates at Eglinton in the city's east end. So does the Scarborough Toy Train set (more commonly known as the RT). Decades ago, the Yonge Line terminated at Eglinton Avenue as well.
That's what I remember when I went for a railfan ride on the Toronto subway system about 15 years ago.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
Are elected officials at the provincial and federal level in Canada as terrified of raising motor fuel tax rates as they are in the United States?
No, without getting too political, there seems to be more of an understanding in Canada that services do actually cost money, and that not all government spending is wasteful. A few years ago, Ontario effectively raised gasoline taxes by introducing a new gas structure at the pumps. On one side it is a bit frustrating, but on the other, the province is significantly expanding its highway infrastructure, just not so much in the GTA.
I read someplace (might have been here on AAROADS) that the province is extending Highway 407 east and that it will remain under provincial ownership and not be leased to the private sector.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: deanej on January 23, 2013, 05:15:20 PM
My guess would be no; Canadians seem to be less militant against taxes than Americans. However, they do have a different problem: if taxes got too high, people would just cross the border for cheaper gas.
Maybe a small percentage can, but most Canadians don't live close enough to the border that the extra fuel burned to drive across the border would be outweighed by the cost savings of buying cheaper fuel.
Quote from: deanej on January 23, 2013, 05:15:20 PM
I'm not sure if Canada has a federal gas tax or not.
We do. http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx (http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx)
Your federal tax on gasoline is quite a bit higher than what U.S. drivers pay.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
What is curious about the above is that transit boosters (and especially rail transit boosters) will oppose any and all new highway projects, citing "peak oil," global climate change and other environmental impacts as reasons not to ever build any new highway capacity or improve what is already there. But these same boosters happily talk about "dedicated funding" and "stable source of funding," which consist of money collected from highway users.
I was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine over a few pints last night. I work in the environmental field, so I feel like I do have an environmental conscious, but nobody benefits from tens of thousands of vehicles idling on congested roads. Nobody! Cars are pretty efficient while in normal operation, and do not emit excessive amounts of pollutants. Cars really start to pollute when they are at idle or stuck in traffic. So why is there so much resistance from so called environmentalists to meet the needs of auto drivers? Somewhere along the way it became unfashionable to drive to work.
Agreed. And with electronic tolling technology (and Highway 407 was the first really large-scale implementation of same), it is possible to use pricing (instead of long queues of motor vehicles) to combat congestion.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AM
Another thing I was discussing was the idea of induced demand from highway widening. I am of the opinion that induced demand is a real phenomenon -- but why does it happen? Because the average person prefers to drive to work, and will, if given choice, drive to work instead of taking transit. So if the average individuals preference is to drive to work, why is the collective individual so adamantly against building adequate roadway capacity to meet this need? </rant>
"People make rational decisions." Not my line, but a good one anyway.
To the extent that there is "induced" demand, it can be controlled with pricing. And on priced freeway lanes, it is possible (and I assert it is desirable) to provide fast-running transit bus service.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 24, 2013, 07:48:09 AMI was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine over a few pints last night. I work in the environmental field, so I feel like I do have an environmental conscience, but nobody benefits from tens of thousands of vehicles idling on congested roads. Nobody! Cars are pretty efficient while in normal operation, and do not emit excessive amounts of pollutants. Cars really start to pollute when they are at idle or stuck in traffic. So why is there so much resistance from so called environmentalists to meet the needs of auto drivers? Somewhere along the way it became unfashionable to drive to work.
Another thing I was discussing was the idea of induced demand from highway widening. I am of the opinion that induced demand is a real phenomenon -- but why does it happen? Because the average person prefers to drive to work, and will, if given choice, drive to work instead of taking transit. So if the average individuals preference is to drive to work, why is the collective individual so adamantly against building adequate roadway capacity to meet this need?
But is this really the aggregate preference of society at large? I think it is necessary to consider a disparity in institutional mechanisms. I am not sure about Canada, but in most US states it is far easier to stop roads than new suburban development because new roads need environmental clearance while new suburban developments do not. California is the only state I am aware of which requires environmental clearance before opening large tracts of empty land to new suburban development. The fact that traffic demand for a new road builds in time (as a suburb is "built out") also introduces the problem of myopic choice for the local planning bodies that have to ride herd on the developers and are frequently in the developers' pockets politically and fiscally.
If we could come to a general agreement that a certain increment of suburban development generates a certain increment of traffic demand per rung of the functional classification hierarchy of the road system (even if we allow the increment to vary according to whether the development stands alone as a kind of "New Town" or is annexed to an existing major metropolitan area), then we could institute a policy that killing a major road proposal also kills the suburban development that would feed it. This by itself would not solve the congestion problem, but it would greatly reduce the aggregate quality-of-life penalty.
Don't suburban developments have to be approved by the local community zoning board? If not, they should. That would solve the suburban sprawl problem far more effectively than not building the roads to support the sprawl. The sprawl will come if the roads do or not.
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:28:41 AM
Don't suburban developments have to be approved by the local community zoning board? If not, they should. That would solve the suburban sprawl problem far more effectively than not building the roads to support the sprawl. The sprawl will come if the roads do or not.
except the community zoning board is probably all for sprawl. new development! property values increase! whee!
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:28:41 AM
Don't suburban developments have to be approved by the local community zoning board? If not, they should. That would solve the suburban sprawl problem far more effectively than not building the roads to support the sprawl. The sprawl will come if the roads do or not.
In some states (including Maryland, and many big cities across the U.S.) the process is much more involved and drawn-out than that.
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:28:41 AMDon't suburban developments have to be approved by the local community zoning board? If not, they should.
Suburban developments do have to be approved by such bodies, but in most of the country such approval is not contingent on environmental review the same way major road proposals are.
QuoteThat would solve the suburban sprawl problem far more effectively than not building the roads to support the sprawl. The sprawl will come if the roads do or not.
No argument there. Under our current system, it is much easier to stop the road than to stop the new suburban development it is designed to service, and this inequity calls for reform.
(When he speaks of it not being straightforward to obtain approval for new development, I think Cpzilliacus is talking mainly about states where steps toward reform have already been taken. Oregon could be cited as another example on the basis of the 1970's UGB policy, but I think its effects have been mixed. Oregon basically has no congestion to speak of outside Portland, but Portland itself is fairly congested, and a contributing factor is its steep population growth since 1980--from 366,000 to almost 590,000, with the metropolitan area as a whole following a similar trend on top of growth between 1970 and 1980 when Portland itself actually lost population.)
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:28:41 AM
Don't suburban developments have to be approved by the local community zoning board? If not, they should. That would solve the suburban sprawl problem far more effectively than not building the roads to support the sprawl. The sprawl will come if the roads do or not.
Zoning boards vary by municipality. Most have approval powers over developments, and can request modifications to these developments. That said, some of them can be in cutthroat competition with each other. In northeast Illinois, this is very common. Many municipalities will compete with each other over a development that can rake in the tax dollars. Sometimes it's a race to see who can annex a given parcel of land first. As Exhibit A, I present to you the zoning map of Woodridge, Illinois (http://www.vil.woodridge.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/435). Exhibit B, Lockport, Illinois (http://www.cityoflockport.net/sites/default/files/zoning%20map%202012_0.pdf). Note the fingers of the municipality that extend just to annex certain tax-heavy parcels of land on both maps. Zoning maps make a very interesting read in areas where land is divided into municipalities and unincorporated land than can be annexed by said municipalities. Here's my town's zoning map (http://www.cityofjoliet.info/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1539) for comparison as well.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 25, 2013, 01:31:37 PM
(When he speaks of it not being straightforward to obtain approval for new development, I think Cpzilliacus is talking mainly about states where steps toward reform have already been taken. Oregon could be cited as another example on the basis of the 1970's UGB policy, but I think its effects have been mixed. Oregon basically has no congestion to speak of outside Portland, but Portland itself is fairly congested, and a contributing factor is its steep population growth since 1980--from 366,000 to almost 590,000, with the metropolitan area as a whole following a similar trend on top of growth between 1970 and 1980 when Portland itself actually lost population.)
I was speaking of my home state, Maryland (and not in an especially approving way, for our land use policies have increased the cost of a single-family detached or attached home in many of its jurisdictions).
Unlike some other states, Maryland delegates
significant powers to counties with so-called "home rule" charters, and also requires that state road projects be consistent with master plans adopted by the counties (or, in some cases, the municipalities). Several counties have urban growth boundaries, though that name is not used, and the terms for it vary from county to county.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 10:42:42 AM
I read someplace (might have been here on AAROADS) that the province is extending Highway 407 east and that it will remain under provincial ownership and not be leased to the private sector.
Indeed, construction starts on the first phase this spring. The first phase is scheduled to be opened to traffic by the end of 2015. That is an aggressive schedule to say the least.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 05:32:07 PM
Unlike some other states, Maryland delegates significant powers to counties with so-called "home rule" charters, and also requires that state road projects be consistent with master plans adopted by the counties (or, in some cases, the municipalities). Several counties have urban growth boundaries, though that name is not used, and the terms for it vary from county to county.
Ontario is somewhat similar. Regions and cities must have master plans that outline growth stratagies. In 2006, Ontario placed two laws called "Places to Grow" and the "Greenbelt Act" which impacted municipalities had to comply with. These acts placed thousands of hectares of environmentally significant land out of the reach of developers. Some other municipalities outside of the area covered by the Greenbelt Act have imposed new higher density targets for housing, along with "countryside lines" within their urban boundaries.
Keeping this post on topic... the environmental argument against the ICC is hard to make. Sure, the ICC did see acres of forest land destroyed for the new highway. But it is surrounded by suburban (exurban?) development that did the same. If areas are going to be developed with suburban tract development, folks can't scream when a new highway needs to be built to support the new residents. You are never going to be able to built a transit service to service such low density development that can rival the convenience of a car.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 25, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Keeping this post on topic... the environmental argument against the ICC is hard to make.
Agreed, but environmental objections delayed the project for decades.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 25, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
Sure, the ICC did see acres of forest land destroyed for the new highway. But it is surrounded by suburban (exurban?) development that did the same.
And it was set aside decades ago for use as a highway corridor. And in spite of claims to the contrary, none of it was old growth forest. All of it was second- or third-growth.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 25, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
If areas are going to be developed with suburban tract development, folks can't scream when a new highway needs to be built to support the new residents. You are never going to be able to built a transit service to service such low density development that can rival the convenience of a car.
Montgomery County's Council has tried repeatedly to enact land use plans that put excessive emphasis on transit, and most of them have failed, and in some cases, have failed
spectacularly.
I can think of two that have worked somewhat well, both are inside the Capital Beltway, with Metro service and relatively close to the border of the District of Columbia.