The Antiplanner

There are currently 27 responses to “Fix It First”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1. 1 On January 9th, 2009, t g said:

   AP wrote: “Rail is simply a luxury that most places can’t really afford.”

   What is the criteria for determining when a luxury is affordable? And for which places is rail a luxury that can be afforded? Wouldn’t the high income/high growth cities be the best candidates for a luxury?

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 8:10 am

2. 2 On January 9th, 2009, hkelly1 said:

   The “luxury” argument is interesting, considering the idea of congestion pricing championed by A.P. and colleagues. Basically, the toll on a particular road increases dramatically as traffic volumes increase, “so that congestion never occurs”.

   My question: doesn’t this price a significant portion of the population off the road during rush hour? If I only make $10 an hour and I have to work a 9-5, and congestion pricing makes the tolls on my route home $10 each way instead of the usual $2, what am I supposed to do?

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 8:45 am

3. 3 On January 9th, 2009, The Antiplanner said:

   t g:

   The Antiplanner’s criteria for a luxury are:

   1. It costs a lot of money

   2. It doesn’t do anything except feed someone’s ego

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am

4. 4 On January 9th, 2009, The Antiplanner said:

   hkelly1

   The world is full of choices. You can eat fillet mignon or hamburger. You can fly first class or coach. Among those choices are choices of timing: if you stay at a resort hotel during peak periods, you can expect to pay more than during off periods.

   For highways, we can deal with congestion through queuing — meaning sitting in traffic — or we can price it. Queuing is a dead-weight loss to society. Pricing it means we can earn some money and use that money to help relieve congestion.

   Alan Pisarski estimates that more than two-thirds of the vehicles on the road at rush hour are not commuters. Pricing will encourage many of those people to drive at other times of the day.

   You can always make up numbers that make it sound like some people will be hurt by congestion pricing. But, as Drew Carey points out, the time of low-income people can be valuable too, and so it might be worth it for them to pay congestion tolls. Better to give them the choice than to force everyone to sit in traffic.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 9:16 am

5. 5 On January 9th, 2009, prk166 said:

   hkelly1, don’t think of hot lanes or toll roads as something people have to take. It gives them an option. Maybe they’re running late and spending $7 on tolls will ensure they get to day care in time to avoid a $25 fee for arriving late. When I worked on the south side of Denver, I could take I25 to I225 to Pena to get to the airport. But sometimes if the weather was a mess or it was rush hour, I’d cough up the $8 to take e470 around. Now, not all routes have those sort of options. But even when it’s not a congested freeway it can still be a better option. Like if you live in Tysons Corner or west of there and are driving back later at night after going out on the town in DC you can cough up a few bucks on the Dulles Tollway or you can spend more time and take the old pikeways that follow old cowpaths and find yourself dodging deer as you bounce up and down over rolling hills.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am

6. 6 On January 9th, 2009, Frank said:

   AP said:

   First, there are places that genuinely need new highways. The Antiplanner’s old home town of Portland, for example, has had a 50 percent increase in population since the last major new road was built.

   Portland might need new highways to alleviate rush hour congestion. However, what are the consequences of building new highways in Portland?

   First, where’s the land coming from for these new highways? It most areas, it would have to come from already developed land. Will government purchase it, and subsequently raise taxes? Or will it simply be stolen through imminent domain laws? And will the highway bisect historic neighborhoods, therefore fundamentally altering their historic character? Or are we talking new highways in the suburbs? In that case, replacing some farms and wildlife habitat with highways would be inevitable.

   Where’s the money coming from to build the highways? Debt financing? Taxes?

   Portland might need new highways, but the current system is not capable of efficiently planning and allocating resources for the building of such highways.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am

7. 7 On January 9th, 2009, t g said:

   Antiplanner,

   I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss luxury as merely feeding someone’s ego. Read Virginia Postrel’s (Reason editor) The Substance of Style.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am

8. 8 On January 9th, 2009, Close Observer said:

   Congestion pricing is strengthened through variable tolling, which means the poor traveler would not be hit with the same fee every time he hits the road. Perhaps during rush hour the toll is, say, $5.00 but during non-peak hours the toll drops to 25 cents.

   I don’t know about you, but unless I absolutely had to be on the road during the high price period, I’d take the 25-cent option. This can even out traffic flow. The technologies available today make it easy to do – wouldn’t even need toll booths.

   RE: where to build new highways. I say stack ‘em (as FDOT did in Tampa). You can put the support structures down the median of the ground-level road and put the new highway (preferably a toll) on top. Thus, no eminent domain abuse.

   BTW – most eminent domain abuses these days take place in New Urbanist “redevelopment” zones after local governments get consultants to come in and declare middle class homes “blighted.” See Kelo, Riviera Beach (FL), San Jose, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 11:27 am

9. 9 On January 9th, 2009, ws said:

   I don’t know how you define “expensive”, but there is a backlog of $1.6 trillion dollars worth of infrastructure projects in the US that are in need of repair between now and five years.

   That’s just present levels of roads and highways and not future expansion which you are advocating.

   Clearly rail is in need of repair, and I agree with you that they should “fix it first” as well, including highways and bridges.

   Creating new roads in Portland cannot be done easily without eminent domain, which is going to have to happen in the case of the Sellwood bridge example.

   posted on January 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

10. 10 On January 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    BTW – most eminent domain abuses these days take place in New Urbanist “redevelopment” zones

    Evidence Plz.

    DS

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

11. 11 On January 9th, 2009, t g said:

    re #10,
    no doubt. i just scoured the interweb with no luck. where’s the stats on that?!

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

12. 12 On January 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    t g:

    where’s the stats on that?!

    It’s a BS assertion.

    DS

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

13. 13 On January 9th, 2009, Market Urbanism said:

    The second problem is that new roads can largely pay for themselves through tolls and other user fees.

    I doubt it. Especially if you’re building your highway in developed areas to “relieve congestion”. Land acquisition alone will be expensive and require quite a lengthy assemblage process, unless the right-of-way already exists. So, new highways aren’t shovel-ready, and I doubt they can “pay for themselves”.

    But, if they could “pay for themselves”, why not just let a private developer build it if it’s such a good idea? Or why don’t private road developers already have their shovels in the ground for these “shovel ready” projects?

    Hmmm… Maybe they don’t actually “pay for themselves” when looked at from a non-authoritarian point of view.

    Why do we need the strong arm of the government planning what neighborhoods should be blighted by your subsidized highways to supposedly relieve congestion?

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

14. 14 On January 9th, 2009, Market Urbanism said:

    My question: doesn’t this price a significant portion of the population off the road during rush hour? If I only make $10 an hour and I have to work a 9-5, and congestion pricing makes the tolls on my route home $10 each way instead of the usual $2, what am I supposed to do?

    I would also like to point out that with congestion tolling, highways will actually enable a much higher flow of traffic. This benefits the users of the alternative routes because, believe it or not, the non-congested toll highway can accommodate more vehicles at higher speeds than a congested highway.

    (When uncongested, traffic is like a fluid going through a pipe, but when congested it behaves the opposite. With fluid, the velocity increases as the pressure increases, thus increasing the flow through a pipe. However, with traffic, congestion creates bottlenecks where density increases, but velocity decreases. Thus optimal flow can be achieved through optimal pricing that relieves congestion.)

    Thus, if your want to save money by using alternative routes, you will be better off if the congested highways are tolled during peak hours. And if you still want to use the highway, you can save a few bucks and commute off-peak.

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

15. 15 On January 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    Land acquisition alone will be expensive and require quite a lengthy assemblage process, unless the right-of-way already exists.

    As I point out often here, th’ antiplannurz are against Eminient Domain until they are for it.

    DS

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

16. 16 On January 9th, 2009, ws said:

    I’d like to add that freeways and highways were (and still are) the biggest users of the eminent domain system.

    That’s not to say that eminent domain is 100% bad, but it is certainly not something a libertarian or “anti-planner” would want to champion, as it goes against the very grain of their beliefs.

    Unless I am missing something in its ideology in which a powerful, central government entity takes land for fair-market value from private citizens.

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

17. 17 On January 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    ROT:The anti-road crowd has a mantra aimed at confusing people about the need for new roads: “fix it first.” In other words, don’t spend any money building new roads until all of the existing road maintenance needs are met.

    THWM: Though there isn’t really much of a need for new road space, what is needed is better management of existing road space, with things like tolling & congestion charging.

    ROT:When applied to roads, this is a stupid idea. But it makes perfect sense when applied to rail transit.

    THWM: Well that can be apples to oranges.

    ROT:There are two problems with a fix-it-first approach to highways. First, there are places that genuinely need new highways. The Antiplanner’s old home town of Portland, for example, has had a 50 percent increase in population since the last major new road was built.

    THWM: Though this comes back to repairing existing infrastructure.

    ROT: Naturally, the roads are a lot more congested today than they were when that road was completed. To deny any new construction simply because, say, the Sellwood Bridge needs replacement is to condemn Portland-area travelers to years of expensive congestion.

    THWM: Portland also at one time had close to 200 miles of streetcar lines too.

    ROT:The second problem is that new roads can largely pay for themselves through tolls and other user fees.

    THWM: Roads don’t pay for them selves. The road in front of you home is not being operated on a profit or loss basis.

    ROT:This is especially true if we stop diverting 20 to 40 percent of existing highway user fees to non-highway related projects. So we don’t have to make a choice between fixing it and building it: we can do both out of user fees.

    THWM: Well if you are talking about a limited access roads situation then why doesn’t the private sector make more in roads. Still these highways are fed by local roads that are paid for by property tax payers.

    ROT: On the other hand, “fix it first” makes perfect sense when it comes to rail transit. New York’s MTA says it needs $30 billion to fix its rail lines, and has only $13 billion of it. Chicago’s CTA is “on the verge of collapse,” needing $16 billion, none of which it has in hand. Washington Metro needs $12 billion; San Francisco BART needs $12 billion, of which it has about half.

    THWM: Well lot’s of things are stretched.

    ROT: Right there you have more than $50 billion of maintenance needs, and I haven’t even counted Boston and Philadelphia. Not a single mile of new rail should be built until all of these maintenance needs are funded.

    THWM: There is also a lot of rail infrastucture that has gone missing over the past 90 years too, like the 2nd Ave line in NYC.

    A lot so called “new” rail projects, aren’t even really new.

    ROT: The reasons why fix it first make sense for rail are simple. First, there is not a single place in the country that “needs” a new rail line. New rail won’t relieve congestion, reduce energy consumption, or abate greenhouse gas emissions. Rail is simply a luxury that most places can’t really afford.

    THWM: There countless places in the US that need rail service restored. We need more mobility options, not less.

    ROT: Second, unlike roads, rail does not come close to paying its operating costs, much less its maintenance and construction costs. So it makes no sense to borrow billions of dollars for new rail, imposing huge maintenance costs on transit agencies in the future, when we can’t even afford to maintain the rail we already have.

    THWM: This goes back the commons, if roads don’t have to make have to make money, then other modes will have distorted market aspects too.

    ROT: So the new mantra should be: When user fees can pay for it, build it now. When they can’t, fix it first.

    THWM: Now that is very political.

    posted on January 9th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

18. 18 On January 10th, 2009, oakieicky said:

    Stumbled, excuse me, potholed to your sight. Lived in both San Diego and now Kalamazoo. I’ll take Light Rail anytime!!!! MDOT just spent a hefty bundle of money (Taxpaying) to redo the I-94 & Us 131 interchange here. We now have very pretty (20 foot high) walls surrounding the area plus pretty bridges (Graffiti Artists-are you there?) A redesigned interchange that would make Los Angeles envy. All this for a population of about maybe 100,000? Oh, even our local road departments in cahoots with MOE, LARRY, and CURLY. They designed a brilliant intersection where you have to go through it TWICE to complete a turn (If you live here you surely know of the Kilgore-Portage Road intersection). Meanwhile the potholes continue to bloom. I heard one official say that Michigan has unique weather problems. Excuse me? Why are Southern Wisconsin roads smoother and yet they have as much winter (and seasons) as we do. We need roads but ones that are intelligent. Light Rail can and has help in many areas — Kenosha, Wisconsin. It may not be the answer everywhere but being in San Diego it sure helped on my daily commutes and no parking problems either. Kalamazoo wondered why no one came downtown–it was the parking meters (No Brainer) Transit to the rescue? Have they solved it? No. Michigan was home to the first freeway in the U.S. WHAT HAPPENED? I know I probably ticked off a lot of you but look what we have had for the last several years, Iraq gets a new rail line (length of Chicago-Detroit) while that bridge in Minneapolis collapses. Light Rail AND Intelligent planned roads-I’ll gladly pay for!

    posted on January 10th, 2009 at 9:35 am

19. 19 On January 10th, 2009, ws said:

    “where to build new highways. I say stack ‘em (as FDOT did in Tampa). You can put the support structures down the median of the ground-level road and put the new highway (preferably a toll) on top. Thus, no eminent domain abuse.”

    I thought I would comment on this as well. Tampa and other cities can get away with doing this at a less expense because they are not in seismically active areas. Building new, stacked (and elevated) highways in earthquake prone zones is very expensive, as Seattle is learning with its about to collapse Alaska Way Viaduct. The Bay Area learned this from its similarly designed stacked roadways in 1989.

    Can stacked highways work? Sure, but at an incredibly increased cost of construction to sustain earthquake damages. Almost all of the West Coast is prone to earthquakes.

    posted on January 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

20. 20 On January 10th, 2009, msetty said:

    Oh, even our local road departments in cahoots with MOE, LARRY, and CURLY. They designed a brilliant intersection where you have to go through it TWICE to complete a turn (If you live here you surely know of the Kilgore-Portage Road intersection).

    Looking at this in Google Maps, this truly bizarre intersection seems to be a perfect case of where some new construction WOULD make sense, e.g., a traffic circle would be far more efficient. Perhaps Curly, Larry and Moe hadn’t heard of those!?

    posted on January 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

21. 21 On January 11th, 2009, Francis King said:

    “where to build new highways. I say stack ‘em (as FDOT did in Tampa). You can put the support structures down the median of the ground-level road and put the new highway (preferably a toll) on top. Thus, no eminent domain abuse.”

    There are a few problems, though. Elevated roads are very expensive, and they radiate noise over the surrounding neighbourhood – they are also a visual blight, and will reduce the value of houses along the route.

    Putting the road underground will be even more expensive.

    posted on January 11th, 2009 at 5:18 am

22. 22 On January 11th, 2009, Francis King said:

    “They designed a brilliant intersection where you have to go through it TWICE to complete a turn (If you live here you surely know of the Kilgore-Portage Road intersection).”

    If this is one of those Michigan Turn junctions, they are safer and more efficient than a standard junction.

    “e.g., a traffic circle would be far more efficient.”

    At low traffic flows, traffic would be delayed much less by the provision of a roundabout/traffic circle. At higher flows though, the roundabout will impose much higher delays on the traffic. Roundabouts are particularly sensitive to increases in traffic flow.

    posted on January 11th, 2009 at 5:20 am

23. 23 On January 11th, 2009, prk166 said:

    “There is also a lot of rail infrastucture that has gone missing over the past 90 years too, like the 2nd Ave line in NYC. ” –THWM

    Gone missing? Sure it’s not in the lost and found box?

    posted on January 11th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

24. 24 On January 12th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    prk166 Says:
    “There is also a lot of rail infrastucture that has gone missing over the past 90 years too, like the 2nd Ave line in NYC. ” –THWM

    Gone missing? Sure it’s not in the lost and found box?

    THWM: Wow you must take a lot of pride in being a jackass.

    posted on January 12th, 2009 at 5:27 am

25. 25 On January 12th, 2009, t g said:

    Re: the Michigan Turn Junctions…

    Tucson has a major roads project in the design phase right now (Grant Road – East/West Arterial). They are proposing the same concept. It shortens the light cycle by removing the left turn light.

    posted on January 12th, 2009 at 7:13 am

26. 26 On January 23rd, 2009, the highwayman said:

    The anti-railroad crowd has a mantra aimed at confusing people about the need for new railroads: “fix it first.” In other words, don’t spend any money building new railroads until all of the existing railroad maintenance needs are met.

    When applied to railroads, this is a stupid idea. But it makes perfect sense when applied to highways.

    There are two problems with a fix-it-first approach to railroads. First, there are places that genuinely need new railroads. The Oxymoron’s old home town of Portland, for example, has had a 50 percent increase in population since the last major new railroad was built. Naturally, the railroads are a lot more congested today than they were when that railroad was completed. To deny any new construction simply because, say, the Steel Bridge needs replacement is to condemn Portland-area travelers to years of expensive congestion.

    posted on January 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm

27. 27 On November 9th, 2009, Boston Transit System Near Collapse » The Antiplanner said:

    [...] expansion until the safety and maintenance priorities can be addressed.” In other words, fix it first. As D’Alessandro says, “It makes little sense to continue expanding the system when the [...]

    posted on November 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.