Road to Ruin is taking a closer look at Prince William County. In a previous article, writer Peter Galuszka profiled the county's aggressive road-building program. This time, he came back to see how well Prince William is coordinating its $1.5 billion, 15-year transportation plan with its land use policies. (See "Will the Real Prince William County Please Stand Up?")
It wasn't easy sorting through the conflicting claims. Sean Connaughton, chairman of the board of supervisors, made a vigorous case that the county has been proactive and forward thinking. But Stewart Schwartz with the Coalition for Smarter Growth, showed Peter some examples of awful slash-and-clear development. My sense as an outsider who occasionally drives through the county is that Prince William is doing a pretty good job connecting land use and transportation in the east, especially in the revitalization of the U.S. 1 corridor. The situation is harder to untangle in the western end of the county around Manassas.
Under Connaughton, the board has been steering the county towards more compact, higher-density, pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly development than the county had seen before. The problem is that a huge backlog of traditional, sprawl-style development is in the pipeline. The result to date has been a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. As the backlog gets worked down, I would expect to see a more transportation-efficient mix of projects. It may not meet the standards of smart growth advocates, but it's better than what came before.
Does that mean Prince William County has turned the corner to a sustainable pattern of development -- or that it's just sliding downhill at a slower speed? We probably won't know for years. As Connaughton says, you don't bring about meaningful change with a snap of the fingers. It's too bad that Connaughton won't be around long enough -- he's taking that maritime administration job with the Bush administration -- to bask in the praise or catch the blame.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Living in PWC it sure looks like slash and burn is the rule as opposed to the exception. Vast tracks of forest in the eastern part of the county are vanishing to be replaced by homes, townhomes, apartments... is it just a backlog? How many years does the backlog span? Was Connaughton not on the board when many of the latest developments were approved?
I don't know the answer to that question in all cases but I can say that everytime I hear the board call something "smart growth"... well, let's just say I have not seen many projects in the last few years that could be defined as smart in this county. That is especially true in the traffic choked eastern part of the county where I live.
What people don't understand is that the slash and burn appearance is REQUIRED by the subdivision rules. The subdivision rules mean you have to have a drainage plan and a bunch of other requirements. Taken together these mean that you must terraform the land in order tobury all the pipes, meet the slope restrictions and everything else.
I might want to build one or two houses, but even that small number is defined as a subdivision, and then all the subdivision rules kick in. Paying for all those requirements is so expensive that you cannot build one or two homes: now you must subdivide the entire property all at once in order to cover the costs.
That's why you see a farm one day and slash and burn the next.
On the other hand, if one home goes up, and later another one, here and there, then there is no planning, no drainage plan, and major problems to come later. We wouldn't call that smart growth either, and the problems that kind of growth caused historically is why we have these major requirements now.
We could have saved those patches of woodland if we had simply raised the money to buy the land. The fact that we didn't do that simply shows we don't value our forests as much as we claim to.
Some people have defined sustainability as being able to survive using no more energy than falls on a place. That is probably over restrictive, but it looks in the right direction. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyplace in America (Other than the forests and other growing areas) that get by on 100x the amount of energy that falls on them, especially high density, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented places. I don't see that those attributes and sustainability are even remotely connected.
No matter how many of these "good" attributes your neighborhood has, the part of it that is walkable excludes 99.99999 per cent of the rest of the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting walkability: we should each make our little corner as pleasant as possible, but even if we succeed it will make squat difference in our energy use.
Achieving a meaningful reduction in energy use is going to take a lot more than intelligent design.
I have a sneakin' suspicion that, as to the last point, it's the latter, and that this fact explains one reason why he's bolting. PWC's budget has increased by 114% over his term, while the population has increased by "only" 30%. Sure, the tax RATE has been lowered, but average property taxes have increased by 50-60%, owing to increasing values, sustaining the spending spree. With the housing market flattening, it is quite clear that the BOCS will either have to increase the tax rate, or cut spending. Doing the former would remove the last fig leaf Chairman Sean has to claim to have "cut taxes." He has demonstrated no ability to control the bureaucracy to achieve the latter.
Connaughton has been around for seven years, long enough to get mostly praise and some criticism for how he has navigated that particular jurisdiction through the shoals of population growth, development and infrastructure catch-up. Whoever succeeds him will get at least a couple of years of grace from measures already in place. Two telling points are that the County is much improved over what it was in 1999 when he was elected and that PW seems to have dodged the kind of near warfare over development that Loudoun has encountered. It has been a middle course with an overall plan that does not satisfy everyone, but largely gets the job done. Of course, detractors like James Young can always point to that tax effects of rising housing values as being Connaughton's fault. But Connaughton's overwhelming popularity at the last election and today indicates that most voters regard increasing property values as an improvement over the stagnation that first motivated Connaughton to run in the 1990s. If we don't like the tax effects of rising property values (they sure have been biting me the last couple of years), let's get serious about abolishing the property tax. It's all the localities really have. Income taxation would be far preferable, but you'll find very few pols in Virginia (other than Connaughton) willing to even discuss the possibility of tax measures that would result in income tax increases and consequent local involvement in income taxation, even if it meant killing off the residential property tax. I think Connaughton's positive legacy in Prince William is fairly well assured. Particularly if no strong leadership emerges to succeed him.
I would rather give the government more up front through income and sales taxes and have them agree to leave me alone with regard to whatever is left. At least that way I can plan, with spiking property values you have no idea what nextyear will bring.
Let's not put all the tax effects on property values: the tax effect is a mix of property values, new residents, new businesses, and new spending. However, the evidence seems to be in that lacking any other change, if property values go up, then the government is going to want a piece of the action. At least if we switch to income taxes they won't get their piece of the action in advance of when it really happens. As it stands now, the property tax is really an off the books means of borrowing against the future.
Anon @ 5:09 p.m.:
Prince William County development rules DO NOT require developers to "slash and burn." The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for preservation of existing woodlands, preservation areas along all waterways (perennial and intermittant) preservation areas to protect steep slopes and highly erodible soils, preservation of specimen (large) trees, and development plans that honor the existing landscape.
Developers ignore these requirements because they can build houses faster and cheaper.
The Board of Supervisors approves these development applications, so they are also ignoring the requirements.
Later when developers "slash and burn" and citizens complain to the Board of Supervisors, citizens are told that governments "hands are tied." Sometimes they even blame the state, vaguely referencing the Dillon rule.
The only reason governments hands are tied is because the Board of Supervisors routinely approves development plans that do not include preservation areas but do include a mapped line showing the limits of clearing at the property border.
NOVA Scout, purportedly ensconsed in his Fairfax residence, continues to espouse and glorify all things Connaughton with regard to his tenure and actions in PWC.
The truth of the matter is that he has not been particularly successful in navigating PWC through the shoals of population growth, development and infrastructure catch-up. Development approved under his stewardship, particularly in the western portion of the county, without benefit of actual of near term planned supporting infrastructure will likely result in just the type of warfare currently seen in Loundoun. The warfare will be different in that there will be a much clearer distinction between the concerns of residents and some developers, ie: much less sympathy for density without infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Young is correct in his thought that he is "bolting" just in time to escape the blame and resultant consequences. It is a convenient way out for someone who senses a political apocalyse in the near future. Why else abandon ship in favor of what is likely a short term tenure under a lame duck president.
No, Connaughton's positive legacy is not assured, rather, I would suggest his legacy will revolve around the impending disasters that are imminent in areas such as Gainesville and portions of the Rte. 1 corridor. A legacy that will be further tarnished by county's fiscal position when his tax and spending measures come home to roost as a result of a flat or declining real estate market. Lest anyone believe that I am overstating the case, bear in mind that in the western portion of the county alone, the inventory of available housing units has increased dramatically and several thousand more units are under construction. That does not take into account the thousands of additional units already approved or applications for which have already been filed. You need look no further for evidence than the hundreds of units being built at Hopewell Landingm, the 400+ units just approved at Dominion Valley
or the Brentswood application that is still on the table.
I just hope that it is not Connaughton alone who bears the brunt of the blame as the Planning Office, School Board and County Executive are equally to blame.
Anonymous 12:02 is partly correct. The requirements for tree preservation and so on do exist. And the subdivison rules don't expressly require a slash and burn approach. And there are examples of subdivisions that have made extraordinary attempts to preserve the existing assests while still constructing new assets: it can be done and it is expensive.
So why do builders adopt an approach that costs less? It's brecause that is what buyers are willing to pay. We can't demand that buildders do additional work and incur additional costs if we are not willing to pay for that work in the final product.
But, it is also true that a grading plan that meets certain drainage requirements has to be met, along with setback requirements, road widths, and all the other rules 12:02 mentions.
So, If their is a steep slope that can't be built on and it is going to screw up the drainage drainage, just re-grade it: problem solved. In the meantime, and for the shor term, it is ugly. Come back in 50 years.
Those tree filled lots in Falls Church were once barren, too. And, if you look at the old photgraphs of much of the area, places that are heavily wooded now were once pastures devoid of trees. It is not only builders that remove trees.
But the point of my post was that because of all the regulations, including the ones you mention, it becomes necessary to spread the costs over as many houses as possible. Because of the subdivison rules the option of building just two homes, for example, no longer exists. I don't know the rule in PW, but in many places as few as two or three homes means that you are subject to the subdivision rules. Consequently, the costs are such that you must squeeze in as many homes as possible.
While the regulations do not actually require slash and burn they indirectly have that exact effect. The results we see are a direct result of the rules we make. I beleive that is one reason Jim Bacon suggests that builders need more flexibility in the rules, not less. That doesn't mean no rules, just rules that we can live with and still leave us with homes we can afford.
"MOM knows best", you go girl!
The real estate market in NOVA isn’t going to collapse – it has collapsed.
And, it’s not going to be a quick rebound like a lot of folks would have you believe. MOM is correct. There is a surplus of housing for sale in quantities never before imagined. And, the builders are still building. Values will never increase with so much inventory on the market. But, the question remains, when will my local govn’t adjust my home’s value to reflect the market conditions?
A political apocalypse we very well may have due to a flat/declining real estate market where local govn’t does not adjust appraisal values to the “new norm”.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are the numbers;
-Available inventory for Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Arlington County, Alexandria City, & Falls Church City, VA is as of July 31 is11,956 units.
-Available inventory for Prince William County, Manassas City, & Manassas Park City, VA is as of July 31 is 6,296 units.
-Available inventory for Loudoun County, VA is as of July 31 is 4,747 units.
The grand total for what is generally considered NOVA is 22,999 units.
If that is the case, we should see the hot air go out of many of the anti-growth movements any minute.
Anon 3:47, Those are fascinating numbers. How do they compare to the historical absorption rate in NoVa? 10,000 housing units a year? 20,000? Is that a three month's supply or a year's supply?
So many implications to think through... The tax-rate issues are the ones that I've raised before. But what happens to the construction industry if new home starts takes a dive? And what happens to the illegally employed construction workers? Will they go home to Latin America or will they hang around and look for new work?
The ripple effects will keep us pundits very, very busy.
You left out one very important implication, what happens to the as yet undelivered proffers if the developers go belly up or leave town and what impact that have on planned improvements. A really scary scenario to think about, just imagine if Brentswood had been approved, partially built and then abandoned.
Although Anonymous 1:14 p.m. says nothing to back up claims that Anonymous 12:02 is only partly correct, he adds the developers point of view to the discussion.
He agrees the problem is that builders "adopt an approach that costs less" then says this is because that's what buyers are willing to pay, without a word about the huge profits developers are able to achieve in Prince William County and likely throughout Northern Virginia. Greed is also a factor.
Then he goes on to blame overregulation of stormwater issues. Both sides agree that there are too many regulations, which are confusing and create loopholes for developers. However, if developers were doing a good job managing stormwater, government would have no reason to add regulations in attempts to close the loopholes.
The standards described by Anonymous 12:02 are specifically connected to stormwater issues. One intent of the standards is to give government the authority to require developers to preserve features that help PREVENT stormwater problems.
Preserving stream buffers and other natural features increases the upfront costs to developers, largely because they loose "buildable" land. On the other hand, it saves taxpayers huge costs over the long run because it protects drinking water supplies and does not add to costs needed to retrofit failing stormwater systems.
Builders are here today and gone tomorrow. They are only interested in today's profits. Residents are here to stay and will pay increased taxes needed to fix developer shortcuts made to achieve additional profits. Residents are interested in high quality communities and low taxes today and in the future.
The regulations that call for preserving stream buffers, unstable soils and forests are intended to protect residents from flooding, drainage problems and prevent future tax increases to fix stormwater problems.
The regulations are also intended to increase community appearance. People do not want to wait 50 years for new trees to grow just so developers can achieve a bigger profit margin.
Yes it will, Jim. And MOM makes a good point. She raises my major “issue” with something like Greenvest….there is nothing to force them to develop what they start…..is there?
Anyway, those numbers I posted are what are available as of 7/31/06.
The monthly supply numbers breakdown like this;
Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Arlington County, Alexandria City, & Falls Church City, VA has 11,956 houses for sale. There were 1,856 sold for July 2006. So, there is a 6.5-month supply of housing. Which, I might add is not that bad.
However, most realtors take a 90-day listing so the industry “average” is 3-months for all practical purposes in a “normal” market.
Where things get crazy is in the outer suburbs.
Prince William County, Manassas City, & Manassas Park City, VA has 6296 houses for sale. However, only 632 were sold. So, there is almost a 10-month supply of housing.
In Loudon County there are 4747 houses for sale. In July 425 were sold. So, you have a little over 11 months worth of inventory.
Interestingly, in July of 2005 in Loudoun County there were 2,067 houses for sale. 788 were sold. So at this time last year, Loudoun County had a 2.6-month supply of housing.
What does this mean? Well, if you were to try and sell your house in the outer suburbs of Northern Virginia in July of 2006 you should “expect” to sell it in 10 months, or May of next year unless sales pick-up.
I’ll send you the link to the numbers in an e-mail shortly and you can make of them what you want.
Isn't july a slow month for home sales? I'm not saying things are good or bad, just asking if July sales numbers are a reasonable expectation for sales numbers the rest of the year, historically.
Look, I consider myself to be an environmentalist, I'm not a builder, and I'm not presenting "their" side. But I don't take to demonizing developers, accusing them of greed, or engendering an us vs them mentality. I just think it is not too far from that kind of talk to eco-terroism that gives us all a bad name.
As an environmentalist I'm not blind to the fact that we have cynically promoted multiple layers of regulation, and (even gleefully) continue to do so. On its face each regulation is defensible, up to a point. But very often we have resorted to using environmental regulations for other purposes, and that is dishonest. Eventually it will lead to a backlash that will cost us more than we have gained.
I don't view builders as here today and gone tomorrow. One is a deacon in my church. He is kind and generous and does a lot for the community. And he rips up land for a living. Other local builders work outside, underground, in the attics and on the roofs in atrocious conditions so that we and our friends can relax in air conditioned comfort. Then they go and man the volunteer fire and rescue.
As for the major builders, Hovnanian, Pulte, Centex, and others; they are publicly held companies. If you look in your 401k literature you might well find you own some of them. Together with the locals they account for 20 to 35% of the economy, depending on where you live. I simply don't see that running them down is to anybody's interest, least of all environmentalits.
If they make 20% profit, that is huge by your standards and mine, but in the up and down building business, and with all the uncertatinties caused by uneven interpretationa and application of the rules, it's not excessive. It is a difficult and a high risk business: In Jan 2005 Centex profits were up 28% and in July 2006 they were down 21%. I'd have a hard time getting along if my salary changed that much. But the fact of the matter is, they don't make 20%, it is closer to 5% which is about the same as hospitals.
When I hear somone bemoaning the loss of a mature stand of trees, I know that if they were mature, they probably needed to be harvested anyway. Any tree worth having is worth waiting 50 years for, easily. We may not want to wait that long, but that's how long it takes. We have an entire urban forest that is a huge resource we are wasting. If we cut down more trees sooner and planted more trees sooner we'd have a whole industry, but we are so overly sentimental that we let them grow up untils some storm comes and knocks the power out and does a lot of damage we could have avoided. And then the trees are wasted because it is an emergency to get them out of the way.
I cut down a magnificent tree in my yard. It was 5 feet in diameter and 120 feet high. I was sorry to see it go, but I was glad when it dropped in the yard and not on my house or my other nice trees. I took a solid week to cut that thing up into pieces small enough to move, and I got not one stick of usable material out of it because it was too old and rotten. If it had been cut down 40 years ago, someone would still be enjoying it today. It isn't cutting down the trees that is a shame, it is wasting them or not planting enough.
I agree. If builders had done a good job of stormwater management we wouldn't have to make onerous regulations. We get bad rules because bad people screw up. There are some situations where builders could work around some of the trees. There are also a lot of trash trees. I wathched my deacon friend clear a hundred acres on a nearby farm. I went over to see if there was anything worth salvaging, but there wasn't a stick in the whole lot worth anything. It will be worth more as pasture than it would ever have been as woodland without major help.
But what happens if a builder steers a road around a patch of trees? Then he's mad the road longer and creates more runoff and now he has to build a larger retention pond. Yes, he has to make a profit, same as I do, and same as me he has to make best use of his resources.
Within reason, of course. At some point he has to make some trade offs to meet both sets of rules (saving trees and reducing runoff), and that is just a simple example. The real situation is much more complex, and he still has to make a profit.
So the builder has an interest in making his community attractive and saleable. We have an interest in making sure he doesn't create a situation that will flood us. So what we do is have him provide us with land that works for us to that purpose. And we think he should pay for it.
What other business labors under that kind of burden? Do we require grocery stores to give away 25% of their product or barbers to give away 25% of their haircuts? If we needed that land to protect our property, then why wasn't it a requirement that we buy it when our houses were built?
Aahh, it wasn't a problem then, its only the new guys that cause problems. But what if it was a problem?
I know of a place that is a natural bowl with a narrow outlet: it's a natural flash flood heaven. The rules typically say that a builder can't allow more runoff than occurred before the project, but in this case any builder worth his salt could make the situation better than before. Do you suppose for an instant that we would offer him more houses on the property if he fixes a previous problem?
Yes, the rules are there for a reason. We should use them for that reason and no more than needed. If a builder loses five lots due to wetlands there is no reason we can't grant him some additional density to make up the loss. But instead, we take those five lots as our god given right, and then we fight him tooth and nail at multiple public hearings over the remining lots probably on some other technicality.
But you are missing my real point. It's not just the drainage issue, it is the whole multilayered subdivision process which includes studies and surveys that add no value.
I know a number of people with land who might like to do something, carve out a lot for a kid, maybe. I know a family with four sons. Under the rules, when father died they had enough land for 3.5 lots, and the lots were huge. So instead of bending the rules and letting the four have 90% of an allowable (huge) lot we cause a lot of family trouble, needlessly.
These people will sit on the land and enjoy it until their time comes. They make no bones about what will happen to it then. It is going to get sold to the highest bidder. That probably won't be an environmentalist, unless Ted Turner or someone like him decides to add to his half million acres.
What I see happening is that we as environmentalists with our winner take all attitude are turning the people who hold the land we want to save against us. Loudoun Conty, Oregon, six other pending western stes and South Carolina ought to be object lessons for us.
To put it bluntly, if Stuart Schwartz and the rest of us know so muchabout land use, then why aren't we in the development business? The short answer is that we have created a process for saying no that is just like the highways: it doesn't cost anything to use it.
Until we are willing to be fair and reasonable about our demands, until we are willing to pay for what we get; then we are no different than the builders, looking for the most profit at the least cost.
Anon Skeptic here. Now tell me again how the improved, low cost, no new taxes, better than sliced bread House Transportation "plan" is going to help the situation in Prince William (or Loudoun, Fairfax, Chesterfield, etc.) County? Will there be tolls on secondary roads? Congestion pricing when you pull out of your subdivision? How will you evaluate a by-right development according to cost-benefit analysis? So, unless you either do away with vested rights or give all localities the ability to collect road impact fees on existing developments, any plan without new funding sources to take care of EXISTING and IMMEDIATE FUTURE needs will cover a lot of political hind quarter, but do absolutely no good.
Anon Skeptic is right.
We admit that housing is tax negative and is supported by excess taxes paid by others. But now we insist that new developments pay their full costs, and then some.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that we can fix our EXISTING and IMMEDIATE needs without money. To suggest that we can do it only by taxing the guy behind the tree, newcomers, big bad developers, and out-of-staters, is simply fraudulent.
re: transportation, taxes, needs
I don't think we'll be taxing surface streets but if one thinks about this - it's not surface streets per se that is the "tough nut" problem.
Most folks.. can and do figure out how to go a few miles on surface streets to get from home and work.. and they also know how/when to time shift for rush hour.
It's the major connectors and highways that support longer-haul commuting that are the crux of the "crisis" in my view.
What folks want .. is the ability to commute 60 or more miles to/from work and they want a dedicated road rather than have to use a combination of surface streets and primary roads.
Essentially - what they want - is for everyone else who chooses not to commute long distances to kick in their "fair share" so that major roads that support commuting can be built.
Nice work if you can get it but the folks who don't commute long distances understand much more than most folks might think. In other words "raise my taxes then use them to build roads I don't use nor need".
So then the argument gets advanced that people who do this long-haul commuting are part of bringing a high-tech, high-salary economy to Virginia so therefore it is incumbent on those than live in Danville, C-ville, Roanoke to kick in tax money in gratitude for those folks who earn those higher salaries (but have to commute).
I don't think it's going to wash - no representative is going to return home and tell his/her constituents that taxes are going up for transportation and, oh by the way, we don't get anything other than IOUs... after the "more deserving" areas get their needs tended to first.
... New money for transportation is going to come from new roads built by investors who will get a return of their investment - from the folks who use those roads.
... Not ALL new money or new projects for sure - but the more of these than get built - the more the "other" transportation money will be available on a fair and equitable allocation basis.
The days of Virginia allocating a huge portion of the Statewide budget to a Springfield Interchange or Wilson Bridge - at the expense of a 3rd crossing in Tidewater (or vice versa) or gone.
Those kinds of projects WILL be electronically tolled - and it is a "good" thing in at least one respect because the "need" part of the dialogue will center not on subjective views but rather cold, hard, objective - "can it work financially" calculations.
Good points, Larry.
The Bridge and interchange are absorbing alot of state funds, and a lot of federal funds, too. Do you think the people who kick in money for federal funds for projects they don't happen to use have the same argument? How about the people who are kicking in millions every year to operate Metro and VRE who don't use them?
I don't have any problem with pay as you go, as long as it is universal. But, as I've said before, if that happens, those people that use all that local grid network may find they are paying a much higher share than now.
Suppose we don't improve the arteries for long haul commuters. I don't think there are that many of them to begin with. An awful lot of congestion on the arterials my be caused by people who are commuting only average distances: think F'burg to Quantico, Dale City to Springfield, and Springfield to Pentagon. But if we don;t fix them, then more and more people may choose to join the ranks of those that choose not to travel long distances. Housing prices and congestion will go up asnd then their idea of what roads they need might change.
The bridge and interchange are partial payback, it seems to me, for years and years of money flowing the other way. But, after so many years of that, there is no longer anywhere near enough money in Danville to fix NOVA problems. Since so much of the money comes from NOVA to begin with, there isn't much room for Danville residents to complain.
I agree it is not fair to them, but neither is what has been happening to NOVA for years. Still, you are right: no representative will even attempt to make that sale, so NOVA is going to have to pay to support the rest of the states roads, and their own in addition.
I think there is a place for electronic additional tolling where enormous projects take place, like the bridge and the third crossing, but I don't think tolling in general is a good idea.
Doesn't much of this discussion about transportation stem from the fact that Virginia's (and probably many mores states as well) approach to transporation is dysfunctional. A vistor from another planet would probably conclude from observing us that transporation is something for which we don't have overall goals and measurements, but which we throw lots of money at in a collection of often unrelated projects. Decisions are made based on who has the most effective lobbyist without regard to the effectiveness of the investment. And, of course, we want more money to feed to this monster.
What are Virginia's transportation goals? How are they determined? By whom? How is sucess or failure determined? Do we want more primary highways or more primary highway capacity? Where and why? Would we be better off with more money spent on secondary roads where bottlenecks could be opened? Are there any other states that do a better job than Virginia?
Just for historical comparison -
Back in 1998 and 1999, a standard listing contract was for at least SIX months, not the current THREE months. And it was generally renewed several times over before a seller even considered switching agents.
The standard time on market was at least 6 - 9 months - for a single family home. You were looking at a year-plus for a townhome. And it had to be absolutely pristine.
And townhomes that were bought for $120K in the early 1990s were selling for $80-$90K by the late 1990s.
And I would venture to say that the PERCENTAGE of homes on the market was FAR greater then than it is now.
Today's market has slowed considerably from its heyday last year. But it is nowhere even close to tanked. If it was tanked, I could finally afford to buy.
Anon Skeptic back. So according to Mr. Hyde and his ilk that people who use the roads should pay for them. Well, unless I am mistaken that sounds pretty selfish and that is not the way government works. Let's carry his point to its logical extreme. Why should I pay for the parks system in my locality? My children are grown and I haven't been to the parks in at least a decade. Charge admission and congestion pricing for the tennis and bball courts! Or do away with the parks altogether and if you cannot afford to join a country club or private rec center, the stay home and watch TV. There are thousands of roads in the state that I will never drive on; why should my tax dollars pay for their maintenance? Libraries? If you cannot afford to buy the book then you do not deserve to read it. And so forth, including fire, police and don't get me started on schools, my kids are long gone but I am still paying for them. What's the value in that?
As I have said before and will keep hammering on the point, none of these ideas about coordinating land use and transportation, congestion pricing, tolls, etc. will solve the problem of poor political decisions made by planning commissions and governing bodies over the last two decades. In my county there are still 30,000 platted subdivision lots that are not covered by the cash proffer system. Even if you are generous enough to assume that not every lot will have two cars (not likely) then you are talking about 50,000 vehicles. Some investor is going to step in and build the needed secondary roads? If we are going to list our roads on Wall Street, we are about a decade too late.
When building more schools results in more and more students or building parks results in more and more campers then I'd start thinking that we should also treat them like roads.
VMT - Vehicle miles travelled (per capita) has TRIPLED in little more than a decade.
What this means is that not only are people driving for longer periods of time but also driving longer distances.
And this means also, many, many more people on the roads - at rush hour.
This change in driving habits has eaten up all the available capacity of many roads.
Looking at this from a point of view where one is not an advocate nor an opponent of roads - for roads sake - but purely from the point of view of how to bring more infrastructure online to respond to the increases - I believe that we have to be pragmatic about the prospects of where the money would come from.
We have folks who insist that politicians should suddenly grow spines and raises taxes - either gasoline or other cleverly disguised taxes as their "duty" and the "right thing to do".
We have others who dislike tolls because they believe it is the state responsibility (apparently) to build as many roads as people demand.
In this BLOG thread - someone used the word dysfunctional and what metrics we use (or not) in determining - cost-effectiveness so that we have a way of determining what roads are actually needed and eureka.. what ones have the highest priority.
In Virginia - those answers depend entirely on one's point of view and rarely on anything that remotely resembles realities.
If we built schools or parks that way - we have a taxpayer revolt.
If you really want to cut to the chase as to whether a road is needed or not - figure out how to pay for it.
If folks do this - if they recognize that rural interstates START at 10 million a mile and urban interstates easily top 100 million a mile.
Raising the gas tax is not going to bring in more tax because less gallons will be bought and most studies show that it would be likely that you'd bring in less tax.
But think about why this would happen. Essentially, when gasoline goes up - people cut back on discretionary trips - trips that are not necessary.
The same exact thing happens when roads are TOLLED except that you still are taking in revenue for roads to get built and the business model is to identify which prospective roads are truly needed and will actually get used.
Also interesting to me is that the more roads that get built in an Urban Area - the more adversely affected is the air quality - and this results in real impacts to children, the elderly and people who are sick - and yet the drumbeat goes on... "build more roads .. and to hell with any harm that results".
More and more folks recognize that this track is simply not sustainable - financially and otherwise.
So put yourself in your elected GA shoes - and ask yourself what WOULD you advocate and pursue at the GA that had any chance of gaining enough of your colleagues votes to actually pass?
Hi, Skeptic, what's this ilk business? You are right, put congestion prices on the tennis courts and schools and get government out of the business. I think my point has been that if you are going to go the pay your own full costs route, then you need to make it universal and not target it at your favorite dysfunctional group.
Either pay your own full costs, or stop complaining about the things that "don't pay". In the end, every thing we've got gets paid for, what we are quibbling about is who pays and how much.
Regardless of how we solve that question, if we don't pay for what we need next, we won't have it.
And Larry, I'd suggest that if we built more schools and more parks we would have more campers and more students. Where is the school where they teach underwater welding? We have thousands of homeless in our cities, if we had enough parks for them, they might be campers.
Our traffic level is much more closely related to our level of economic activity than it is to the roads we have built.
To say that building roads creates traffic is demonstrably wrong. 45% of our traffic occurs on 10% of our roads. There are plenty of places where roads have been built and the traffic is yet to happen.
You are arguing against yourself because later you say that if we built roads based on tolls, then we would only build the ones we need. But if roads create traffic then all we have to do is build roads and they will fill up with toll payers: by George we have found the golden goose!
But wouldn't the same thing hold true with gas taxes? Build the roads and those taxpayers will come. Only they won't come if you raise the gas tax. Maybe they won't come if you raise the tolls, either.
In either case you will only raise enough money for the roads you need. Or, we can not raise the money and not have the roads we need. Remember, the need is based primarily on the economy, so if we wreck the economy we won't need roads, either. You don't hear too many politicians advocating that.
I don't think anybody, not even me, advocates building more roads in urban areas, it is prohibitively expensive and self limiting anyway. Especially interstates, as you suggest.
Interstates move a few vehicles at high speeds, but the most efficient use of roads is at much lower speeds and higher traffic densities.
Up to a point.
At some level there is an optimum mix of roads, housing, and jobs. As I see it, it is an overconcentration of jobs that causes traffic congestion: we've got plenty of roads that few people are using.
Instead of putting congestion pricing on cars, which are just trying to get to the jobs, why not put congestion pricing on the jobs when they cause more traffic than the roads can handle?
Even you suggest that tolling will result in building only those roads we really need, which suggests we do need more roads. How do we recognize when we need more roads? When they are over crowded.
Where are they over crowded? In the approaches to urban areas. Building roads in urban aras is financially and environmentally unsustainable, so where do we put them? Put them in other places.
Wait a minute, we've already got roads in other places, and few people are using them. Remember that roads cause traffic nonsense?
So how do you tie land use to transportation? Don't allow more land use when the transportation is too crowded. Where is the transportation too crowded? Think jammed Metro cars.
And how are we trying to tie land use to transportation? Oh, that's right, create more density in the cities and creat fifty acre lots on the edges so that people have to drive that much farther to find a decent place to actually live.
This isn't planning, it is schizophrenia. We need more roads in some places. It isn't a drumbeat, its a fact. We need fewer jobs in some places, and we need more in others.
Wheter we raise the money for roads we truly need with gas taxes or tolls is almost immaterial. Either way it comes out of our pocket. We can fool ourselves ito thinking that if it is tolls it might not affect us, just that guy behind the tree.
In the end, we are going to pay one way or another, gas tax, toll taxes, or congestion and waste tax. Each option affects the economy in some way, and that will affect us all - in some way.
I happen to think that gas taxes are easier, fairer, and more evenly promote the idea of driving less. Your argument that we can't o it with gas taxes is unpersuasive for two reasons.
As you point out yourself, if we drive less we'll only get enough money for the roads we actually need. And last month we set a record for gas consumption, even at these prices. Clearly the prices aren't high enough to cause less driving, and when they are, it will be the discretionary driving that goes first.
Even that will cause an effect on the economy, just ask any Ford worker.
What we have to look for is what works best for the whole system, transportation, housing, jobs, and the economy. Trying to shift the burden someplace else is just squeezing a balloon.
Get over it, find a way that works and move ahead. Just don't think it is going to be free.
That took way too long. TMT said the same thing in his second paragraph above.
"What are Virginia's transportation goals? How are they determined? By whom? How is sucess or failure determined? Do we want more primary highways or more primary highway capacity? Where and why? "
Mr. Hyde and TMT said:
"What are Virginia's transportation goals? How are they determined? By whom? How is sucess or failure determined? Do we want more primary highways or more primary highway capacity? Where and why?"
I think that Mr. Bacon needs to open this question up for answers from the bloggers.
I'll take a short cut at it.
What are Virginia's Transportation Goals?
We should recognize that some congestion is a normal and desirable result, but excessive congestion is not. It is normal for roads to be over capacity sometimes and under capacity at others.
I think we could set a goal that says priority efforts would be placed on those places whre road usage exceeds (130%, 200%, pick a number) of design capacity for more than six hours per day. Those efforts could be a multifaceted approach including providing more capacity, congestion tolling, and providing incentives for existing traffic magnets to leave the area.
How are they determined?
By setting the above goal, you have a goal that can easly be measured based on traffic counts.
How is success or failure determined? If the situation described persists for more than five years, then the remediation efforts are a failure.
That wasn't too hard, was it?
Regarding the question raised by Anonskeptic 9:59: What are Virginia's transportation goals. How are they determined? Do we want more primary highways or transit?
The official plan, VTrans2025, is available on the Internetat http://www.vtrans.org/. It dates back to 2004 and represents the thinking of the Warner administration. The Kaine administration has not replaced it with anything else.
The plan is schizophrenic. The policy recommendations are pretty progressive -- especially given the retrograde nature of the debate at that time. Unfortunately, the policy recommendations didn't match up very well with the long-range budget forecasts, which posited an extraordinary, $108.4 billion in "unmet" transportation needs over the next 20 years -- an average of $5.4 billion per year, or more than the entire transportation budget of today.
Post a Comment