Speaking of our crumbling public facilities, CBO Director Peter Orszag testified in Congress on Friday and detailed the country's infrastructure needs. They are dire, in some cases. He notes in a related blog post (yes, the CBO director has a blog):
Although capital spending on transportation infrastructure already exceeds $100 billion annually, studies from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and elsewhere suggest that it would cost roughly $20 billion more per year to keep transportation services at current levels. Those studies also suggest that substantially more than $20 billion in additional capital spending per year on transportation -- and perhaps as much as $80 billion per year or so -- would be justified on economic grounds if well targeted (because such spending would generate benefits whose value would exceed its cost).
This is a fairly standard analysis. There are other important things to keep in mind, however.
Orszag continues:•The estimates for highways, for example, assume no expansion in the use of congestion pricing -- that is, tolls that are higher during peak times and lower during off-peak times.
•The Federal Highway Administration, though, estimates that widespread implementation of congestion pricing would reduce the investment needed to maintain the highway system by $20 billion annually.
I'm not sure whether congestion pricing would generate savings because it raises revenue, because it reduces wear, or because fewer new highways would be needed ("needed," I should say). It's quite possible a bit of all three. In any event, congestion pricing would increase demand for transit, it would increase demand for housing in central and walkable places, and it would cut carbon emissions. And of course, those savings, or the revenues from congestion pricing, could be used to help fund a new generation of transit systems to handle changing demand patterns. (Keep in mind, $20 billion is over ten times as much as is currently spent by the federal government on transit each year.)
This is a sound way forward that addresses energy use and prices, congestion, emissions, and infrastructure needs all at once. All we need is for our political leaders to sign on.
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining
Washington Post features rail hack job from Robert Samuelson
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 3:45 am
12 May 2008
It would also make businesses consider relocating to the exurbian cities where most of their employees live. Already, government is moving many agencies to places like Kent, WA where there is ample and affordable space away from high priced rents in the decaying inner city of Seattle.
I like "congestion" pricing because it makes the inner city start to bear more of the weight that it causes the lighter and less costly exurbian cities.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:33 am
12 May 2008
Bailo -- doesn't Kent have a downtown?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:40 am
12 May 2008
It's more likely that the employees would move closer to the business, not the other way around. 'Specially in areas where the employees are so spread out that a change in business location would only bring it closer to a few people, and not the majority of their employee base.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:57 am
12 May 2008
If Kent has a downtown, then it is really more like a town than an exurb -- a town is a whole different thing, because it allows for a central business district.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:08 am
12 May 2008
Yes, but in the hub system, you get exponential density towards the hub, and exponential inefficiency.
With travel along the "circle" you get linear densities.
If Kent has a downtown, then it is really more like a town than an exurb
Kent Down Town is more symbolic than functional. It has the vestiges of the Old Town plus a lot of good shops and restaurants (probably the best sushi bar in the Puget Sound is Sushi Kuine in downtown Kent).
The commercial areas are more along the major aterials such as West Valley Highway, Kent Kangley Road, Benson, and so on...
Whereas if the employees and businesses are all in a central district, businesses are all in a central district, the average commute is relatively small.
Sigh. Surely you don't work for a living? Otherwise you would know of 2 hour commutes from Bothell to Seattle each and every day.
Since this is the second time I've heard this idea, I'm wondering if there is someone on the Right who is pushing this.
I'm on the Right and I'm pushing it. You can take off your tinfoil hat now.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:24 am
12 May 2008
Whereas if you lived in the burbs and it took ya the same amount of time to get to work, not only would the wait be frustratin', but so would the extra milage, wear on the car, and gas used that wouldn't be as bad in a central location.
Walkable and bikable cities are the best option, because things are located close together. Less gas used, less resources spent on building ever-firther out roads, utilities, more police and fire to cover the greater distances, less land taken from agriculture and wilderness.
Plus, dense cities usually foster more sense of community and place than burbs do. People know each other, and see their neighbors every day, whereas in the burbs, most people just get up, drive off, drive back, and only see neighbors when mowin' a lawn or at an organized event.
Dense cities also foster more of laid-back atmosphere, as opposed to burbs, which support an atmosphere of emptiness or indifference. Dense cities are more likely to have walk-in and independent resturaunts, people are more likely to support small independent shops, know their children's friends and teachers, and support community efforts and coalitions.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:36 am
12 May 2008
I'm glad that Kent has some good stuff within a short distance , and I hope they continue improving the bike situation. And if you just came up with a Right-wing sentiment independently, fine -- although I don't know what a tin-foil hat is.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:48 am
12 May 2008
<blcokquote>Whereas if you lived in the burbs and it took ya the same amount of time to get to work,
The point is it doesn't. 50 of all travel in Kent is within Kent. 25 percent is to adjoining communities.
Walkable and bikable cities are the best option,
Which is why I'm on the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board working to make Kent even more bikeable and walkable.
usually foster more sense of community and place than burbs do.
Downtown seattle is far more anonymous and desolate than Kent which has festivals, fairs and other activities. Many group evevts are clustered around schools and churches. City government provides another hub.
Seattle, because its density, is highly dangerous and unfriendly to bikes and people.
The Exurbian "city" of Kent is the 21st Century.
It will take Seattle at least 100 years to de-densify to a reasonable level that makes it compatible with Everett, Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton and Kent.
As it is now, the old urban center are ancient dinosaurs, throwing their weight around and braying as they sink into the tar pits of modern design.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:55 am
12 May 2008
Seattle -- I've never been there, this is all secondhand -- seems to have invented the term "skid row". I don't know what the shape of its downtown is now, but most American cities let their downtowns turn into, at best, corporate daytime-only, rather sterile entities. Ideally, as people move back into those downtowns, that will bring in retail, a nightlife, and then it will be much more attractive -- particularly if you get good rail from the towns surrounding Seattle.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:59 am
12 May 2008
I'm thinkin' that has more to do with Seattle's sheer size compared to Kent. Any large city, dense or burb based, is more likely to have a sense of anonymous than smaller cities.
Dense large cities still foster a better sense of community than large burb cities, though.
It will take Seattle at least 100 years to de-densify to a reasonable level that makes it compatible with Everett, Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton and Kent.
There's a difference between burb development and cluster development.
Burb development is almost entirely residential, with an occassional shopping center or entertainment complex.
Cluster developments are smaller, more dense, and are centered around areas of business as well as shopping and retail. The cater to all resident's needs-work, live, and play.
Renton, kent, and the others are more akin to large towns or cluster developments than they are to burbs, even if some of the population still commutes to Seattle.
Permalink
Ryan Avent Posted 12:24 am
13 May 2008
Think about pre-highway America, when transportation costs were much higher. Cities and towns both were far denser.
Permalink