Let’s see how this works. Check.
Welcome to alexblock.net. I’ve got all of the old content from cityblock.wordpress.com over here, and I hope you’ll keep reading over here. Please update your RSS feeds and links, and I’ll be working on a re-direct solution soon.
As before, this is a work in progress. I’d love to hear any feedback.
Photo by Andrew Ciscel
There have been lots of good items on the ICC recently, mostly dealing with the ICC’s proposed tolling scheme. The City Fix DC looks at the rates:
The answer that’s been in the news lately is tolling. Tolls are planned for the Intercounty Connector (ICC), an 18.8-mile highway under construction between Gaithersburg and Laurel. To cover the road’s $2.56 billion construction cost, the Maryland Transportation Authority’s board has proposed rush-hour tolls of $.25 – $.35 per mile for 2-axle vehicles from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Off-peak rates for 2-axle vehicles would range from $.20 to $.30 per mile. The price tag would be around $11 roundtrip for the many drivers expected to use the ICC to commute between I-95 and I-270. The ICC tolling plan is getting a lot of press for proposing some of the highest rates in the country.
The City Fix notes that “on paper, the argument for road tolling is strong,” but doesn’t really address what kind of roads are being tolled, and at what rates. The ICC’s basic problem is that the tolls for that road are trying to finance the same road. Instead of tolling the congested roads around the ICC, using that toll to both manage traffic and raise revenue for more capacity, they’re leaving the congested routes free while tolling the new roads that have very little congestion.
In essence, they’re tolling the wrong road.
This isn’t a new revelation. In the Baltimore Sun, Michael Dresser says it was always meant to be like this:
Richard Landon of District Heights showed up to testify against any tolling. “We as taxpayers have already paid our share of taxes,” he said.
Actually, we haven’t.
At least, we haven’t paid enough to build a $2.6 billion, six-lane highway through suburban Washington. The toll road vs. freeway issue was decided during the Ehrlich administration with the acquiescence of the General Assembly. Neither wanted to put their necks on the line to raise gas taxes, which haven’t gone up since the early 1990s, to build the road as a freeway. It was either toll road or no road.
No free lunch.
The fact is that very few potential road links have the tolling potential to totally pay for themselves. Those kinds of roads are the key infrastructure we’ve traditionally paid for with tolls – key bridges and tunnels, for example – but that doesn’t really include second-tier suburban beltway links. We know this, yet we continue to punt the political football of actually paying for stuff.
This isn’t to say tolling is the wrong idea – it’s the right idea, but being used in the wrong place. Chris Bradford noted during NYC’s discussion of congestion pricing the stripped-down economic logic of using congestion tolls as a means of measuring demand for more capacity and then financing it:
But congestion pricing does more than relieve congestion. Congestion pricing tells us when a road needs more capacity. Additional capacity costs money, and drivers are willing to pay only so much for it. That “so much” is exactly equal to the price they are willing to pay to avoid congestion. When the revenue collected by congestion pricing is low — too low to finance new capacity — we know we have enough capacity. Drivers aren’t willing to pay for more, so building it would be wasteful.
On the other hand, If a properly priced road starts generating “too much” revenue — enough to cover the cost of expanding capacity — then it’s time to figure out how to add the capacity users are willing to pay for.
Instead of putting congestion pricing in place on the beltway and then determining if a) demand is there for the ICC and/or HOT lanes (since those lanes represent additional capacity); and b) if toll revenue is sufficient to pay for those expansions, we’ve instead gone ahead and will build the new lanes anyway, under the veneer that we can pay for them with tolls only on the new portions.
This doesn’t just apply to freeways, either. This works for any congested area.
Viewed properly, then, transit is simply a means for adding capacity. (Yes, I’m well aware of other arguments for transit, but I’m concentrating on the one that ought to appeal to the economics-inclined.)
The logic of congestion pricing, then, is that the old capacity is supposed to finance the construction and operation of the new capacity. Or to put it in the charged language that dominates transit debates, the old capacity is supposed to subsidize the new capacity. Indeed, if users had to pay “cost” for the new capacity, then too few would switch from the old road. That makes no sense because it creates the wrong incentives.
This does not mean the new capacity — whether road or transit — should be free. It should be congestion-priced, too. And as time goes by, the revenue raised thereby might cover the cost of operation and, in turn, finance even more capacity. But until that transpires, we shouldn’t insist that new capacity pay for itself.
Bold is mine. Insisting and expecting that we can get something for nothing because it will “pay for itself” isn’t a real solution. Road tolling programs need to be able to toll roads that are currently free to users, and they need to approach the issue through the lens of the entire transportation system.
“Follow the money…”
The National Building Museum‘s newest exhibition is open for business – a brief history of parking structures. The exhibit has a great collection of archival photos and other items, looking at the evolution of parking structures through time – from elaborate, full-service garages to self-parking decks to LEED certified garages that attempt to make parking a car sustainable in some fashion. Likewise, the exhibit delves into the social role of the parking structure – with a clip of prominent movie scenes from parking garages (meeting with Deep Throat, getting cool, and getting lost, amongst others) as well as the raw aesthetics of these structures.
What’s missing, however, is any discussion of why parking is necessary.
Philip Kennicott, the Washington Post‘s architecture critic, has a review of the exhibition in this Sunday’s paper. He notes the fact that the need to park is taken at face value, without question:
The Building Museum’s fascinating and comprehensive “House of Cars” exhibition takes parking for granted, and from that assumption tries to cover the subject dispassionately. It proves that parking structures needn’t be ugly, that they were once more routinely beautiful and integrated into the urban fabric, and that even today they can be architecturally daring if real architects are allowed to explore the poetry of the structure.
The interesting juxtaposition, however, was the exhibit that assumes the need for parking opened just as the story of DC USA’s woefully underutilized parking garage was in the news.
Kennicott also notes another missing piece of the discussion – price. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. Given that the exhibit starts from the position that demand is there for parking no matter what, a discussion of supply, demand, and price would be a bit much. The very idea that we might not need that parking after all never crosses the minds of those designing these structures, at least not as they’re presented to a patron walking through the galleries. Kennicott notes the disconnect:
But the future isn’t all bright for the National Parking Association. Away from the exhibition hall, with its free-flowing red wine and mini-burgers, participants gathered to hear lawyer and lobbyist Vincent Petraro describe how he helped keep at bay a New York proposal to institute “congestion pricing” in the gridlocked south end of Manhattan. This new user fee would charge drivers entering the zone from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Proponents hope it will clear up the streets, clean up the air and generate revenue. Petraro worries that it will hurt business. He cites London, which instituted a similar plan in 2003.
“Yeah it worked, if you want to create a ghost town,” Petraro says of a city that at last check was anything but a ghost town.
Congestion pricing, says Prof. Donald Shoup of UCLA, could hurt the bottom line for parking lot owners. The power of that bottom line was obvious throughout the Parking Show of Shows, where even bright signs — environmentally sustainable lighting and other improvements to design — were predicated on their cost savings. But Shoup, who studies the economics of parking, is interested in a different, more civic-oriented bottom line. He argues that parking is yet one more element of the basic American infrastructure that hasn’t been subjected to the basic rules of the market. Cities all too often under-price their parking meters, which explains why drivers tie up traffic cruising for a cheap space. And for decades cities have required developers to include parking as part of new construction, which hides the real cost — economic and environmental — of parking.
Perhaps there was a more literal message to draw from the Bob Woodward’s meeting with Deep Throat in that parking garage – “follow the money.”
Parking is simply a terminal for auto transportation. All modes of transport have three basic elements – vehicles (airplanes, trains, cars), rights of way (the sky, tracks, roads), and terminals (airports, train stations, parking spaces). Even a narrow focus solely on parking spaces can be misleading, to say nothing about simply writing off all other modes of transport. Transportation, by nature, is multi-modal. The reality of our urban environments is more complex than a pretty parking garage.
Which brings us to Columbia Heights, and yet another parking boondoggle. But this may also be the future of parking: Less is more. Most of the larger discussion of parking, including the dialogue at the National Parking Association and to a somewhat disturbing extent in the National Building Museum exhibition, is predicated on the idea that parking is a necessity. That it can be improved, but not eliminated. Even the act of studying parking as an evolving architectural form all too often seems to legitimize that form. But the emptiness of that lot in Columbia Heights, and the nightmare images on display at the “House of Cars” show, suggest that we may not be nearly as addicted to parking as we once believed.
Indeed. However, despite the exhibit’s conceptual shortcomings, it’s definitely worth a visit. As narrow as the focus may be, it’s still a fascinating subject – and the National Building Museum’s exhibit design, per usual, does not disappoint.