Report: Rely on mass transit -- Group says roads encourage traffic

The Hampton Roads Daily Press ^ | June 27, 2002 | Terry Scanlon

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Building more highways will not reduce congestion in Hampton Roads, according to a report released Wednesday by a leading environmental group.

The report by the Southern Environmental Law Center comes more than four months before voters decide whether to raise the sales tax by a penny to pay for new highways and tunnels in hopes of relieving congestion.

New and wider highways generate new traffic and often fail to provide long-term congestion relief, the report concludes.

"People will either drive more, they'll shift the time they drive or they'll shift the route they drive," said the report's author, Tripp Pollard.

Only about 3 percent, or $200 million of the $6 billion set of projects the tax increase is supposed to help finance, is to be spent on mass transit. The $200 million could be spent on expanding bus service or building light rail or maglev lines.

The money from the referendum also would go to the so-called Third Crossing, another tunnel and bridge that would connect Newport News with Portsmouth and Norfolk. It is expected to include a lane for mass transit.

"You'll never have a balanced transportation program that's 98 percent roads," Pollard said.

A top official in Gov. Mark Warner's administration said the state plans to place a greater emphasis on mass transit than the last administration did.

"It's a high priority for me," said Transportation Secretary Whittington W. Clement. "I want to see much more intermodal programming."

The environmental group's report, "Where are We Growing? Land Use and Transportation in Virginia," studied sprawl in Virginia.

It finds that in Virginia, development is outpacing population growth.

From 1992 to 1997, the amount of developed land statewide increased by 15 percent while the population grew only 7 percent.

Much of the new development is in areas where farmland is being converted to suburbs. The added development is a burden on taxpayers, who have to build new schools and provide water lines and smaller roads, the report said.

Terry Scanlon can be reached at 247-7821 or by e-mail at tscanlon@dailypress.com

[Willie Green]

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6 or (gasp!!!) 8 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 150 and 350 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

[AdamSelene235]

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue.

Will this come complete with metal detectors and power tripping homeland security agents? Can I bring a really sharp pencil on the train or is that out of the question.

[billhilly]

Birds encourage feathers.

[MinorityRepublican]

I believe that we should get rid of AMTRAK, and then allow a private company develop a rail system from Washington to Boston. This makes sense where this part of the country has significant enough people for this to work.

Anywhere else probably won't work because, for example let's say a rail system from Richmond, Virgina to Indianapolis, Indiana. Not enough critical mass in population because most of the country is very scattered compared to Northeast.

[RobRoy]

Much of the new development is in areas where farmland is being converted to suburbs. The added development is a burden on taxpayers, who have to build new schools and provide water lines and smaller roads, the report said.

Gee, doesn't a new suburb bring new taxpayers, or am I missing something here?

[BlueLancer]

More water encourages fish.

[BlueLancer]

"Birds encourage feathers."

No, you've got it all wrong ...

More AIR encourages birds.

Der Elite Møøsenspåånkengruppen OberKømmååndø (EMØØK)"

[Willie Green]

Birds encourage feathers.

Scientists create pre-plucked chicken

[old school]

What do you drive?

[The Electrician]

before voters decide whether to raise the sales tax by a penny to pay for new highways and tunnels in hopes of relieving congestion

I'm guessing that this is a deceitful way for a sales tax hike to be misrepresented - correct me if I'm wrong... My guess is that they're not going to tack a penny on top of the sales tax amount that you're already paying on a given purchase, but instead they're going to raise it by "a penny on each dollar" or one percent. There's a big, big difference. Calling it a penny when it amounts to hundreds of dollars when purchasing a car is a beautiful example of government lying through their teeth to fool Democrat voters (who are easily fooled, anyway) to vote for a big tax increase.

Another insidious way that these government tax thieves do their dirty work is by the "it's only one percent more" mantra. When, in fact (I don't know what the current sales tax percentage in that state is, so by way of example I'll assume that it's five percent), if the sales tax is currently five percent and they raise it to six percent, then they're not raising your taxes by "one percent", they're raising your taxes by twenty percent. So, the only honest way to propose such a tax increase is to say that you're going to raise the sales tax by twenty percent, not by "a penny". Where's the truth-in-advertising squad when you need them?

[Willie Green]

Anywhere else probably won't work because, for example let's say a rail system from Richmond, Virgina to Indianapolis, Indiana.

I agree that Richmond to Indianapolis doesn't make much sense.

But Richmond to D.C., Norfolk and Raleigh N.C. has potential.

And Indianapolis to Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville makes sense as well.

---

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/home.htm) and Japan (http://www.japanrail.com),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (http://www.amtrak.com/news/pr/atk9936.html) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 

HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.

The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

[Willie Green]

What do you drive?

Dodge Caravan. Why?

[billhilly]

You make my skin crawl.

[FirstFlaBn]

Take a look at the mission statement of the organization that produced the "study."

Our Region at Risk

Our work, however, is far from over. The South's natural resources are increasingly at risk from industrial over-use and abuse, government inaction, and rapid growth. The South is the fastest growing region in the country, with more miles of new road constructionthan any other region. More timber is being cut here than in the rest of the U.S. combined. The country's two national parks most affected by air pollution - the Great Smoky Mountains and the Shenandoah - are in the South. And we are losing wetlands at a faster rate than any other region. Decisions made on these and other environmental threats over the next few years will determine the region's well-being for years to come. Indeed, the rest of the country is increasingly looking to the South, where national debates that affect air and water quality, and forest and wetland protection are taking shape. As a region, we must choose whether to stand by and allow our natural resources to be squandered for short-term gain, or stand up for our natural heritage and take the necessary action to achieve a clean and healthy environment.

Yet another example of far left enviro wacko crap. In light of the above, who would believe anything they wrote?

[MinorityRepublican]

Yet another example of far left enviro wacko crap. In light of the above, who would believe anything they wrote?

I don't know about you, but most people tune them out. That's what I do anyway.

[Corin Stormhands]

A top official in Gov. Mark Warner's administration said the state plans to place a greater emphasis on mass transit than the last administration did.

Sort of flies in the face of their first two big initiatives being referenda to raise taxes for more roads now doesn't it?

[Willie Green]

Sort of flies in the face of their first two big initiatives being referenda to raise taxes for more roads now doesn't it? Sort of flies in the face of their first two big initiatives being referenda to raise taxes for more roads now doesn't it?

I was under the impression that most states pay for their transportation infrastructure utilizing tolls, gasoline taxes, etc. But apparently Virginia utilizes a portion of its sales tax revenue for that as well.

I actually see TWO different issues here:

1. Does Va. need to raise taxes (of whatever type)to improve transportation infrastructure?
2. How should transportation infrastructure funding be allocated: highways vs. mass transportation.

Not being a resident of Virginia, I have no informed opinion on the first issue.

On the second issue, I would favor increased allocation for mass transportation. I am not opposed to new highway construction, where necessary. However, I do believe that we reach the point of diminishing returns when 4 or 6 lane Interstates are widened to 8 or 10 lanes. Mass transportation solutions offer the prospect of faster and more fuel efficient travel under such circumstances. Additionally, the more people using mass transit alleviate our dependence on imported oil, making oil more abundant (and less expensive) for those who choose to drive their SUVs.

It is rather odd for me to be on the same side of the enviro-whackos on an issue. I arrive at my support for mass transportation from a different perspective. Nevertheless, I am glad that they are not opposed to mass transportation.