21St Century Highways

Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia

Wendell Cox

Virtually no one can have failed to notice that traffic congestion has increased in the urban areas of Virginia. This has occurred in urbanized areas throughout the nation. The principal reason is that highway capacity has not been increased at the same rate that traffic has increased. This is a departure because, through the 1970s, new highway capacity

was generally sufficient to keep traffic from tion in the Virginia Beach urbanized area is becoming seriously congested. somewhat better than the average 26 percent All of that has changed. Average peak peri- delay for urbanized areas with more than od travel delays1 have increased more than 500,000 residents. Traffic congestion is much 150 percent in each of the state’s major urban- better in the Richmond urbanized area, with ized areas,2 including Washington, D.C.3 (See an 8 percent average delay. No larger urban- Table 1.) ized area has less traffic congestion, and The latest data indicate that the Washing- Richmond has the fourth least traffic conges- ton, D.C., area has the nation’s fourth worst tion in the country, following only Rochester, traffic congestion, following Los Angeles, Albany, and Springfield, Massachusetts. (See San Francisco, and Chicago. Traffic conges- Chart 1.)

Wendell Cox is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris, and an independent consultant on urban policy. His clients have included the U.S. Department of Transportation, and clients in 49 states, Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. 184 21st Century Highways

If the trends of the past 20 years contin- Table 1 The Heritage Foundation ue, average travel delays will double in Change in Peak Period Travel Delay the Washington area (to 102 percent), (Extra Time Required to Travel) which would continue to have the 1982 2002 Change nation’s fourth worst traffic congestion. Richmond VA 3% 8% 167% (See Table 2.) Average delays would nearly double in both Virginia Beach and Rich- Virginia Beach VA 8% 21% 162% mond. (See Chart 2.) Washington DC-VA-MD 18% 50% 178% The loss of mobility and access that results from increasing peak period travel Source: Calculated using data from Texas Transportation delays is more than just an inconvenience to Institute, Travel Time Index. people who lose a bit of leisure time. It slows down commercial traffic, thereby increasing • In the Virginia Beach area, more than 99 product costs. But there is an even more impor- percent of travel is by roadway. Less than tant economic dimension. The economic output 1 percent is on transit. (See Chart 4.) of urbanized areas is greater if there is greater • In the Washington area, more than 95 mobility. Remy Prud’homme and Chang-Woon percent of travel is by roadway. Less Lee of the University of Paris studied urban eco- than 5 percent is on transit. Separate nomic performance and found that economic data are not available for Northern Vir- performance increases in urbanized areas at a ginia, but the highway market share rate of 1.18 times the increase in the number of would be higher than the urbanized area jobs that can be reached in a particular period average, which is driven downward by of time (such as 30 minutes). Thus, the continu- the much higher levels of transit ing increase in travel delays could have a sig- dependency in Washington, D.C., itself. nificant economic penalty.4 (See Chart 5.)

How Virginians Travel The predominance of automobiles is fur- Automobile travel predominates in Vir- ther evidenced by work-trip travel data from ginia, as it does in nearly all other urbanized the 2000 U.S. census. areas in the United States, Canada, and West- ern Europe. For example: • In the Richmond area, 81 percent of workers were drivers traveling alone. • In the Richmond area, more than 99 per- Nearly 11 percent of workers were in car cent of travel is by roadway. Less than 1 pools or vanpools. Working at home percent is on transit.5 (See Chart 3.) accounted for 2.5 percent, while transit

1 Based on Texas Transportation Institute, Travel Time Index, 1982–2002. 2 An urbanized area is an area of continuous urban development and is thus smaller than a metropolitan area, which includes rural territory from which workers are drawn to the urbanized area. 3 Separate data for the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington urbanized area are not available. 4 Remy Prud’homme and Chang-Woon Lee, “Size, Sprawl, Speed and the Efficiency of Cities,” Obervatoire de l’économic et des Institutions Locals, Paris, France, July 1998, revised November 1998. 5 Estimated using transit passenger miles from the National Transit Database and vehicle miles from the Federal Highway Administration, and assuming an average urban automobile occupancy of 1.6 persons. Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 185

captured 2.4 percent Chart 1 The Heritage Foundation of workers. (See Urban Traffic Congestion: 2002 Chart 6.) Peak Period Delay Compared to Uncongested • In the Virginia Beach 80% area, 79 percent of 70 workers were drivers traveling alone. Car 60 pools and vanpools 50 accounted for 12 per- 40 cent of workers. 30 Working at home 20 accounted for 2.6 per- 10

cent, while transit I

F L T L L

Y Y E

B R C C D N R N C A U C N C A L L L L L L F

O Q G V P S V S J

A A H A B A R C C A R B D A L

V S P P X

I H I

T E

T U T A L U F L L S S L R Y E N A L V V

K L I R K V U H E K N V S S D O O B R U S O V P S O S A A

G R H O

M M F B I P C

T F J E L S D M A

R A B D C H A N S T T S B N D

R A P O C H A P S B O C A S P P R H B

S M captured 1.9 percent O M D W of workers. (See Urbanized Area* Chart 7.) *Note: For urbanized area codes, see Table 2. • In the Northern Vir- Source: Calculated using data from Texas Transportation Institute, Travel Time Index. ginia cities and counties included in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan while only 1.6 percent used transit. (See area, 72 percent of workers drove alone. Chart 9.) Nearly 14 percent of workers were in car pools or vanpools. Working at home Travel Times by Car and Transit accounted for 3.2 percent, while 7.3 per- There is often an assumption that travel cent of workers used transit. (See times could be improved if transit were used Chart 8.) In the Northern Virginia more, but this is not borne out by the data.

The assumption that travel times could be improved if transit were used is not borne out by the data. The average transit work trip was 74 percent longer than the average for other trips (principally cars).

jurisdictions outside those served by Nationally, the average work trip in 2000 took Washington’s Metro, the transit share is approximately 25.6 minutes each way in major considerably lower, with 78 percent metropolitan areas. The average transit work driving alone. Nearly 14 percent of trip was 43.4 minutes, or 74 percent above the workers were in car pools or vanpools, average time for other trips (principally cars).6

6 The Public Purpose, “US Metropolitan Area Journey to Work Time: Transit & Other: 2000,” Urban Trans- port Fact Book, at www.publicpurpose.com/ut-jtw2000msatime.htm (July 6, 2005). 186 21st Century Highways

Table 2 The Heritage Foundation

Peak Hour Travel Delays: Urbanized Areas over 500,000

Code Urbanized Area 2002 Rank Projected 2027 Rank

NYC New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT 40% 56 83% 51 LA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana CA 77% 64 160% 64 CHI Chicago IL-IN 54% 62 115% 63 PHI Philadelphia PA-NJ-DE-MD 35% 45 69% 42 MIA Miami FL 40% 56 91% 55 DFW Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington TX 34% 43 78% 48 BOS Boston MA-NH-RI 45% 60 96% 58 WDC Washington DC-VA-MD 50% 61 102% 61 DET Detroit MI 36% 49 73% 46 HOU Houston TX 39% 52 54% 34 ATL Atlanta GA 42% 59 100% 60 SF San Francisco-Oakland CA 55% 63 111% 62 PHX Phoenix AZ 35% 45 69% 42 SEA Seattle WA 35% 45 81% 49 SD San Diego CA 39% 52 95% 57 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul MN 34% 43 86% 53 STL St. Louis MO-IL 24% 29 46% 28 BAL Baltimore MD 36% 49 84% 52 TSP Tampa-St. Petersburg FL 31% 39 48% 30 DEN Denver-Aurora CO 40% 56 89% 54 CLV Cleveland OH 10% 7 21% 9 PGH Pittsburgh PA 10% 7 13% 3 POR Portland OR-WA 38% 51 94% 56 SJ San Jose CA 39% 52 71% 45 RSB Riverside-San Bernardino CA 39% 52 100% 59 CIN Cincinnati OH-KY-IN 25% 33 57% 36 SAC Sacramento CA 33% 42 75% 47 VB Virginia Beach VA 21% 26 39% 23 KC Kansas City MO-KS 10% 7 22% 10 SA San Antonio TX 23% 28 50% 31 LV Las Vegas NV 35% 45 81% 49 MIL Milwaukee WI 24% 29 53% 33

• Both Richmond and Virginia Beach have • The predominantly automobile “other” better than average work-trip travel work trips average 23.3 minutes in Vir- times. ginia Beach, while transit trips average • The predominantly automobile “other” 43.7 minutes, or 88 percent more. (See work trips average 22.9 minutes in Rich- Chart 11.) mond, while transit trips average 37.4 minutes, or 63 percent more. (See Work trips take longer, however, in North- Chart 10.) ern Virginia. The predominantly automobile Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 187

Table 2 The Heritage Foundation

Peak Hour Travel Delays: Urbanized Areas over 500,000 (cont.)

Code Urbanized Area 2002 Rank Projected 2027 Rank IPS Indianapolis IN 24% 29 56% 35 PRV Providence RI-MA 20% 25 42% 26 ORL Orlando FL 29% 37 59% 37 COL Columbus OH 18% 20 40% 24 NO New Orleans LA 18% 20 29% 15 BUF Buffalo NY 8% 4 15% 5 MEM Memphis TN-MS-AR 22% 27 51% 32 AUS Austin TX 31% 39 67% 41 BRG Bridgeport-Stamford CT-NY 28% 36 64% 38 SLC Salt Lake City UT 27% 35 65% 40 JVL Jacksonville FL 16% 16 33% 19 LVL Louisville KY-IN 24% 29 46% 28 HFD Hartford CT 12% 13 23% 11 RVA Richmond VA 8% 4 15% 5 CHA Charlotte NC-SC 31% 39 69% 44 NVL Nashville-Davidson TN 19% 23 36% 21 OKC Oklahoma City OK 11% 11 23% 12 TUC Tucson AZ 29% 37 65% 39 HON Honolulu HI 18% 20 29% 15 DAY Dayton OH 10% 7 19% 8 RNY Rochester NY 6% 1 13% 4 ELP El Paso TX-NM 16% 16 36% 22 BIR Birmingham AL 16% 16 31% 18 OMA Omaha NE-IA 17% 19 36% 20 ABQ Albuquerque NM 19% 23 41% 25 ATN Allentown-Bethlehem PA-NJ 15% 14 27% 14 SMA Springfield MA-CT 7% 2 10% 2 AKR Akron OH 9% 6 18% 7 SAR Sarasota-Bradenton FL 25% 33 43% 27 ALB Albany-Schenectady NY 7% 2 8% 1 TUL Tulsa OK 11% 11 23% 12 FRE Fresno CA 15% 14 29% 17

Average 26% 56%

Source: Based on data from Texas Transportation Institute, Travel Time Index, 1982–2000.

“other” work trips average 30.4 minutes, are less than in the Washington area. The while transit trips average 47.6 minutes, or 57 overall Northern Virginia average work-trip percent more. (See Chart 12.) Overall, the travel time is 31.7 minutes—more than 2.5 Washington metropolitan area has the second more minutes than in the Los Angeles area. longest average work-trip travel time in the Average work-trip travel times are lower in nation, following only the New York metro- the Northern Virginia jurisdictions outside the politan area. Even in the much more congest- Metro service area. Overall, average work-trip ed Los Angeles area, work-trip travel times travel times are 31.2 minutes, with the pre- 188 21st Century Highways

dominantly automobile Chart 2 The Heritage Foundation “other” category at 29.7 Urban Traffic Congestion: 2027 minutes. Average transit Peak Period Delay Compared to Uncongested work-trip travel times are 180% 45.7 minutes, or 54 percent 160 longer. (See Chart 13.) 140 120 Is Transit the Answer? 100 The hope is also often 80 expressed that greater use 60 of transit could reduce 40 2027* 20 traffic congestion. The 2002

F L T L L

Y Y E

B R C C D N R N C A U C N C A L L L L L L F

Washington area provides O Q G V P S V S J

A A H A B A R C C A R B D A L

V S P P X N M

I H I

I T E

T U F A L U T L L S S L R Y E N A L V V

K L R K V U H E K N V S S D V O O B R U S O P S O S A A O G R H

M M F B I P C

C T F J E L S D M A

R A B D C H A N S T T S B N D

R A P O C H A P S B O C A S P P R H B

S M valuable data in this O M D W regard. Transit’s share of Urbanized Area** work trips has actually * Projections for 2027 assume the same increase rate as for 1982-2002. declined in the jurisdic- ** For urbanized area codes, see Table 2. tions served by the Metro- Source: Calculated using data from Texas Transportation Institute, Travel Time Index. rail system, which cost more than $10 billion. Metrorail’s first servic- of route. From 1970 to 2000, transit’s work-trip es began operating in the mid-1970s. Before market share dropped from 17.5 percent to Metrorail opened, a larger share of workers— 14.6 percent in the District of Columbia, Mary- 20 percent more—used transit than use it land, and Virginia jurisdictions that comprise today, after constructing more than 100 miles the service area. Within the Northern Virginia jurisdictions, transit’s share of Chart 3 The Heritage Foundation work-trip travel fell from 12.2 Overall Urban Travel Market Share percent in 1970 to 10.8 percent Richmond Urbanized Area in 2000. (See Chart 14.) Moreover, traffic congestion Share of Person Miles has become much worse over the past 20 years, despite the Metrorail expansions. It would seem to be unlikely that any additional expansions will 99.6% 0.4% make a material difference. This is illustrated by the present proposal for expansion of Metrorail to Dulles Air- Roadways port at the currently proposed Transit cost of $3.5 billion. It is projected that by 2025, this line Source: Estimated using data from Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database. would attract 48,000 daily riders to transit or 24,000 new Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 189

two-way riders each weekday. Chart 4 The Heritage Foundation Overall traffic levels are Overall Urban Travel Market Share expected to increase substan- Virginia Beach Urbanized Area tially in the corridor over the period between now and 2025. Share of Person Miles The rail extension, according to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), will have little or no impact on 2025 traffic levels. Out of 10 99.6% 0.4% regional highway segments evaluated, only in one case would there be a perceivable reduction in traffic congestion. Roadways According to the FEIS, if the Transit full project is completed to Dulles Airport, these roads Source: Estimated using data from Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database. “would only experience slight decreases in traffic for the full LPA [the full project to Dulles Airport].”7 approximately $2,000 would come from drivers It should be noted that these slight reduc- on the Dulles Toll Road, who would pay higher tions would not be from today’s traffic levels, tolls but, according to the FEIS projections,

Expanding Metrorail to Dulles Airport, at a proposed cost of $3.5 billion, is projected to have little or no impact on 2025 traffic levels.

but rather from the much higher traffic vol- experience no lower traffic volumes. The cost umes that would occur in 2025. per trip on the rail line would be at least 10 times This minimal benefit would be achieved at as much as the cost of the average automobile great cost. The capital and operating cost of the commute trip, including the cost of automobile project is more than $10,000 annually for each ownership and operation and the cost of build- new two-way weekday rider. Of this amount, ing and maintaining roads.8 (Chart 15.)

7 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 6-26, at www.dullestransit.com/publications/ reports (July 6, 2005). 8 The Public Purpose, “Cost and Subsidy per Mile by Mode: USA Transport 2002 & 2001,” Transport Fact Book, at www.publicpurpose.com/tfb-2002pm.htm (July 6, 2005). 190 21st Century Highways

On an annual basis, the cost Chart 5 The Heritage Foundation is enough to lease a new luxury Overall Urban Travel Market Share car for each new commuter on Washington Urbanized Area the Dulles rail line. Such an extravagant expenditure could Share of Person Miles not be provided for other commuters in the area. For example, if the same amount had been spent on each working commuter in the Washington 95.6% area in 2000, the cost would 4.4% have been more than $20 billion. This is more than 10 percent of the gross personal Roadways income of the metropolitan Transit area and more than $13,000 per household. Obviously, this Source: Estimated using data from Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database. is an amount that the area could not conceivably afford to pay. risks that could influence the stability of Moreover, the cost figures are anything but the project’s financial plan, including firm. The FEIS indicates that “Costs shown construction cost risk and operating are preliminary and subject to change based cost risk.10 on the results of preliminary engineering, design-build negotiations, and funding avail- There is substantial reason for this uncer- ability.”9 In addition: tainty. There has been a tendency for larger urban rail projects to escalate significantly in Although the financial analysis defines costs, which is a serious threat with respect to a proposed funding strategy based on the Dulles rail line. Bent Flyvbjerg of Den-

On an annual basis, the capital and operatings costs of the proposed Dulles Airport expansion would be enough to lease a new luxury car for each new commuter on the Dulles rail line.

secured funding to date and reasonable mark’s University of Aalborg, who studied funding source, financing and cost infrastructure projects over 80 years in North assumptions, there are a number of America and Western Europe, attributes the

9 U.S. Department of Transportation et al., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, p. 8-4. 10 Ibid., p. 8-17. Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 191

underestimated costs to lying: Chart 6 The Heritage Foundation “Cost underestimation and Work Trip Market Share overrun cannot be explained Richmond Urbanized Area by error and seem to be best explained by strategic misrep- Share of Work Trips resentation, namely lying, with a view to getting projects start- ed.”11 He also singles out Other urban rail projects for particu- Home lar criticism.12 It would not be 81.4% Transit surprising for the cost to 3.1% exceed $5 billion, increasing 50 2.5% Car Pool percent or more. 2.4% Drive Alone Moreover, the ridership pro- 10.6% jections, while insufficient to make a perceivable difference on most corridor roads, could Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. well be high. This, again, has been identified as a risk in the international research, which concludes that Governments indicate that 37 percent of trips project promoters may underestimate costs to downtown during the morning peak hours and overestimate ridership to increase the like- are by transit. This is up from 28 percent lihood that the project will be implemented. before Metrorail opened. Much of transit’s From time to time, urban rail projects have gain occurred as the car pool market share been proposed for Virginia Beach and Rich- dropped from 36 percent to 22 percent.13 At mond. Because of the much smaller down- the same time, the portion of drivers commut- towns and better traffic conditions in these ing increased from 36 percent to 42 percent.14 urban areas, it can be expected that any such The large market share to downtown illus- systems would have even less impact on traf- trates the fact that quick transit service from fic congestion. all over the region can attract large numbers of riders. Even larger downtown market Automobile-Competitive Transit shares are recorded in New York, Chicago, The transit losses do not indicate any “love Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco. Out- affair” with the automobile on the part of side downtown, however, transit market Northern Virginia residents. In fact, 2002 shares are much smaller. This is because auto- counts by the Washington Area Council of mobile-competitive transit service is provid-

11 Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter, Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 16. 12 Ibid., p. 31. 13 The Public Purpose, “Washington, DC Metro Rail: Impact on AM Traffic into Downtown Core: 1975–2002,” Urban Transport Fact Book, at www.publicpurpose.com/ut-wtncordon1999.htm (July 6, 2005). 14 Virginia Railway Express (VRE) and Maryland Railway Commuter (MARC) commuter rail were exclud- ed because that mode was not included in the base year data. 192 21st Century Highways

Chart 7 The Heritage Foundation Chapter 6 contains a more Work Trip Market Share complete discussion of automobile competitiveness. Suf- Virginia Beach Urbanized Area fice it to say that establishing Share of Work Trips the automobile-competitive transit services that would be required to attract people who are traveling to locations Other other than downtown would Home 78.6% probably require a larger Transit 4.8% annual expenditure than the 2.6% Car Pool combined personal income of 1.9% Drive Alone the area. Yet, around the country, 12.1% metropolitan areas continue to spend disproportionately large Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. amounts of money on transit. In virtually no case is any expectation expressed in long- ed principally to downtown and not to other range plans that automobile demand will be parts of the urbanized area. This is typical in reduced materially by transit expansion. Inno- urbanized areas, whether Washington, Port- vation Briefs reports that in the Washington land, Los Angeles, or Paris. Little quick tran- area, approximately 50 percent of future trans- sit service is provided to destinations that are portation spending was planned for transit, outside downtown. It is there- fore fair to suggest that transit Chart 8 The Heritage Foundation is “about downtown.” Work Trip Market Share Thus, it is not surprising that Northern Virginia, Washington Metropolitan Area transit work-trip riders des- Share of Work Trips tined for locations outside downtown have lower incomes and, presumably, less access to automobiles. According to data Other collected in the 1990 census, the Home average non-downtown transit 72.0% Transit commuter had a household 3.8% Car Pool income more than 25 percent 3.2% below the average income for 7.3% Drive Alone the area. In contrast, transit 13.7% commuters to downtown had average incomes more than 10 percent greater than the area Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. average. Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 193

which, as noted, accounts for Chart 9 The Heritage Foundation less than 5 percent of travel Work Trip Market Share 15 demand. (See Chart 16.) Northern Virginia, Washington Metropolitan Area, This is not unusual. The same But Outside WMATA Area report indicates that the aver- Share of Work Trips age proposed expenditure on transit was approximately 50 percent in 17 other areas, near- Other ly all of which have even lower Home transit market shares than the 78.1% Transit Washington area. 3.8% Continuation of policies 3.0% Car Pool such as these is likely to lead 1.6% Drive Alone only to much worse traffic congestion. Sometimes the 13.5% view is expressed that if traffic congestion gets bad enough, Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. people will give up their cars for transit. The bigger problem, of course, is that sufficiently rapid tran- past 20 years, urban roadway expansions sit service is not available for most trips. It have been very limited. In many areas, seems unlikely that drivers will give up their including the Washington area, critical

The view is often expressed that “we cannot build our way out of congestion.” In fact, no metropolitan area has yet tried. Over the past 20 years, urban roadway expansions have been very limited. In many areas, including the Washington area, critical planned freeways were cancelled without any serious analysis.

cars for transit service that does not go where planned freeways were cancelled without they need to go. any serious analysis of the long-term economic or traffic effects. The Washington area Induced Travel? particularly and other areas such as Los The view is often expressed that “we can- Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta are not build our way out of congestion.” In fact, paying the price of intractable traffic conges- no metropolitan area has yet tried. Over the tion today.

15 C. Kenneth Orski, ed., “The Myth of Underfunded Mass Transit,” Innovation Briefs, July/August 2002, at www.innobriefs.com/abstracts/2002/july02.html#3 (July 6, 2005). 194 21st Century Highways

Chart 10 The Heritage Foundation volumes or the fact that the traffic on the new roads was One-Way Work Trip Travel Time transferred from older roads Richmond Urbanized Area that now have lower volumes. The reality, however, is far 50 Minutes different. Only one major 45 urbanized area—Phoenix— 40 35 has substantially increased its 30 freeway mileage and capacity 25 since the early 1980s, when 20 urbanized area traffic volumes 15 were first widely available, 10 and there is virtually no evi- 5 dence of the “induced” traffic Overall Transit Other (Mainly Cars) effect. In the early 1980s, Phoenix had a severely under- Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. developed freeway system compared to other major urbanized areas in the United The belief that traffic congestion cannot be States. The view of local and state officials reduced is based on the “induced traffic” the- was that they did not want to “become anoth- ory, which holds that providing new highways er Los Angeles.” But increasing traffic conges- simply induces people to travel more. Planners tion was to convince them that there was use this theory to justify not increasing high- something worse—becoming another Los

The belief that traffic congestion cannot be reduced is based on the “induced traffic” theory, which holds that providing new highways simply induces people to travel more. Planners use this theory to justify not increasing highway capacity. The reality, however, is far different. way capacity. Research is often cited to the Angeles but without its freeway system. As a effect that new highways quickly fill up after result, Phoenix undertook construction of opening. These reports depict a populace that new freeways. Phoenix has built more new would spend their whole lives “behind the urban freeways than any other major urban- wheel” if only enough roads were built. The ized area. research reports are fraught with difficulties, Based on the induced traffic theory, it such as limiting the research to the new roads would be expected that residents of the and not considering the overall road system Phoenix area would have rushed out to drive Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 195

even more and that overall Chart 12 The Heritage Foundation travel volumes would have One-Way Work Trip Travel Time increased inordinately com- Northern Virginia, Washington Metropolitan Area pared to other areas. In fact, Minutes the opposite occurred. Overall 50 travel volumes in the Phoenix 45 area increased 20 percent per 40 capita from 1984 to 2002. This 35 is well below the national 30 urban average increase of 32 25 20 percent. Perhaps even more 15 significant, Portland, with its 10 adopted anti-freeway policies, 5 experienced a 52 percent per capita increase in car use over Overall Transit Other (Mainly Cars) the same period. Further evidence is provid- Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. ed by Houston, which had the nation’s worst traffic congestion as late as 1985. Since then, major road- the rate of Portland, with its anti-highway way expansions have been undertaken. In policies. fact, average roadway travel increased only The choice is thus a stark one: Either pro- 10 percent from 1984 to 2002—less than one- vide the additional capacity to meet the third the national rate and less than one-fifth demand or simply let things get worse.

Chart 11 The Heritage Foundation Intercity Rail One-Way Work Trip Travel Time A number of states, includ- Virginia Beach Urbanized Area ing Virginia, have programs intended to improve intercity 50 Minutes rail, such as Amtrak, or are 45 even considering plans to build 40 moderate or high-speed rail 35 systems. An often-cited justifi- 30 cation for these programs is the 25 reduction of traffic congestion. 20 Yet, according to its own plan- 15 ning documents, the most 10 5 aggressive high-speed rail program yet seriously considered Overall Transit Other (Mainly Cars) in the United States, the Flori- da Overland Express plan, Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. would have provided virtually no traffic congestion relief. 196 21st Century Highways

Further, the most serious Chart 13 The Heritage Foundation traffic congestion problems are not between urbanized One-Way Work Trip Travel Time Northern Virginia, WMATA Area areas, but within urbanized areas. Intercity rail programs, Minutes whether costing the many bil- 50 lions that would be required 45 for genuine high-speed rail or 40 35 simply the hundreds of mil- 30 lions needed to improve 25 Amtrak service, have virtually 20 no potential to reduce traffic 15 congestion. 10 5 Highway Improvements Overall Transit Other (Mainly Cars) Not all of the transportation proposals in Virginia are Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. as costly and ineffective as the proposed Dulles rail line or intercity rail strategies. Virginia’s Pub- portion of the I-495 Beltway, and an lic–Private Transportation Act (PPTA), the agreement was reached in early 2005 first in the country, provides a unique between the business consortium that opportunity for commercial road develop- would fund and build the project and

Not all of the transportation proposals in Virginia are as costly and ineffective as the proposed Dulles rail line or intercity rail strategies. Virginia’s Public–Private Transportation Act provides a unique opportunity for commercial road developers to make cost-effective additions to the urban roadway system.

ers to make cost-effective additions to the the Virginia Department of Transporta- urban roadway system. The privately devel- tion (VDOT). Under the agreement, 100 oped Pocohontas Parkway is already in percent of the cost would be paid by operation in Richmond, and there are two users through tolls. promising highway proposals in Northern • The I-395/I-95 high-occupancy vehicle Virginia. lane would be converted to an express toll lane under another proposal and • Express toll (HOT) lanes have been extended south to the Fredericksburg proposed for addition to the Virginia area. Applying Innovative Reform Options in Virginia 197

At the same time, while less Chart 14 The Heritage Foundation pervasive, there are traffic problems on roadways between the Transit Work Trip Market Share urbanized areas. The best exam- 1970 (Before Metro) to 2000 ple is the I-81 corridor, with its 100% high volume of trucks. This vol- 90 ume is expected to increase sub- 80 stantially, and greater capacity 70 is required. There is currently a 60 proposal under the PPTA to 50 expand the roadway with toll 40 lanes for trucks.16 30 20 As it becomes more diffi- 1970 2000 10 cult to raise gasoline tax revenues, it will be necessary for Northern Virginia DC & Maryland WMATA Area more of the required additional highway capacity to be paid Source: Calculated using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. through tolls.

Future Policy Directions than seeking to build this highway or that In the future, it will become more impor- transit project. The issue is not roadways tant to focus on genuine objectives rather versus transit. There is a need for urban transportation policy to Chart 15 The Heritage Foundation focus on its principal Estimated Cost per Commute Trip objectives. The most press- Automobile and Dulles Rail ing urban transportation $40 One-Way (15 Mile Automobile Trip Assumed) problem in Virginia’s 35 urbanized areas and in others around the nation 30 is to reduce traffic con- 25 gestion. The problem is 20 that the people of Vir- 15 ginia’s urbanized areas are wasting too much 10 time in traffic congestion 5 during peak periods. The imperative is to reduce Automobile Dulles Rail those hours of delay. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 6-26, at www.dullestransit.com/publications/reports (July 6, 2005), and The Public Policies should be Purpose, "Cost and Subsidy per Mile by Mode: USA Transport 2002 & 2001," Transport Fact Book, at adopted that allocate www.publicpurpose.com/tfb-2002pm.htm (July 6, 2005). available resources based

16 For additional details on these projects and the partnership concept, see Chapter 5. 198 21st Century Highways on their effectiveness in reduc- Chart 16 The Heritage Foundation ing delay hours. This would Proposed Spending by Mode mean, for example, that projects Washington Area Regional Plan should be adopted based on their reduced cost per delay hour. More often than not, Share of Travel Share of Spending because of transit’s lack of automobile competitiveness, 48% such projects will involve improvement of roads, whether 96% 4% through expansions or through improved traffic management. 52% If a transit project can be shown to reduce delay hours Roadways Transit in a less costly way than a Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 6-26, at www.dullestransit.com/publications/reports competing road project, how- (July 6, 2005), and The Public Purpose, "Cost and Subsidy per Mile by Mode: USA ever, the transit project should Transport 2002 & 2001," Transport Fact Book, at www.publicpurpose.com/tfb-2002pm.htm (July 6, 2005). proceed. A process similar to this has begun in Texas, where Governor Rick Overall, the public will be best served if the Perry has initiated the Texas Metropolitan following principles apply: Mobility Program (TMMP). The TMMP requires agencies to adopt maximum con- 1. Where feasible, new capacity should be gestion objectives and then to allocate fund- directly paid for by users through tolls. ing in a manner that will achieve these objec- 2. Public revenues should be spent to

Where feasible, new capacity should be paid for by users through tolls. Virginia is well positioned for the future by virtue of its pioneering role in toll road development and the Public–Private Transportation Act. tives. Generally, the state’s urbanized areas achieve the maximum possible reduc- are adopting maximum average delay objec- tion in peak delay hours. tives of approximately 20 percent, to be achieved over a 25-year period. This would Virginia is well positioned for the future by reduce traffic delays, for example, by nearly virtue of its pioneering role in toll road devel- one-half in Houston and by one-third in Dal- opment and the Public–Private Transporta- las–Fort Worth.17 tion Act. Focusing on objectives is the key.

17 For additional discussion of such performance-based state transportation plans, see Chapter 3.