Why Not Monorail?

There was much consternation when the recommendations came out last year for the construction of the Baltimore Red Line. The line of course would be new 14-mile light rail line being constructed from Woodlawn across the city all of the way to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Campus. The main portion of the line that drew the most opposition was the proposed surfacing of the Red Line on Boston Street in Canton, starting with the American Can Company building. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is such a problem; the plan would put two surface lines on a heavily trafficked entryway into the city. Many large trucks that go into Fells Point, Harbor East, and downtown have to use Boston Street as their entryway into the city, for example. And that says nothing of the disruptive effects on the Canton and Highlandtown communities from the surface line, leading to efforts to oppose the Red Line in those communities.

But the Red Line plan has other problems associated with it as well. Even the concept of tunneling major sections of the line will cause a number of disruptions at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

And that leads me to ask one simple question; why not build the Red Line using Monorail?

Monorail tends to be thought of as a more exotic method of transportation that is associated with tourism moreso than transportation. Many people are familiar with the Monorail at Disney World or the one in Seattle that are short lines that do not serve a public transit purpose. Monorail is being used, however, in places such as Las Vegas to provide a relatively short public transit capability for these areas.

But would Monorail have be a practical solution for the Red Line? Perhaps. Using Monorail would not require neither expensive tunneling, nor would it require disruption of traffic on city streets. The idea of an elevated monorail that is elevated above the streets would be no worse of an eyesore than tracks going down the center of the street, and would certainly be less of an eyesore than the elevated Metrorail tracks in Owings Mills. Nor would the creation of a monorail system create delays at at-grade intersections. Intermodal connections between the existing "Blue Line" (Cromwell-Timonium Light Rail) , "Green Line" (Baltimore Metro), bus lines and MARC Trains would be no more onerous and inconvenient than the current Red Line proposal,

Is Monorail a cost-effective alternative? Perhaps, particularly when you consider that the cost of building a monorail system is would be anywhere between $14 million and $93 million a mile depending on the system, and the Red Line project as currently envisioned will cost roughly $114 million a mile. Monorail systems (believe it or not) can also be leased from the providing companies as a more cost effective way of implementing the system. The state could also (as part of my quest for privatization) consider leasing the operating rights for a monorail system to a private vendor, requiring that the Vendor construct and then operate the system at particular price.

Is Monorail the silver bullet to solving problems with the Red Line? Probably not. There are trade-offs as well as benefits to the construction of any of these public transit projects. But certainly, we owe it to ourselves as taxpayers to ask state leaders to consider all alternatives to the current Red Line project. The prohibitive costs and the disruption to communities and traffic flow (particularly in Canton) demand the consideration of alternatives that alleviate these concerns.

Alternative Funding

You know that I have gotten on my privatization high horse more than once before, but it looks like on the other side of the Potomac the idea might get put to good use in a very unusual way:

Robert F. McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, proposed Tuesday handing over about 330 state-run liquor stores to private operators to pay for road improvements -- a novel way to fund fixes but one that confronts many of the same obstacles that have stalled previous efforts.

For those of you that don't know, all alcohol in Virginia is sold in state-owned ABC stores. McDonnell's proposal would generate half-a-billion dollars in immediate revenue to deal with transportation woes in Northern Virginia, where there is strong opposition to both new taxes, but also in a reduction in funding of education to pay for it.

While this proposal comes from a Republican, and does not solve all of Virginia's long-term revenue needs when it comes to transportation, it is one logical and reasonable alternative to raising taxes and fees in order to keep state government running. Maybe Martin O'Malley can take the hint and realizes that there are, in fact, alternatives to trying to squeeze every last red cent out of Maryland's taxpayers....

No Surprises

It was bound to come to this. It always does. Instead of responsibly cutting spending in order to protect what spending is necessary, the State of Maryland is going back to the well:

Getting to work on a big budget gap, House subcommittees voted to cut $102 million in local highway money on Thursday, but they kept an in-state tuition freeze intact for the fourth consecutive year and spared $13.4 million for stem cell research.

The revision to the state's highway user revenue cost share is one of the biggest cuts made by four appropriation subcommittees in the House of Delegates.

The cuts recommended by the subcommittees go beyond the $516 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2010 budget, with an eye toward leaving a buffer in case the economy worsens.

The fact of the matter is that whenever Maryland's Democrats need to put something on the chopping block, it always winds up that aid for transportation is the first thing to go. No, we can't cut unnecessary services. No, we can't cut the size of government. No, we have to go after one of the few things that all Marylanders are directly impact by, the transportation infrastructure.

Remember when President Bush was blamed for our nation's crumbling infrastructure? Yeah, me neither.

Now this is a relatively insignificant (if you can call it as such) amount of money given the fact that the Democrats have backed us into a $1.5 billion hole. But why oh why do Democrats always attack our infrastructure first?

Baiting, Switching

Let's end the year on a real down note, with the idea from Oregon that Big Brother is going to ride with you (H/T Instapundit):

A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.

Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.

As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”

What that means is explained on the governor’s website:

“As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.”

According to the policies he has outlined online, Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax.

The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”

The online outline adds: “The governor is committed to ensuring that rural Oregon is not adversely affected and that privacy concerns are addressed.”

There are just a multitude of completely ludicrous things.

First, politicians and government leaders have been trying for lord knows how long to encourage people to make the switch to more fuel efficient cars. One of those ways was through tax breaks and other perks (you may remember that Virginia once allowed you to get a special plate for your hybrid, for example, that allowed you to drive in the HOV lanes regardless of the number of passengers you had). The idea was to promote fuel efficiency. At the same time of course, that meant states were decreasing the amount of revenue available to them through the collection of gas taxes; the law of diminishing returns at force once again.

So now that the social engineering aspect of this is done, let's stick it to these people by implementing a new tax based on usage instead of the current model. (to say nothing of the combined proposed 2-cent increase in gas taxes for non-GPS equipped cars). Your typical government bait and switch program.

Of course, that's not the only issue with Kulongoski's cockamamie idea:

• The privacy aspects alone are, of course, disturbing. Under this scenario, the government could track to the movements of any car registered to the state of Oregon (or any other locality that participated in such a scheme). The report indicates that the "concept requires not transmission of vehicle travel locations" but says nothing about whether or not that capability exists, or if and how other agencies of government would be able to use this information (i.e. the police).
• The plan seems dependent on "partnering with auto manufacturers" to develop this technology. Last time I checked, the auto manufacturers were getting bailouts just to keep the lights on. That doesn't really give them enough time to save the state of Oregon from itself.
• And finally, aren't there other sources of revenue that Oregon could tap to overcome the supposed shortfall in transportation funding? Couldn't Oregon make up the shortfall by reducing other, more discretionary spending (yes, I know how liberal Oregon is, but let's pretend, OK). Or, how much could Oregonians have saved (and been spared from such a silly idea) if Kulongoski supported the privatization of certain elements of Oregon's transportation infrastructure? And how much more money could that save as opposed to proposing such a pie in the sky project?

Oregon's idea for GPS-based taxation is disturbing on a multitude of levels, not the least of which is the idea that states want Big Brother to ride with you everywhere you go. Leaving the silly policy making issues aside, that fundamental privacy issue should give pause to both left and right thinkers alike...

Privatization a Serious Option

I have been calling for some time now the privatization of state assets, mainly as a way to improve services and reduce state spending. Now that state budgets are actually up against the wall, it looks like momentum for such common sense solutions is bulding:

Minnesota is deep in the hole financially, but the state still owns a premier golf resort, a sprawling amateur sports complex, a big airport, a major zoo and land holdings the size of the Central American country of Belize.

Valuables like these are in for a closer look as 44 states cope with deficits.

Like families pawning the silver to get through a tight spot, states such as Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois are thinking of selling or leasing toll roads, parks, lotteries and other assets to raise desperately needed cash.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has hinted that his January budget proposal will include proposals to privatize some of what the state owns or does. The Republican is looking for cash to help close a $5.27 billion deficit without raising taxes.

And if you notice, it is a wide variety of states that are looking at privatization measures. Big government states such as New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois are looking at the benefits to maximizing efficiency by utilizing the private sector.

Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that such common sense will seep in here to Maryland, even if a small step was taken in August when the state considered privatization for the Seagirt Marine Terminal. At minimum, Maryland needs to be looking at privatizing the Maryland Transportation Authority assets as well as the assets and operation of the notoriously mismanaged Maryland Transit Administration. Such a minimal privatization plan will save millions of dollars for Maryland taxpayers, and provide taxpayers with better services at lower costs.

At the very least, Maryland needs to consider how we can maximize the use of our state owned assets to deal with aftermath of the reckless fiscal policies of the O'Malley Administration. There is an opportunity here for the state and its taxpayers, if the Administration and General Assembly can resist their default settings and take advantage of it.

Off Track

Think about how it must feel to be one of the thousands of regular Light Rail users who are being inconvenienced by the MTA, and then find out the situation was avoidable almost a decade ago:

The current shutdown of half of Baltimore's light rail line likely could have been prevented had Maryland Transit Administration engineers decided in 2000 to spend about $4 million on an electronic system designed to prevent trains from sliding on slippery tracks, according to a top MTA official.

Henry Kay, the MTA's deputy administrator for planning and engineering, said that as a result of the decision, Maryland's light rail is one of the few in the country without the so-called "slip-slide protection" to protect the wheels of its cars....

....Kay said there is no way now to quantify the cost of the decision in terms of lost service, additional maintenance, overtime and other expense. But he said there's little question the MTA would have been better off had it invested in the technology, which would have roughly doubled the cost of a crash-avoidance system it did adopt.

"That would have been $4 million well spent," Kay said.

You bet it would have been money well spent. Between the cost to fix the cracked wheels, the diminished revenue from diminished light rail service availability, and the cost in both time and money to commuters who are having to deal in a variety of ways with the disruption of service, this snafu has cost the taxpayers of Maryland a hell of a lot more than $4 million would have.

The problem is that, more than likely, the same decision makers who made this decision back in 2000 are probably still on the job here in 2008. But that's not even as big of a problem as the piecemeal way of addressing the problem that MTA Senior Leadership has demonstrated. Like all other aspects of transit planning in Baltimore, Paul Wiedefield and company have shown that they are not up to the task of running a safe, basic, and functioning mass transit operation.

While it is easy to see in hindsight that the failure to buy this system in 2000, we need to note this as a lesson learned and make sure that steps are taken to adequately plan for risk avoidance such as this for future projects. Unfortunately, I have no confidence in the O'Malley Administration and current MTA Senior Leadership to learn those lessons make such decisions with any competence.....

The Mess Continues

The Maryland Transit Administration continues to show day in and day out that failure is an option in Maryland State Government:

Thousands of Baltimore-area commuters were forced to abandon trains and board buses yesterday, the first workday disrupted by a light rail shutdown that closed the northern half of the system. State officials were unable to say how long service would be curtailed by a problem caused in part by the fall of autumn leaves.

Commuters attempting to take light rail between North Avenue and Hunt Valley were diverted to shuttle buses, which passengers said added as much as 90 minutes to the trip.

Light rail typically serves 30,000 riders a day - about half of whom use the northern stations.

So that's fantastic. Half of the ridership of the Light Rail system disrupted because the MTA couldn't adequately plan for Fall.

What's infuriating about this shutdown is the fact that it has been inherent in the design and operation of the system from the get go, according to the Sun story:

Problems with light rail go back to the original design and route of the system, which opened in 1992 under pressure from then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer to get it running in time for the debut of Oriole Park at Camden Yards. The northern section of the line follows a narrow, old railroad right of way along the Jones Falls Expressway through forested parkland before emerging from the woods north of Ruxton.

The problem, Porcari said yesterday, is that trains run over fallen leaves and can grind the wet plant matter into what he described as a "gelatinous substance."

Some somehow after 16 years, the MTA leadership still doesn't realize that this is a year in, year out problem? Or the fact that the computer system in place on the Light Rail trains has been in place for four years and they still do not have an adequate solution?

This afternoon, the MTA Follies just got worse:

The Maryland Transit Administration has referred a case to criminal investigators at the Attorney General's Office involving an employee who used keys to bus fare boxes to gain access to the collected money, according to a legislative audit released today....

.... Among its findings:

—During an 18-month period in 2006 and 2007, the MTA failed to perform maintenance inspections as frequently as required by federal rules on 66 percent of its bus fleet.

—As of January, the MTA had not performed a complete physical inventory of its equipment since July 1998.

—Of its 140 state-owned, non-transit vehicles, 39 were not driven the minimum of 10,000 miles of use on state business in 2007 needed to justify keeping them in the MTA's fleet.

The only finding to result in a criminal referral was the matter involving access to fare box keys.

According to the audit, the MTA did not maintain a proper inventory of which of the 34 employees responsible for collecting revenues had access to which specific keys. Nor did it record which supervisors issued which keys to each worker.

So, to recap:

• MTA can't keep it's system operating;
• MTA can't perform basic maintenance on its trains and buses;
• MTA can't keep it's passengers safe; and.
• MTA can't adequately retain its fares

I have spoken time and again about the MTA's incompetence. And I have to ask again why Governor O'Malley will take no steps to rectify systemic failures at MTA? Why does Paul Wiedefeld and the rest of MTA Senior Manager still have jobs? And why will Martin O'Malley take no responsibility for Baltimore's public transit crisis?

Another Satisfied Customer

Looks like once again the Maryland Transit Administration really steps up and makes us proud of our transit apparatus here in Baltimore:

We always ride the front car, thinking that it is the safest. Much to our surprise, this time we were the only female riders and were confronted by nine men using crude terms in front of us. All of the terms were sexual in nature, and they were announced in a loud and abusive in tone of voice.

After two stops, I went to the back of the car and called 911. The 911 operator attempted to transfer me to the Maryland Transit Administration police, only to give me a nonworking number. I called 911 again and explained that I felt threatened by these riders.

It took the 911 operator some time to identify whether we were in the city or county. By that time, we had arrived at the Mount Washington stop and an MTA employee boarded the train. At that time, the abusive riders bolted off the train....

....Over the last six months, I have seen fewer police at the stations, particularly at night and more riders jumping off the train at their first sight of an MTA employee.

And the MTA wonders why that, even with the earlier rises in gasoline prices, people refuse to ride Light Rail, Transit Buses, or the Baltimore Metro.

I have been chronicling for some time the general incompetence of the MTA, but this is getting beyond ridiculous. The state of Maryland, particularly in the Baltimore region, is not serious about Mass Transit. It is just a complete impossibility for Martin O'Malley and his administration to take the problems seriously when MTA Administrator Paul Wiedefeld still has a job. The private sector would never allow an organization this incompetent, and organization that seems to find new and creative ways to alienate its customers, to operate like this without serious and significant changes.

Since my optimum choice of privatization is not likely, O'Malley and Transportation Secretary John Porcari can start to address this problem by sacking Paul Wiedefeld and the rest of the Senior Leadership over at MTA. To replace them, recruit competent leaders from the private sector to get the system back on track, back on budget, and to a situation where people can feel safe on public transit. Without a feeling of security and safety on buses and trains, there is no need to expand the system and no need to continue to develop the system.

Without massive changes, allowing MTA to operate in its current state and with its current senior leadership is throwing good money after bad. When will O'Malley and company learn that?

Who Needs Freedom?

If you read the Baltimore Sun on a regular basis, you read a lot of editorials which are trite, juvenile, unenlightened, and asinine. But not many of those columns were as disturbing as the one in this morning's paper penned by Roy Gothie of the Maryland State Highway Administration. While Gothie makes valid points about the need to protect the health of the Bay, what he writes is a frightening vision into an O'Malleyian dystopia.

In Gothie's world, people only have property rights at the whim and call of the state:

The modern concept of property rights substantially contributes to the Chesapeake Bay's continued decline. At this point, tinkering around the edges of the issue with minor changes to laws and regulations will no longer be enough to save the bay. Only a societal decision to redefine an individual's rights regarding property can restore the bay and other critical ecosystems.

Developers, industrialists, homeowners and farmers have long assumed that the core bundle of rights attached to a piece of property exists to benefit the property owners. This is not exactly the case. Property rights are creations of the state, designed to ensure a stable, civil society and a functioning economy. Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.

Read that again.

Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.

In the warped mind of this state bureaucrat, your property rights are valid only so long as what you do with the land conforms to what the state decides is in the state's best interest. If this guy had his way, you would not be able to do anything on your property, property that you have purchased, property that you rightfully have paid for, unless the state allows you to do it in the name of the state and the name of the citizenry.

Rarely, if ever, has the Baltimore Sun ever printed such a direct and vicious assault on the American way of life than it has with this column. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that an individual who has such an anti-American, anti-freedom view of private property rights is, in fact, employed by the state as a planner. What decisions are being made by the State Highway Administration that deal with your property rights and the property rights of your neighbors? In what ways does Roy Gothie believe that the state can put your land to better use than you can? Perhaps it's time for a full and comprehensive investigation into SHA's land use activities

Private property rights are a basic human right, one that has been a part of civilized societies for thousands of years. Unfortunately, sometimes you get delusional folks such as Roy Gothie who believe that humans can't handle our basic human rights. I think maybe the state of Maryland should ship him back to Michigan, whence he came. We can certainly use our state resources better than employing people with such radical views...

Off the Needed Path

Somehow, the ever sanctimonious Michael Dresser seems to think this is a feasible alternative to a new Bay Bridge:

Perhaps, as a toll agency, the authority feels an affection toward its counterpart in Delaware. But the combined toll for a weekend jaunt to the beach using the authority's suggested route comes to $13 for a passenger vehicle ($5 for Interstate 95 in Maryland, $4 for the Delaware Turnpike and $4 for Delaware Route 1). Hardly an incentive to avoid the $2.50 toll on the Bay Bridge, is it? Here's a modest proposal: Shift traffic to the northern route by reversing the toll incentives. The authority could adopt a modified version of congestion pricing on the bridge, raising the rate at times of peak weekend congestion to, say, $10 (exempting commuters and other frequent users).

Then, when emergencies close lanes, the authority could jack those prices up to truly demand-dampening rates. Let's say $20. That's still a pretty good deal when the previous alternative was a ferry.

That's the stick. The carrot would be to refund tolls on Interstate 95 and other toll facilities to motorists who use those alternate routes to reach the Eastern Shore during peak bridge travel periods. (There are ways.) Once you have the toll incentives in place, you stop giving Marylanders bad advice on reaching the beach and instead provide smart directions -- such as cutting over to U.S. 40 to avoid the Delaware Turnpike.

So instead of building a new bridge, Dresser would rather create a confusing myriad of "solutions" of allowing people to reach the beach. Of course, the cornerstone of this idea of is to really jack the tolls up at the existing Bay Bridge, but like any good liberal he completely ignores local economic factors in creating such a decision. With so many people living on th Eastern Shore who work on the Western Shore, it would virtually create a new tax aimed specifically at people who live and work on opposite shores. When you factor in the number of businesses in Greater Annapolis and Kent County that have business relationships with each other, Dresser's cockamamie idea really starts to become absurd and unfair tax on Anne Arundel and Kent County residents who already can factor in existing tolls into their household or small business budgets.

Don't worry though. Dresser's silly ideas don't end there. Because when in doubt, why not spend more taxpayer dollars:

Here's how the authority could spread out the traffic and lure people away from the Bay Bridge: There are two stops along I-95 where many travelers already pause for a cup of coffee and a bite to eat: the Maryland House and the Chesapeake House. The authority could set up kiosks there to distribute "goody bags" including directions to different Delmarva destinations and coupons good for gas and goods and services at the beach and at businesses along the different routes. Throw in claim forms for Maryland toll refunds and vouchers to cover tolls along Route 1 in Delaware.

How about a stuffed "Cecil the Bridgeless Bear" to honor the intrepid beast who made it to the Shore last week without paying a toll? The goal should be to make the northern route the No. 1 choice for Baltimore-area leisure travelers (and truckers). That frees up a more costly but less crowded Bay Bridge for folks from Annapolis and Washington while taking traffic pressure off Kent Island.

This is useful dialog? I don't think so.

It continually and constantly befuddles me that a so-called "expert" in transportation like Dresser would continually propose all sorts of off-the-wall solutions, but not endorse the most obvious, most useful solution of all to Bay Bridge traffic....

Cleaner Energy through more Lane-Miles?

This is the kinda thing that, if it works, is really cool:

Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute have just done a batch of research that they hope will help turn the world's roads into cheap collectors of solar power.

They started with the assumption that asphalt gets frakking hot when the sun shines on it, and then started making some serious leaps.

First, they decided to figure out what part of the asphalt gets hottest, which turns out to be about two centimeters below the surface. Then they tried to figure out how to make it even hotter. The painted an anti-reflective coating to their test blocks, and then added highly thermally conductive quartzite to the mix.

The result is blacktop that gets even hotter and stays hotter for longer than regular asphalt. Of course, this left them with the problem of how to get the energy out of the road. By laying down a series of flexible and highly conductive copper pipes before pouring the asphalt they were able to pump water through the asphalt, picking up the heat, for use in power generation.

This is the kind of private sector innovation that needs to be encouraged. The private sector, working to harness the resources that we have, to address our power concerns. I love the idea.

Maybe we can get Paul Foer to be reasonable about supporting constructing more lane-miles yet...

The Bay Bridge, Traffic Safety, and the Human Condition

A couple of stories tie together here today.

First off, the Sun's resident totalitarian Michael Dresser wants to turn the Bay Bridge into Big Brother's Rumpus Room:

That's why there is nowhere in the state where the case is stronger for vigorous use of video technology to enforce the law. Not just to issue automated speeding tickets but also to identify other offenders who can be pulled over once they're off the bridge. I'd like to see a defendant in District Court try to explain away video evidence of tailgating.

There's also a strong argument that traffic violations on the authority's bridges and tunnels deserve tougher sanctions. If fines are doubled in work zones, why not triple them on the Bay Bridge and other toll facilities? (The Harbor Tunnel, Fort McHenry Tunnel, Key Bridge, the U.S. 40 bridge over the Susquehanna and the U.S. 301 bridge over the Potomac. I'd exempt the toll section of Interstate 95 because it doesn't raise the same issues.)

It wouldn't take long before folks absorbed the message that Maryland toll bridges and tunnels are someplace where you drive as if your mom were in the car.

Of course, what Dresser suggests is patently illegal under state law. And frankly, it's a bit Pollyannaish too. Only a liberal would dare suggest that the presence of a camera is going to deter insane or criminal behavior. If they did, the areas around police cameras in Baltimore would be the safest places in Maryland. Why is that not so? Because cameras can only punish the act. They do not prevent the act itself and thus do nothing to protect the public safety, as liberals like to suggest.

Using technology to catch drivers on the Bay Bridge would be no different, and would probably serve only one purpose; revenue enhancement. We have see speed and red-light cameras across the country installed in places where they serve little purpose but to line the pockets of local government, to say nothing of the fact that they create traffic headaches and likely cause accidents. Of course, facts never stopped Dresser from promoting nonsense before...

While Dresser wants to baby us, an article in the Wilson Quarterly goes in a....different direction:

In the last few years, however, one traffic engineer did achieve a measure of global celebrity, known, if not exactly by name, then by his ideas. His name was Hans Monderman. The idea that made Monderman, who died of cancer in January at the age of 62, most famous is that traditional traffic safety ­infra­structure—­warning signs, traffic lights, metal railings, curbs, painted lines, speed bumps, and so ­on—­is not only often unnecessary, but can endanger those it is meant to protect.

As I drove with Monderman through the northern Dutch province of Friesland several years ago, he repeatedly pointed out offending traffic signs. “Do you really think that no one would perceive there is a bridge over there?” he might ask, about a sign warning that a bridge was ahead. “Why explain it?” He would follow with a characteristic maxim: “When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

Emphasis mine....and read the whole thing. Because Monderman was right. The nanny state, in all of its forms, creates nothing but babies, people who cannot function without government oversight. Overregulation, overprotection dumbs us down. It's why kids who used to ride their bikes without helmets in the middle of the road to play ball at a neighbors house stay inside because parents are afraid of getting sued for a cut sustained on their property and overprotective parents want to dress their kids up enough pads before getting on a bike to take part in a jousting event. Is it any wonder kids are sedentary and show no interest in fiddling with things, and no interest in being outside?

And that is the kind of logic that people like Dresser wants to apply to the highways, and people like Dresser want to apply to every situation. They want to over-regulate to the point where nobody is safe. Sure, Monderman's principles on traffic control are revolutionary and perhaps a little too over the top. But are they really any different, as I noted before, from the laws of the Autobahn which has few regulations, but find those regulations strictly enforced? At the very least, Monderman's ideas appeal to our basic principles that the government that governs best governs least, and idea subscribed to by the majority of averaged Americas.

Finally, as a tribute to Monderman and finger in the eye of Dresser, I heartily endorse this idea from Donald Sensing:

So it's less polluting to drive than fly, right? And it appears that is is rapidly becoming just as quick to drive as fly on not only short-range flights, but increasingly on medium-range flights as well.

So here's my global-warming-fighting plan: significantly increase the speed limits on the nation's interstate highways. That will make driving rather than flying even more appealing, more financially attractive and less time consuming.

By "significantly increase" the speed limits, I mean to triple-digit speeds. The present limit in Tennessee in 70 mph. So let's reset it to 100, minimum.

Here, here. A plan that fights global warming, a plan that provides for greater national security, and a plan that embraces Monderman's idea for relatively unregulated roads. Quite Panglossian.

When can we sign up?

I Get Letters

Needless to say that yesterday's post about Paul Foer earned me a nastygram....from Paul Foer:

from	Paul Foer
to		brian@briangriffiths.com
date		Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:36 AM
subject		Thanks for all the free publicity of my ideas......

We've never met, yet you sure have taken an interest in me. I appreciate the fact that you read Capital Punishment, take me so seriously and pay so much attention to what you label as my "fringe left" views that you feel compelled to tell even more people about it--who then visit my blog. I think it's funny that you say I resort to "yelling" because I put a few sentences in bold. At least I don't resort to immature name-calling.

Regarding the Bay Bridges, you confidently feel that we'll alway have the energy available to power all the vehicles you anticipate for years and years to come. Okay. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand. There's plenty of it at the beach, so enjoy your next trip there...over two spans or ten....why not just build a fifty lane bridge? More bridges everywhere.....

It's bad enough that your views don't consider the tremendous changes we will are undergoing now, but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing. But you don't know me. You know nothing about me.


Paul Foer

Wow. Foer does realize that I am not promoting his ideas....I'm mocking them for their lack of foresight, thought, and reason.

If that weren't bad enough, he then tries to completely change the argument. At no point in my rebuttal of his post did I talk about fuel. Why? Because something is going to power cars. I don't know if it will be gas, ethanol, sawgrass, hydrogen, or chicken droppings, but the people of this country will be using cars. That's not going to change anytime soon. People have been using personal, land based conveyances since a minor invention 5700 years ago. If Foer believes that is going to stop, that we won't evolve to cleaner fuels, than he is even more naïve than I thought he was.

This is my favorite part:

but to attack someone whose views you don't like or agree with is just silly. Now you'll turn around and whine that I'm like the people described in "Liberal Fascism" or some such thing.

You mean like this?

No, Mayor Moyer, you're just a mean-spirited, angry, paranoid incompetent as mayor. You are not a bad person. Rough around the edges perhaps. Quick to anger. Not always warm and fuzzy. We can handle that. But please, we have a municipal government to run, a corporate body, and it just keeps getting worse.

Yeah, couldn't imagine how I'd find you a hypocrite.

Besides Foer. I know what your game is. You make money off of the transit industry, so naturally he is going to denigrate alternatives in an effort to put some money in his pocket. It kinda reminds me of this (warning, language):



Foer also makes money on boating, including gas-guzzling motorboats. So I'm not exactly sure I want to get preached at on the environment by somebody who makes a living on things that guzzle more gas than my Saturn.

I point out people like Foer because these are the people who think they know better than you. Paul Foer thinks he is better than me, better than you, and better than anybody involved in politics or government. In truth, he's just a bitter guy, mad that he wasn't old enough to be a hippie, so bitter that even reasonable liberals like Bruce Godfrey have trouble getting a meaningful conversation out of. I point people like Foer out because these are the people that are brining nothing constructive to the political conversation, and people like him need to be exposed for what they really are.

No need to wait to start building Third Span

Long before Sunday morning's tragic accident on the Bay Bridge, the need has been existent for a new span across the Chesapeake Bay. This has little to do with the accident, and everything to do with traffic, congestion, and public safety.

Well Paul Foer, ever the voice of failure and bad public policy, spouted off about how horrible that thought was:

It was not long after the recent fatal crash on our Bay Bridges (yes there are two of them as well as the bridge-tunnel near Norfolk) that some clamored for another crossing, a third span...yada yada yada...Okay-how often is there a fatal or serious crash on the bridges? Well they happen, but seriously, how often? Any more than on any other busy road? Of course the aftermath of tie-ups is worse, but does this mean we need another bridge? Sure, if you just want to build and develop and slash and burn, go ahead and make another bridge.

Of course, the construction of the new bridge has little to do with growth and little to do with development. Those are county zoning issues that are not impacted by the state. True, it may make the Eastern Shore more accessible, but isn't that the point of building a new span? Not necessarily for development, but to allow to improve the economy and to provide a more adequate public safety capability for the Shore?

I mean, does anybody really want to see a 25-mile backup on Route 50 if thousands of Eastern Shore residents are trying to evacuate to the Western Shore due to an imminently landfalling hurricane? Because even with a contraflow traffic pattern, five lanes going westbound would not be able to handle that capacity in an emergency, and if an accident were to close one of the spans during that evacuation the impact could be catastrophic.

Foer continues:

But we cannot build our way out of this one. The first crossing was in 1952 and then just 21 years later we opened a second one. Even if we could and did build a third to open in five years or so, would we find ourselves crying for another--a fourth crossing in the year 2020 or 2025? And we must ask ourselves that given what we can reasonably expect about the future of oil and all energy, as well as the environmental concerns, are we sure we really want to keep building as usual, imposing 1950's solutions on 21st and 22nd century challenges? If traffic is the problem and cars and roads make traffic, why would we want to continue adding cars and roads in order to alleviate traffic? Surely the argument is vastly more complex than I make it here, but we must really face the facts and ask ourselves if building more roads and highways is a viable or even sustainable option.

Obviously, Foer wants to talk about the need for a fourth span when we haven't even built the third span. As usually, Foer goes straight for the strawman argument that we may need to do more in the future. Well, not if you plan appropriately now. I have called for a six-lane span to be built at the current site, which would allow for eleven lanes of traffic crossing the Bay. And the span can even be constructed in a manner that allows multi-modal transportation options, including light or heavy rail, and dedicated rapid bus transit lanes. That's not a "1950's solution"; that's a solution that looks toward the future and allows for considerable relief options for transportation planners.

And if Foer wants to make an environmental argument, I say this: isn't it more environmentally sound for traffic to move at a reasonable rate than to have a five-mile backup of cars inefficiently spewing pollutants into the atmosphere?

Then, because Foer has no intelligible points to make, he switches over to yelling:

THE DAYS OF CHEAP OIL ARE OVER. EVENTUALLY WE WILL RUN OUT. EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS FRAUGHT WITH DIFFICULTY AND DOWNSIDES. HOWEVER, WE MUST FACE THE FACTS AND THEY ARE THAT WE CANNOT BUILD OURSELVES OUT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION. IT MAY HAVE WORKED IN SOME PLACES FOR SOME TIMES, BUT THOSE DAYS ARE BEHIND US.

Of course, we can build ourselves out of congestion by adding highway lane-miles to our infrastructure. Foer says we can't, because only because the thought makes him unhappy and he likes to pout. Obviously if you expand highway capacity, you reduce highway congestion. Even a third-grader could figure that out.

The ostrich philosophy of the left, that by sticking our head in the sand and hoping our traffic problems disappear, is problematic. We do not have a transportation infrastructure that can sustain the amount of traffic in the area, the legacy of the de-mapping trend from the 60's and 70's (something I wrote about three years ago). Not dealing with the issue, by not adding more lane-miles to Maryland's transportation system, we are doing little but to further degrade the economic, public safety, and yes environmental posture of our state..

We have the capability to do this, to not only build a third span, but also improve mass transit options, through privatization as I have long been advocating. This project needs to be started, and started as quickly as humanly possible.

Here we go again

Not that I want to continue to prop up the left wing through pointing out their fallacies, Eric Luedtke has decided that it is time to tax the middle class into poverty through the creation of a funding source for transportation projects other than just the flat gas tax. Luedtke's reasoning is as follows: people are driving less due to high gas prices and the O'Malley Recession, ergo we need to find out a new way to make sure transportation projects can be funded.

So is the solution to do the logical thing and cut discretionary spending to cover the shortfall? Of course not, that wouldn't fit in with Luedtke's myopic worldview and limited economic understanding. Instead, he has two harebrained schemes designed to take money out of your pocket:

One alternative is congestion pricing, at least around the urban areas of Baltimore and Washington. The idea is that you set up a series of concentric rings around the cities, and use a sort of EZ-Pass system so that as commuters get closerto the center of the city, they pay a little bit as they enter each new ring. Similar systems have been successfully implemented in a number of places, most notably London.

That's right. He wants to charge you to drive on roads that you already have paid for, roads that are currently free. Now, I'm not opposed in principle to toll roads, particularly ones that are used in privatization plans that either takes highway maintenance off of the state budget, or the construction of new roads through private funding. But Luedtke's idea of brining congestion pricing to the US is the type of statist idea that is anathema to our way of life and would be devastating to the middle class and small business owners alike:

A payment of £8 is required for each day a chargeable vehicle enters or travels within the zone between 7am and 6pm; a fine of between £60 and £180 is imposed for non-payment.

That's the equivalent of $16 per day to enter downtown London, and I'm sure that Luedtke's scheme would involve similar or even higher congestion payments. It is ridiculous and it is absurd to think that such a system would even be proposed by somebody who wishes to be taken seriously.

As usual, he ends with a gem:

So, in the near future, we're probably going to see a drop-off in money for new transportation projects and reconstruction of infrastructure. Unless the state's politicians show a level of bold leadership that's not typical of politicians in bad economic times. Fat chance.

But at least there we can agree. Until Democrats show the type of leadership that understands the need to cut discretionary spending on unnecessary social programs in order to meet our common infrastructure needs, or until Democrats show the courage to call for and implement privatization systems, our transportation infrastructure will continue to remain unimproved, and the oft-raided Transportation Trust Fund will continue to dwindle....

Rewarding Failure

The day after I point out once again the shortcomings of mass transit in Maryland, it looks like poor transportation planning will continue in the Baltimore area:

In a shift away from highways-first transportation policies, top elected officials in the Baltimore region have decided to direct about $340 million in previously unallocated revenue over 20 years entirely toward mass transit projects.

The action by the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board comes in response to protests from citizen advisers and transit advocates that its previous long-range plan, called Transportation Outlook 2035, was too heavily weighted in favor of road projects.

The board is recognized by the federal government as the chief planning body for transportation in the Baltimore metropolitan region. Its members include the mayors of Baltimore and Annapolis, the Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Harford and Howard county executives, the Carroll County commissioners and state transportation officials.

The money comes primarily from Gov. Martin O'Malley's 2007 package of revenue increases from such sources as the vehicle titling tax and corporate taxes. The added revenue from that package had not previously been factored into the regional board's long-range plans.

In a vote last week, the board determined that all of the added funds should go to short- and long-term transit projects, a shift in priorities that officials said reflects concerns about air pollution, gasoline prices and dependence on fossil fuels.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with what the Transportation Board is doing here, if it were not for two key points:

1. Highway Capacity: Anybody who drives around the Baltimore metro area realizes that there are a number of highway projects that need additional highway funds. The Beltway, Route 100, Route 29, and I-83 could all use additional lanemiles in order to meet the already existing demand for these roads, to say nothing of the demand for these roads by 2035.

2. Rewarding poor performance: It makes it very hard to take the Transportation Board seriously as a governor body if they are going to dedicated $340 million in funds to be spent by an agency that has proved that they are, in fact, beyond incompetent. While the money will not all be explicitly spent on Transit Administration related projects, suggested expenditures include additional MARC service and the expansion of the Baltimore subway line. Given the MTA's poor performance so far, why do local county government wish to reward that failure with the potential infusion of more capital for the MTA and its management to squander?

How long will it be before Maryland has adequate and responsible transportation planning? And how long before Governor O'Malley makes the necessary wholesale changes that that Maryland Transit Administration so desperately needs?

The Brian Griffiths Minute: 07-29-2008

The usual "high-quality" audio and video feed is decided less so for this show when even compared to the usual version. But hey, that's the perils of taking the show "on location":

No Kidding they're Sorry

The Baltimore Sun headline could have just been shortened to "MTA is sorry" as opposed to expanding upon the point, but the song seems to remain the same with the Transit Administration:

The head of the Maryland Transit Administration offered beleaguered MARC train commuters an apology and a series of explanations Wednesday for what he called six weeks of service "far below what customers expect or deserve."

In an e-mail to MARC riders, MTA Administrator Paul J. Wiedefeld disclosed that on-time performance during June had fallen to 63 percent on the Camden and Brunswick lines, and 81 percent on the Penn Line.

"Although some service disruptions are unavoidable, there were instances where we could have taken actions to reduce the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that you and your family, friends and colleagues experienced," Wiedefeld wrote.

So once again, the MTA cannot deliver reliable service to customers. Customers that are doing their part to reduce the amount of cars on the highways between Baltimore and Washington, but who can never seem to get any reliable service....ever.

Yes, I know that Paul Wiedefeld is sorry, because that's exactly what his job performance has been as the MTA Administrator. Why Secretary Porcari or Governor O'Malley have not taken measurable steps to fix the problem, and to fire Wiedefeld and the rest of the MTA senior staff is beyond me. As usual, O'Malley and company never take the proper corrective action.

When, oh when, is Maryland going to get serious about improving mass transit?

Taking the good with the batty

Noted lefty-loon Michael Dresser actually looked like he was starting out with something interesting and sensible this morning:

Tom Hicks knows almost everything there is to know about Maryland highways. He's 75, and has been the State Highway Administration's chief traffic safety engineer for 40 years. He's as frisky and energetic as a new recruit and isn't planning to retire "till I get it right."

Hicks is a passionate advocate of safer roads but not a by-the-book devotee of current posted speed limits. In fact, he's all for raising the speed limit on some Maryland highways.

"We're really somewhat fraudulent in our speed limits - like on the Beltway," Hicks said during a recent extended chat at the highway administration's safety office near BWI.

OK, that's a good start. What was next?

Hicks said that on limited-access highways, it's safest for drivers to go with the flow rather than stick to the legal limit. Based on years of study of driver behavior, he has a high degree of confidence in the judgment of most folks on the road. Except for a stubbornly fast 10 to 15 percent, he said, drivers tend to choose a sensible rate of speed - regardless of the posted limit.

"The motorist is setting a pace based on conditions at the time, no matter what the signs are," Hicks said. What matters most to safety, he said, is "relative speed." That is, the less difference between thee and me and all the others on the road, the better.

Hey, it looks like somebody is finally starting to make sense when it comes to traffic policy, speed limits, and law enforcement. And of course, it is a traffic engineer. It's nice to see that somebody who has the experience and the background on speed limits and traffic flow is speaking out so publicly about how bad state policy is in setting speed limits on limited-access highways.

Of course, never one to actually make a lick of sense, Dresser pipes in with his own poppycock:

My suggestion, for which Hicks is blameless: Increase the prevailing speed limit on roads such as the beltways, Route 32 and Route 100, but couple that with stiffer enforcement, including the use of cameras. Cut the unofficial police zone of tolerance, now 10 to 15 mph, roughly in half.

Next, establish 80 mph - or 20 over the limit - as the Line of Doom for Maryland roads. Mandatory court date for reckless driving. No probation. Big insurance bills. Big billboard campaign.

Yes, this is no less crazy than when Dresser floated such nonsense on Christmas Morning 2006. Of course, this is completely insane assuming that the highest threshold would be 85 MPH on a posted 65 MPH roadway. One can easily and safely negotiate most highways in the region that are outside of the immediate metropolitan areas at speeds of 85 or higher. Artificially limiting speeds at 85 will do nothing but exacerbate the existing problems. It still takes the judgment away from the driver and the police officer and immediately creates a crime that may or may not be happening at the time.

Dresser's cockamamie plan will accomplish nothing but higher court fees, higher administrative costs and, somewhat ironically, fewer cops on the street to enforce his silly idea.

The Racialization of the Purple Line

It looks like we are getting close to the point where the Purple Line in Montgomery County is going to get dragged down an unnecessary road.

To make a long story short, there is a lot of opposition to the construction of the purple line, and the Columbia Country Club is at the vanguard of that movement because the proposed course may or may not be on land that belongs to the club (yes, it's a pretty convoluted story).

Well, what first drew my attention to Eric Luedtke's post today about the issue was this:

The Purple Line is mass transit, and while mass transit helps everyone, the socio-economic group that most benefits are those who live below the poverty line.

Which, of course is patently absurd. Mass transit does not help everyone. It only helps people who use mass transit. Ask some of the folks who live near the Light Rail line if they have been helped by mass transit when it brought crime into their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, that was only the beginning. Because Luedtke then jumped to the assumption that it's a racial issue:

Now, I absolutely don’t believe that David or most of the other Purple Line opponents I’ve met are intentionally being elitist. But they are advocating for an inequity, in the same way that a person who is not at all racist can unknowingly support elements of institutional racism. And the Columbia Country Club, whatever its role in their effort, is the poster boy for that whole issue.

Emphasis mine. Luedtke makes the same fundamental mistake that Michael Dresser made in the Sun last week by assuming that opposition to mass transit is fundamentally race based. And this is a card that the fringe left seems to be starting to play more and more every day. The left is trying to make any opposition to mass transit not based on the need for construction, the route, or in this case even the violation of private property rights (well, maybe). They immediately assume that the Columbia Country Club and the people who oppose the Purple Line are doing it to keep minorities and lower socioeconomic classes down. That of course further clouds the issue as to where and if the line should be built, burying behind an unneeded haze of identity politics.

I really don't have an opinion about the Purple Line itself, but I do not see why the debate about its construction needs to join many other topics that have needlessly been impacted by race. The introduction of race into the discussion of the mass transit by Luedtke, Dresser, and others is unnecessary and just makes it harder to discuss issues where racism is a legitimate problem.