Cascadia Prospectus

Will more Washington roads take their toll on drivers? That's the question posed in the headline of an article written by Aubrey Cohen of the seattlepi.com today, and which quotes my colleague, Cascadia Center Senior Fellow Matt Rosenberg extensively.

Discovery Institute Founder and President Bruce Chapman comments on the issue over at Discovery Blog under the post "For Whom the Highway Tolls."

The country needs a general upgrade of infrastructure. Billions are now available through the stimulus bill, but still not enough. The emphasis on "shovel-ready" projects in the stimulus package, though understandable as a recession-fighter, is unhelpful when the need is for serious long term planning.

The seattlepi.com story quotes heavily from a recent Rosenberg article about tolling in Crosscut.

The first thing you need to know about KIRO-FM 97.3 News Talk host Dori Monson is that when he says he's "filled full of Diet Coke, caffeine and righteous rage," he's not kidding. Okay, maybe he's exaggerating a bit, showman that he is. Let's just say he's a high-energy guy and a strenuous advocate of fiscal accountability and limited taxes, as I was reminded yesterday in an hour-long session with Dori and some of his many listeners. We were discussing a proposal for a seamless system of tolled express lanes on the Puget Sound region's highways and major state routes, that I outlined in a piece recently published at Crosscut, titled, "Flexible Tolling: The Key To Solving Our Congestion." It was then highlighted again, the day before yesterday, in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article by their transportation reporter Aubrey Cohen. (Note the comments from State Treasurer Jim McIntyre, among other things, in Cohen's piece.)

On the show I outlined why we at Cascadia Center believe a connected system of tolled express lanes on major highways and state routes is one key part a of a future-facing strategy to help ensure regional mobility, transportation choices and economic security, as Central Puget Sound's population continues to grow - by about 40 percent over the next 30 years.

Here's the MP3 file of the hour; and here's the full transcript. For now, I'll leave you with my closing thoughts to Dori after what diplomats would call "a frank exchange of views." This has to do with the distinction between tolling only a few specific facilities, such as bridges and tunnels, versus a more comprehensive approach based on highway corridors.

Are bits and pieces better? Or is the seamless approach better? Remember the old HOV lanes? They'd end, and you'd be frustrated. Well, if we're going to have tolled express lanes, it should be in a continuous, seamless system. We'll get more bang for our buck, and better service.

Thanks, Dori.

It will still be a few years - at least - before plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with much lighter, more reliable and less costly battery packs come to market, at truly consumer-friendly prices and in large numbers. Why should we care if and when that happens? Because: It gets very problematic very fast when we get much our current fuel for passenger vehicles, bus transit, air travel, surface freight, and operation of construction equipment from foreign regimes hostile to our nation and our very way of life; regimes which not coincidentally may also happen to fund terrorism directed at us. Then there are gas prices, now creeping back toward three dollars a gallon - not good. Add in the effects of fossil fuel emissions on air quality and greenhouse gas levels, and stir.

Hence the search for more secure and green sources of fuel, from renewables-powered electricity, and - one day hopefully not to far off - widely available, second-generation net-green biofuels (algae, biomass, cellulosic methanol, anyone?).

As the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, today's popular hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius are able to run on electricity only when the battery is charged by the onboard gas engine or regenerative braking; in contrast, plug-in hybrids charge up, first, directly from household (or other similar) outlets, and when that electricity runs out then they run as conventional hybrids. They use less fuel than conventional hybrids, and won't let you get stranded when the charge runs out, as can occur with purely electric vehicles. Although to be fair, reasonable trip planning can obviate that problem with EVs, and efforts are underway to develop a public charging infrastructure for EVs and PHEVs - one important example being Washington State Rep. Deb Eddy's HB 1481, passed into law recently. Then too, some of the world's top engineers, including those at U.S. national laboratories in the Northwest, are continuing vital research into how peak-period demand on the electrical grid can be managed in the future, when many, many fleet and personal PHEVs might be charging, during after-work hours. At the same time, engineers are also looking at how charging durations can be sped up - particularly in public locations along urban region arteries and interstate highway corridors.

Despite the promise of both PHEVs and EVs, informed skepticism isn't hard to find these days, especially with respect to the plug-ins. Even from the quarters of our nation's highest-profile advocate of green transportation, the White House. Earlier this year, prior to you and I becoming majority owners of ailing automaker General Motors, President Barack Obama's advisors issued a "Viability Determination" that included this warning on GM's new PHEV model, the Chevrolet Volt:

GM is at least one generation behind Toyota on advanced, "green" powertrain development. In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt. While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.

More raindrops on the parade. The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog accented a recent General Accountability Office report warning federal agency fleet managers of the seeming risks inherent now in buying PHEVs; and even Toyota is wondering aloud, in the New York Times, about whether PHEVs will have a limited appeal, barring battery-pack breakthroughs.

But MIT Technology Review's Energy Editor Kevin Bullis warns not to dismiss too quickly the distinct possibility that PHEVs will have a transformative effect as the technology ripens.

While the Volt might not be the perfect solution to reducing petroleum consumption--for one thing, at a rumored $40,000 apiece, it will be too expensive to sell in very large numbers--it seems at the least to be a step in the right direction. Indeed, it represents an overall direction that the administration supports, as seen by its emphasis on plug-in hybrids....GM will likely sell all of its first run of Volts, even at their high cost (more than 48,000 people have indicated that they want to buy the Volt). And economies of scale and advances in battery technology could bring costs down, allowing more people to buy the car. The wait would be worth it. Eventually, plug-in hybrids could allow most people to commute without using any gasoline.

Even with "dirty"-powered electricity there's a net green gain at the tailpipe, versus an engine burning traditional gasoline. And if the electricity comes from renewables, as policy-makers and the private sector will increasingly seek to ensure, that's even better. Meanwhile, GM has opened a new advanced battery laboratory. Call it a sign of the times. But what about PHEV mileage? Some pilot program tests drew skepticism when miles per gallon turned out to be less than hyped. Turns out there's a fairly simple answer, report experts interviewed by National Public Radio's "Market Watch" in a segment aired just two days ago: achieving top-range PHEV mileage depends on driver education, and sometimes, making sure to plug in your plug-in when it's resting.

James Francfort tracks plug-in hybrids for the Department of Energy:

JAMES FRANCFORT: We've demonstrated the potential to get 100, 200, 300, up to 400 miles-per-gallon depending on how the vehicles are driven.

Trouble is in early tests, Francfort found plug-ins hybrids weren't necessarily getting much better gas mileage than conventional hybrids.

Paul Scott of Plug in America says it's all about teaching consumers how to drive the cars.

PAUL SCOTT: You have to obviously charge the batteries.

Some test drivers weren't, and that meant the cars relied more on gas. And gunning the engine does the same thing. So if the cars are sold without any thought to consumer training:

SCOTT: Well, in that case then people might not buy them.

But if consumers are properly educated, Ed Kjaer (of Southern California Edison) says drivers could change their priorities.

Stay tuned. This one's got legs.

As part of our recent Cascadia Rail Week, Cascadia Center hosted a gathering at Novelty Hill Winery In Redmond, where officials from the Sonoma-Marin commuter rail line recently approved by voters discussed their plans with supporters of Puget Sound's Eastside commuter rail initiative, which would use parts, and eventually all, of the BNSF's underutilized Snohomish-to-Renton corridor. In today's Seattle Times, editorial page columnist Lance Dickie, who attended the session, writes:

Connections between where people live and work are the essence of public transit. The 42-mile Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor between the cities of Snohomish and Renton -- including a spur from Woodinville to Redmond -- is ripe with potential. Or so it seemed in 2007, when the Port of Seattle said it would buy the line for $107 million and issue bonds to raise the cash. In March, the Port announced the sale was postponed because the nation's credit markets were frozen. In the absence of a financial thaw, the Port has not said what comes next. The lingering question of who will buy and preserve the right of way along the corridor splashes cold water on the excitement about a rail-and-trail combination between growing Eastside population centers.

In late May, the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center hosted state and federal lawmakers, mayors, and state and local transportation officials at meetings in Portland and Seattle to learn more about high-speed rail from Oregon's Willamette Valley to the Canadian border. They were also looking at how freight lines have been converted to multiple-use corridors that accommodate walkers, cyclists, commuter rail and freight. Portland's metropolitan transportation agency, Tri-Met, recently opened the Westside Express Service, 14.7 miles of rail and five stations.

Cascadia's template for the Eastside rail corridor might well be the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, which is installing passenger rail service and a 12-foot-wide path for pedestrians and cyclists along 70 miles of Northwestern Pacific Railroad right of way. John Nemeth, SMART's rail planning manager, spoke to a dinner gathering at Novelty Hill Winery in Woodinville. The setting was convivial, but the tourism potential of regional rail service is not lost on the local wine industry or the mayors from Bellingham, Leavenworth and Woodinville.

In California, from Cloverdale on the north to Larkspur on the south, the emphasis might appear to be on getting to a ferry connection to San Francisco. Instead, Nemeth said, commute patterns are changing to focus on population and job centers within the two counties. SMART is fueled by a quarter-cent sales tax passed in 2008 with 70-percent approval. Service begins in 2014.

According to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, SMART does face some financial challenges resulting from a downturn in expected sales tax revenues and changes in the bond market. The line's opening may be delayed slightly, or perhaps built to slightly less than the full 70-mile length at the outset. Many public transit systems, current and planned, face similar challenges at present. The solutions will lie jointly in an upturn in the economy, finding new ways to economize, and in some cases, developing ancillary funding tools.

For more on Cascadia Rail Week, read this informative summary posted earlier here at our blog by my colleague Mike Wussow. There's also this link-rich news coverage summary.

It's common enough to hear that we need more tolling in urban regions to help fund maintenance, repair and extension of highways (not to mention the time-saving benefits of tolled express lanes). But tolling in Wyoming, a.k.a. "Big Wyoming" and "the Cowboy State," population 493,782? What gives?

Here's what: Interstate 80 across Wyoming is wearing down, traffic is expected to more than double by 2037, and money is scarce. As the Interstate Atlas shows, I-80 is an important route to our Cascadia region, via a short spur to I-84, which then runs through Boise to Portland and I-5 just south of the border with Washington; in Sacramento, it also connects directly with I-5, the major artery defining the West Coast Corridor from the U.S.-Mexico border to the U.S.-Canada border. I-80 runs the length of the country, east to west. Trucks will comprise 57 percent of the I-80 load in Wyoming in 2037, up from about half now. Forty percent of the highway in the state is in poor to moderate condition, and 50 percent will need major rehabilitation by 2013. So, as the Laramie Boomerang reports, the state is already in the second phase of an I-80 tolling study that's looking at several options to fund current and future road maintenance needs. Tolling would be electronic, with vehicle and license plate cameras and radar detectors mounted above the highway. The main options are:

Operators could stand to pay up to $116 per truck in tolls to cross the state, according to the Wyoming Department of Transportation. Any more and they would tend to divert to other routes. Permission is required from the Federal Highway Administration to toll interstate highways, but this would likely pose no obstacle because the federal government simply lacks the resources its gas tax once provided for highway upkeep and construction, after four decades of steep growth in highway usage and ever-mounting maintenance and expansion needs. Tolling has already been allowed and implemented on a number of other interstates. And Wyoming's own gas tax, for better or worse, is a scant 14 cents per gallon and unlikely to be hiked by any significant degree. That Mustang won't ride.

Unlike more urbanized locales, the issue is upkeep, not that plus congestion. Wyoming's prescient attempt to figure out how to keep I-80 in good repair is a useful reminder that highways we may take for granted aren't free to maintain. The story also underscores the crucial role of freight in the economy. It's great to buy local when we can, but that's often simply not possible. All lofty rhetoric aside, we want what we want when we want it, and price matters. So, there are lots of trucks rumbling down I-80 through Wyoming, and many more to come. Take the same reality and multiply the traffic volumes exponentially, and you begin to get the scope, nationally. Moving more freight via rails is a good idea - and should be pursued energetically. But that too will take many billions of dollars, in this case for new infrastructure, and serve only a portion of growing freight volume.

In addition to evaluating specific in-state revenue scenarios, the study consultants - Parsons Brinkerhoff - will also produce a stand-alone memo reporting on outreach to neighboring states along I-80 (Nebraska and Utah) on a joint approach to tolling the corridor, and the possibility of pursuing a public-private partnership to help assure the highway's continued viability.

As for the main menu options right now, a first-phase feasibility study completed last October by Parsons seems to all but rule out the new, tolled truck-only lanes as too expensive, at $7 billion, leaving two other "all lanes tolled" possibilities. One - the so-called "baseline" alternative - would entail no expansion of the highway and raise $3.01 billion between 2009 and 2037, with the lowest annual maintenance and operations costs. The other would add a lane in each direction, with each inside (left) lane for cars only, and trucks keeping to the right except to use the center lane for passing. This would cost $2.8 billion, with tolling raising $3.21 billion by 2037. The feasibility study also indicates additional funds could be generated if a politically-problematic attempt to raise the state's exceptionally low fuel taxes succeeded.

Although the feasibility study is only a first-phase product and more detailed analysis including community input is occurring now, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the baseline alternative - with its $3 billion in revenues and lowest costs by far - will be the final choice. Maintenance and operations needs include work already forestalled, ongoing work with annual price tag of at least $25 million, and an every-15-years major rehabilitation and repair program that actually unfolds over the course of several years. According the feasibility study, that latter effort alone would cost about $1.1 billion in the cycle pegged to 2024.

Results of the current, second phase of the I-80 tolling study will be presented September 1 to the Wyoming legislature.

Today in Washington, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood unveiled the long-awaited guidelines that states and regions will use to compete for economic recovery funds for high-speed rail.

"The time has finally come for the United States to get serious about building a national network of high-speed rail corridors we can all be proud of," Secretary Ray LaHood said. "High-speed rail can reduce traffic congestion and link up with light rail, subways and buses to make travel more convenient and our communities more livable."

According to the LaHood's statement, the "guidelines...require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful."

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unveiled a blueprint for the next surface transportation authorization bill on June 18 to generally positive reviews (long version of blueprint here). However he left two key questions unanswered: Can the bill be enacted this year? and, Where will the money to fund the ambitious $500 billion program come from?

The first question has been pushed to the forefront by the Obama Administration. Last Thursday, Transportation Secretary LaHood surprised the transportation community and members of Congress with an unexpected announcement:  the Administration will seek an 18-month extension of the current surface transportation authorization. An estimated $13-$17 billion will be needed to fund the program extension.

For those who follow transportation policy closely, last week was an eventful one.
The week started with a June 22 release by the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee of its 775-page draft surface transportation bill, a "blueprint" of which had been released the previous week. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood's decision (also released the previous week) to seek an 18-month extension of the existing surface transportation law was met with approval by some, regret and resignation by others, and incredulity and defiance by still others. In seeking a delay, Secretary LaHood joined a growing body of doubters that the crowded legislative calendar - controversial climate legislation, contentious health care reform, a Supreme Court confirmation, among others - would permit the House and the Senate to reach agreement on a new bill before the current law expires at the end of September. Our first priority, the Secretary said, must be to fix the Highway Trust Fund shortfall so that money continues to flow to the states without interruption.

The urgency of acting promptly, i.e. before the Highway Trust Fund runs dry in mid-August, was reinforced by a June 22 letter from Governors Ed Rendell (PA) and James Douglas (VT), to the congressional leadership. Writing in their capacity as chairman and vice-chairman respectively of the National Governors Association, they urged the lawmakers to pass an extension to eliminate the impending shortfall "as soon as possible" so that states can continue planning for and funding critical highway programs. The letter left a clear implication that the governors considered ensuring the continuity of funding offered by Sec. LaHood's proposal to take precedence over a long-term reform of the program - especially given the uncertainty of finding the money to pay for the long-term program.

Further support for the Administration's proposal came from the Senate side.