Perhaps you socialize with more people in the public transportation industry than I do.  For you, discussing matters relating to public transportation may not be the #1 way to end a conversation at a cocktail party. For me, such attempts usually end with, “Oh, look!  Tom and Liz have arrived.  Excuse me!”

You do a great job of educating me on the issues that affect your market space. But let’s face it, these issues are not accessible to the general public.   I am always interested in how to communicate to the world the obscure issues you know about that affect all of us every day.  Like anything that has to do with infrastructure, it’s only provocative when it doesn’t work.  Since you do your jobs so well, it’s usually working, right?

In the case of highways, there are certain regions in which the system is generally considered “broken,” as defined by really bad traffic congestion.   Funny thing is, you in the industry can determine when any given system is likely to “break” and plan for it.  However, when the plan requires money, and funding options include toll roads or – gasp! – privatization, the public’s lack of understanding leads to an emotional uproar.

What is causing this unrest?  Is it a market that has not reached its threshold of pain or is it a lack of information?  Both?  Would communicating these matters in a more accessible, non-politically-motivated way be helpful?  These are questions which always interest me; can you tell me what you think?

What is your opinion of this video, produced by reason.tv and hosted by Drew Carey?  Do you think it is too one-sided to be effective?  Do you think it is successful in presenting its pro-privatization point of view?

The scene:  It is a steamy day in this Bold New City of the South.  Our main character, a forty-something woman wearing bright, casual walking garb and wide-brimmed hat, is enjoying a tour of stately historic homes dotting the riverbank neighborhood of the city.  While pedestrians and bicyclists meander from home to home with tickets in hand, children sell lemonade on the corner and porch fans spin.  It is a scene frozen in time.

Our protagonist emerges from one “shoes-off-at-the-door-please” manse, and takes a seat on the spacious wraparound porch as she waits for the rest of her party to emerge from the home.  She ponders which truth she should embrace: She Lives in a Hovel, or She is Incapable of Such Self-Indulgence?

Taking a seat next to her is a heat-weary gentleman with a cane.  This nice, talkative fellow turns out to be the homeowner taking a break from his hosting duties, something he can do as he is blessed with a gracious horde of volunteers inside.  The niceties move past compliments of his home and the fine taste of his professional decorator wife to the topic of work.  A retired doctor, he travels the country speaking at engagements, which explains his facility for making new friends quickly.  “The key to connecting with people,” he tells his guest, “is to speak at their level.  You can’t elevate them to your level, but you can get down on their level to make them comfortable.”  This will enable them to “hear” you better, he tells her.

She raises her eyebrows and smiles politely.

“What do you do for work, my dear?” he asks.

“I am an executive recruiter in engineering and planning consultancy as it relates to transportation infrastructure such as airports, roads, rail, transit and ports,”  she responds.

He sits up attentively: “What do you think of this fast train they want to build down in South Florida?”

Her amusement that, in this part of the world, Tampa and Orlando are considered “South” Florida quickly dissipates as she struggles with how to respond to this question.  Recalling that Southern ladies do not generally talk politics with strangers, she smiles and responds:  “Of the proposed lines in the United States, the Tampa-Orlando project is the most shovel-ready. They could start building it today.”  She thinks this is a nice, neutral response.

“Do you think the government should have to pay for that?  Do you think we as taxpayers should have to pay for that?”  One hand on his knee, one waving in the air as he leans in, she can tell he won’t be settling for her compact answer.

No calculations are required to determine this gentleman’s position on the topic, so she chooses to answer the question by explaining why the anti-high-speed-rail camp’s position is weak.

“People who oppose this project are not opposed to building it; they merely think it should be a privately funded endeavor, operating for profit.  However, they are not measuring our current transportation network to the same standard.”

“The costs of our road system are widely distributed.  We fund the building of our roads through tax revenue and selling of bonds, the latter of which is debt our taxes pay over time.  This cost includes acquisition of the land for the roads.  We fund the significant operations and maintenance activities of this road system through annual budgeted tax dollars, including security and safety such as the Highway Patrol.  The drivers — you and I — pay for our own equipment and for the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  We also pay for gas, tolls, our own liability through insurance each of us is required to carry and any parking costs at our destination.”  She pauses for the grand finale:  “Add to this the cost of defending our interests in oil-producing regions of the world, and suddenly driving doesn’t really look so cheap.”

“Assuming that the equation on the roadway side is now complete, there is no reasonable way to expect a private operator to pay for its land, track, equipment, liability, operations, maintenance, fuel, staff and safety, then roll that into an individual ticket price and actually compete on a per-trip basis.  Why?  Because the driving public cannot add all of the ways it pays to drive on the same per-trip basis; it’s not an apples to apples comparison.”

Her point made, she slides up to the edge of her seat.  She can tell she has his attention.  “We are here today because we obviously appreciate beautiful things.  What we have to decide is whether we want to respond to a future requiring increased capacity by building 20-lane highways — and bearing the associated direct and non-direct costs of that decision — or provide a dependable and dignified alternative to travelers so that they develop habits that will mitigate a future overwhelmed by concrete and cars.  That future is not only unsightly, it will continue to deceptively bleed each of us of our hard-earned cash.  From a long-term perspective, we are painting ourselves into a very expensive and ugly corner by not grabbing the opportunity to build this project.”

Silence falls.  He looks at her and squints, “You’re good, very good.”

He turns to her fellow tour-goers, who meandered into the scene as it unfolded, points to our heroine and says, “She’s good.”

They nod.

Curtain closes.

~~~~~ THE END ~~~~~

Who would have ever thought that April 20th’s tragic accident on the Deepwater Horizon would result in a months-long continuous flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico? When I wrote down my initial thoughts, the breech at the bottom of the Gulf was an absolute catastrophe in my mind, but no one else seemed to be paying much mind. I’ve lived near and played in the Gulf of Mexico; It’s one of my favorite places on earth. The damage this spill has and will cause is devastating to me personally on so many levels.

Perhaps our lawmakers “get” that, which is why it seems they are taking this disaster as an opportunity to underscore a clean energy policy push (remember, energy production is the #1 producer of greenhouse gas emissions, transportation is #2). The administration is no longer pressured to capitulate to drilling offshore to achieve a “climate change” bill, since there is no one who would be bold enough to push an offshore drilling platform in this context. Also, please note, I doubt you will hear the vernacular “climate change” associated with this effort any longer. It’s going to be “clean energy” all the way.

This still doesn’t tell me exactly what is going to happen with transportation re-authorization, but it bodes well for more sustainable policies. As long as we get there fast enough. Will we?

I am a little confused by these objections, because I recall that the pricing for the HOT Lanes was to be congestion based/variable, which, if managed appropriately should preclude a “back up at the HOT lanes terminus.”  On the other hand, I can absolutely understand Arlington’s desire to access the operational projections so that they can plan accordingly for the traffic which may flow into their streets as a result of the project. (It’s only mildly ironic that a more highly functioning interstate highway might cause inner city traffic engineers some panic.)

As for the perceived competition the Capital Beltway HOT Lanes will present for mass transit (and carpooling) proponents, isn’t one of the requirements of the project that high occupancy vehicles get to ride the HOT lanes at reduced cost (and in the case of transit vehicles, at no cost)? Is roadway P3 really in competition with Mass Transit?  I’d really like to know how much of this controversy is based on valid concerns and how much of this bruhaha is political fear-mongering.  Anyone on the inside care to chime in?