- Breakthrough study on environmental litigation
- Per-mile toll charging: a first step toward road user charges
- Why did some bridge projects get large federal grants?
- Microtransit wins in North Carolina
- Taking the California model worldwide?
- The (not so?) surprising decline of electric vehicles
- News Notes
- Quotable Quotes
Breakthrough Study on Environmental Litigation
Last month’s issue’s lead article discussed a new Reason Foundation study that presented empirical data on the extent of litigation over energy and transportation projects, that challenged findings of their completed environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). It provided data on the extent of project cancellation or delays to implementation, and it suggested that it’s time to reform what is permitted in the name of environmental litigation.
In July, a comparable report was released by the Breakthrough Institute, “Understanding NEPA Litigation.” Like the Reason study, this one also relied on empirical data, in this case, 387 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases heard by federal appellate courts between 2013 and 2022. This represented 56% more cases than in the prior seven years. One surprising finding was that agencies won about 80% of all these cases, yet the litigation delayed the large majority of the projects that were cleared—by an average of 4.2 years, with 84% cleared after six years. The cost of these delays was not estimated.
One of the study’s major conclusions is that “NEPA litigation at this level [Circuit Court] rarely changes environmental outcomes or protects environmental justice communities. Instead, judicial review of NEPA decisions largely serves as an advocacy tool for a small number of well-organized nonprofits to stall projects that align with their values.”
While the focus of the Breakthrough Institute is primarily energy and environmental issues, their dataset included 45 non-energy infrastructure projects, such as transportation. For these projects, the average delay due to litigation was 3.42 years and the maximum was 9.4 years.
Major national environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) constituted 72% of all the cases in the dataset. Their overall success rate was 22%, only marginally higher than the overall average of 20.4%. The report cites claims made by such organizations on their clout in challenging projects.
For example, the Sierra Club notes that it has “perfected the art of campaign litigation and lawyer-organizing,” and the Center for Biological Diversity claims that it “melds cutting-edge legal strategies and grass-roots organizing.” Their litigation is not focused only on improving environmental outcomes but also “to obstruct and delay projects themselves, often for the purpose of preventing the project from ever moving forward at all.”
The study also notes that “While project cancellation is not the intent of the statute, litigation represents a creative and effective strategy.” In addition, “these groups frequently contest projects that serve national policy objectives set by national officials.” Yet there is no available process for balancing local impacts with regional or national benefits.
This Breakthrough Institute report does not focus on potential solutions to the current extent of environmental litigation, but it does suggest that “the window for eligible challenges to environmental review could be shortened substantially without meaningfully affecting environmental outcome.” For a long menu of additional options, check out the Reason study that I wrote about last month.
Per-Mile Toll Charging: An Important First Step Toward Road User Charges
A recent article about the Pennsylvania Turnpike replacing its toll plazas with all-electronic tolling held a welcome surprise. Instead of continuing the historic toll rates, the Turnpike Authority will be re-stating its tolls on a per-mile basis. I don’t think they are the first U.S. toll road to make this change (and I’d welcome reader input on this). The initial passenger car rate will be 7 cents per mile plus $1.09 per segment, for E-ZPass customers (86% of the total). Those who are billed based on their license plate number will pay double that, reflecting the much higher cost of billing and collection.
Also, last month, an article in The New Indian Express explained something similar taking place in India. That country’s major highways, managed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHIA), are required to charge user fees, and since 2015 this has been done via FASTag, similar to our E-ZPass. But plans are under way to transition to a road user charge system based on GPS/GNSS, with an onboard unit required in the vehicle. Initially, one or two lanes at each plaza will be designated for open-road tolling based on the on-board unit. That will provide the system with the number of miles that vehicle traversed on the highway, from entrance to exit, and the charge will be based on that. This distance-based tolling will be offered first to commercial vehicles, and later to all others.
A debate on road user charging (RUC) is also under way in Europe, which is facing the same decline in motor fuel use as the United States. Europe’s problem is more complex than ours because, in most countries, the revenue from fuel taxes is general government revenue, not dedicated to highway capital and operating costs—and in most countries, the rate per gallon is three or four times the average U.S. state fuel tax plus federal gas tax rate. A second complication is that in France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, a large percentage of the limited-access system consists of toll roads, financed and operated based on their toll revenues and a large fraction of which are operated under long-term public-private partnership (P3) leases.
To the best of my knowledge, so far, there are no RUC/mileage-based user fee pilot projects underway in Europe (though several countries have truck tolling systems in operation on non-tolled highways). A February article in Traffic Technology International reviewed several efforts to move toward road user charges. In the Netherlands, KPMG has a project under way to consider extending the RUC for trucks to light vehicles by 2030. And Transport Infrastructure Ireland has begun a project called Better Road User Charging Evaluation to look into RUC options.
An informal group of RUC consultants called SPRUCE (Specialists Providing Road User Charging Expertise) is also discussed in that article. Member Steve Morello notes that “Ireland and France have [toll road] concessions that are ending soon. And the question is, what do we do?” Another SPRUCE consultant says the “many of the private road concessionaire are worried that RUC for cars will be a new tax . . . so they are afraid they will lose some of their concessions.” Morello adds that the dominance of traditional toll operators is a barrier to RUC.
This is a critically important point to think through. First of all, if the existing European toll operators convert their toll charges to a per-mile basis, they will become the pioneers of RUC in Europe, not an obstacle to it. Second, toll road customers in Europe pay current fuel taxes in addition to motorway tolls when they choose to travel on toll roads. If the new RUC yields about the same revenue per mile as the current fuel tax, there should be no diversion of traffic away from the toll roads.
European governments also have the opportunity to consider making at least part of the RUC revenue dedicated to the capital and operating costs of the roadway system, rather than leaving roadway funding to the politics of legislators each session. One of the SPRUCE consultants offers the example of Switzerland, where 45% of the fuel tax revenue is dedicated to roads and the remainder goes to the government’s general budget.
Far from being an obstacle to the RUC transition, Europe’s toll roads—public and private—can and should be the pioneers, helping to demonstrate the technology that will subsequently be implemented far more widely.
Why Do Some Bridge Projects Get Large Federal Grants?
Last month, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded $5 billion in a second round of grants under the Bridge Investment Program that was part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA). In announcing the grants, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said, “For too long, America let bridges fall into disrepair, which left people less safe, disrupted our supply chains, and cost people time and money—but now the Biden-Harris administration is changing that with the biggest investment in our bridges since the Eisenhower era.”
Let’s unpack that statement. All the aging bridges getting these grants are owned and operated by state or local governments. The states all get Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway funding for use categories defined by Congress, but the majority of state highway funding comes from state transportation budgets. The fact that the United States has a large backlog of deficient bridges primarily reflects a failure by governors and state legislators to provide proper stewardship of these vital assets.
A one-time bonanza of federal funding to a handful of projects does not address the underlying institutional failure to properly invest in maintaining and eventually replacing highways and bridges. To be sure, on average state transportation departments and legislatures have done a better job of increasing highway user taxes to keep pace with highway costs than has Congress. However, many states have rejected or ignored long-term financing of major projects, which means a worn-out Interstate can only be rebuilt in short segments over many years, rather than raising the cost up-front via revenue bonds and building the replacement over a short span of years. A bridge, of course, has to be replaced as a single project.
The table below provides data on this latest round of grants, which went to an odd assortment of bridge projects, from megaprojects to local ones.
| State | Bridge | Grant(s) | Total Grants | Project Cost | % Federal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | I-5 | $1.5B (+$0.6B) | $2.1B | $6.0B | 35% |
| MA | Cape Cod | $0.993B (+$0.372) | $1.365B | $2.4B | 57% |
| AL | I-10 | $0.55B | $0.55B | $3.0B | 18% |
| PA | I-83S | $0.5B | $0.5B | $1.2B | 42% |
| TN | I-55 | $0.394B | $0.394B | $0.8B | 49% |
| RI | I-95 | $0.251B | $0.251B | $0.265B | 95% |
| NC | Cape Fear | $0.242B | $0.242B | $0.485B | 50% |
| SC | I-95 | $0.175B | $0.175B | $0.350B | 50% |
| OK | US 70 | $0.124B | $0.124B | $0.251B | 49% |
| FL | Venetian | $0.100 | $0.100B | $0.149B | 67% |
| WV | Market St. | $0.088 | $0.088B | $0.175B | 50% |
| KS | 18th St. | $0.063 | $0.063B | $0.138B | 46% |
One has to ask: Why this set of bridge replacements rather than hundreds of others? Why such a wide range of the percentage of estimated total cost to come from the federal government? Could politics have anything to do with the selections? I will leave that last question for others to look into. But I also learned, decades ago when I first started doing serious transportation policy research, that standard practice with federal grant announcements is that the members of Congress (House and Senate) from the state and relevant House district get first dibs on announcing the grant, to enable them to claim, “See what I delivered for you.”
Once more: occasional manna from Washington is no substitute for proper ongoing stewardship of vital transportation infrastructure. States that follow responsible infrastructure policies should not need occasional windfalls.
Microtransit Wins in North Carolina
By Baruch Feigenbaum
The growth of microtransit in North Carolina has been a trending topic on both the right and the left. In The Carolina Journal, David Larsen discussed how “North Carolina (is) Leading a Public Transit Revolution,” while in The American Prospect Micah Morton Jones noted, “North Carolina Fuels a Microtransit Revolution.” Microtransit is an emerging transportation mode that can provide better service at an equivalent cost. North Carolina provides a good blueprint for how to implement such service.
For the past 35 years, North Carolina has provided state transit operating funding support for transit systems in each of the state’s 100 counties through the Rural Operating and Assistance Program (ROAP). The program can fund 100% of the cost of the service, but typically requires a local match. The amount of funding is dictated by the General Assembly and changes each year. The funding supports operations only; new construction or capital funding is not eligible. Only rural areas are eligible, so the cities of Charlotte and Raleigh cannot apply. As a result of the comprehensive state program, many counties already have a pot of funding to operate transit.
The federal government is a source of capital funding, which can help buy vehicles. The program which provides the most direct funding is the Rural Areas Formula Grant program that provides capital, planning, and sometimes operating assistance to rural areas with fewer than 50,000 people.
Both of these programs are discretionary. Neither guarantees funding. Local transit agencies need well-designed, efficient programs to receive assistance. New microtransit services are the type of promising programs likely to receive funding.
The city of Wilson, located on the I-95 corridor in Eastern North Carolina, is a good example. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it eliminated fixed-route bus service, because ridership was extremely low and the farebox recovery rate was below 10%. Instead, it partnered with Via to provide on-demand van service for $2.50. The advantage of on-demand service is it picks riders up at their homes or workplaces instead of riders having to walk in the heat or rain to bus stops. While transit ridership has been declining or flat in other places, Wilson has seen a ridership increase of 300%.
Other cities besides Wilson have contracted with private providers. Having Via or another private provider operate the service can decrease costs and increase quality. In the past, one rule of thumb was that contracted service could be 75% of the cost of equivalent service operated in-house, or 90% of the cost of in-house operation for better service. With rapid inflation over the past two years, the advantages of contracting have decreased, but the city of Wilson shows that contracting can provide significantly better service at an equivalent cost, a win for riders and taxpayers.
In 2023, nearby Johnson County chose a different paratransit option. It developed Quick Ride, a rideshare network where passengers pay a flat $6.00 per ride. Anyone in the cities of Smithfield and Selma can order a ride for a destination in the service area. The service also offers connections to the airport and the Amtrak station. About 75 riders per day use the new system, which operates with a $600,000 budget.
Let us examine the financial aspects of the Quick Ride service; the cost is $21.93 per ride. With a ticket price of $6.00 per ride, the service requires a $15.93 subsidy. While that subsidy is high, other peer systems have a per-rider subsidy of $30-$40. Further, the system only has 75 daily riders. Moving forward, Quick Ride wants to expand service to the neighboring town of Davis, which should increase ridership. If riders can be increased to 150 the subsidy would decrease more than 50%.
Other jurisdictions in North Carolina have taken notice of the success of microtransit. Five other jurisdictions: Orange County, Morrisville, Wilmington, Elkin, and Wake County have started microtransit. Further, there are 13 other microtransit services that have recently launched or will be launching in the next 12 months. Some of these services will supplement existing fixed-route bus service or replace bus service in part of the service area.
One of the challenges North Carolina jurisdictions face is the stigma of riding the bus. Most choice riders, (those who have access to a vehicle), and even some transit-dependent riders, (those who do not have access to a vehicle), refused to ride the fixed-route bus service. In many small towns, where folks tend to know each other, many residents do not want to be seen riding the bus. While this is a mindset that may need to change, for now on-demand transit systems, which are perceived as a more-premium option, have overcome the social stigma.
These new North Carolina services areas not about saving money but increasing service quality. Microtransit systems replace, and sometimes supplement, existing fixed-route service. However, with ridership increases of 30-300%, their per rider cost is much lower. Further, transit in smaller cities will always be subsidized. The key is prioritizing service for transit-dependent riders. And by offering service 14-hours a day and every day but Sunday, microtransit operate, not just during peak commuting patterns, but also during off-peak hours when transit-dependent shift workers are more likely to travel. Jurisdictions in North Carolina have found a successful model for microtransit. Municipalities in other states would be wise to follow their lead.
Taking the California Model Worldwide?
Readers of this newsletter have seen several critiques in recent years of California’s long-term plan to stop adding capacity to highways, shift more funding to transit and other non-auto modes, and densify metro areas to produce neighborhoods where people won’t need to drive to reach work or go shopping. The goal is to eliminate greenhouse gases from surface transportation
Could this possibly work? Several months ago I received, from the University of California-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, a summary of a plan that claims to show how to accomplish this. Checking further, I learned that this study was not focused on California. The project was sponsored by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy for application worldwide. What UC Davis released was simply the U.S. version of plans produced for many countries.
These studies follow a common structure, analyzing four scenarios:
- Business as usual, with gradual phase-in of electric vehicles (EVs);
- Electrification, in which the EV transition is as rapid as considered possible;
- Mode shift, in which policies lead to the “maximum feasible” amount of non-auto travel, and;
- Electrification and shift, which combines scenarios 2 and 3.
The key question is how realistic scenarios 2, 3, and 4 are, and what their downsides would be if actually implemented. UC Davis’s Lewis Fulton provided a useful summary dated March 11, 2024. Scenario 2 would have light-duty EV sales reach 60% of all vehicle sales by 2030 and 100% by 2050. To accomplish this, the study assumes that EVs would be less costly to own than conventional vehicles, have sufficient range to meet all driving needs, and that EV charging locations would be widespread. But even with those attributes, Lewis notes that “the main challenge would be convincing [all] Americans that EVs are desirable and meet their needs.” No mention here of federal regulations that would make conventional vehicles unaffordable for most people.
A much larger and more difficult approach is Scenario 3, Mode Shift. This assumes that personal vehicle travel in 2050 would be 25% less than in Scenario 1. Many people would shift to walking, cycling, and transit. What would it take to accomplish this? A major increase in density in urban areas—from today’s 12,500 people per square mile to 17,000 per square mile in 2050 is assumed. That would be brought about by legalizing up to six or eight housing units on all lots, eliminating off-street parking requirements, expanding public transit, adding protected pedestrian and bike paths, etc.
Clearly Scenario 4—all the above—is the study’s recommended way forward. The section called Action Plan lays out some of the federal, state, and local policy changes needed. They include:
- Increase taxes on conventional cars to make them more expensive than EVs;
- Subsidize a large-scale expansion of EV charging locations;
- Shift all transportation funding from roadways to transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes;
- Add bus rapid transit along all major highways; and,
- Shift existing fossil fuel subsidies to expansion of green electricity production and transmission.
This kind of scenario is not new. A major Urban Land Institute study in 2009, “Moving Cooler,” outlined a similar densification plan. A subsequent study by the Transportation Research Board, “Driving and the Built Environment,” found that a more-realistic approach to densification would reduce a metro area’s greenhouse gas emissions by only 1.5% if it achieved (an unlikely) densification of 25% of its land area. And a follow-up Reason Foundation study in 2016 raised many practical questions about people’s residential location decisions. Most families do not select their housing location based on closeness to employment, but based on an array of factors including (often) more than one employed person’s job, good schools, and many other factors.
Another important research finding is the relationship between a metro area’s economic productivity and the extent to which very good matches can be made between employers and employees. This is referred to as “urban agglomeration benefits.”
A growing amount of evidence finds that a metro area’s productivity is directly related to how many potential jobs can be reached in a given amount of time (say, 30 or 45 minutes). Numerous “access to jobs” studies find that in both Europe and the United States vastly more jobs can be reached in a given amount of travel time via personal vehicle than via transit or, needless to say, walking or biking. Thus, large-scale urban densification is a recipe for reduced metro area gross domestic product. One of the more recent discussions of this effect is in chapter two of Alain Bertaud’s outstanding book, Order Without Design (MIT Press, 2018).
The United States may be in for a natural experiment if California and a few other states actually try to implement the whole enchilada of policy changes recommended by UC-Davis and ITDP. The rest of the country will be able to learn from their experience.
The (Not So?) Surprising Decline of Electric Vehicles
Recent headlines in business media report trouble with the electric vehicle market. Last month, (all-EV) Tesla reported a 45% profit decrease in the most recent quarter, due to lower sales and the lower prices it’s recently been charging due to increased EV competition. GM announced delays in two planned EV factories—one for electric Buicks and the other for electric trucks. And Ford CEO Jim Farley announced that the company would focus more on smaller, less-expensive EVs, since its large ones are selling poorly. Ford’s EV unit had a $1.1 billion loss for the second quarter of this year.
What accounts for EVs’ declining popularity? A survey of electric vehicle owners by J.D. Power found that their battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids went back to the dealer for repairs at three times the rate of gasoline-fueled cars. And despite early claims that EVs would be low-maintenance due to fewer moving parts, etc., repairs and maintenance average more labor hours (possibly because mechanics are still getting familiar with them).
Kelly Blue Book and Manheim found that the residual value of BEVs after two years is significantly lower than that of gasoline cars, while hybrids held slightly more value than gas cars after two years.
Finally, when an EV gets into a collision, it is significantly more likely to be declared a total loss, rather than being repaired.
My engineer friend in Sweden, Michael Sena, editor of The Dispatcher, reported in the Summer 2024 issue the results of a survey of EV buyers by McKinsey & Company’s Center for the Future of Mobility, released June 12. They found that 46% of BEV purchasers say they will go back to an internal combustion vehicle for their next purchase. Their main concerns were about charging, the high cost of ownership, and the complexity of long-distance travel. Respondents were also upset that the range of the BEVs they purchased is considerably less than what it says on the sticker. They were also surprised by poor performance in very cold and very hot weather. Sena also reports the result of a different survey of residual value, by Cox Automotive, whose results paralleled those reported above—a faster decline than for internal combustion vehicles.
These may be short-term problems, due to the technology being new and charging networks still being rudimentary. But these findings certainly put down a caution flag for an expected total EV replacement within the next several decades.
Takeover of Texas SH 288 P3 Finalized
On July 30, the Texas Transportation Commission voted to have the State Transportation Finance Corporation (STFC) take over the State Highway 288 express toll lanes project only eight years into the 52-year term of the long-term public-private partnership agreement with Blueridge Transportation Group, owned by Abertis and ACS Infrastructure. STFC will pay $1.73 billion to Blueridge, per the “termination for convenience” provision in the long-term agreement. The successful project’s market value is considerably higher. The projected termination date is Oct. 8. This is the first state takeover of a successful revenue-financed design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) transportation P3.
Alabama’s Mobile River Toll Bridge Project Financing Decided
Alabama’s long-debated Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project will break ground next year with a projected 2030 opening date. The cost has grown to $3 billion, and toll revenue will be part of the financing package, with an estimated one-way car toll of $2.50. The financing package will include a $550 million federal Bridge Investment Program grant and a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan, which Alabama DOT hopes will cover 49% of the project’s cost.
Brightline Florida Now Getting Mostly Long-Distance Trips
The privately financed higher-speed rail service, linking Miami with Orlando since last year, has seen a large increase in customers in 2024, with long-distance travel now outstripping commuter travel in the West Palm Beach/Fort Lauderdale/Miami corridor. In June 2024, Brightline Florida ridership totaled 223,369, of which 62% were long-distance trips. To meet the increased demand, the company has ordered additional trainsets, with the first ones due to arrive before the end of the year.
Bonds Approved for $2.1 Billion Calcasieu River Bridge Project
On July 25, the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved up to $2 billion in tax-exempt revenue bonds for the replacement of the aging bridge on I-10 crossing the Calcasieu River. The $2.1 billion long-term DBFOM P3 project was approved by the legislature in January. Calcasieu Bridge Partners is led by Plenary Americas, with equity members Acciona and Sacyr.
Thailand Considering $1.7 Billion Highway Tunnel
The Expressway Authority of Thailand has proposed a 6.3 km tunnel as part of a congestion-reduction effort on the N1 Expressway in Bangkok. The alternative elevated highway section is estimated to cost $500 million. World Highways reports that an environmental study will take place in 2025, and whichever alternative is selected, construction would begin in 2026, aiming at completion by 2031. Bangkok’s traffic congestion is among the highest in the world.
New Zealand Think Tank Lays Out Steps To Highway Pricing
A detailed study by Matthew Birchall for The New Zealand Initiative think tank sets forth a five-year transition from fuel taxes to road user charges (RUC). The proposed Smart RUC model would give motorists a choice between an automated pay-as-you-drive system based on in-vehicle technology or a pre-purchased RUC license, similar to a system already in use for New Zealand trucks. The plan includes many interesting ideas. New Zealand is a small country (population 5.1 million) with no traffic coming across borders (as with states in the United States). So this model would not be easily transferable to this country.
Key Bridge Collapse Means $141 Million Less Toll Revenue
Several recent news articles reminded people that the Key Bridge in Baltimore was financed based on toll revenues, and the absence of its toll revenues means a significant shortage for the Maryland Transportation Authority, which operates a number of tolled facilities in the state. What I find odd about the plans for replacing the bridge, in Congress and elsewhere, is zero mention of tolling for the new bridge. There are no federal obstacles. In fact, Congress years ago specifically authorized the use of tolling to finance replacing bridges on Interstate highways, which the road traversing the Baltimore harbor is. So what gives?
North Carolina DOT Nears Decision on Mid-Currituck Bridge
Infralogic reported (July 19) that the North Carolina Department of Transportationis finishing up an analysis of how best to procure a new toll bridge across the Currituck Sound, to supplement the only existing bridge linking the Outer Banks to the mainland. The plan is for a two-lane 4.7-mile toll bridge. The study will decide whether a long-term P3 or a NC Turnpike Authority project is a better fit for the new bridge. The study is expected to wrap up before the end of this year. The latest cost estimate for the project is $1 billion.
Mass. DOT Planning Turnpike Service Plaza Upgrade P3
Like many other operators of long-distance toll roads, Massachusetts makes use of long-term lease concessions for the Mass. Turnpike’s service plazas. In leading up to a competitive procurement as current leases expire, MassDOT issued a request for information (RFI) from potential operators earlier this year, and conducted a customer experience survey. Infralogic reported (July 24) that the request for proposals (RFP) will be issued in late summer. Possible enhancements to the service plazas could include highway rest areas or truck weigh stations, in addition to the required EV charging facilities, food and beverage, fuel, and convenience store facilities.
P3 Risk Allocation Guide Released
One of the benefits of a well-executed long-term public-private partnership agreement is a better allocation of risks between the public sector (taxpayers) and private providers. Unlike traditional construction projects, a long-term DBFOM agreement must deal with both short-term and longer-term risks, assigning each risk to the party best capable of handling it. Since long-term P3s are still relatively new, risk allocations in some projects have been difficult. Now the Association for Improvement of American Infrastructure has released a detailed guide to this complex subject. It should be of interest to any government entity interested in long-term P3 projects and be of at least equal interest to infrastructure developers and their financial partners.
Johns Hopkins Researchers Take On Large Bridge Conditions
A team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University is researching large bridges near major ports of entry to identify other bridges that might be subject to a collision like the one that destroyed the Key Bridge in Baltimore. They will seek to estimate the likelihood of a ship/bridge collision and identify needed safety upgrades. The project, announced at the end of May, is expected to take a year, with some initial findings potentially available by this autumn.
Bipartisan Senate Bill on Environmental Litigation
The Wall Street Journal (July 31) editorial board supported a bill introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY) that, among other things, would set a 150-day limit on litigation challenging environmental impact statements—but only for energy and mineral projects. Any such reforms should apply at least to both transportation and energy infrastructure projects.
Colorado Express Toll Lane Violations Are Plummeting
As noted in an article in the February issue of this newsletter, Colorado DOT last year implemented a highly cost-effective technology that identifies toll-lane violators and generates a citation sent to the vehicle owner. A July 22 article in CPR News noted a daily average of 5,625 violations (mainly weaving into and out of toll lanes without paying) in September, when the system was first turned on; that average soon fell to 3,400 per day and by June 2024 was down to just 1,100 per day. Colorado DOT expects that the greatly reduced violations will lead to fewer crashes on the expressways with express toll lanes, but they will likely wait until they have several years of before and after crash data to do that analysis.
Fascinating Economic Research on Affordable vs. Unaffordable Places
The Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome has written a fascinating piece titled, “Remote Work Liberated Us from Unaffordable Places—and Might Do What Decades of ‘Place-Based Policy’ Couldn’t Do.” He notes an ongoing trend of people leaving metro areas with very high housing costs and moving to smaller towns where housing is affordable, and they can work mostly remotely.
Correction re: Texas Transportation Institute Congestion Reports
Last month’s article about the latest traffic congestion report from INRIX noted the apparent discontinuation of such reports from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). David Schrank of TTI emailed me to say that they had issued a 2023 Urban Mobility Report with data through 2022, and they will be releasing a 2025 UMR with data through 2024. Neither I nor my Reason transportation colleagues knew about the 2023 report, despite being on the TTI mailing list; nor had we seen any media coverage of that report. David provided the following link to their UMRs: https://mobility.tamu.edu/umr.
“The fairest way to obtain money for many infrastructure projects is to get it directly from the users. One good example is the gasoline tax, which replenishes the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, there’s no political will to lift it from 18.4 cents a gallon, where it has sat since the last increase in 1993. Two of the best alternatives for user-paid infrastructure are toll roads and variable-fee express lanes. States with fast-growing populations, including Georgia, Florida, and Texas, are embracing toll projects because they can’t wait for federal funding to expand traffic capacity. These highways shouldn’t be funded with Infrastructure Act money, and it just so happens that private capital is eager to invest in solid transportation projects. Booming cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, and others must stay ahead on infrastructure or face congestion that reduces the quality of life, which eventually kills the boom.”
—Thomas Black, “Infrastructure Requires Money; Tolls Are the Way,” Bloomberg Opinion, June 13, 2024
“So there we are. Rather than ‘brazenly seizing power from the other two branches,’ the Supreme Court has returned power to Congress, where the Constitution put it to begin with. The brazen seizing, in fact, was undertaken by the unelected administrative state, what even FDR’s Commission on Administrative Government called a ‘headless fourth branch of government.’ And that was in 1937; there’s been a lot more seizing since then. Of course, the political class likes the administrative state for the precise reason it is constitutionally dubious—because it is not accountable to the voters. Instead, it is run by people like them, screening their often-subjective policy preferences behind confusing nomenclature, complex procedure, and (often dubious) claims of expertise. Like anything else that is a threat to the political class’s power or prestige, a return to something closer to constitutional government generates fear, hostility, and— as we can see—over the-top-language. The good news is that nobody listens to the political class much anymore.”
—Glenn Harlan Reynolds, “Chevron, the Supreme Court, and the Law,” Instapundit, July 1, 2024
“Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda has it right: Fully electric cars are not the answer. Climate policy that mandates EVs is making the ideal the enemy of improvement. People will just keep their gas cars longer—and if you think taking guns is politically hard, just try it with cars. EVs appeal almost entirely to people who have plenty of money and don’t drive much. A contractor or gardener driving his truck around L.A. puts a lot more miles on it than a work-from-home screenwriter, but it’s the latter who is going electric—even with gas prices that look good when they dip below $4.50 a gallon [in California]. . . . EV purchases are motivated by a combination of ideology and tech lust.”
—Virginia Postrel, “Don’t Talk About Electric Cars!” Substack, July 8, 2024