According to Michael Shear in today's Washington Post (nice scoop, by the way!):
Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will call for new controls on growth and development Monday night, saying the only way to solve congestion on the state's roads is to slow the march of suburban sprawl.
The three main planks in Kaine's plan, which comes after weeks of town hall meetings across Virginia on the subject, are:
1) "...require developers to submit a standardized traffic impact statement whenever they request a rezoning. That would give the Virginia Department of Transportation and localities the ability to monitor the cumulative impact of development across the state."
2) "...strengthen the state's office of intermodalism, which is responsible for ensuring that people and goods can make connections between ports, airports, roads and rail lines."
3) "...convene a bipartisan commission to set measurable goals for spending on transportation 'so that we invest in the most critical projects first, ensure that the traveling public gets the most for their money, and holds elected leadership...accountable for the performance of our transportation network.'"
In addition, according to Shear's article, Kaine "will not suggest an increase in gas or sales taxes or offer specific legislation that details how he thinks the state should raise the new funds" in order to expand Virginia's transportation infrastructure.
OK, let's take these one at a time, with the caveat that details are sketchy. First, requiring developers to submit a standardized traffic impact statement just seems like common sense to me. How can you start building without taking into account how it will effect an area's transportation grid? Interestingly, home builders "stand solid in [their] opposition to that new authority to local governments," according to their chief lobbyist, Mike Toalson. Gee, I wonder why THAT would be? Can we say "ka-ching, ka-ching?" Well, I have nothing against builders making a profit, but not at the expense of the broader community, which is forced to clean up the mess those builders leave when they don't plan adequately for their new developments' transportation needs.
On proposal #2, strengthening inter-modalism, that is a great idea in theory, but it seems to me that the devi's in the details. Won't this cost a lot of money? Conceptually, though, it's a great idea that the transportation network should be a seemless web, with various ways of getting around - airplane, automobile, heavy rail (e.g., VRE, Metrorail), light rail (e.g., trolleys), bus, bicycle, and of course pedestrian - all linked together smoothly. Obviously, that is not the case right now, and that needs to improve. But again, where's the money going to come from, especially with no increase in the gas tax?
On proposal #3, this could be helpful, but I keep thinking about the old joke about how a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Not that there's anything wrong with a camel (I've ridden on one before), but if it's a horse that you want, perhaps a committee, or a "bipartisan commission" for that matter, is not the way to design one. I don't know, I guess I've been working in the Federal government for too long, but put me down as "skeptical" on the utility of commissions and committees.
So what's missing here? Speaking as an economist, I'd say there's a giant, 8,000 pound King Kong gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about: gas taxes. The bottom line is this: from an economics point of view, if the goal is to reduce "sprawl" and "congestion," then really what you're saying is you want to make it LESS desirable for people to live in auto-dependent, low-density development patterns. And you're also saying that you want to make it MORE desirable for people to live in dense, walkable, transit-friendly communities. If that's the goal, then as an economist ("the dismal science") it seems to me the simplest and most efficient answer from an economics perspective would be to change the calculus: in essence, make it MORE expensive to drive around, by removing subsidies (explicit and implicit) that currently tilt the playing field towards sprawl and the automobile.
The simplest way to do this? Raise the price of gasoline, which is what drives (literally) the entire trend towards sprawl and congestion - the oppposite of "smart growth." Move gasoline prices closer to their "true cost." And, according to a 1998 study by the Center for Technology Assessment, the "Real Price Of Gasoline" - taking into account all subsidies (tax, program, etc.) and costs (environmental, social, health, defense) is between $5.60 and $15.14 per gallon.
Obviously, raising gas prices to $5, $10, or $15 per gallon would cause howls of outrage and is probably a political non-starter in the United States. This, despite the fact that Europeans have paid $5 per gallon or more for many years, and their problems with congestion and sprawl are far less than in the United States. Just as importantly, European countries are able to capture far more "rent" from oil than we do here in the United States. In contrast, most "rent" paid by Americans, when they fill up their cars or SUVs, goes straight into the pockets of our friends in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, etc. So why not raise gasoline taxes and slash taxes that discourage savings and investment, in a revenue neutral manner? Basically, because at this point we've got huge vested interests (the phrase "path dependency" comes to mind) - road builders, car makers, oil companies, and politiicians who receive their largesse - entrenched in the system. We've also got tens of millions of Americans who've bought into the (heavily subsidized) "American Dream" of a house in suburbia, fueled by cheap gas and open roads as a God-given birthright. Stalemate.
So, where does that leave us? Basically, with nibbling around the edges as the best we can do, looking for relatively minor improvements in the current system, absent a major crisis or two that shakes us out of our inertia. You know, something like 9/11 attacks by a bunch of Saudis (coincidence? I think not!), combined with a huge threat to the world's environment such as global warming. Uhhhhh...excuse me, but haven't both of those knocked us upside the head the past few years? And if so, why haven't we launched a massive, nationwide, "Apollo Project" effort to get ourselves off of oil, for both geopolitical ("geo") and environmental ("green") reasons? (quick answer: Dick Cheney). At the minimum, isn't it time for a serious, comprehensive reassessment of the costs of sprawl in a time of war? A war, I might point out, that has its roots in U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Or, should we simply continue to nibble around the edges?
Anyway, the bottom line is that Tim Kaine is making a good start here, certainly within the "art of the possible" given the poltiical forces at work in Virginia, circa 2006. And Kaine should be commended for it, particularly the fact that he's put so much poltiical capital into this so early in his governorship. That demonstrates both courage and leadership. Having said that, if anyone thinks that commissions, intermodalism and enhanced zoning authority will solve our transportation, environmental, energy, and related problems, I've got some nice oil fields in Iraq to sell them! Frankly, without addressing the underlying economics of sprawl and gridlock - namely, heavily subsidized auto transportation (gasoline at $2 per gallon remains extraordinarily cheap compared to other industrialized nations) while severely shortchanging the alternatives (high-speed rail, "smart growth") - we're simply not going to solve our problems.
Will Tim Kaine turn out to be the "Smart Growth Governor?" He's certainly making a good start, but there's lots more work to be done. Here's a deal: a slowly phased in but steap increase in gasoline taxes in exchange for an (also slowly phased in) massive and equal cuts in taxes on savings and investment income. A political non-starter? I don't know, but analysts from Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, Robert Samuelson, Gary Becker, the New York Times, to the International Center for Technology Assessment, and many others agree.