Virginia Fines: Right or Wrong?

There has been tremendous coverage in the last month regarding Virginia's new fines for reckless driving and other lawbreaking on the roads.
(A list of the exact fines can be found in this Washington Post article)
(More: ABC News story, Marc Fisher column, list of many articles)

Recent articles have all covered the outcry and rage--seemingly unanimous, or at least widespread--over the outrageousness of these fines. What is much harder to measure, but I believe exists to a great degree, is the support from hundreds of thousands of safe drivers in Virginia. Let the record state that I support strong fines for reckless driving and other unsafe behavior. I am not the slightest bit outraged, because I have absolutely no concern that I will ever be subject to one of these fines, and if they serve to keep people focused on their driving behavior, then good.

I agree that the legislature should look at making improvements to the law. It ought to include out-of-state drivers, too. It doesn't make much sense that a speeding VA driver is somehow more dangerous than a speeding Maryland driver who happens to be in Virginia.

Judges should be given a little leeway to make decisions about those (sarcasm alert!) hundreds of pregnant women rushing to hospitals.

Finland has a progressive system in which fines are pegged to income. There's a certain elegance to this idea, essentially penalizing people with more equal amounts of pain ($300,000/year lawyer fined $3,000; $42,000/year teacher fined $420). Back in 2004, Dr. Gridlock came out opposed to this idea, and despite its appeal to fairness, I think it would be politically impossible in the US.

Is this how we should fund our transportation improvements? Probably not, although having the fines go to providing people with safer alternatives to driving is certainly a good place to put the fine dollars.
There's the odd inverse relationship between success (more safe driving) and funding. If hugely successful at deterring bad driving, the amount of money collected would plummet, and we'd have to go back and figure out something else--something more dependable and regular. As I mentioned in my post the other day, a more direct relationship between use of the system and funding would be better, i.e., tolls and congestion charges that charge people for using the roads.

Mary Peters: The Folly of Higher Gas Prices

Today's (Saturday, August 25) Washington Post included an op-ed by US Dept. of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters (who was just mentioned for other reasons on this blog the other day). Her key point is that raising gas taxes to improve transportation infrastructure (which has been raised in the public's consciousness since the bridge collapse in Minnesota) is the wrong strategy. She cites a couple of reasons:

1) Because the money is deposited into a federal trust fund, its allocation becomes politicized, and Congress is apt to skew the priorities for its use. I would tend to agree with this point.

2) It does little or nothing to reduce traffic congestion, because it does not dissuade people from driving during congested times or on congested roadways. I partially agree. Large gas taxes would push people towards smaller cars and also get them to think about using them less, but it wouldn't necessarily affect congestion. Small increases in the gas tax would probably make little difference.

I am in favor of raising gas prices, but for different reasons and in a different way. Burning gasoline creates environmental damage. Gas taxes could be used more appropriately to offset the damage caused by their use by being used for environmental protection. A better strategy in my mind is that gas taxes could replace wage taxes. The taxes collected would be used to reduce wage taxes. This works well for progressivity of tax policy, because rich tend to buy more gas and poor pay more in wage taxes.

Her key point is that we currently provide virtually all of our roadways for free. Any free good will tend to be overutilized. The infrastructure itself should be priced rather than the gas. I completely agree with this point. If people and businesses were charged for the use of the roads--more during congested times; possibly more for larger, more damaging vehicles--then they would start to make decisions based on their use. That's the idea behind congestion pricing (another recent blog): charge people for their use. If we tolled every road then a lot more people would choose to take the train or bus or ride their bike or otherwise think a bit harder before hopping in their car and driving.

Our New Hybrid: Update #2

As I mentioned in my June post, Arlington County passed a tax break for residents who own hybrid vehicles. I am pleased to report that we have received our personal property tax bill for this year and--just as hoped for--our bill was reduced by $750 because of the break. What would have been a $898 tax bill is only $148.

I must admit that this is an unexpected windfall. At the time we bought the car we were not aware that the county was considering this idea. We are, of course, happy about it.

EPA has now updated their www.fueleconomy.gov website to include the new MPG ratings, which are more representative of real-world driving. It shows our Camry as 34 MPG combined, which is much closer to our experience, instead of the official 39.

Here are the revised fuel efficiency ratings for the cars that qualify for the tax break.

And here are some of the highest mileage 2007 model year cars for comparison (2008 data are not all available yet). Hybrids that qualify are bolded.

Amber Waves of Grain

Today's Washington Post published an article about how surging interest in ethanol as an alternative fuel may increase pollutant flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The crux of the article is that demand for ethanol is causing more farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to plant corn instead of other crops. Corn tends to be more fertilizer intensive, so more fertilizer flows off the fields and eventually ends up in the Bay.

For me, I think the message that keeps reverberating is that there are no silver bullets. Alternative fuels can play a role in helping us toward sustainability, but we have to pursue all paths: more efficient vehicles, better transit services, more well planned communities, etc.

Bike to Work Day Success Story

This morning at the end of my bi-weekly commute to Silver Spring, another sweaty cyclist was sitting in front of my building, clearly having just finished his commute, too. We introduced ourselves and he asked where I bike from. I told him Arlington. He raised his eyebrows and said, "Me, too." (He is now the 5th person I have met in the last three months who bike commutes between Arlington and Montgomery County.) We swapped stories.

His story was that he decided to try out the commute for Bike to Work Day this last May. That convinced him that it was doable on a daily basis. He went out and bought a bike to meet his commuting needs, and now he's an every day commuter.

This was exciting for me to hear. Having participated in BTWD for a long time, I had the sense that everyone was already a bike commuter. It's nice to see--at least for this one commuter--that it was a catalyst for him to become a regular.

The Air We Breathe

Sunday's Washington Post Commuter Page (Page 2 in the Metro section) had a nice discussion of air quality. I have not been able to find it online; evidently it is only in the print edition.

The most striking visual on the page was a graph that showed the comparative emissions across several types of vehicles. Here are the numbers from the table but without the visual impact of the chart:

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in grams/mile:
Light-duty hybrid (Prius, Civic hybrid) 0.02
Passenger car (Camry, Accord, Malibu) 0.10
Light-duty truck 2 (Cherokee, Caravan, Sienna) 0.30
Light-duty truck 4 (F-150, Sequoia, Land Rover) 0.60
Heavy-duty truck (Hummer, RVs) 0.90

That means it would take 5 carpoolers in a regular passenger car before the emissions would be equal to 5 Priuses or 15 passengers in a minivan to equal 15 Civic hybrids. A big SUV emits 30 times as much ozone-causing pollution per mile than a hybrid! A Hummer 45 times as much!

This table makes it clear that increasing the fleet of hybrid vehicles in our area, particularly if they are replacing other vehicles, would make a big dent in our air quality problems. In fact, DC is doing well with hybrid ownership, double the national average (link). Much of this has been driven by the HOV exemption for clean vehicles, prompting some drivers to invest in hybrids in order to be able to drive on the HOV lanes. This year, also, Arlington County has introduced a tax break for people to buy hybrid vehicles.

These seem like good policies as we strive to improve regional air quality. There has been controversy about whether the clean-vehicle exemption for HOV should be terminated. I think this information supports the position to keep it in place, since 3 single-occupant Priuses only emit 60% or less emissions than a car (or worse, an SUV or minivan) with three passengers. Some parties believe the exemption should end, because too many single-occupant vehicles will clog the carpool lanes. I will only be convinced after much more aggressive efforts, including much higher fines, are taken to eliminate the HOV violators, who I see all the time on I-66.

Keep in mind that owners of these vehicles are contributing to better air quality with 100% of the miles they drive, even though only 15% - 50% of their driving might be on HOV lanes, so it is in the interest of all who want cleaner air to encourage more purchasing of cleaner cars.

(In the interest of disclosure, I own a Toyota Camry hybrid, but do not have the requisite license plates to drive in the HOV lanes. I also have a personal interest in improving air quality, because my daughter suffers from asthma.)

Our New Hybrid: An Update

Back in March I posted about our brand new 2007 hybrid Toyota Camry. It looks silver, but it is actually "titanium!" We've now driven it about 1800 miles, and I have a report.

It has some cool features. Probably the coolest is the "smart" key that allows you to unlock, start and drive the car without ever taking the key out of your pocket or purse. Once you start using a smart key, you'll wish you had one for your house, too. Also, the hands-free Bluetooth connection to your cell phone is a nice convenience and safety feature.

However, the most important feature, fuel economy, has been a big disappointment. We've averaged only about 31 miles per gallon--no better than lots of economy vehicles that are not hybrids. I still feel good that the air quality emissions are much better than the vast majority of vehicles--especially since the DC area has such poor air quality, but I've not been impressed with the mileage. Because the vehicle has regenerative braking and often shuts down instead of idling, it's supposed to be better in city driving, which is the vast majority of what we do. That has not been our experience. We did pretty well on our one road trip to Philadelphia. Our highway mileage was over 40 mpg, and our total trip including the city driving while we were there averaged about 36-37 mpg.

The web site keeps a database of fuel efficiency for the various hybrids. Our mileage is in the bottom 10% of the Camry hybrids reporting there (average is 37 mpg). So, why? I think it's because of the short trips that we take. For mosts trips of under 3 miles it is very difficult to get the car to average above 30 mpg for that trip (oh, yeah, another feature is that it tells you your fuel efficiency for every trip at the end of that trip). It doesn't do well for the first couple of miles. Probably 60% - 70% of our trips are shorter than 3 miles.

The good news is that shortly after we purchased it, Arlington County adopted a tax break for hybrid cars, so we'll save several hundred dollars on our personal property tax this year, which will more than make up for the difference in fuel economy that I had hoped for and what we are actually getting. It won't, however, make up for the greenhouse gas emissions I had hoped we would be reducing.

What's Your Price

Today's Washington Post reported on a joint Post/ABC poll that asked people how current high gas prices are affecting or will affect their driving habits. Only 11 percent said that current prices would curtail their driving in the coming weeks. In fact, gasoline consumption is up 2.6% over the same week as last year.

I find it interesting that the price at which people say they will start to make changes is always about $0.50 - $1 higher than whatever the price is now. However, I believe that most people can only make changes on the margins in the short term (moving, buying a new car, etc. are long-term changes that are also freighted with many other factors). Jackson Landers blogs today about his situation, which is not that atypical for much of America. In the DC area, more people have more choices than he does, but it's not all that much better.

Trying to change our "addiction to oil" cannot be done by raising fuel prices alone. $5 or $6 gas will not change the driving habits of most people very much. It will probably start to change their buying habits; however, even that has only a limited effect. With the advent of leasing over the last decade or two, the people who are most likely to be affected by higher gas prices are actually buying used cars--not new ones. Rich people buy new cars, and they are less influenced by gas prices than by gadgets like navigation systems, safety features, style, etc. Manufacturers don't manufacture cars for the used-car buyers; they manufacture them for the new car buyers.

As much as I like the idea of using economics (I have an MBA after all) to move markets, the only good solution to our oil addiction in the transportation arena is to drastically and rapidly increase fuel efficiency standards. Unfortunately, that has proven to be politically impossible for more than two decades. Good luck, and drive safely this weekend.

Airport Story (A HOT Allegory)

Recently I was flying back to DC and had this conversation with my seatmate:
Me: Hi; I'm Steve.
Him: Pleased to meet you; I'm James.
Me: This looks bad. I see about eight planes ahead of us for takeoff. It'll probably take 20 minutes just to get off the ground.
Him: No kidding. I've noticed this is common on Thursdays.
Me: I see that this airport has two parallel takeoff runways to handle more traffic. That seems like a good idea.
(We observe a plane taxi onto the parallel runway and take off without waiting)
Me: Hey! Why didn't that plane have to get in line? Some congressman on board I presume.
Him: (chuckling) Possibly! Actually, I'm from here, and they have some interesting restrictions they've put in place for that runway.
Me: Really? Like what?
Him: Well, the other runway is reserved just for planes with certain fuel efficiency and load factors. There's never a wait on that runway like we have on this one.
Me: That's not a bad idea. I presume it would encourage airlines to improve their fleets and their operational efficiency if they know they can improve their on-time performance by not having to wait in line.
(A plane in our line takes off.)
Him: True. But it seems sort of silly right now with us waiting behind seven more planes while that runway is just waiting to be used.
Me: Well, how much does it get used?
Him: Some of the time it gets good use, but there's also some unused waiting time like now, too.
(Five minutes go by; two more planes ahead of us take off.)
Him: I often wonder why don't they let some of the planes in our queue use that runway when there are gaps like now?
Me: Yeah, like us! Wouldn't it be great if our pilot just cut out of line and took off. I'm getting a little tired of waiting.
(Another plane in our line takes off.)
Him: In fairness, maybe they could come up with a system. Airlines that paid an extra fee could get first priority to use the empty takeoff slots. Airlines that want to improve their on-time performance could pay the extra; those that don't care so much could use this one.
Me: That doesn't seem fair somehow. People with more money get some special treatment or something?
Him: I don't know. If I want to pay an extra $10 for my ticket to have a better chance of getting where I'm going on time, I might do that--particularly if I'm trying to get to an important meeting. Can you think of another way?
Me: How about planes with passengers who have names that start with "S?" I'd like that!
(Another plane ahead of us takes off. Line is down to four.)
Him: "S" or "J!"
Me: Wouldn't every airline just start paying the fee, and then that runway would be just as crowded as this one and there would be no incentive for the airlines to improve performance?
Him: Air traffic control could make sure that the taxiway for that runway has no line, so any of the preferred planes would be able to take off without delay, just like now. And obviously they still get to use that one for free. It wouldn't take long to figure out the prices to charge to control the traffic flow on that runway.
(Another plane in our queue takes off.)
Him: And, you know, our line would be shorter now, too, if a couple of planes ahead of us had been able to use that runway over there. Whatever the system, though, what we're doing right now--making everybody wait while that runway is not being used--is stupid.
Me: No kidding. Everyone would get where they're going faster. Hey! I just remembered; I'm an environmentalist. It would sure save some jet fuel if these planes weren't just sitting in this queue waiting to take off.
Him: Another good point.
(Another plane taxis onto the parallel runway and takes off without delay.)
Me: Good thing I've got my book with me. I guess I'll get an extra chapter or two read today.

Him: Enjoy.
=====================
(this is a fictional story intended to make an analogy about the value of HOT lanes)

What is Wrong Here

I'm getting ready to participate in Bike to Work Day, as I've done every year for the last decade or so, if I haven't been traveling out of town. I came across this nice idea on the BikeArlington site: you can borrow a bike for free to use for Bike to Work Day. Bike the Sites is making them available at the Bike Oasis. Unfortunately, neither of their web sites, nor the WABA web site mentions this great opportunity, so I'm not sure how people will find out about it.

So I'm looking at the Bike Oasis web site and I noticed their pricing: $7/hr & $35/day for a comfort bike; $10/hr & $50/day for other bikes.

Something seems wrong to me here. About 6-8 times a year I go to Enterprise and rent a car for $17/day over the weekend. I can rent it all weekend and pay for gas for under $50. Even on a weekday I can usually get a $35/day rate. That's to rent a $17,000 car. How can it cost just as much to rent a $650 bicycle? If I have a family of 3, am I going to spend $150 to rent 3 hybrids for a day? Even just 3 hours on the comfort bikes would set me back $63. . .and I'd be checking my watch to make sure I get back before the 3 hours are up so it doesn't cost me another $21.

I understand that Bike the Sites is a business, and they have to make money, but something still seems out of whack when I can rent a car for less than I can rent a bike.

A Little Culture With Your Commute

If you didn't happen to see this article in last Sunday's Washington Post magazine, it is quite a compelling read. The set-up: world-acclaimed violinist, Joshua Bell, disguised himself as a busker at a Metrorail station during the morning commute and played for commuters emerging from the station. If you find yourself intrigued by the article, you can also check out the online discussion held Monday.

I suppose you can put a CD of Josh (or any other artist) on your car stereo if you're driving to work, but I doubt you could hire him to play in your back seat.

Riding the Bus: Not Easy

I'm a transportation and environmental professional. Twenty-three percent of my adult life I have not had a car at all, and the rest of the time only one (even now--with a family of four). I have ridden transit systems in more than a dozen US cities and three European ones. I put time into studying maps and bus schedules so that I can get around.
So if it's hard or unpleasant or anxiety-ridden for me, then it's going to be virtually impossible (or intolerable) for the person who has either a difficult time or a low tolerance.

About a week ago I was in the Clarendon area and I needed to get to Courthouse. It's about a 12-15 minute walk, but I had lingered and was now cutting my schedule tight. If the ART Bus was coming along, I could hop on and get there in 4-5 minutes. Fortunately, I was actually meeting with someone who had the schedules for the ART buses on hand. I checked the schedule: it said 11:47 AM at Wilson and Highland. I looked at my cell phone: it said 11:43 AM. Perfect--I could be at the stop in about a minute or so.

p>I get to the stop and look at the kiosk. It says 11:45 AM for Wilson and Highland; my phone says it's 11:44. Why don't the kiosk and the schedule jive? Did I make it on time, or was the bus a minute early and I just missed it? I feel just a wee bit of anxiety wondering.

So I wait. 11:47 comes and goes. I wait some more. . . 11:49. Now I'm getting a bit more anxious that it already came. . . or it's not coming at all--I've had the experience where buses just fail to show up entirely--. . .11:51. . .11:52. I'd be most of the way there by now if I had chosen to hoof it, but now I've invested 8 minutes waiting, and I'm shifting my weight from foot to foot, because I was already cutting it close and now I'm using up all my buffer. . .plus some. Do I hail a cab? Keep waiting? Run the 8 blocks? The next bus is scheduled for 12:05. I could go down into the Metro, but at that time of day I could wait 12 minutes for the next train. . .plus there's the extra time getting up and down the escalators.

11:53. Whew! Here it comes. The bus. I end up at Courthouse at exactly the same time as if I had walked (but $1.25 lighter). I have to cut out one task I was hoping to accomplish prior to my next meeting, but I salvage my schedule and am not late.

The bus was about as far off schedule as possible - 80%. Two minutes later and it's 100% off schedule (10 minutes is the most a bus with 20-minute headways can be off; if this bus had been 11 minutes late it would have ostensibly become the 12:05 running 9 minutes early).

If I weren't a transit maven and booster--just a professional businessperson trying to get around Arlington--would I ever take another chance on that bus? Unlikely. In fact, I didn't see anyone else on that bus who resembled a businessperson or professional. If I hadn't had the highly unusual experience of meeting with someone who keeps schedules on hand and happens to know that the bus is called the number 41? Hardly. Easy? Not really. Stress-reducing? Quite the opposite.

---

My Commuter Mug

This post is a little off the beaten path - it's more a savvy-consumer post. I generally take my insulated travel coffee mug with me, because I'm a tree hugger and I don't care to waste the paper cup (also, being insulated, it keeps my coffee warm longer). Interestingly, however, about 30% of the time I am given a significant discount (Starbucks sometimes just charges me 50 cents). Today, in fact, I wasn't charged at all; the server just said, "Nevermind, free refills." I'm not angling for the discount--I'm happy to pay for my coffee--but if it's offered, why not?

I think I've probably unintentionally saved at least $20 over the last six months just by having my travel mug with me. Try it yourself. Even if you're a paper-wasting environment hater, it might just save you a few bucks.

Our New Hybrid

We have upgraded our car from a 1999 Toyota Camry to a 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid. I must admit that it's a nice feeling driving the new car. It's especially cool when you "start" it (nothing happens) and then start driving away with no engine running. But I have mixed feelings, too.
Hybrids are great, and our new car should get about 50% better mileage than our old car. We won't ever make a profit--even at $5 gasoline--on the incremental cost, but as an environmentalist I was taking more into consideration than that.
As a husband, I had other things to consider, too. I would have preferred the Prius, which gets even better mileage, but had to "compromise" with my wife--who preferred the larger Camry. (For those of you not in relationships, "compromise" means something entirely different than what the dictionary says.)

So this is good. If everyone made the decision to reduce their environmental footprint at inflection points (remodeling, new car, appliance replacement, etc.) and made a conscious effort to pay attention to their footprint and reduce it each year, then we would be definitely making progress.

On the other hand, even if everyone replaced their car tomorrow with a 40 mpg car or even a 50 mpg car we would still be barreling down the same road to climate catastrophe that we are on now. To avoid the worst outcomes a changed climate will wreak on our future generations, we need to reduce carbon emissions by 80%-90% over the next few decades. That means 250 mpg cars if we keep driving the same mileage we do now. And how you are you going to reduce your energy use in other parts of your life by 90%, too?

So I'll enjoy my new car, but I'll also keep trying to drive it less and bike or walk more. And keep looking for ways to reduce my climate footprint.

Reduce Mercury: Install CFLs

Here's the counterintuitive fact of the day:
Installing CFLs reduces the amount of mercury entering our environment.
It's true that CFLs contain mercury--about 4 milligrams per bulb.
However, the largest source of mercury pollution is the burning of coal in power plants. Mercury pollution from power plants is also worse, because the emissions are completely uncontrolled. Once it gets in the air, we have no control over where it ends up.

This chart (from an EPA fact sheet), shows the emissions of mercury that come from generating the electricity for an incandescent is greater than the total mercury from the CFL. If everyone switched out their lights for CFLs, the total mercury emitted to our environment would be reduced by thousands of pounds.

Mercury is a significant neurotoxin and overall bad pollutant, so be sure to take care when disposing of it (BTW - a watch battery has 5 times the mercury of a CFL, and an old style mercury thermostat--which you may still have on your wall--has 400 times that in a CFL. Dispose of these items properly, too).

So it's a win-win-win-win: a no-brainer, really. Change out as many lights as possible with more efficient lighting, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce mercury and other air pollutants and save money.