New Roads

Jon Chait wants to rebuild Klingle Road and sees opposition to the project as driven solely by a desire of nearby property owners to keep their backyards quiet. In response to my post on the subject he queries:

If we're going to try to encourage public transit by making life hard for drivers, why do it by randomly closing roads that happen to run through wealthy areas whose residents have the clout to keep them closed? Why not jack up the tax on cars, or have the city periodically scatter shards of broken glass in the streets?

I think the case against periodically scattering shards of broken glass in the streets is pretty clear, but in case it's not -- doing so would be hazardous to pedestrians, cyclists, commercial vehicles, etc., and as such it doesn't suggest itself as a reasonable method of discouraging automobile use. Jacking up the tax on cars sounds like a good idea to me. I'd also favor congestion pricing, reduction in the amount of free parking made available, etc.

But to be clear on the question at hand, I don't own any property that abuts Klingle Road or even live in the area, and I'm not some kind of hypocrite who refuses to apply the same principle generally. Closing down entire roads probably isn't the best way to go, but I would strongly favor eliminating car traffic lanes throughout the city in order to make dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, or streetcar tracks. And built-up areas should not, in general, be investing money in building new roads or (what amounts to the same thing) rebuilding old ones that have been closed. New road capacity in a place like DC is going to do very little to relieve traffic congestion over the long run (to reduce congestion you need congestion pricing -- otherwise the uncongested, unpriced road is a valuable resource that will swiftly be "overconsumed" by drivers) and therefore makes little sense as a target for public expenditures.

Comments

A huge boost in the car tax is one of the key reasons for Gray Davis' recall in blue California (among other key reasons like granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens and Arnold's star power).

You've got an uphill battle against public opinion on that one.

Posted by scottynx | June 16, 2008 4:10 PM

Matt, the shards of broken glass thing was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole.
Shutting down roads causes intense short term pain and even more congestion, and thus more pollution.
I think congestion pricing is a fine idea-shutting down roads out of pure spite is an awful idea.

Posted by jamie | June 16, 2008 4:15 PM

Headline in today's NY Sun about Bloomberg shutting down Park Avenue this summer. Lots of HNWI on Park. I'd give you a link if NYS website wasn't so lame.

Posted by Drew | June 16, 2008 4:18 PM

Has anyone actually analyzed the cost-benefit from a congestion and environmental standpoint? I'll bet the homeowners nearby (who are playing people like Matt for dupes) certainly have.

So, Matt, should DC not clean up downed trees in the road after heavy storms? Should DC appoint Doug Hill chief traffic planner? Or maybe DC should just hire a shaman to make big thunderstorms.

Posted by paul | June 16, 2008 4:27 PM

why do it by randomly closing roads that happen to run through wealthy areas whose residents have the clout to keep them closed?

So how does this standard issue hyperbolic "blame rich liberals!" slam apply to the capacity reduction on 15th Street?

Shutting down roads causes intense short term pain and even more congestion, and thus more pollution.

Of course the key is "short term." Klingle was closed in 1991. Isn't it pretty likely that use patterns have changed enough to deal with the closure in nearly 20 years? It doesn't really make sense to look at this one road in isolation without looking at all the other changes that have happened in the District since 1991 (ie: exploding Metro ridership, new construction in the suburbs, a resurgence of people preferring to live in the city rather than the burbs).

Posted by NS | June 16, 2008 4:30 PM

How will the new road effect the doing it after dark

Posted by Lemmy Caution | June 16, 2008 4:40 PM

Jacking up the tax on cars sounds like a good idea to me. I'd also favor congestion pricing, reduction in the amount of free parking made available, etc.

Probably not terribly popular ideas, though, especially at a time of $4 gas, and considering that drivers vastly outnumber transit users and already massively subsidize them.

Posted by Mixner | June 16, 2008 4:44 PM

I'm a big supporter of a carbon tax, but a car tax strikes me as a bad idea. Why should someone who owns a car for occasional trips but day-to-day lives an earth-friendly lifestyle (taking the bus, walking to the grocery store, etc.) subsidize those who drive more than average? It makes much more sense to pay by the pollution (that is, the relevant externality) rather than by the conspicuous consumption (which, while you may dislike, hardly starts or stops with cars).

Posted by Amber | June 16, 2008 4:46 PM

Klingle was an extremely useful quick lane from the Wisconsin/Cathedral area to Mount Pleasant, and the ONLY reason it was shut down was to benefit rich local homeowners. There was and is no conceivable other justification period.

Posted by DCBob | June 16, 2008 4:48 PM

Amber,

I'm a big supporter of a carbon tax, but a car tax strikes me as a bad idea. Why should someone who owns a car for occasional trips but day-to-day lives an earth-friendly lifestyle (taking the bus, walking to the grocery store, etc.) subsidize those who drive more than average? It makes much more sense to pay by the pollution (that is, the relevant externality)

Transit buses emit more CO2 per passenger-mile on average than passenger cars, and way more than the Toyota Prius. Rail transit does much better than bus transit, although there are still several rail transit systems that emit more CO2 than the average passenger car. And very few of them beat the Toyota Prius, although one that does is the New York subway, and that one system carries most of the nation's heavy-rail transit passengers.

Overall, though, a tax on carbon emissions would probably have the effect of making transit more expensive compared to driving, rather than less.

Posted by Mixner | June 16, 2008 5:14 PM

Right, just because you personally do not own property near Klingle Road means that you should - no, must - pretend that the distributional aspects of this case don't exist.

Whatever larger points you want to make about transportation policy, you would do well to divorce them from the Klingle Road controversy. As an example, it really stinks.

Unless, of course, you want to associate your transportation policy preferences with the idea that we should choose which roads to close according to random acts of God, and leave them closed due to municipal incompetence, rather than as part of an explicit transportation policy, and do so as part of an political strategy to transfer huge windfall gains to already-wealthy homeowners. In that case, well, here we are.

Posted by bob | June 16, 2008 5:17 PM

Dean Baker has a great idea for pricing in the externalities associated with car travel: charge insurance by the mile.

Explanation here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/can-clean-insurance-fend-off-global-warming/

Posted by Nordy | June 16, 2008 5:23 PM

I have lived in Mt. Pleasant since 1986. I can remember when Klingle was sort of open. Even before it was officially closed, it was closed a lot anyway because it is in a ravine and (1) large trees would tumble across the road, (2) during the winter months it would ice up very quickly, (3) during heavy rains the creek would spill over its banks and wash out portions of the road. It was not a very functional road. It was an enormous expense for the city to maintain. So I disagree with the poster DCBob who claims that the “only” reason to shut it down was to benefit local (meaning those who live on it) homeowners. There was a strong financial cost/benefit involved.
Among the things that have changed since it was closed: (1) The Columbia Heights Metro has opened. (2) Regular speed enforcement of Porter East has happened.
The poster who alleges that opening the road is opposed by wealthy Cleveland Park residents is mistaken, IMHO. I have attended multiple hearing over the years about this issue. My perception is that the most vocal voices FOR opening it are on the West of the Park, not the East.
Poster Bliox writes, “The closure has cut Mt Pleasant residents off from the amenities of the city they are entitled to enjoy.” You never could drive from Mt. Pleasant on Klingle to the Cleveland Park shops without going through the Cathedral Heights and C. Park neighborhoods. It was a very circuitous route through slow neighborhood streets to get to C. Park.
Even in its dilapidated state the closed Klingle road has been a great place for a walk and a marvelous play area for both my kids as they grew up. From Mt. Pleasant you could even sneak up to Cleveland Park by walking up the slope by the Conn. Ave bridge and climbing over a wall find yourself at Conn. Ave and Macomb street. Either make a park of it or just let it slowly return to nature. The creek, a tributary of Rock Creek, is slowly doing that.

Posted by shortchenpa | June 16, 2008 5:32 PM

New road capacity in a place like DC is going to do very little to relieve traffic congestion over the long run (to reduce congestion you need congestion pricing -- otherwise the uncongested, unpriced road is a valuable resource that will swiftly be "overconsumed" by drivers) and therefore makes little sense as a target for public expenditures.

Then why is this not also true of mass transit? If there is no congestion in the system, you have unused capacity and don't need to build more. If there is congestion, then, per your argument above, you should introduce congestion pricing rather than increase capacity that would then be "overconsumed."

Posted by Mixner | June 16, 2008 7:41 PM

In what universe is Klingle Road a "crucial east-west artery in Washington D.C." (quoting Chait)? Military Road is a crucial east-west artery. Klingle is/was a small street. There is a definition of "arterial" and this isn't it. You can cross Rock Creek Park at a number of other places (Calvert, Porter, Park/Tilden). Klingle is "crucial" only in the sense that it would crucially save a small number of people - mostly people only mildly less prosperous than the homeowners - from driving a couple of blocks out of the way on Conn Av.

Is the picture at the top of this article from Klingle? It looks to me like the gate at the north end of Beach Drive that is closed off on weekends. Closing Beach Drive doesn't seem to be choking off a crucial artery, either. There's a good argument for closing it at least part-time on weekdays, too.

Posted by Ben | June 16, 2008 8:53 PM

You can cross Rock Creek Park at a number of other places (Calvert, Porter, Park/Tilden).

But! These all intersect Connecticut at-grade, while Klingle passes under it.

Posted by bob | June 16, 2008 10:50 PM

The NIMBYism of some folks on the Cleveland Park side who don't want the traffic is regrettable, but I think there are good reasons to not rebuild Klingle. In addition to the case Matt makes, one thing I don't see reflected in the above comments is the fact that better bike routes across Rock Creek are badly needed, and the proposed path would be a major contribution.

I live at the north end of Columbia Heights. I own a car, but bike is my primary means of transportation. Sure, driving over to Cleveland Park can be inconvenient, but biking to Cleveland Park and points west is downright unpleasant and not as safe as it should be. Car speeds on Porter are high, and there's no bike lane. The multi-use path version of Klingle would change that to a nice, safe ride, and the grade is a little lower than Porter, too.

I'm glad the city council appears to be avoiding car-centric thinking, and I'm not too happy with Graham for pushing the road agenda.

Posted by Teague | June 17, 2008 12:19 AM

Congestion pricing disproportionately inconveniences the less well-off to benefit the wealthy. It may also benefit the environment, but support for the idea has more to do with the desire of wealthy people to have the roads to themselves at the times they are in highest demand.

The roads were built for the public and they should remain public roads, all day.

Posted by Egalitarian | June 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Congestion pricing disproportionately inconveniences the less well-off to benefit the wealthy. It may also benefit the environment, but support for the idea has more to do with the desire of wealthy people to have the roads to themselves at the times they are in highest demand.

The roads were built for the public and they should remain public roads, all day.

Posted by Egalitarian | June 17, 2008 10:10 AM

Bus use is not more carbon-intensive per passenger-mile if the buses run on natural gas (which is about half as carbon intensive as gasoline). Here in Houston (and I believe also in Los Angeles), lots of the buses (and all of the new ones) do run on natural gas...and natural gas is making big headway in the bus market overall due to the combination of cheaper fuel ($1.50/gallon equivalent, roughly) and no need for nationwide fueling station infrastructure.

Posted by Amber | June 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Wow, for a minute there I thought you were talking about the small town in Louisiana of the same name.

Posted by KathyF | June 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Then why is this not also true of mass transit? If there is no congestion in the system, you have unused capacity and don't need to build more. If there is congestion, then, per your argument above, you should introduce congestion pricing rather than increase capacity that would then be "overconsumed."

Because he's trying to encourage transit use and discourage car use, genius.

You can disagree with the policy, but the mechanics behind it are kind of obvious.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 17, 2008 12:01 PM

Was Klingle Road ever actually used by commuters? This is just like the 15th St post -- the assumption seems to be that suburban commuters are the only people who use the roads. Since I always make sure to avoid rush hour when I drive, I have a different perspective.

I understand being anti-road on principle, but you gotta get some better examples. Because basically it seems like you're just picking out things to annoy me--a District resident who does not commute by car.

Posted by Other Ezra | June 17, 2008 1:35 PM

Me: You can cross Rock Creek Park at a number of other places (Calvert, Porter, Park/Tilden).

Bob: But! These all intersect Connecticut at-grade, while Klingle passes under it.

My response: This might be a serious objection if Connecticut Av. was a railroad carrying heavy freight that closed for five minutes every time a train passed through. But it isn't, and there are traffic lights. Don't confuse "minor convenience of avoiding crossing a busy street" with "crucial east-west artery."

Driving in D.C. traffic sucks, but this does not mean that every street must be opened and enlarged to give people the feeling (not even the actuality) that they are saving a couple of minutes on crosstown routes. In a dense environment, opening or widening a street doesn't mean anyone will actually save time. Rather, a few more people will drive instead of using an alternative.

Posted by Ben | June 17, 2008 4:20 PM