| . |
Editorial
Congestion
Pricing II
By Martin Harris
Over
recent decades there’s been a lot of fairly heated rhetoric about the growing
traffic crisis on US 7, and as so frequently is the case, a look at the
numbers doesn’t support the rhetoric. Unlike the public schools, the State
Highway Department (its name is now the more-prestigious-sounding Agency
of Transportation) hasn’t yet decided to keep its numbers secret so as
to prevent unwanted analysis by outsiders, and so you can go to the web
site to see the daily traffic count for, say, various points along the
one-time "great Road" (meaning a six-rod right-of-way, or 99 feet) in recent
years. In the Middlebury area, the numbers vary from less than 10,000 to
about 15,000, and, interestingly, they haven’t been growing in "unsustainable"
(ya gotta love that word) manner in recent years; some points have actually
shown a minor year-to-year decline. Brandon scores at the low end of that
range, Rutland at more than twice as much. Nevertheless, in politics (
yes, Virginia, there is an element of politics in publicly-funded road
design and construction), facts count for less than perceptions, and so
the belief that Middlebury’s Route 7 traffic crisis is real and growing
trumps the reality of the fairly light actual daily traffic volume.
In fairmess to the gridlock-predicting
doomsayers, Middlebury’s 18th century downtown road layout isn’t
particularly conducive to efficient modern vehicular flow, and so the multiple
right-angle turns (and turn-offs) around the former courthouse site, now
a tiny little green just south of the Middlebury Inn do indeed present
an insoluble traffic engineering problem. Yes, you can design a more efficient
highway through the center of the village, provided you’re willing to place
the pavement close to, if not touching, some architecturally commanding
old buildings, pave the green, put in some cuts and fills so the taller
trucks can wheel through the curves without overturning as they now occasionally
do, and so on. If you’re not so willing, you can choose to let things stay
as they are (beneficial side effect, according to some in town: visible
congestion prevents further unwanted growth) or you can try something different.
Thirty years ago, for example, a well-known College on the west side of
the village tried (and failed, for reasons I won’t recite here) to facilitate
a bypass on the east side. A west side bypass is (understatement) unlikely;
an overhead road equally so. That leaves a tunnel. I’d propose one which
goes underground at the north end near the industrial park, has a station
stop somewhere within walking distance of downtown (smart-growthers love
pedestrianism) and emerges somewhere near the retail commercial park on
the south end. It could underlie the less-developed lots just east of downtown,
thus enabling cut-and-cover construction using relatively low-cost pre-cast
concrete square-arch forms, where backyards and parking lots would be only
temporarily torn up. The cost would be paid by users, under the Congestion
Pricing principle: if you want to save time and stress navigating through
Middlebury (older traffic counts showed that most drivers in the corridor
do, although contemporary data don’t differentiate between through and
local traffic) you can pay a small fee for the benefit. With contemporary
electronic technology, no toll-booths are needed: vehicle license plates
will be video’ed and their owners billed, as is currently done on Toronto’s
Highway 407.
From an engineering point
of view, the tunnel idea is eminently feasible; the Dutch, who know a thing
or two about saving the centers of old villages and the outlying farmland
by putting traffic underground, have been doing it for decades. But engineering
doesn’t control; politics does. Since this is an opinion piece, here’s
my opinion: there is a dominant (not majority, perhaps, but certainly forceful)
anti-infra-structure-investment mindset in Middlebury which would skillfully
oppose it, and would rather see continued congestion as a growth controller
rather than a tunnel as a traffic facilitator. Even when they wouldn’t
have to pay for it.
Martin Harris is a former
Chairman of Citizens for Property Rights.
# # # # #

|