Some Second Thoughts on Urban Bicycling

Posted on March 7, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Expanding the role of bicycle travel in urban areas has been government policy in developed nations for several decades. As Lawrence Solomon wrote in a recent piece in Canada’s Financial Post, “At no expense to taxpayers, the bicycle took cars off the road, easing traffic; it saved wear and tear on the roads, easing municipal budgets; it reduced auto emissions easing air pollution; it reduced the need for automobile parking, increasing the efficiency of land use; and it helped keep people fit, too.”
Yet despite these ostensible benefits, something of a “bikelash” is under way, in cities that include Amsterdam, several major cities in China, London, Singapore, and elsewhere. As The Economist reported in “The Bikes That Broke Free” (Dec. 23, 2017), one emerging problem is dockless bike-sharing systems that have plagued cities with bikes left all over the place. Amsterdam has banned such systems, and a growing number of Chinese cities have called a halt to any expansion of existing systems.
Solomon—once a strong advocate of urban bicycling—has concluded that bicycling today “is a mixed bag, usually with more negatives than positives. In many cities, bike lanes now consume more road space than they free up; they add to pollution as well as reducing it; they hurt neighborhoods and business districts alike; and they have become a drain on the public purse.”
Many of his examples come from Europe and Australia, where cities have been far more aggressive in promoting bicycle use than is typical in the United States. Transport for London has spent large sums to create a “cycle super highway” that has taken away traffic lanes and increased traffic congestion, sparking a significant backlash. Paris is spending €150 million on cycling infrastructure, Amsterdam €120 million just on bike parking spots, and Melbourne is under way on a $100 million cycling plan.
Negative health impacts are an unexpected consequence of aggressively expanded urban bicycling, Solomon notes. Congestion caused by taking away traffic lanes leads to idling traffic, which increases emissions. Cyclists are the most-exposed to PM2.5 soot from idling vehicles. A study by the London School of Medicine found that cyclists in London have 2.3 times more inhaled soot than walkers, because “cyclists breathe more deeply and at a quicker rate than pedestrians while in closer proximity to exhaust fumes.”
Although Solomon doesn’t mention cyclist deaths and injuries due to driving in close proximity to motor vehicles, my traffic engineer friends tell me (off the record) that they are appalled by the proliferation of bike lanes on major U.S. arterials that, because they are a vital supplement to the freeway system, increasingly have traffic signal timing aimed at providing rolling green lights and 40-45 mph speeds. They would much prefer that bicycles be kept away from such high-volume traffic arteries.
Solomon also points to concerns of local merchants who depend on metered street parking for their customers. In some cities, bike lanes have replaced street parking. The result is to replace a multi-function lane (traffic lane during AM and PM peaks, parking and truck delivery space at other hours) with “a single-function piece of under-used pavement.” Cities lose the former parking meter revenue, and in some cases have to build expensive parking structures nearby to replace the street parking.
Lawrence Solomon is an environmentalist whose career with Canada’s Energy Probe Research Foundation spans several decades. His piece raises serious questions, and is well worth reading and pondering. (http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-ban-the-bike-how-cities-made-a-huge-mistake-in-promoting-cycling)
(This article first ran in the February 2018 issue of Surface Transportation Innovations.)
Email this author

Posted in Environment, Transportation | Comments Off on Some Second Thoughts on Urban Bicycling

Court says water wells are a point source

Posted on March 7, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

The county of Maui, Hawaii, the American Farm Bureau, National Association of Manufacturers and others lost a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which undoubtedly will have impact on agriculture.
Maui County installed four discreet wells into which it discharged treated effluent. The treated effluent then mixed into ground water and the pollutants then entered a navigable water, the Pacific Ocean. The case stands for the proposition that the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not require a point source to convey pollutants directly into a navigable water. The Court held that Maui’s pollutants “…were fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge was the functional equivalent of a discharge into a navigable water…”.
The county apparently admitted that its four wells were to serve as a backup disposal method for water reclamation. It also admitted that the wells were a major conduit for effluent disposal into ground water and then on indirectly to the Pacific Ocean.
Apparently no expert could quantify how much of Maui’s effluent entered the Pacific or by what path the effluent traveled to get there. A county consultant declared that the effluent from Maui would not be used for reclamation purposes, but would be injected into wells and it was assumed the pollutant going into the wells would then enter into the ocean. Testing showed that 84 days after injection, tracer dyes introduced in two of the wells began to emerge from the sea floor.
The Court stated that Maui County could not plausibly deny the wells were point sources under the CWA. The Court reviewed the law regarding nonpoint source pollution, which is critical in protecting water runoff from farmers’ fields.
Disturbing language in the case states that runoff from roadways is nonpoint sourced, but “…that such runoff constitutes nonpoint source pollution unless it is later collected, channeled, and discharged through a point source.” (Does this sound like a tile runoff case brought by the City of Des Moines against three counties and farmers in Iowa?)
The Court goes on to talk about pollutants from rainwater runoff from utility poles. The Court correctly points out utility poles do constitute nonpoint source pollution under the CWA. However, Maui’s wells were developed to collect and allow pollutants to get into ground water thereby “…discretely collecting and conveying pollutants to a navigable water.”
Maui argued to the Court that its wells were not point sources because the well itself must convey pollutants directly to the Pacific Ocean. (Silly argument!) Maui asserted its discharges into ground water were indirect discharges into the Pacific Ocean. Maui argued ground water is a nonpoint source and therefore the county has no obligation to obtain a CWA permit. The Court made short work of this argument when it said it was concerned only if there was a point source involved from which Maui discharged pollutants.
Once the Court determined the wells were point sources, the argument was over.
To drive its point home, the 9th Circuit cited the case many of you have read about, Concerned Area Residents for Environment v. Southview Farm. This case involved a major dairy operation in New York State which transported liquid manure in tankers and discharged the manure on fields and the manure directly flowed into ditches and navigable waters. In 1994, another Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the tanker itself was a point source and therefore there was a direct connection between the farm field, the point source and navigable water.
The 9th Circuit rejects Maui’s argument that a point source must discharge directly into a navigable water through a pipe or ditch. Consequently Maui was held liable under the CWA because it was determined the wells were point sources and the pollutants going into the Pacific Ocean were “fairly traceable” from the wells to a navigable water. The Court concluded Maui’s discharge, even though indirect, is “…the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water…”
The Court did offer one ray of hope when it said that it would leave for another day the issue of whether a point source such as the wells and the leaking to a navigable water might have a connection which is too tenuous to support liability under the CWA. This case will likely be used against agriculture.
(This column first ran on February 27, 2018 in Farm Futures.)
Email this author

Posted in Agriculture | Comments Off on Court says water wells are a point source

Conservatives – and President Trump – win with Virginia House health-care plan

Posted on February 22, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Virginia conservatives – and the Trump Administration – should embrace the health-care plan rolled out this week by House of Delegates Speaker Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) in the House budget. 
The House budget includes a plan to bring billions in taxpayer dollars back to Virginia to help uninsured Virginians get health-care coverage through Medicaid Expansion.
For four years, I sang a different tune. I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow conservatives at Americans for Prosperity, former Speaker Bill Howell, and other Republicans to fight Medicaid Expansion.
At the time, the future of the Affordable Care Act seemed uncertain, and banking on its promises appeared financially risky. There were fears it would collapse, or be repealed, leaving states to pay for a huge new entitlement we couldn’t afford. That seemed like an unsafe bet for Virginia.
That all changed in 2017.
Today, I unequivocally support the House plan to expand Medicaid to hardworking families in Virginia. Here’s why:
Obamacare isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. After years of trying, Congressional Republicans showed us in 2017 they couldn’t repeal the law. And even if they try again, which seems unlikely, it’s doubtful they will be successful this year or beyond.
In addition to lacking votes, federal Republicans last year showed us they’ve never had anything approximating a viable replacement plan after years of making empty promises to constituents in fund-raising letters. In other words, they misled us.
The most shocking realization came last spring at a White House briefing on the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. I sat the in briefing room aghast at what I heard – the GOP plan rewarded GOP states that expanded Medicaid (like Indiana, Ohio, and Arkansas) with continued funding, and penalized states that resisted expansion by cutting their funding through reduced block grants.
Instead of benefiting from being a prudent holdout, Virginia would have received less Medicaid funding from Washington! Thanks for nothing.
While it’s easy enough to retreat into orthodox ideology in the face of complex policy decisions that don’t fit into neat partisan boxes, I prefer to deal in reality rather than bury my head in the sand.
The House of Delegates budget plan takes the same clear-eyed, reality-based approach by opting to work with President Trump to secure key conservative reforms such as work rules and personal responsibility standards. Let’s be honest, this is a plan many Democrats won’t like. If you’re a Republican, that means you’re doing something right. You’re reforming a program rather than just providing a handout.
Speaker Cox is developing a plan incorporating conservative ideals like those Vice President Mike Pence championed when he was Governor of Indiana.
In my mind, if it’s good enough for a conservative like Mike Pence and Indiana, then it’s good enough for Virginia.
Speaker Cox undoubtedly will face misguided criticism from those who can’t see past the politics of the moment. It’s better to have Speaker Cox negotiating the details with Democratic Governor Ralph Northam now, then waiting too long and ending up with Delegate David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) driving the talks.
Because make no mistake: many Democrats want straightforward Medicaid expansion, or worse – Bernie Sanders-style socialized health-care.
The GOP-controlled House is taking the conservative approach to health-care reform and will work with the Trump administration to achieve that goal.
The House plan aims to put low-income Virginians in private insurance plans with premiums and co-pays, giving them skin in the game. The plan sets up health savings accounts so people are incentivized to make their own health-care decisions. And, most importantly, they’ve created a “Training, Education, and Employment Opportunity” program to put people on a path to self-sufficiency.
Another big win: they’ve put the Trump administration – not Northam – in the driver’s seat. The Trump administration controls the timing and conditions under which Virginia can access new health-care funding to expand. And with a Pence ally now in charge of the nation’s Medicaid system, conservatives can rest assured Virginia will get the reforms it needs to control costs and protect taxpayers.
As conservatives, we should also remember many of the people who will benefit are Trump voters who are working their tails off at low wages, just trying to move up the economic ladder and get a better life. I, for one, won’t kick them to the curb to pass an ideological litmus test written in a white paper by some D.C. think tank.
For years, Republicans held the line against Obamacare expansion. It was the right thing to do. But now, under Cox’s leadership, the House is taking advantage of Trump’s historic presidency to implement real reforms to how Virginia delivers health-care. This is a plan conservatives — and Trump supporters — should embrace.
And it’s a winning issue for the next election. A recent Republican poll showed that 83 percent of Virginia voters favor health-care coverage for the uninsured.
With Virginia Republicans having lost 10 statewide races in a row, you do the math.

E-Mail this Author

Posted in Health Care | Comments Off on Conservatives – and President Trump – win with Virginia House health-care plan

Say No to Medicaid Expansion

Posted on February 22, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

The Virginia House of Delegates has unveiled their budget which includes Medicaid Expansion. On behalf of 100,000 activists, we are shocked and dismayed with this proposal. The inclusion of Medicaid Expansion in this budget proposal is both fiscally and morally irresponsible and despite the claims, it is far from conservative.  Virginians deserve better.
The House’s Obamacare Medicaid Expansion proposal spends more on able bodied adults instead of the most vulnerable and the elderly. This crowds an already flooded, inefficient program with able-bodied Virginians. Thus, removing access to quality healthcare from those who need it most. At the hands of self- proclaimed conservatives, the most needy in Virginia will have a plastic Medicaid insurance card yet will experience extremely long wait times and have less of their medicines and procedures covered.
That’s not Conservative. Dependency and taxes may be prominent in the House’s budget proposal, but not in Conservative principles.  Virginia has sought to minimize its dependency upon the Federal Government and diversify its economy because of the volatility of Washington politics.  Yet, the House of Delegates’ budget is heavily reliant on Washington – especially in raising taxes to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.
Additionally, The Trump Administration and Congress are planning to cut payments to states that have expanded, yet increase payments to states that have not. Increasing reliance on federal funding of a program that is being gutted by the federal government puts Virginia taxpayers and the state budget at a dangerous risk.
It doesn’t lower healthcare costs or fix the problem with Medicaid.
Kentucky and Indiana have been heralded, deceptively, as models of success. In reality – Governor Matt Bevin was elected on the platform of dismantling Medicaid Expansion, and the waivers he threatened to kill Medicaid Expansion for are designed to do that very thing. This a model to roll back expansion – not grow it. Kentucky officials say even with work requirements, and all other safeguards – expansion enrollment will still be at least 437,521 in 2020 –  more than doubling budgeted expectations.  Indiana’s work reforms to Medicaid Expansion are also far from conservative.  The Foundation for Government Accountability reveals that the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 “gives policymakers who have wisely rejected expansion in other states no reason to reverse course…” as the program has cost the state even more than traditional expansion. Furthermore, Vice-President Pence supports the President’s plan to cut Medicaid Expansion funding.
Thank your Senator for standing strong against Medicaid Expansion.
We are thankful for the champions in the Senate who continue to stand strong against Medicaid Expansion. Just see what Senator Ryan McDougle shared on their efforts to solve the true problem with healthcare: cost.  This is the kind of leadership Virginia needs right now. Such bold and conservative healthcare reform is in stark contrast to the house plan.
Consequences:  Delegates and senators who support more dependency, higher taxes, and price-gouged healthcare should consider the political ramifications of supporting Medicaid expansion.  We applaud the consistent conservatives. Medicaid expansion will not help Virginians who depend on this program.
Americans for Prosperity remains steadfast in our opposition to Medicaid expansion under Obamacare and instead supports patient-centered reforms that expand the supply of medical care to provide better health, for more people, at a lower cost.
E-Mail this author
JC Hernandez is the Virginia State Director of
Americans for Prosperity.

Posted in Health Care | Comments Off on Say No to Medicaid Expansion

A Growing Economy Needs Regional Bank De-Regulation

Posted on February 22, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Following the shock of the recent Great Recession, Congress took actions to “save us” from such future threats. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were supposed to prevent another recession by imposing greater regulations on our banks. These bills were to stop a few big banks from having overwhelming impact on our economy. In theory, this approach made sense but reality, and years of experience, require changes in these laws.
The economic recovery over the past seven or eight years has been historically weak. This indicates that these new regulations are not the road to take for serious economic recovery.
The current economic boom that we’ve seen since the presidential election, needs to be undergirded with a serious review and revision of laws and regulations that will hinder long term strength in our economy. And one area that needs review and reform is in some of the bank regulations.
The current regulatory system determines bank risk to our economy only on size of these institutions. It has been decided by Congress that banks with assets of $50 billion or more are a threat to the overall financial system.
Taking a look at the economy today and the need to take actions to encourage long-term growth, the $50 billion figure definition of a bank with too much power may not be the right measurement. Former Congressman Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank Reform, has made an important point when he said, “all numbers are arbitrary, and in the rush, $50 billion seemed like a much bigger number.”
Regional Banks have been hobbled by this new regulatory system and yet these banks were not the cause of the Great Recession. Banks here in Virginia such as Capital One, SunTrust, PNC and others that are the backbone to our small business sector are being held to the same regulations as large Wall Street banks such as JPMorgan Chase. The risk from these regional banks is significantly lower than the Big Boys which are complex, mega-banks.
The unintended consequences of lumping regional banks in with large national mega-banks that that the regional ones don’t have the resources to comply with these burdensome regulations so they are forced to spend more time and money on regulation compliance and less on traditional banking activities, specifically commercial and consumer lending that is part of a growing and stable economy.
Small businesses rely on regional banks, not only for making deposits, but for loans and other banking services. These businesses cannot grow to their full potential when regional banks are no longer the business partners they used to be when they could focus on providing needed capital for our smaller and family owned businesses.
According the Small Business Administration, 99.5 percent of businesses in Virginia are small businesses, employing 47% of the workforce.. Before the Great Recession, Virginia had an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent, yet as of November 2017, the unemployment rate has not reached the prerecession rate and the state GDP rate is growing slower than the national GDP.
In fact, recent bank data shows Virginia has been missing out on nearly $18 billion in annual GDP growth due to the improperly calibrated regulations on regional banks under Dodd-Frank.
With so much of Virginia’s economy connected to the success of small businesses, it is important the regional banks doing business in our state see some regulatory relief. If proper regulations are in place, Virginians will see their businesses grow, which will create jobs and ultimately help communities across the state prosper. With strong, consistent commercial lending available from regional banks, more businesses can open and grow — helping the unemployment rate decrease and diversifying our economy.
Congress should make changes to Dodd-Frank to help our smaller Virginia businesses get access the capital they need. These changes could lighten the burden that Dodd-Frank places on our regional banks. These regional banks could then focus more of their time and resources on serving their customers, leading to more money flowing into our economy and strengthening our Main Streets. Tax cuts will be a huge boost to our economy but long-term growth requires careful banking regulation reform. The sooner that is tackled by our elected leaders, the better.
(Michael Thompson is President of the Thomas Jefferson Institute. This column reflects his views and not necessarily those of the Institute. This column first ran in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star.)
Email this author

Posted in Economy, Regulation | Comments Off on A Growing Economy Needs Regional Bank De-Regulation