On a different note: The British electoral system and its failure

In the aftermath of the recent UK general election, I wrote this piece about the failure of the British electoral system and how to fix it. It's not on infrastructure, but on something that may be just as important (to the British at least):

As I sit here writing this, the future of the Parliament is unclear. Conservative minority, Lib/Lab, Lib/Con (or ConDem), and a myriad of other possibilities for the future composition of Parliament have been dissected ad nauseam, and the consensus is that there is none. A Lib/Con coalition would mean an utter rejection of Gordon Brown and New Labour, while Lib/Lab would signal the possibility of electoral reform at the cost of the public trust. A number of sensible arguments could be made for and against such outcomes, and while I have bias towards one of them, that’s not the point of this column. The question that I currently ponder is: “How could this kind of result come about in a fairer, proportional manner, reflective of the British electorate?”

I won’t conceal it; I’m a Liberal Democrat at heart. The flip-flop of the same two parties across of the floor of the Commons has been repeated for far too long and it’s time for something different. That line could easily come out of a Nick Clegg speech, but it’s the feeling that a sizeable number of people have. Had we used a proportional system, this predicament would probably have happened anyway. Even under the simplest form, a percentage of votes to seats, the Conservatives would only have 235 seats (and to that end Labour at 189 and the Lib Dems at 150) and Clegg would have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It would at least be a more accurate picture of the country, something that definitely did not come across Thursday night.

It seems in a sense undemocratic that a party, in this case the Lib Dems, can increase their vote share while losing five seats, yet Labour can lose 91 seats and still have four times as many MPs. This argument is one that has been at the core of the Liberal Democrat campaign for decades, and is one with which many voters would agree from all parties. But let’s be honest, electoral reform may not happen under any of these scenarios. There must be some way, though, of achieving it before the next election, as this may be the only time for change.

To find the ideal system that may very well appeal to all parties in the coming days, I searched the world’s most reputable source of knowledge: Wikipedia. Even as a long-time advocate of proportional representation, the sheer number of methods is quite staggering. But there was one system that I noticed seemed to have something to work with, even for the Tories. Mixed member proportional representation, also known as the additional member system, is not something new to the UK. Used in the Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies and the London Assembly, it attempts to combine our (rather archaic) first-past-the-post with proportional representation. In doing so, it keeps the FPTP that the Tories would like to retain, while adding a proportional step that the Lib Dems and the voting public would like to see implemented.

There’s one problem with this seemingly ideal system, however. If we want to keep the Commons the way it is, at 650 or so seats, then adding party seats would probably cause a Health and Safety Violation for the sheer number of MPs in the lower chamber. What’s the solution? It’s actually quite simple: replace the House of Lords with the party seats. If we kept the same number of seats in the Commons and Lords, then there would actually be fewer people in Parliament but far more representative of the UK as a whole. Had the vote shares been exactly the same for constituency and party results, then the party votes would be 257 for the Conservatives, 207 for Labour, 164 for the Lib Dems, and 22 for UKIP under the Sainte-Laguë method (used in New Zealand and Germany).

While the MMP system has its flaws, mainly its complexity and having two votes per person, it’s better than the mess we have now. Of course, this would mean a radical change in Westminster, but isn’t that what we’ve wanted for quite a long time?

Widening I-66

I recently stumbled upon a project by VDOT that will widen Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia between exits 47 and 52 from four to six lanes in each direction. Like many road widening projects, this will only further exacerbate traffic issues on the I-66 corridor, already one of the busiest in the Washington DC area.

What VDOT is neglecting to understand is that not only does road widening not work to begin with, but continuing to expand a road only for it to be condensed into a 2x2 highway in an inner city area is a waste of money. The project, expected to cost $75m, will accomplish none of what it sets out to do. Would Northern Virginia not be better served by an extension of the Orange Line? While the line is nearing overcrowding, the new 7000 series railcars have increased capacity to support such an extension, along with the impending arrival of the Silver Line.

To that end, if VDOT is really serious about reducing congestion on I-66, it would be well-served to understand why the congestion exists in the first place. Because of a historical dispute between Arlington and VDOT during I-66's initial construction through the area, a compromise was made so that the highway could be built but only in a 2x2 configuration east of the Beltway with a transit-related median. However, west of the Beltway and the current Orange Line terminus of Vienna, VDOT had free reign to widen 66 as it see fit. While much of the traffic on this western section is distributed onto the Beltway (which is already crowded, only worsening the condition), far more than capacity is pushed onto the eastern section of I-66. Adding supply and encouraging usage on already saturated roadways is not the answer.

An average of 120,000 vehicles use this stretch of I-66 each day. Even a mere 10% reduction in road traffic by means of incentives or tolling to discourage driving on the highway would mean 12,000 fewer cars and 12,000 more Metro passengers. So, VDOT, is adding another two lanes each way really worth the millions of dollars?

The status of the I-66 widening can be found here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-66_widening.asp.

Atlanta's traffic congestion: A way out?

Of all of the Southern United States, one city (truly metropolitan area) stands out for its potential to thrive: Atlanta. Why is this? It has a rapidly growing population, with nearly 30% growth over the past decade, a developed Interstate network, rapid transit, and the world's busiest airport. Yet Atlanta suffers from something quite serious: incredible traffic congestion.

Traffic jams are an all too common sight throughout the United States, with Los Angeles, Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, and a myriad of other cities being infamous for them. While Atlanta is known by those who live and visit for having poor traffic flow, it tends to slide under the radar; after all, LA's gridlock is known throughout the world. However, if Atlanta continues this surge of growth, it very well may become the Los Angeles of the East, if it hasn't earned that reputation already.

The traffic problems stemming from over-dependence on automobiles in Atlanta is staggering. The busiest section of freeway in the metro area is the Downtown Connector, a section of Interstate cutting through the core of the city formed by the concurrency of two major interstates, 75 and 85. To add to this, Interstate 20 forms an east-west axis south of Downtown area, distributing further traffic onto the Connector. Much of 75/85's traffic is due to the north-south radial growth patterns found in the metro area. Atlanta's major suburbs all lie to the north of the city, with three freeways (75, 85, and GA 400) carrying traffic southbound into the city. These all merge together into the Connector, which carries approximately 275,000 vehicles per day. Such a number is rivalled only by Los Angeles' San Diego Freeway (I-405).

There are two questions that arise as a result of this. The first is obvious: how can we reduce congestion? The second is slightly more subtle: how can we fund other transport projects from this? For the former, there needs to be an imminent and radical modal switch from car to rail and/or bus. MARTA exists, but does not have the scope, support, or appeal of a normal commuter rail agency (and in fact is not one, but rather a BART-like hybrid system). Further, it has next to no funding, so it cannot expand or increase service.

This is where the second question comes into play. Let's say that, instead of HOV, we took two lanes from each Interstate and made them HOT, or high occupancy express, lanes. Essentially, this would involve charging drivers for using that lane in exchange for a faster, express journey. In practice, this makes far more money than it appears at first. Assuming that the HOT lane will carry about 15% of all traffic on a particular stretch of highway, we could easily set up a e-toll (which allows drivers to stick a tag on their windshield and pass beneath at up to 65mph) between exits 102 and 103 on 85 in Gwinnett County and make $14.102m. This calculation comes from 15% of the AADT (257,590, 15% of which is 38,638), charging $1, and for 365 days a year. It may not seem like much, but if implemented throughout the Atlanta area, the numbers add up quite quickly. The revenue from these tolls would be put into public transport. It's a bit naïve and ideal, it's a thought.