Gabriel Roth, civil engineer and transport economist, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, has pioneered scholarly work on market-based roads, parking, and transit. Following a Rees Jeffreys Fellowship at the UK Road Research Laboratory, and research at the Department of Applied Economics (University of Cambridge), on the economics of car parking, he worked for 20 years in five continents as a transportation economist for the World Bank, and served for three years as President of The Services Group, a consulting firm specializing in market-oriented approaches to economic development.
An author and contributor to scholarly volumes, his books include Paying for Roads: The Economics of Traffic Congestion (Penguin Books,1967); The Private Provision of Public Services in Developing Countries (World Bank, 1987); Roads in a Market Economy (Ashgate 1996); and Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads (The Independent Institute, 2006).
Randall Pozdena’s study has aroused interest and some consider that its conclusions merit further review. But the study should surely be reviewed on it merits, without regard to the policies of “the web site of the organization that published it, the Cascade Policy Institute”. We try to shed light on controversial issues — if they were not controversial, Lisa would not ask us to discuss them. Is it conducive to our work to describe entities we disagree with as being “blatantly biased”? Some of my best friends are biased, but I do not call them that, at least not in… Read more
Governor Glendening - What data support your assertion that "obesity and respiratory illness are dramatically reduced in more walkable, less car-dependent communities"? There are far too many "walkable, less car-dependent communities" whose members suffer from appalling health conditions and short life expectancy. Are you urging the federal government to force Americans to revert to such conditions? Gabriel … Read more
It is not easy to generalize about the costs and benefits of travel. In a command economy one can envisage the government determining what is “good” travel (e.g. walking to work; traveling by public transport) and what is “bad” (e.g. driving children to distant schools). But societies based on free choices rely on other criteria to distinguish the fruitful from the wasteful: We generally consider acceptable those activities for which users pay all the costs, and less desirable those for which users do not pay the costs. Application of this yardstick to travel leads to the conclusion that travel for… Read more
Bill Wilkinson is surely right to ask “Why do we persist in believing that public information and education are going to change traffic safety outcomes when, after decades of this stuff, we’re still killing approx. 40,000 people every year?” But Bill’s answers — and those of some others — miss a critical factor – financial incentives. Over a million people are killed worldwide every year, but those to blame are often not held financially accountable. One way to bring financial accountability to bear would be to require insurers to test and license the drivers and vehicles they insure. Placing this… Read more
How about a federal mandate abolishing safety belts, and legislating that all steering wheels be equipped with sharp spears pointing at drivers' chests?… Read more
Governor Glendening is right. The public and private sectors do indeed have “dramatically different goals and priorities”. The private sector seeks to provide services at a profit. So it has to provide what customers wish to pay for. Is that bad? But what does the public sector seek? Glendening mentions “reducing vehicle miles traveled and … focusing on transportation to increase walkability, housing affordability and economic prosperity”. Most of us can walk as much as we want to, without help from government. As for “housing affordability”, there is plenty of evidence that “Smart Growth” policies increase, rather than decrease, accommodation… Read more
Robin Chase raises important issues, but would find it difficult to show that the public sector has an advantage in promoting competition. Not only does the Washington Metro, for example, prohibit competition from outsiders, it actually closed down some of its own popular bus services to force travelers to use less convenient rail services. And the reason that Comcast can restrict the use of its services is because the public sector gave it a monopoly. Nor is she right to assert that private providers are interested only in profit. Many of the hundreds of toll roads provided by the private… Read more
For Professor Ellen Dannin: No! Your generalization is not correct. You seem to have forgotten about the PFI (“Private Finance Initiative”) contracts executed in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. The private providers assumed all traffic risks, and all cost risks. You and your students can read about them in Chapter 17, by Neil Roden, “Development of Highway Concessions on Trunk Roads in the United Kingdom”, in the award winning Street Smart — Competition, Entrepreneurship and the Future of Roads published in 2006 by Transaction Publishers for the Independent Institute and edited by Gabriel Roth… Read more
Mary Peters is correct to identify private investment as “not just a way to fund projects”, but also “as a program delivery strategy deployed on the right projects.” But she is too polite to challenge the premise of this week’s question, that “the public interest” needs to be protected from “private investment”. While private investment can be misguided, even corrupt, the more urgent need today is to protect the public from errors in public investment, which can also be misguided and corrupt. Private investment in transport projects is generally preferable because it has to respond to customers’ willingness to pay.… Read more
How right Ken Orski is to distinguish between a federal “interest” and a federal “role”. There is a federal “interest” in food being good for us, but it does not follow that there should be a federal “role” in the actual provision of food. Food stamps can be provided to those unable to afford food, but it does not follow that governments should finance, establish or operate food stores. Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, the federal financing role in surface transport has been conspicuous by its irrelevance to “core national priorities”. What has the Obama administration done… Read more
Steve - Thanks for your constructive suggestion, that the most useful federal role would be to put more federal transportation funds directly in the hands of local officials. Would not the simplest way to achieve this desirable objective be for the states, rather than the federal government, to collect the transportation funds themselves in the first place? Of all the suggestions (except yours) made for further federal action, I suggest that a uniform carbon tax, carefully calculated to reduce “Greenhouse Gas” emissions, could be the least harmful. And how many of us would like to see land developers lobbying… Read more
Many of the most urgent transport investment needs arise from the congestion of existing roads in urban and suburban areas. These can be dealt with by providing express toll lanes that could be privately financed, without the need for additional federal taxes. The money would come from electronically-paid tolls set at levels designed to provide congestion-free travel. Such “HOT” lanes have been operating successfully on California’s State Route 91 since 1995. They were privately provided without government financing. Ken Orski, with his usual modesty, omits to remind us that he himself, with Robert Poole, reviewed the possibilities of $40 billion… Read more
It is hard to accept the assumption underlying this question, that earmarks can undermine “good policy”. What “good policy”? Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, federal involvement in transport has not produced much of it. Is it not a triumph of hope over experience to expect better from those who, on the basis of no published analysis, want to establish new, heavily subsidized, high-speed rail systems, and to reduce people’s vehicle-miles of travel? Earmarks, of the kind used by Congressman Jack Murtha to force taxpayers to finance the airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania (which accommodates just three daily return commercial… Read more
In market economies infrastructure projects are delivered and maintained by private suppliers, not by governments. The private sector has provided road, rail and port infrastructure projects in the US since its establishment, and can do so now if allowed to. The United Kingdom’s 1994 “Private Finance Initiative” (PFI) illustrates how private providers, under government guidance, can bid to supply, maintain and operate infrastructure. The government specified its requirements in detail and invited private consortia to bid for contracts to design, finance, build and operate new roads or road improvements. The bids were for the payment, in pennies per vehicle-mile, to… Read more
May I, with respect, be allowed to query the figure given by William Millar, that “transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S.”? If I am not mistaken, he has been misled by a 2008 EPA report. According to other sources, (for example, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf ) only 3.6% of greenhouse gases are CO2, and only 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. If, as I suspect, the EPA figure relates only to GHG emissions resulting from human activity, transportation accounts not for 28% but for 28% of 3.6% of 3.4% which (according to my calculator) is… Read more
How can we achieve the goals of cutting transportation emissions and increasing trust fund revenue? These seem to be separate questions. As has been suggested in these exchanges before, the most efficient way to cut transportation emissions is to tax the use of carbon, and a tax of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide has been suggested, equivalent to 45 cents a gallon of fuel. To be efficient, the level of carbon tax should be uniform for all carbon uses, and the same nationwide. As for increasing trust fund revenues, why should they be increased? As Jim Burnley pointed out,… Read more
Jacqueline Gillan writes that “Simply put, it takes a modern and safe transportation system to be competitive, to increase our nation’s wealth, and to invest in the technologies and other countermeasures to conserve fossil fuel use, reduce emissions, advance public health and safety, and contribute to our overall quality of life.” But to some it is not “simple”, when “conservation of fossil fuel” forces the production and use of less-safe cars. These policies have been reliably reported to increase deaths on US roads by about 2,000 a year. Do the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety support government measures to… Read more
Kudos to Michelle Young for hitting the nail on the head! “User fees – not taxes” indeed seem to offer a key to restoring mobility to our transportation system. With services financed by user fees, there would be no reason for the federal government to finance transport services, and its role could be much reduced. The fifty states would then be responsible for designing policies that would enable transportation users to get the services they are prepared to pay for, as is appropriate in a free enterprise economy. Different states would adopt different modernization policies. Successful reforms would then be… Read more
How right Steve is to point to the need to save lives by improving the licensing arrangements for drivers. Has he considered taking a lesson from maritime transport, and placing on insurers the responsibilities for testing and licensing the drivers they insure, and also the vehicles themselves? In October 2007 Maryland’s Office of Legislative Audits determined that Maryland’s MVA was not implementing the state’s Ignition Interlock program, which requires those convicted of drunken driving to have their vehicles equipped with devices which prevent them starting if excessive alcohol levels are detected. Can one envisage an insurance company, with millions of… Read more
Michael – Congratulations on your new career change, but I did not assert that “more VMT equals more wealth”. What I wrote was that “Data worldwide show that increased VMT is associated with increasing wealth because it does increase mobility and accessibility”. Why do people travel more as they get wealthier if not to increase or enhance activities associated with increased mobility and accessibility? Incidentally, as Steve Van Beek has thoughtfully shown us, the Rockefeller/Lautenberg legislation is not about “capping” per capita vehicle miles of travel but about reducing them. Gabriel… Read more
Lisa I apologize for taking up more space but the contribution from Jan Lars Mueller compels a response. First, he wants us to “accept the premise, per other commentators, that we are not talking about limiting access or mobility”. But limitation of access or mobility is exactly what the issue is about. Data worldwide show that increased VMT is associated with increasing wealth because it does increase mobility and accessibility. Has Jan data to indicate the opposite? Second, Jan is concerned about road fatalities, but the Obama “blood for oil” policies, mandating smaller and lighter vehicles, are more likely to… Read more
John - In my earlier post today I wrote that “many commentators write that, in the twentieth century, our planet is actually cooling.” That was a typo. It is in the twenty-first century that the planet is reported to be cooling. Gabriel… Read more
John – In your interesting post of June 29 you wrote that “The reason that travel is so closely tied to driving is because we have not developed sufficient alternatives. If they were provided more widely, high-speed rail and transit ridership would also spike in a strong economy”. Can you provide examples of places in which increased provision of transit and high-speed rail is associated with reduced travel on the roads? Data from Europe and Japan indicate that road travel continues to increase despite massive investment in those modes. In the light of this experience, can you define more precisely… Read more
It is not appropriate. So long as road users pay the costs of their travel, it is unacceptable for Secretary LaHood to “coerce people out of their cars”. Most travel is not for its own sake. We strive for mobility to enhance the scope and quality of our activities. So a reduction of Vehicle-miles of Travel (VMT) per capita — be it by reductions in the length of trips or in their number — will generally lead to a reduction of preferred activities: People will be “coerced” to live in less convenient places; to work in less suitable jobs; to… Read more
I agree with Bob that the 18-month postponement is a good idea, and need not repeat the points he makes. But I seek to take issue with Congressman Oberstar (one of the nicest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting) that “Every day that we wait for reform, more lives are lost unnecessarily in motor vehicle crashes”. As many of the “reforms” are designed to save fuel by forcing further reductions in vehicle weights, their postponement may save lives, not lose them. According to the Highway Traffic Safety Administration, vehicle downsizing in the 1970s and 1980s resulting from CAFE… Read more
When Bill writes that “The United States cannot maintain a national highway network if key segments are owned by Wall Street investment firms or foreign consortiums.” one cannot help wondering whether he is visiting Cuba or North Korea. Do not most Americans rejoice that foreigners (who cannot conveniently repatriate their assets if unfairly treated) have the confidence to invest in US infrastructure? Bill then suggests that “The only private investment projects that should be considered are those that create new roads, adding greater capacity and mobility as an alternative to already-existing options”. Not necessarily! Private investment in existing facilities is… Read more
It is difficult to add to the case made by Cohen, Staley, Graves and O’Sullivan that we should stick to the “user pays” principle on which the Highway Trust Fund was originally based. I would like to support their position by pointing out that “projects such as bike lanes and pedestrian walkways” are inevitably local, and that it is hard to justify using national funds for local purposes. Why should farmers in Kansas pay for pedestrian facilities in California? I also agree with Michael Dudley that the “Interstate Highway system may simply be too big to endure” and that “Instead… Read more
How wise of Lisa to frame the question in terms of “pro-union” rather than “pro-labor”! Unions can indeed be helpful to their members, but not always to other workers. For example, Terry O’Sullivan wrote about “those who want to undermine Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws in order to increase corporate profits”. There are some who would like to undermine Davis-Bacon, not to “increase corporate profits” but to provide employment to non-unionized workers and, in the process, to allow them to “create” jobs for others. Allow me to explain. Unionized transit services in the US tend to be large organizations using large… Read more
Thanks, Andy, for your excellent post! But why should politicians remove “politics” from Cap-and-Trade, when it serves the double purpose of raising money and increasing their power? Many in Congress are not taken in by “Global warming”. Politicians really serious about “saving the planet” would be pushing for non-polluting (nuclear) power.… Read more
Deron’s flippancy on the issue highway fatalities typifies the approach of those — such as the people supporting the appalling Waxman-Markey bill — who seek to force us to incur heavy costs now in exchange for hypothetical benefits in the future. This approach is, of course, acceptable in dealing with one’s own costs and benefits, but possibly less so when dealing with those of others. In choosing vehicles, safety is a factor many take into account. Some prefer to save fuel at the expense of safety. Others give more weight to safety. In my student days, I compromised by choosing… Read more
Not yet mentioned is the likely effect of vehicle down-sizing on highway fatalities. Safety experts estimate that even the 1975 fuel efficiency standards increased fatalities on US roads by some 2,000 lives a year. "Blood for oil"? The issue arises not only when heavier vehicles collide with lighter ones: Heavier vehicles are safer in single-vehicle accidents (e.g. when cars run off roads) and also when accidents involving only heavy vehicles are compared with accidents involving only light ones. Traffic fatalities now exceed one million lives a year worldwide, and ten million serious injuries. Further reductions in vehicle weights are likely… Read more
Steve suggests we respond not to Lisa’s question but to the question “what part of our investment shortfall are PPPs most likely to address?” Is this a good idea? Questions assuming the existence of “shortfalls” or “gaps” (which, incidentally, tilt the responses against choosing the private sector) assume that there is a known amount of investment “needs” and that the problem is to fund the “shortfall”, which is generally the difference between what politicians want and what users are prepared to pay. The “needs” approach might be acceptable in dealing with “public goods” such as lighthouses or street lighting, for… Read more
An excellent post from Representative Mica pointing out that “When building a new house, you don’t attempt to build one room at a time without knowing how all those component pieces of the project will fit together. Similarly, our transportation infrastructure needs a sound architecture, and Congress should not undertake this reauthorization process without an infrastructure blueprint.” How then can he support the financing of High-Speed Rail, which seems to have been introduced with no “blueprint” at all?… Read more
“Intermodalism” is currently a word used by those seeking funds, often from road users, to subsidize other transport activities. For example, money from taxes paid by members of Peter Pantuso’s American Bus Association is applied to weaken them by supporting competing Amtrak services. Or tolls on the Dulles Toll Road are raised to support an unviable rail service in the same corridor. One way “to promote a more integrated and intermodal system” would be to apply the same pricing and investment rules to different modes. We use the criteria of cost covering (for pricing) and profitability (for investment) in most… Read more
Representatives Oberstar and Mica write that other governments spend their taxpayers’ money on high-speed rail passenger service, but that is surely not a sufficient reason for the US government to do so. Is not the important question what investments in transportation infrastructure are likely to produce the largest public benefits? Unlike Mortimer Downey, I’ve seen no evidence that expenditures on high-speed rail are likely to be more beneficial to travelers than expenditures on roads or aviation. If the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has relevant data, could it make them public? It surely cannot be that the US Congress… Read more
Many of us will agree that “One sure-fire way of assessing how serious someone is about a new transportation project idea is whether they are willing to put their money where their mouth is”. By that measure, the proposal to build High-Speed Rail (whatever that may mean) is less than convincing. It is taxpayers’ and road users’ money, not his own, that President Obama is willing to put into this project. Nor is it convincing to be told that the Chinese are building a high-speed rail system. The Chinese decree that families should have only one child. Is that a… Read more
Emil – Thanks for pointing out the importance of “User Pays”, in connection with transportation projects. With regard to investment analysis, if “user pays” is considered an appropriate principle for the provision of transportation facilities, might your NTPP report consider “profitability” as an appropriate tool for comparing projects with one another? The “user pays” principle, and the “profitability” criterion, are widely used in aviation, railroads and shipping, but not for roads, where it is difficult to establish and recover costs from users. However, GPS-based VMT charges (as recommended by the Financing Commission) would enable cost-based payments to be recovered even… Read more
Those who believe that transportation is too important to be left to the whims of politicians, and would rather see it in the market economy, might be reluctant to join Gregg and Craig in calling on the federal government to “re-authorize” highway and aviation “trust funds”. We would prefer these funds to be phased out in an orderly manner, and arrangements made to have their vital services funded by those who use the facilities. Gregg: For highways, might it not be helpful to include in the budget funds to started implementing the proposal made in 2003 by Bob Poole and… Read more
The unanimous recommendation to switch to GPS-based, privacy-protected, VMT charging, is so important, and potentially so beneficial, that the Commission can be forgiven any weaknesses in its report. But the recommendation to levy a uniform VMT “Charge”, and to send the revenues to Washington, seems about as sensible as a recommendation to impose uniform charges on telephone calls, and have the total revenues allocated by the US Congress. The Commission can be forgiven this absurdity because it was responding to its absurd “charge”: · “How much revenue is needed to maintain and improve the nation’s highway and transit systems?” and… Read more
Ken Thanks for your report on the Financing Commission’s press conference, and for reproducing Kathy Ruffalo’s remarks, which were indeed eloquent. But I am puzzled by her reference to a “national VMT system”. Are all the revenues from VMT charges to come to DC, to be allocated by Congress to the states, as skillfully as at present? One advantage of VMT charges is that they can be varied to take account of the place, time, and length of trips. Would it not make more sense for the revenues to be paid to those in charge of the roads that generate… Read more
Robin – Your unambiguous support for VMT charges is refreshing and welcome, but I am puzzled that you refer to these charges as “Taxes”. Would it not be better to treat VMT charges as prices for road use, to be used (as prices generally are in a market economy) to allocate scarce road space and to finance appropriate capacity expansion? Do you use the word “tax” because Lisa used it in the question? Or do you envisage the charge as a travel tax to finance governmentally-determined expenditures and/or slush funds for politicians?… Read more
An advantage of mileage-based charges is that they can be varied to take account of the costs imposed by different trips, e.g. to the places and times of trips, as well as to their length. Investment decisions can then be based on the willingness of road users to pay the costs involved. And those keen on multi-modal transport planning would have an easier task because road and rail projects could be assessed by the same yardstick — excess (or deficit) of revenues over costs. “Charges” should be a better word than “taxes”, because those who pay charges expect something in… Read more
Bob Poole is right that a “Carbon Tax” would be less harmful than “Cap and Trade”, if only to help Al Gore (who is in the Cap & Trade business) avoid further conflicts of interest. But it is not obvious that either of Bob’s alternatives is necessary. There is dispute about whether the earth is actually warming in the 21st century, and also about the contribution of humanity to climate change. But there is no disputing that there was a "medieval warming period" in northern Europe from about 900 to 1300, followed by the "little ice age" from about 1300… Read more
I agree with Phineas that it is difficult to provide a road system partly tolled and partly un-tolled because (as he writes) “what happens on one road affects what happens on others.” No doubt he will, on reflection, agree with me that it would be best for all roads (except local ones) to be electronically tolled. They could then all be privately funded, supplied, and managed, like food, water, electricity, telecommunications and most other necessities. … Read more
DJ suggests that spending other people’s money might not always the best way to tackle shortages, and that “demand management” should sometimes be used. Is he referring to banning private cars from some roads? Or to banning parking? Or might he, just possibly, be thinking of better road pricing? In market economies we use pricing to manage demand, and also to stimulate additional supply, to the point at which users get the facilities they are prepared to pay for. So pricing congested facilities can generate funds for appropriate expansion. Why do we not apply these principles to relieve highway problems?… Read more
It was good to see the support for “User pays” as a way to finance transport services, but sad that Bill Graves, President of the influential ATAs, has doubts about the idea. Bill is correct that the federal fuel tax is cheap to collect, and that this would be a net benefit to road users if 30-40 per cent of the revenues were not diverted by the federal authorities to non-road uses. But taxes on fuel seem to be neither equitable nor efficient as a way to finance roads. Trucks that cause heavy damage often pay less than trucks that… Read more
In response to the question “What DOT programs or projects should be axed?”, Emil seems to respond that none should be, until and unless they are shown to be inconsistent with “clearly articulated national transportation goals and [a redefined] federal interest.” Might it not be more logical to wind down most of the existing federal programs, and the taxes that finance them, and to make new arrangements (which may not even require federal funding) to achieve generally acceptable “goals”, which the Bipartisan Policy Center or others may articulate?… Read more
In response to the question “What DOT programs or projects should be axed?”, Emil seems to respond that none should be, until and unless they are shown to be inconsistent with “clearly articulated national transportation goals and [a redefined] federal interest.” Might it not be more logical to wind down most of the existing federal programs, and the taxes that finance them, and to make new arrangements (which may not even require federal funding) to achieve generally acceptable “goals”, which the Bipartisan Policy Center or others may articulate?… Read more
Steve might wish to consider an additional “circumstance” which makes “2009 an opportune time [to settle] the mission and priorities for a national transportation program”: 7. The development of technology to enable the costs of road use (taking account of distance, time and place of travel) to be charged directly to road users, and the revenues to be credited directly to road providers.… Read more
Robin: Your criteria for projects “deserving of national financing” seem broad enough to include any project that is “environmentally sustainable”, whatever that may mean. You do not mention financial viability, nor willingness of those who benefit to pay. Is any “enhancing quality of life” project, whatever the cost to taxpayers, “deserving of national financing”? How would you justify the $5 billion Dulles Airport rail extension which: · Offers slower door-to-door service than a busway solution; · Would be almost entirely financed by people who would never use it; · Would be inconvenient for airport travelers with luggage; and · Would… Read more
Mr. May: Yes, of course you are right. It is the cap on operations, not the lack of auctions, that controls congestion at airports. But, if the available capacity were to be auctioned, the most urgent uses would tend to get priority, and the less urgent would shift to other times and/or other airports. And the revenues from the auctions could finance the improvements you so rightly call for, eliminating the need for taxpayer financing. And could not the peak-period costs be shifted to the passengers, most of whom are not from the poorest segment of the population? Furthermore,… Read more
Might James May elaborate his comment and explain why the Air Transport Association, while seeking public funding for airport infrastructure, objects to the auctioning of landing and take-off slots at airports? Market pricing of these slots does indeed (contrary to his assertion) seem to “make sense as a tool to address congestion”, and the revenues generated could finance the expansion of airport facilities, reducing the need for public funding. Air carriers use market pricing to sell their seats, and to purchase most of their necessities. Why should airports not apply the same principles to the allocation of scarce airport landing… Read more
I think that the most useful program for the President to cut would be the federal financing of state roads which, since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, can well be included in the list of "programs that no longer work". Of course, at the same time he should eliminate the federal taxes that finance this federal program. Elimination of the federal program would require the states to take up the slack by raising their own taxes (or charges) to finance their highway programs. Substitution of state funding for federal funding would have the following advantages: a) The states… Read more
Steve – Of course I want transport services to be privately financed, but is it not desirable to “segregate all of the revenues by mode” in the public sector also? Imagine public sector restaurants charging the same price for all meals, irrespective of the menu. Would not the more popular dishes have to be queued for? What incentives would there be for economy? Would it be right to force the consumers of the less costly dishes to subsidize the more costly? And what would be the criteria for deciding how many dishes of each kind to provide?… Read more
Steve – Agreed that the “user pays” principle needs to be reformed, to ensure that transportation users pay the costs arising out of their choices, including “externalities”. GPS-based road pricing methods, which are already applied in Europe, do indeed promise to make this practicable in the US. But, if users were to pay the proper costs, including road costs, would you allow them to get the facilities they were prepared to pay for? And what then would be the point then of “Intermodalism”? On both sides of the Atlantic its main purpose now seems to be to get road users… Read more
Another lesson that some may have missed: Britain’s Labour government is adjusting its “Smart Growth” policies in rural areas, established in 1948. Gordon Brown to bulldoze rural housing curbs From The Sunday Times January 4, 2009 Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor GORDON BROWN is preparing to sweep aside planning controls in villages and market towns to allow the biggest rural house-building programme for a generation. Local authorities are to be controversially ordered to adopt a relaxed approach to the building of new homes in areas where planning permission has traditionally been refused. The government has concluded that… Read more
I believe Americans can learn at least three things about transport beyond their borders: First, that high-quality, high-frequency, public transport can be provided without subsidy, often by associations of vehicle-owners sharing a route. The "Por Puesto" taxis in Caracas, minibuses in Hong Kong, Sherut in Israel, Dolmus in Istanbul, “Serveece” taxis in Jordan, Jeepneys in Manila, Publicos in Puerto Rico, are examples known to many. Such services have been regulated out of existence in most of the US but still operate (legally) in Atlantic City and (illegally) in New York City. Second, that people in other countries crave the “right… Read more
The purpose of transportation investments should be not only to “create jobs” but to provide goods and services for which consumers would be willing to pay, and to pay enough to cover their costs. Furthermore, they should be “smart” investments to encourage the development of proven new ideas and technology. My humble recommendation (humility is in vogue these days) would be to scrap the program proposed for transportation and to substitute investments of three kinds: First, the development of HOT (High-Occupancy or Toll) expressway networks in major American cities starting with Atlanta, Dallas/Fort-Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle… Read more
Related Link: http://home.earthlink.net/~roths/
