[sustran] Express toll roads + More on . . .

[Eric Britton]

In my book, you get 4.5 out of 5 for your fine closing policy checklist Ryan
-- for which I thank you very much.

 

But where do we differ?  After all we have so many common, shared goals.
Here is the one (half a) point where I see the rub:

 

I love trams by whatever name and feel that indeed they have their place in
and around our cities-- but that is a very specific place and should not be
allowed to be interpreted as the substitute for sliced bread. 

 

What's wrong with all-light rail in this overall strategic context? Two
things (again in my book):

 

a.       They cost a great deal more than other solutions which can do at
least as good and perhaps a better job in terms of all the basic parameters
that we need to address and meet - social, economics (of individuals and the
community as a whole), environmental, resource. Public health, life quality,
community.. .. and of course the long list goes on. 

b.      And it takes a lot of time to get them in place. (Anywhere from five
to ten years on average - and that's a long time to put up with a situation
which we should be, and can be, tackling today.

 

So I vote for everything that you have plotted in your note -with  the
slight wrinkle that where you say "convert existing highways" we get to work
to make our existing highways environmental and economically efficient
carriers. 

 

Which of course is what we are trying to encourage with the Kyoto 20/20
program.

 

And if this has not yet got a higher profile in the international debate, I
guess it's because I have not yet worked either hard enough or smart enough
on this.  Because it is, you have to admit, just about the only show in
town.

 

;-)

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ryan McGreal
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:56 PM
To: Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com; Eric Britton
Subject: Re: [Kyoto2020] Express toll roads + Robert Moses and the NMA

 

Quoting Eric Britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>:
> Somebody please help me here on the first one of these, because my take on
> it is so terribly simple that I must be missing something important.

I've been grappling with this too. Here's a tentative take.

> Which of the following statements is sufficiently wrong that what we have
to
> do is give up and let them build their new roads anywhere and as they
wish?

> 1.      In a modern democratic society with many charges to assure
> well-being and social justice, it is only "fair" to put "full cost" prices
> on all scarce goods, including those which are funded through taxpayer
> contributions such as roads - covering all of the well known
externalities.
> No argument this side of the religious right and maddog left, okay?

Transportation is a true public good. Like education and health care, 
it does not simply benefit its direct recipients, but benefits everyone 
through a stronger, more robust economy.

However, just as not all types of education are equal, so not all types 
of transportation are equal, either. A public school system that 
teaches archery and harmonics might be appropriate and useful for 
ancient Athenians, but it wouldn't benefit a modern industrial society.

A transportation system that consumes massive amounts of fossil fuels, 
produces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and encourages 
sprawl development (with all the social and economic ails that implies) 
causes enormous costs to our society, no matter who "pays" for it. 
Society as a whole will have to bear the burden of the many 
externalities not covered by the tolls.

In any case, the "free market" argument falls apart since the 
government still either owns the highway or else creates it in 
"partnership" with private companies. In the latter case, the 
government assumes the risks while the "partner" enjoys the profits - 
hardly market forces at work. In fact, this used to be called 
"cronyism" and "pork barreling" before it was entrenched as official 
policy.

Finally, a transportation system should work for everyone who needs to 
use it. Consider the impacts of a toll system - especially a system 
that charges higher rates during peak demand - on the working poor, who 
often cannot afford to live close to where they work and do not have 
the flexibility to telecommute or work off-normal hours. Already 
squeezed by rising gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices, many 
could be driven out of the workforce by additional toll charges.

So: the government, as a representative of the public, has a duty to 
provide and otherwise encourage the kinds of transportation that will 
benefit the society and the economy as a whole, and the government is 
the only entity big enough to produce or facilitate the production of 
something as big and comprehensive as transportation infrastructure.

A good transportation system a) works efficiently; b) is cost 
effective; c) is affordable; and d) encourages sustainable development, 
especially around its access nodes. The toll highway concept is just a 
more expensive iteration of the status quo.

A successful model for encouraging more sustainable transportation is 
already emerging:

1) Stop building highways.
2) Start to convert existing highways into light rail lines (think of 
all the infill development that can take place where the massive 
"cloverleaf" interchanges are) and commercial rail networks.
3) Throw out the zoning codes and replace them with form based codes 
that encourage a healthy density and bring multiple functions in close 
proximity.
4) Establish a firm urban boundary and stick to it.
5) Widen the sidewalks, narrow the streets, and plant lots and lots of
trees.

Regards,

Ryan McGreal
Editor, Raise the Hammer
http://www.raisethehammer.org/







 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20051213/713b7512/attachment.html