<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> 1.         TOLL ROADS   Somebody 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.   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?   <ol start=1 type=1> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>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? </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>(As a nuance, the price should also cover the cost of collection, which can lead to more subtle distinctions but that we can handle case by case.) </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>Given the information and analytic tools we now have at our disposal it is pretty easy to distinguish situations in which new roads are really needed and justified -- but in places like the Northeast of the States, or many parts of Europe, this justification on a level playing field is going to be pretty hard to find. </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>So, the only remaining question is where and how to collect. </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>This is a classic ‘politics of transportation’ challenge (but that’s what we are supposed to be doing here anyway). </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>And what about this as a possible wrinkle to be considered? </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>In addition to NOT using “toll justifications for unnecessary additional investments”, including by private entities charged with the whole lot, we rather introduce something along the order of orderly “escalator charges” when we bring the tolls in on existing roads.  These would start at a low level, maybe just enough to cover the costs of collection in a first instance. But then proceed over our set period, let’s take a ten year period as an example to argue, to bring the rates up to the level (very high it usually turns out) so that the users will in good time be paying full costs. </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>This gives all the players plenty of time to adjust their habits – and at the same time for the responsible public sector to bring in new more environmental and “space efficient” (that phrase keeps coming up) transportation alternatives. </li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:black'>Note: In an ideal world, that escalator will be set by law (and popular support) so that some later group of politicos cannot come in and sweep it away because they now have their hands in the cookie jar.</li> </ol> <div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm'>   </div>   B.        The new mobility surrogate for Bob Moses:   I have been thinking about Robert Moses, who one pretty good reference (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses</a>) characterizes as “master builder .. and shaper of a modern city”.  Moses was, as many of you know, not only a great road guy, but also a master of political manipulation to make sure that his agenda got done ("if the ends don't justify the means, what does?").  Other times, other heroes, but that’s not the point here.   My late night thinking just concluded was suggesting that “what we need” today is a Robert Moses – someone who can make the New Mobility Agenda (call it what you will) happen.    Hmm. And hmm again.   The trick of course is that Moses performance was made possible by the fact that he was distributing great gobs of contracts and money, which fed in this case not so much into his personal bank account (he was on to other forms of satisfaction) but into those of his political backers. This made for a very powerful industrial/political machine indeed.   Now back to new mobility, which unlike old mobility is characterized by its general parsimoniousness.  Indeed, to a good extent that‘s what it’s all about.   So where and how do we get the new mobility surrogate for Bob Moses?   Item for discussion?   Eric Britton               </div> </body> </html>