[NeoPeasant]

I am a lonely voice for restraint in highway building out here in Utah Cyberspace.

The following is an editorial from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce echoing the belief among policymakers and citizens that there is no such thing as too much traffic carrying capacity and whatever it costs will be worth it.

I am look for help from the more eloquent among you to help me rebut these arguments in light of our energy realities.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��The Salt Lake Chamber is once again asking for extraordinary investment in highways and public transportation. Just like our forebears invested in the highways and public transit we use today, we too need to do our part to maintain an effective transportation system. Utah’s unfunded highway and transit capacity needs tally $23.6 billion. Analysts predict that motorist delay in the urban areas will more than double during the next 25 years. That’s not good enough for business. The business community believes it is right to invest in our future now, without borrowing, while we have the money to do so and can avoid future tax increases. We ask the Utah Legislature to increase transportation funding beyond Governor Huntsman’s aggressive proposal for $140 million in new monies and to dedicate an additional percentage of tax revenues to the funding of transportation each year.”

[cube]

Something tells me you could probably replace the words "Salt Lake Chamber" with just about any other city in the country and the quote would probably sound just right.

I'm not necessarily in favor of more freeways or less. If I had a magic wand I'd create a funding system where motorists would pay the full cost for using a freeway. The most practical means of doing this would be to levy a fuel tax that would be sufficient to pay for the capitol and operating costs of a freeway. A vehicle registration tax, toll roads, or a VAT tax on cars could also be added.

BTW the funding of a public service by charging the user the full amount is one of the pillars of conservatism and libertarianism. There are exceptions of course. If a person's house was on fire no normal person would advocate that the home owner should pay the fireman the full cost first to put out the fire.

The purpose of such a system is to allow the user to see the true cost of the service they are consuming, only then can they make a wise decision as to if they want more of it or less. It also prevents a misallocation of resources. If the gov. makes something appear cheaper then what it is then the public will over-consume it. In such a scenario no funding system can ever meet the public's demand. This is what's happening with the freeway system.

Realistically speaking there's a difference between what to do if one had a magic wand verses what, one can do based upon the current economic/political situation. Having said that I propose that we do nothing. Just let the status quo continue and watch the whole system fall apart. Only then can we wipe the slate clean and start off fresh with a new political system.

That's my proposal----do nothing.

[peaker_2005]

Heh. Here we do studies into PT strategies.... and it seems nothing else. Well, at least if we do engage in a crash railway and tramway construction plan, there's no lack of plans...

[emersonbiggins]

What's up with that? From what I hear, TRAX is wildly popular and UTA is adding extensions as we speak. Is the chamber of commerce not happy unless they have 12-lane freeways to go with all that?

[Seadragon]

I can think of no more effective rebuttal than Dr. Bartlett's presentation on exponential growth and its effect on finite resources:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

Of course, it will do no good (Dr. Bartlett points out in the lecture that when he presented the facts to a local official, that person stated that he didn't believe that the effects of exponential growth applied "on a local level."). But since you are the lonely voice, keep trying.

Besides, building more freeways only increases congestion, but the people you're talking to always ignore that.

[Chaparral]

Hah! Our governor here in Calif is proposing the same automobile-centric infrastructure spending! There is a large groundswell of support for light rail, heavy rail, monorail and other mass transit but i think it's limited more to skyscraper/infrastructure/urban planning junkies than the general populace.