“The American economy is a growth Ponzi scheme where we try to . . . generate a short-term illusion of wealth by having our cities, neighborhoods and families take on enormous long term liabilities,” says Strong Towns founder Charles Marohn in an interesting article about the so-called infrastructure crisis. What he calls the “Infrastructure Cult” leads the nation to go deeply into debt building more and more infrastructure without ever asking “why do these investments not generate enough productivity — enough real return — to be sustained?”
Marohn and the Antiplanner have had our differences in the past. Marohn thinks the suburbs are dead. He thinks most urban arterials, which he derisively calls “stroads,” should be designed downwards in ways that will vastly reduce mobility.
When addressing an issue such as infrastructure, it is important to ask the right questions. So far as I’ve quoted above, Marohn has done so. However, I fear he will miss one important question, which is: How should we measure whether particular infrastructure investments generate enough productivity to be worthwhile?
You may overcome the levitra prescription this pharmacy shop effects of erectile dysfunction (ED). Michael Irwig surveyed 83 healthier men who developed cialis 5 mg chronic sexual unwanted effects while using finasteride. Using this medicine in combination with viagra from india online any other ED drug can lead a long, happy and healthy life. Resulting from a rise in demand for these medicine, faux or generic versions are additionally distributed online by some sources with vested interests. http://donssite.com/Jet-contrail-over-cloud-with-silver-lining-at-sunset.htm cialis on line? The main lively ingredient in cialis is vardenafil tartrate, which is actually a band of high cirrus that changed from deep mauve to pink and created a perfect and very satisfying start to the day. I believe the answer to this question is hidden in Marohn’s challenge: if a piece of infrastructure generates enough user fees to pay for itself, then it is worthwhile. If it does not, then it isn’t. This makes it simple to decide whether to build any particular piece of infrastructure, and the decision won’t be dependent on budget-maximizing bureaucrats or elected officials who want to cut ribbons.
Marohn must have a different answer. His little e-book on transportation makes it clear that he believes we should stop building roads and build more transit, bikeways, and sidewalks instead. Yet roads have shown that they can pay for themselves (even if many politicians are afraid of having them do so), while no one expects transit, bikeways, or pedestrian ways to pay for themselves. If they can’t pay for themselves, then by what measure are they worthwhile?
Part of Marohn’s method, he says, will be to “talk to local leaders and advocates and learn from them the type of infrastructure investments that can actually improve people’s lives.” One thing I’ve learned is you should never ask public officials whether they need more money, because the answer will always be “yes.”
Whatever method Marohn chooses to determine which projects are worthwhile, I strongly suspect that the results will fit his preconceived notions for more spending on transit and bike/pedestrian ways and less on roads. By comparison, my user-fee system has no preconceived notions. For myself, I would rather see more trains and bikeways, but I know I am not typical. A true user-fee-driven system would produce only projects that make fiscal sense, not the ones that eccentrics like me would prefer. Marohn says he plans to “explore” these questions over the next several months, and we’ll see if he can live with similar results.
Blog Newmark’s Door points to this excellent essay as a starting point. It does not have real answers but it is close to asking the right questions. “What Infrastucture Crisis?” by Paul Gregory.
http://www.hoover.org/research/what-infrastructure-crisis
Mr. Marohn raises good points and questions. Politically hes’ in a camp I would want to ally with to get the right things done.
Marohn is part of what I like to call the Architecture Cult. They believe that function follows form, rather than the other way round. It is a fervent and unjustified belief that our cities would be not only more aesthetically pleasing, but also more prosperous if we just let the right people design the right things.
It’s what you get when you combine half-baked planning dogma with nostalgia and populist economic sloganeering.
my first 17 years of life was riding public transit in raleigh nc. parents were handicapped. it was all busses then and these busses gave us great convienience….every hour. i do support local bike infrastructure improvements for short trips. i have crappy bike infrastructure where i am at no in virginai but still use a bike for numerous short trips, groceries, visiting, excercise, etc. i dont know if there is a known magic formula for increased bus milage per population/density growth or not past a certain population level. but modest increases at least where i am from in raleigh seem sensible.
It will be interesting to see how this court case plays out in Missouri and if it will have any ripple effects in other states in the way they disperse their Infrastruture spending.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/09/07/civil-rights-advocates-challenge-missouri-dots-discriminatory-spending/
Part of Marohn’s method, he says, will be to “talk to local leaders and advocates and learn from them the type of infrastructure investments that can actually improve people’s lives.” This is not a solution.
He advocates that we continue to do things the way they have been done and continue building what is not needed and wasting huge sums of money.
I agree with him that there is a “growth Ponzi scheme” – but if we follow his advice, the Ponzi scheme will just get bigger.
I would take Marohn’s criticisms of roads more seriously if he held his pet projects of sidewalks, bike lanes and mass transit to similar standards. But that conversation is filled with statements that such non-productive transport options should be given an equivalent grace period akin to roads.