Note: This is Charles Marohn’s argument in favor of federally mandated transportation planning.
“Would you tell me which way I ought to go from here?†asked Alice.
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get,†said the Cat.
“I really don’t care where,†replied Alice.
“Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go,†said the Cat.
The Federal government spends tens of billions of dollars annually on transportation infrastructure. Are we getting our money’s worth? Are we maximizing our return? Are we building on our assets to create a strong, competitive nation? Are we accomplishing anything productive?
These are critical questions. The only way we know the answers is to set objectives, coordinate actions and measure results. In a word: plan.
I credit the Antiplanner with proposing this topic because it has forced me to think through a question where I generally take the answer as a given. Of course we plan. I have two daughters that my wife and I would like to attend university someday, so we plan our savings, and their current education, for that likelihood. I run a business that is trying to change the way America’s small towns operate; a monumental undertaking that calls for an overall plan. I want to retire someday, so I plan for that eventuality. In the context of the federal budget, my life is comprised of tiny, tiny expenditures, yet I plan them all. The idea that, as a country, we would spend tens of billions of dollars annually on transportation without planning what we are doing just seems absurd.
We should not be giving highway funds to states and metropolitans areas that have no coordinated plan for what to do with the money. Let me give the principle advantages that we see to requiring states and metropolitan areas to plan as part of receiving billions in transportation funding.
- Create efficiencies. Our interstate highway system is just that: INTER-state. It runs between states, and the states are responsible for its construction and maintenance. Maximizing this investment means that states need to work together and coordinate their improvements. If this were not done, our system would be ridiculous, with highways and rail lines starting and stopping by some local, random decision.
- Support national priorities. There are many national initiatives that supersede local priorities. For example, one region may contain mining and logging while another region may have power plants and a port. Connecting these two regions is in the national interest, even if it does not have much benefit for the communities in between. Future high speed rail initiatives – a rapid point-to-point connection – will not serve the lands it crosses, but will grow the overall economy by connecting key markets. These key investments in our future are made possible by linking planning and transportation dollars.
- Measure results. How do we know if we have accomplished anything with our billions in spending? A good plan details desired outcomes and anticipated costs and, when done correctly, establishes a reference to measure results. Like a proof that begins with an hypothesis and ends with empirical evidence, a plan creates a system where we can judge our success or failure. In short, planning helps us learn.
- Encourage innovation. By helping us learn about the outcomes of our spending decisions, planning helps us innovate new solutions. If something isn’t working, what can we do that does?While the federal bureaucracy frequently stifles innovation, we still have made many advances in how we locate, design and build transportation systems as a result of the planning process.
Now, my guess is that the Antiplanner is going to argue that the way we currently do planning is not effective, therefore we should not do it. If that is the argument, I’m going to mostly agree with the first half of it. At Strong Towns we are huge critics of the planning profession, especially in cases where planners collude with engineers to perpetuate a continuous repeat of a failed development pattern. Our approach to planning needs to be rethought, but not the idea of planning itself. If we are going to spend billions of dollars, we have to have some idea of what we are trying to do.
I’ll give a brief example of reform planners should embrace. Right now, we “plan†transportation improvements based solely on demand. Our “planners†contact each designated planning district representative and say, “Give me your project list.†Then we add up the list of projects on each region’s wish list and, what-do-ya-know, we have a plan. This is backwards, and it is not planning.
What we need to do is look at what our objectives are and how much money we have (or what a given approach will raise). Then we plan how our money can best be used to match those objectives. If we did this, we would see a change in our transportation spending away from the small, local priorities that are driven through political patronage and greater investment in projects that have a truly regional or national significance, alla the Transcontinental Railroad or the original vision of the Interstate Highway System (or, if I can light the fire of this debate, a modern system of regional high-speed rail connections).
If we don’t care where we end up, then it really doesn’t matter which way we go. If we want a strong nation, with strong states and metropolitan areas, than we need to plan to get there. We simply can’t afford to waste the resources we have.
valsonindia.com viagra no prescription There are some unscrupulous persons that sell fake drugs so beware. Yes, many men go soft or lose erection in the nick of time, it is highly order cialis soluble in water. A generic levitra online number of males may need problems on their reproductive organs and area. You should even eat less of fish, poultry and meat, viagra on sale cheapest especially when you are trying hard to free yourself from their emotional stronghold, it is going to be necessary to find forgiveness within your heart for a family member that has committed an atrocity against you.
The Federal government is trying to do way too much; much of it against the Constitution. How about getting rid of all payouts to states? If the state wants it, they can raise taxes. The source of the money is basically the same, except for borrowing & printing, and that’s only delayed payment & inflationary. Each state can be responsible & efficient (barely), but can better set priorities when they have to raise the money.
The Federal Budget is 1/3 short of revenue. That’s horrible. Much of the spending is political. The Pres & Congress (RINOs too) like power, so disburse money accordingly. For the Porkulus Package, the District or County (forget the geographical unit) that voted for Obama, got double the money than those which voted for McCain.
More user fees. More competition (ie school voucher, interstate insurance), and especially, less union power.
Hey, for CPAC speeches & FNC clips. If you think you disagree, is it good to see what the content is?
BTW, I posted another comment on the 2/15 page, about housing prices.
Suppose one or both daughters do not want to attend university someday, or suppose that unversities as we know them are obsolete by the time someday comes.
Planning for other peoples lives and happiness is paternalistic and condescending, and a lot more complicated than it appears a first. It is hard for us to know another person’s utility functions, or to know what their specific gifts and abilities are.
I do not doubt that Charles wants the best for his daugthers, but making plans for them to attend university may be too narrow minded. If that path is not right for them the parental plans and expectations may make them feel like failures, or feel that some how they have let their parents down. This is probably an unintended consequence of the belief that Charles knows what’s best for his daughters.
When planning it’s best to define the actual goals. Is the goal to have two daughters that attended university (something that may boost a parent’s self-esteem), or is the goal to have happy and well adjusted daughters who can thrive, get along with others, and realize their individual potentials?
Our approach to planning needs to be rethought, but not the idea of planning itself.
This is precisely the problem. Unless the very idea of government planning is rethought, there will be futile, wasteful, and expensive boondoggles coast to coast and everywhere in between where there should be government spending limited only to those functions necessary to protect individual rights.
If it’s not directly tied to the military, police, or court system, the government doesn’t need to be involved in it.
Thank you for your comments. A couple follow-up thoughts:
jwetmore said: “Is the goal to have two daughters that attended university (something that may boost a parent’s self-esteem), or is the goal to have happy and well adjusted daughters who can thrive, get along with others, and realize their individual potentials?”
Obviously the latter, but I would hate to have them turn 18 and then not have the money available if they wanted to go to college. If I don’t plan for that possibility, am I not making the choice for them? (And closing doors before they can decide if they want to open them).
Mike said: “If it’s not directly tied to the military, police, or court system, the government doesn’t need to be involved in it.”
If that were only true. The question we are debating is whether or not states must plan as part of receiving federal money. Of course they need to. We would have a much different discussion if we were debating whether or not the federal gov’t should be the epicenter of all transportation funding. Clearly they have some role, but I think it should be scaled down substantially to focus on large, mega-projects with a direct national benefit.
Planning of interstate transportation projects?
Yes, of course.
That means deciding where new interstate infrastructure should go. It could include infrastructure other than Interstate highways. Nor is it a new concept.
Consider that governments at the state and federal level were deeply involved in planning (and building) canals, railroads and highways in the 19th century.
Now what does this “planning” mean and what does it not mean?
What it does not mean is attempting to tell people how to live their own lives, it does not mean forcing them to use high-speed rail lines for intercity travel, it does not mean forcing them onto mass transit for local travel, it does not mean forcing people to live in apartment buildings on top of rail stations.
It does not mean that government agencies should build or operate transportation infrastructure (though they usually do in the U.S.).
Two lovely final sentences encapsulating much commie totalitarian thought.
“If we want a strong nation, with strong states and metropolitan areas, than we need to plan to get there.”
We don’t. We want individuals who do just exactly what they feel like doing without injuring their neighbor.
“We simply can’t afford to waste the resources we have.”
Uno – yes we can. Zwei – commies think ‘waste’ consists of people doing things they don’t like. Trois – my resources I’ll ‘waste’ any way I want and I deeply resent you even having the temerity to suggest an opinion on my resources.
Morals aside the only one who can properly plan sweet bugger all is someone with money at risk. Government planners must, by definition, screw it up.
CPZ:“What it does not mean is attempting to tell people how to live their own lives, it does not mean forcing them to use high-speed rail lines for intercity travel, it does not mean forcing them onto mass transit for local travel, it does not mean forcing people to live in apartment buildings on top of rail stations.”
ws:But it does mean that municipalities can have regulations and zoning that restrict dense housing and mixed use corridors that might provide citizens with walking/biking/transit options? It works both ways, CPZ.
I’ve lived in suburbia my entire life, and I feel forced into my automobile all of the time, actually. Walking is a bit inconvenient for most trips, and transit is slow because the area is not highly conducive to a stable transit system.
Mr. Marohn,
You accept the expenditure of those federal dollars on transportation as a done deal. Those who think in principle instead of pragmatism do not agree, and seek to have that funding rescinded and sent back to the taxpayers from whence it came.
Some transportation is necessary in order to deploy and implement a military and police force. This includes interstate highways and municipal arterial streets. It does not include commuter highways, neighborhood streets, any rail whatsoever, or commercial access roads, among other conduits. Those things should be privatized and new ones should only be built privately. They have nothing to do with the protection of individual rights, which is the government’s one and only legitimate purpose.
Until people are willing to stand for a government that works the way it objectively must, we will continue to see folks like you arguing about how to divide up our money, that was taken from us by force.
Interesting comments.
Mike said: “You [meaning me] accept the expenditure of those federal dollars on transportation as a done deal.”
Mike, that was actually the premise of the debate. If we debated whether or not the federal gov’t should tax for (non-military) transportation and then use that money for local pet projects, the Antiplanner and I would likely have few disagreements.
blacquejacqueshellac said: Trois – my resources I’ll ‘waste’ any way I want and I deeply resent you even having the temerity to suggest an opinion on my resources.
shellac, Waste away – I don’t care. When the gov’t taxes and then allocates that money based on the random, reactionary whims of the political elite (or mob rule, as Jefferson put it) instead of a thoughtful, open and transparent planning process, then I’m all over that.
ws says: But it does mean that municipalities can have regulations and zoning that restrict dense housing and mixed use corridors that might provide citizens with walking/biking/transit options?
I second ws’s comments here. Local zoning is often a great tyranny that limits options and mobility. In its modern incarnation, it is set up to maintain an auto-centric, decentralized development pattern. Without these codes, our development pattern would be much more dense, not due to commies but to market forces that would naturally create a higher level of efficiency.
Mr. Marohn,
Discussing federal spending on that premise is like having you and your rival sibling Randal fighting over who gets which bedroom without waiting to find out whether your parents are actually going to buy the house.
In other words, a pragmatic debate is pointless if the underlying principle is invalid — and for this debate, it is.
As for ws’s point: zoning is a violation of the right of property owners to dispose of their property as they choose, and thus should be abolished anyway. Two wrongs do not make a right.
jwetmore:“I do not doubt that Charles wants the best for his daugthers, but making plans for them to attend university may be too narrow minded. If that path is not right for them the parental plans and expectations may make them feel like failures, or feel that some how they have let their parents down. This is probably an unintended consequence of the belief that Charles knows what’s best for his daughters.”
ws:So if parents save money for their daughter’s education and they don’t end up going to school, that means that they are failures of parents because they planned for their children’s future? Let’s not mistake authoritarian parenting with authoritative.
Parents telling their kids what to do when they get older = bad. Parents planning to give them options and opportunities (i.e. college fund) is just damn good parenting.
Likewise, Soviet style planning = bad. Democratic and where it serves the people = good. Not all planning is bad, and not all planning is good. Let’s learn from what works and get rid of what doesn’t.
zoning is a violation of the right of property owners to dispose of their property as they choose, and thus should be abolished anyway. Two wrongs do not make a right.
This is a fallacy whose manifest weakness I was reminded of recently, when I was speaking at a conference in Seattle and I ran into one of my peers with whom I worked on WA’s I-933 initiative.
I helped frame the public message for the NO campaign. It was very easy. We found out quickly all we had to do to point out the effects of enacting 933 was to say their zoning would go away, and your neighbor would not be restricted in their use of their property – even a 10-story building right next door to you, and you’d have no recourse. That’s right: it was very easy to campaign – these are the likely effects ____, ____, ____. Few thought that private property rights were more important than limits on rights. We voluntarily live in societies, and we understand the tradeoffs in living with others.
Our many long nights were made easy as we saw the poor under-idead YES people thrash around night after night as soon as someone started asking about their unrestricted neighbors. Our many long weeks were rewarded with a resounding NO vote. People prefer to work well with others, and like restrictions on unreasonable people. Zoning is something the people want. Too bad for a handful of %age, surely.
———–
Local zoning is often a great tyranny that limits options and mobility. In its modern incarnation, it is set up to maintain an auto-centric, decentralized development pattern. Without these codes, our development pattern would be much more dense, not due to commies but to market forces that would naturally create a higher level of efficiency.
[golf clap]
DS
Dan,
I helped frame the public message for the NO campaign. It was very easy. We found out quickly all we had to do to point out the effects of enacting 933 was to say their zoning would go away, and your neighbor would not be restricted in their use of their property – even a 10-story building right next door to you, and you’d have no recourse.
If you really told them that, then you left out many facts. Nobody would prevent people from voluntarily entering into private covenants (such as an HOA) restricting the use of the land. As this would prevent one’s next-door neighbor from opening a 10-story apartment building, a slaughterhouse, or a jet engine manufactory, such private agreements would undoubtedly become the norm in a world Without Zoning, as they would mutually protect the value of the associated properties. Ordinary legal principles of estoppel, unjust enrichment, tort, etc would prevent things from getting too far out of hand with existing housing developments. To the court system, there is nothing novel in the landscape that would exist Without Zoning. Since your expertise is political, not legal, you did not know these things.
Of course, since your meal ticket depends on things like zoning existing, it’s natural that you would grasp at any straw you could in order to denounce a call for its abolition.
The original purpose of zoning–to prevent alternative uses from interfering–has been greatly expanded to a myriad of other reasons, often selfish, including for payback.
Example: Many times building homes on hillsides or in farms is not allowed, but there is residential on adjacent property, which would not be interfering. If homeowners want that open space, then they should buy the property.
Why is eminent domain not applying there? That adjacent property is “taken” for public use, the view.
BTW, stating the obvious, most Interstates are used as as intra-state, or more specifically intra-urban.
This non-use or ag use limits the supply of buildable land, driving up home prices.