The Conformity is Not Maturity blog has not closed its electronic doors, but it will be dormant for a while. Please join me at Urbanism Speakeasy. I’m also expecting to contribute regular blog posts on Urban Times.

I’m a Libertarian urbanist and I care about job creation, that national debt, the role of government, and energy and the environment.

JOB CREATION

My friends and I started an online marketing business and then published a book about our services. You would be amazed at how difficult it was! Not the business, but the government paperwork! I want to see more Americans working and earning wages, and that means removing bureaucratic handcuffs to encourage more people to pursue individual dreams. In this economy, more people are looking for ways to freelance or create small business niches. I want my candidate to promote jobs that support and enhance local communities, not jobs that exist to suck the will to live from entrepreneurs in my community.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

The federal government is bloated and inefficient. And when it does act, it often overreaches in ways that harms communities. I hear rhetoric about America’s crumbling infrastructure, but I haven’t had any trouble making long distance trips due to collapsed bridges or gaps in highways. My region feels obligated to spend “free” federal money by expanding highways and razing green space in order to meet the requirements of government programs. After decades of invasive projects catered to special interest groups, my friends don’t trust the federal government to make good decisions. I want a candidate focused on initiatives that use local funding deliver the most bang for the buck.

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Like most of the people in my neighborhood, driving alone to work is the only practical option. Our local bus service doesn’t have logical routes to connect residential areas to the business centers. I want to see a candidate who wants the government to get out of the bus business and promote privatization. A private company would want to make a profit, so the service would reflect the needs of my community. I’m pretty sure the bus stops would be safe and inviting to encourage higher ridership. Imagine how much we could reduce traffic jams and car pollution, especially in bigger towns and cities. I want my candidate to think about smarter, more efficient ways for people to move around and connect with each other.

SO WHAT?

History has shown that the major parties are excellent at disappointing passionate urbanist voters. Maybe there are more commonalities among urbanists than some might think.

I’m a Republican urbanist and I care about job creation, that national debt, the role of government, and energy and the environment.

JOB CREATION

Government shouldn’t grow to create more jobs. I want to see more Americans working and earning wages, and that means private companies need to have reasons to hire people. But I don’t want a candidate to encourage jobs for the sake of jobs. Some jobs are downright evil. There isn’t a market to pay delinquents to egg houses, is there? I watched a documentary that retold the story of an entire neighborhood displaced because some government agencies forced them out of their homes to make way for a new highway and a different type of development. I want my candidate to promote jobs that support and enhance local communities, not jobs to obliterate private property and force people to move.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

In this lousy economy, I have to be very careful with my personal checking account. I’d like to see the government do the same. Most of the Republicans running for office are talking about taxes, but what about cutting spending to programs that do more harm than good? In my region of the country, we like to compete for federal funds so that the press won’t make fun of us for leaving cash on the table. But I don’t think the federal government should decide how to revitalize my community. I want a candidate focused on locally-oriented initiatives that don’t rely so much on the federal government’s debt-ridden budget.

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

I hear a lot of talk about fossil fuel alternatives and renewable energy. Like most people I know, those sound like reasonable pursuits. But the regulatory environment of our government still seems to favor massive infrastructure projects that promote and even require the continued reliance on multi-car households. I want to vote for a candidate who is interested in scaling back regulations so that infill development flourishes and I can have more choices about where to live and how I commute. I’d like to see streets designed for slower traffic where I could actually walk on a sidewalk with my family and feel safe. I want my candidate to think about smarter, more efficient ways for people to move around and connect with each other.

SO WHAT?

History has shown that the major parties are excellent at disappointing passionate urbanist voters. Maybe there are more commonalities among urbanists than some might think.

I’m a Democrat urbanist and I care about job creation, that national debt, the role of government, and energy and the environment.

JOB CREATION

I don’t mind if jobs are created by the expansion of government agencies. I want to see more Americans working and earning wages. But I realize that not all paying jobs are appropriate. For example, I’m pretty sure that a hit-man employed by a gangster is not a good job to create. I support jobs that help people. Sometimes jobs are created for construction workers to demolish the homes of one group of people because a powerful group of people thinks it’s a good idea (see: urban renewal, 1930s – 1970s). I want to see jobs created that support and enhance local communities, not jobs that will pay for their destruction.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

A national debt of $14 trillion is hard to comprehend. Most of the Democrats running for office are talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. I’m more concerned about how the
government spends the money it collects. In my region of the country, I read far too many reports about “shovel ready”stimulus projects that strike me as a waste of money. If a project was designed back in the early 90s in a completely different regulatory climate, why should we hurry up and build it now? I want a candidate focused on locally-oriented initiatives that avoid discrimination towards certain members of the community.

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Like most of the people in my neighborhood, driving alone to work is the only practical option. But it bothers me that our country is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and foreign oil. I’m not expecting to see cars banned from roads, but if my neighborhood was closer to work, I’d walk and bike a lot more. Well, closer and with safer streets. Am I so radical for wanting to do my little part for the environment around me? My suburban streets look like interstates, so it’s probably too dangerous to try anything other than driving. I’d like a candidate who wasn’t so quick to promote the steady erosion and removal of natural habitats to make room for wider and wider highways in my backyard. I want my candidate to think about smarter, more efficient ways for people to move around and connect with each other.

SO WHAT?

History has shown that the major parties are excellent at disappointing passionate urbanist voters. Maybe there are more commonalities among urbanists than some might think.

Government will own and operate some or all of the country’s roads. Public roads for all; free roads for all.

What if government agencies (local, state, regional, or federal) didn’t own any roads? What if entrepreneurs, retail developers, small businesses, large businesses, trusts, and other private corporations owned and operated transportation networks? Downtown city streets, rural highways, and everything in between—owned and operated by a wide variety of financially invested parties.

Outrageous? Impossible? Anti-American?

Here are three reasons why the status quo authorities should be questioned by exploring privatization.

1. Private roads would save lives and reduce injuries.

In 2010, more than 30,000 people were killed in vehicle crashes. More than 400,000 people were killed in the decade 2001-2010. A whopping 24% of those people weren’t even in a car!

If private entities owned and operated roads, there would be an accountability process in place. Public officials are not held accountable when users of their product are tragically killed. We have been trained to accept massive roadway carnage as an acceptable cost of transportation. We are trained to call car crashes “accidents”.

Private enterprise would take real and measurable steps to reverse the horrific loss of life on our nation’s roads. The current one-size-fits-all mentality that turns community streets into raceways would be rejected as unsafe and unwise for communities, and by extension—bad for business. Publicly subsidized streets have been designed like highways. Suburban drivers feel comfortable steering with their knees while balancing a hamburger, soda, and mobile phone. Narrow streets, wider sidewalks, smaller intersections for people to walk across, well-lit bus stops—all possible ways that private enterprise would make streets safer for both drivers and people walking or bicycling.

This is naturally a challenging theory to prove, because we currently have no examples of truly privatized systems large enough to make meaningful comparisons. Interstate toll roads procured through design-build contracts have government influence throughout. When you hear about public-private transportation projects, know that government agencies are inseparable. State design standards must be maintained, government permits must be acquired, for starters.

Saving lives—tens of thousands of lives—is not partisan politics. Privatization of roads to save lives is not a partisan proposal. It is simply a proposal.

2. Private roads would use resources more efficiently.

Doing anything in the name of “the greater good” is a bold statement. Whose good, exactly? All members of the public? A simple majority? A vocal minority? Even if the government had the power to provide sunny days for everyone, what about the people trying to grow gardens waiting anxiously for rain? Understanding government’s definition of the greater good is kind of a big deal.

Many transportation projects have been initiated in the name of the greater good. Robert Moses became synonymous with urban renewal in the 20^th century. Remember Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments? Picture Moses raising his staff as the Red Sea parts, leaving wide swath of dry land for the Israelites to cross. That’s probably what it was like to witness expansive highways divide communities in New York City under the staff of Robert Moses.

Government-funded renewal projects were devised and executed as a way to help people. But let’s not completely demonize Robert Moses, when it was the publicly-subsidized system that made it possible for highways across the United States to rip cities apart, creating desolate wastelands.

In a privatized system roads would be constructed, widened, or narrowed based on market demands. Customer service would be the highest priority. The idea of “the greater good” would become measurable for transportation networks, just like with any other product or service. In 2012, one city may see the installation of 5 new frozen yogurt stores for the greater good. Another city may not. It’s no different with road networks.

Owners of roads would try to please communities, earn their business, and make a profit. Which means owners would be as careful as possible when using natural resources or impacting adjacent land uses. A system that values private property wouldn’t tolerate colossal environmental damage, excess water runoff to neighboring parcels, or highways shredding city centers. Prospective road owners would want to make financial investments where they saw long-term value. To use modern planning and engineering lingo, privatization promotes sustainability.

3. Private roads would promote freedom of choice.

Every product or service gets better with privatization. Better in terms of quality and efficiency. That concept should be about as obvious as the natural law of gravity, and yet some audiences perceive it as controversial. Consider for a moment your level of trust in the US Post Office versus private shippers.

Transportation subsidies have overwhelmingly favored one mode of travel for decades. The automobile. All the little details associated with a transportation network point back to moving as many vehicles as possible as quickly as possible. At the community level, the public subsidy format plays out in terms of wider roads that bring more traffic jams (see: induced demand) and more dangerous conditions for people walking and bicycling.

Publicly subsidized transportation does not support freedom of modal choice because the system is not set up to meet the needs of the end user. Today it doesn’t matter if the customer base wants to emulate European villages where people, bikes, and cars all share space in the streets. Customers are told that road standards prevent them from purchasing the product and service they want. Instead, customers are forced to pay for a system that fits government’s definition of the greater good.

Privatization could end discrimination against those who choose alternate modes of travel.

The Wrap

With all the rhetoric about innovative ways to improve transportation infrastructure, it’s disappointing that this topic never gets due consideration.

Private roads would save lives and reduce injuries.

Private roads would use resources more efficiently.

Private roads would promote freedom of choice.

No one will have a response to all the possible implementation strategies or hurdles. But that isn’t the point…yet. Are there any reasons to not explore road privatization?

The topic isn’t new. “Sad, sorry state of roads” will almost guarantee an acknowledgment by American Society of Engineers and other road building advocacy groups. I wish this particular article had a user-friendly comments section, because I think the reader debate would be quite lively.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1002/The-sad-sorry-state-of-US-roads

What I like is Richard Read’s parting thought: “How would you suggest we solve this growing problem?”

But the preceding thought is misleading: “It’s a given that U.S. roads have to be maintained, and it’s also a given that our government is responsible for maintaining them.”

Why is it a given that government is responsible for maintaining them? Very few people have explored a broad privatization of the transportation network. Walter Block is one. He raised the issue years ago in the context of public safety. And just to be clear, I’m not talking about the current model, full of public subsidy that we label “privatization”. I would love to see some in-depth research papers on fully-privatized networks.

That is a debate long overdue. Economists out there…you have some free time, right?

Could have been worse…NYPD could have confiscated the camera…

I recently drove past this example of conforming to road design manuals. Who needs common sense and engineering judgment when these manuals have all the answers?!

Contested Streets from Streetfilms on Vimeo.