|
At
the heart of the sprawl debate is the question of
who should pay the true marginal costs of new
development. Should those costs be borne by the
entire community or by those who directly cause new
development to occur?
There
are other questions to be sure, but the proper
allocation of the burdens of new development is the
issue that seems to cause us the greatest concern.
One reason for this is that growth continues to
occur while we haggle without resolution about how
to control new development. Someone must pay in the
meantime.
In
my last column, I alluded to the tragedy of the
commons, which is the result of the cumulative
abuses by individuals of a government program or
facility that is available to all without charge for
its use. This phenomenon contributes to an
inefficient utilization of public resources and must
be addressed if we want to solve the problem of
sprawl.
Some
costs simply cannot be covered by user charges. Policing
of highways, for example, must be funded principally
with tax revenues, even though earmarking court
fines for offenders can offset some of those costs.
If
we shift the cost of growth as much as possible to
those who benefit, we can encourage greater
efficiency because the real costs will be considered
by affected individuals as they make decisions about
commuting, taking trips throughout the day, where to
work and where to live.
Planners
generally object to this approach, believing that
the only way to achieve rationality in urban
development is through top-down planning. They
pursue a vision of growth that may not be and very
often is not, what a majority of the citizens and
businesses in the region want.
One
of the characteristics of this planning approach is
an excessive reliance on large, expensive and
centrally planned projects. This bias toward built
solutions, particularly in transportation, leads to
inefficiency and rigidity. Once constructed, these
projects don’t accommodate shifts in commercial,
housing and travel trends.
We
have come to assume that the only solution to
congestion is the construction of more highway and
rail projects. Seldom do planners and bureaucrats
actively consider no-build options, which would
allow for greater efficiency on the existing road
network.
Politicians
also tend to ignore less dramatic no-build
approaches in favor of major road and rail projects.
This produces two different outcomes. Most often,
new road and rail facilities are built after
development has already exceeded the capacity of the
old transportation system. Occasionally, a project
is constructed before growth occurs as inducement to
new development.
This
pattern cannot be sustained indefinitely. Each new
development phase is more costly than the last.
We can make better use of the facilities we already
have if we allow market forces to operate. Instead
of having politicians, planners and bureaucrats
control the process of responding to the need for
greater mobility in urban areas, we should allow
entrepreneurs to take on congestion, not as a
problem, but rather as an opportunity to make a
profit. Let them compete to satisfy public demand
through private risk-taking and innovation. Some
will fail. Others will succeed.
A
shift toward private solutions will more likely
track the preferences of the residents and
businesses in the region than would a government
approach. The end product may not be a grand highway
or expensive rail project. It may be a combination
of projects – some no-build and some user-financed
rail and road facilities – that will continue to
change as trends develop.
What
we’re apt to see is a far more efficient and
adaptive system than what we’ve been locked into
for decades.
--
January 16, 2006
|
