Congested Thoughts
Last week, I suggested that readers check in on the debate over Southern California's congestion crisis in the LA Times between transit advocate Bart Reed and libertarian transportation scholar Ted Balaker. The debate, which ran five consecutive days, was structured as a point – counterpoint dialog dealing with issues ranging from reducing road congestion to the merits of rail versus buses to the use of toll roads. Regardless of the outcome of such a debate, the fact that it occurred on the pages of a prominent daily paper, in Los Angeles no less, is major triumph. Even more heartening is that the debate focused primarily on either alternative transportation options like light rail and express buses or esoteric solutions like congestion pricing. Those not surprised by the content of this debate have short memories – to have a five day conversation about congestion and have new road construction play a minor role is nothing short of miraculous. As I have written previously, Southern California is the cautionary tale for the rest of the country and possibly the world. The rise in prominence of mass transit and other wonky solutions in Los Angeles is not the result of a victory by the left, but the realization by even the most fervent car addicts that transportation in Southern California is a disaster and that the tangled mass of highways in the region is mostly to blame.
To understand how the pendulum has swung in transportation discussions, focus on Balaker’s points. For all of his libertarian bravado, Balaker embraces an assortment of progressive policy prescriptions. To recap, Balaker’s recommendations are:
- Toll roads
- Congestion pricing
- Telecommuting
- Heavily subsidized express buses
- Strategic road building, such as tunnels and overpasses
Most of Balaker’s huff-and-puff is directed at fixed rail, which, given the massive investment of public dollars required, is an easy target. This isn't cutting edge, radical thinking here. Large scale public projects like rail are intended to influence the trajectory of population growth and development for generations, but offer little immediate payoff. These projects don’t meet the immediate gratification standard of modern politics and certainly don't compute in the "every man for himself" libertarian brain. Balaker’s anti-rail rants, though, mask a massive concession: getting cars off the road should be the primary goal of congestion policies. Balaker has astutely identified a critical failure of our current car dominated way of life: providing the means to drive anywhere at anytime as a public good is unsustainable.
In the end, the debate is an academic exercise. Southern California has already bought into rail as the centerpiece to a more rational transportation infrastructure. Frankly, I’m not sure why Reed was chosen as the appropriate counterpoint to Balaker since he’s more narrow-minded about his pet solutions than Balaker is. The debate should really be about the form and scale of policies like congestion pricing, without which we will continue to send a mixed message to drivers. Balaker is correct in pointing out that, without overt pay-as-you-drive mechanisms, rail becomes an expensive second choice for drivers. The time has come for the implementation of a set of policies to transfer the actual costs of driving to drivers and in the process move people out of their cars. When that happens, they’ll be happy to see a shiny new train waiting to take them where they need to go.