еще мало??? ну тут же видно что автор сам уже сошел немного с темы и углубился в то что на этих частных дорогах находится.
Сейчас:A constant refrain in these passages is that solving the problem of congestion would be quite all right; however, to do this would involve the expenditure of monies, and this would be unjustified. But is it not true that the solution of any problem usually calls for the undertaking of some costs? And do we usu- ally let this fact, and this fact alone, deter us? It may well be asked, "What is so special about congestion that, upon hearing that its solution may well call for the expenditure of resources, we must at once conclude that to do so would be unjustified?"
Also implicit in this treatment is the assumption that some- how, somewhere, at some time (perhaps in the long distant past), some people were actually asked to choose between something like the present levels of congestion, for free, and a vastly improved, uncongested rush hour situation, for some apprecia- ble costs-and chose the present situation. But this is the merest fiction. Despite the allegiance this assumption has been able to garner, there is not the slightest bit of veracity to it.
Of course, on the market, people are continually choosing between (usually) lower priced but more crowded conditions, and more expensive, less congested alternatives. They do this in their daily choices to patronize, or not, a crowded fast food chain, a bargain sale at a local department store which they expect will attract large crowds, etc. The problem with our road network, in this regard, is that there is no functioning market in which the consumer can make his preferences known: there are no con- gested but cheaper highways competing alongside more expen- sive but emptier ones.20
Finally, there is the assumption that if an alternative were to arise whereby the consumer could purchase less traffic conges- tion (or a lower likelihood of falling victim to a fatal accident), the costs would be prohibitively expensive either in terms of money, or foregone mobility, or other resources. Now this might well be true, given that the state remains in control of the road industry. It is perhaps correct to suppose that, given our present institu- tional arrangements, we may be enjoying the best of all possible worlds in terms of our transit system, sorrowful though that world may be. But it by no means follows that the present method of highway operation is the only conceivable one, or the cheapest to maintain and operate. Indeed, it is the contention of this article that a free market in roads is not only feasible but desirable.
We shall now examine, in some detail, the most popular "nonpricing" solutions to the problem of congestion. But even more importantly, we shall examine the assumption behind them: that those responsible for the present congestion mess shall and should continue to administer the highway system and be responsible for any and all attempts to improve it. We shall try to show that this assumption is not valid and that, in fact, a privately owned and operated highway system is the answer to the con- gestion problem.
(a) Increased use of government rules. The first of the nonpricing solutions to be considered is the increased use of governmental rules. A general justification of this procedure is offered by Smerk, who opines that "some (governmental) rules are needed to preserve us all from the costly and painful chaos of transport anarchy." One problem with this argument is that, at least inso- far as congestion is concerned, we are presently suffering from "transport anarchy" of the worst sort-and this, in the midst of a great number of government rules indeed. Second, while it may be readily conceded that traffic rules of some sort are a prerequi- site of any order in transport, it by no means follows that gov- ernment is uniquely suited for the task of prescribing them.
One governmental initiative that stands as a perennial favorite is a call for staggered work hours.21 Usually dependent on a "moral suasion," the solution of staggered hours is popular for several reasons. The government need do nothing: action is called for on the part of the employer, who, along with recalci- trant employees, can be made into a scapegoat for congestion during rush hours. Recommending that "employers stagger their starting and leaving times in order to reduce and spread out the rush hour peaks"22 seems, moreover, to be the height of common sense. If the congestion is caused by great hordes of people enter- ing the traffic flow at the same time, what better way of ending it than by staggering their work hours?
But there are problems with this simple, apparently rational view. Most restaurants, for example, are busiest during breakfast, lunch, and dinner time, and perhaps in some cases, after show closings, for late-night meals. In other words, restaurants suffer from congested traffic, a peak load problem, during these times.
But were a restaurant management seriously to propose that its customers stagger their meal times "in order to reduce and spread out the rush hour peaks," it would be laughed right out of business in a trice. Its competitors would have a field day.
|
