I just started reading Paving the Way: New York Road Building and the American State, 1880-1956
Engineers framed their decisions in the language of scientific rationality and professional expertise. But these were merely forms of political expression that advanced their traffic-service vision of highway planning. Though New York’s road-building program predated mass automobility, engineers quickly seized on the phenomenon as a means of cementing their political legitimacy. Traffic censuses became the main foundational beam to engineers’ authority, a scientific measurement of public demand for highways that was difficult to contest [ed. note: reminds me of the Texas Transportation Institute]. As long as state highway construction focused on the improvement of existing roads, dissent was weakly expressed. As engineering projects increased in scale, impact, and potential for controversy, resistance spiked. It was in the process of responding to increased opposition that strong tensions developed between engineers’ service to their professional agenda (building a better highway system) and their responsibility to the public (balancing highway construction with other aspects of social development). These interests, once operating in tandem and instrumental to the engineers’ rise to power, began over time to feed conflict and meet with cross-purposes. The engineers’ solution to this problem was to stop treating motorists as citizens and start treating them as consumers, who paid “user fees” through motor fuel taxes and registration fees that were then dedicated toward the maintenance and expansion of the highway system. The adoption of this “motorist-consumer” logic suggests the extent to which highway engineers sought to crowd out dissenting political voices, diminishing the public nature of highways whilte interpreting the simple act of driving as an unqualified endorsement of the highway program.
Has anyone else ever read this book, or otherwise have anything to say about it? Is the author overstating the purpose of user fees?
Benjamin Hemric says
January 26, 2011 at 4:16 amI just took at quick look at this book in the library — so my comment is a very tenative and quick impression.
Although the book appears to be a good and useful one, from the perspective of my own interests in urbanism and market urbanism (which are Jane Jacobs-inspired), this book seems to “overlook” (or, rather, does not seem to concern itself with) what is, perhaps, the key distinction to be made in terms of roadways that are called “highways”: is a roadway that is being called a “highway” a limited access roadway or not? In other words, is the roadway that is being called a “highway,” a roadway that is a “for everybody,” or is it a limited access roadway that is essentially for high-speed motorists? (I say this because in the early parts of the book, the “highways” that Fein is talking about are likely more like two-lane blacktop type roads — essentially local roadways are good for everyone.) Basically, from my perspective, “highways” that are “local” roads (i.e., serve properties facing them as well as through traffic) are necessary and good; limited access roadways, however, are the ones that are problematic. (They also happen to be the kind of roadways where tolls are more feasible, although this is not why they are problematic in my eyes.)
Another key distinction (from my Jacobs-inspried perspective) that the book “overlooks” (or rather does not seem to much concern itself with) is whether a “highway” is primarily for “business” (i.e., trucks and buses — in other words a pneumatic tire version of railroads) or for “pleasure” (primarily a scenic roadway for drivers and/or private automobiles). Jacobs makes the case that limited access highways have, indeed, a useful function for trucks and buses — but it’s when limited access highways are for private autos that they are problematic.
In her last book, “Dark Age Ahead,” Jacobs seems to suggest that in urban environments a good alternative to the limited access highway is the (“unlimited access”) urban boulevard instead.
That is not to say that the books own concerns aren’t useful or maybe even important, but rather that (at least to a certain degree) it seems to me that the book may be “confusing” the issues rather than clarifying them because the term “highway” seems to be used in the conventional “loose” manner.
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., January 25, 2011, 11:15 p.m.
P.S. — Hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).
Alon Levy says
January 27, 2011 at 4:42 amHistorically, a highway in the US is an intercity road or a rural collector road. Later they also added some urban arterials. If it is numbered, then it’s a highway and is eligible for gas tax funding. If it’s not – for example most urban roads – then it’s not a highway and must be funded purely from local taxes. Access control does not play into it, though I believe all access-controlled roads in the US are considered highways.
Benjamin Hemric says
January 28, 2011 at 2:02 amI’d like to restate and clarify (hopefully!) my previous comment about Michael Fein’s, “Paving the Way: New York Road Building and the American State.”
In my previous comment I wrote (basically) the following:
“That is not to say that the book’s own concerns aren’t useful or maybe even important but, rather, that it seems to me that the book may be ‘confusing’ the issues rather than clarifying them (at least to a certain degree) because the term ‘highway’ seems to be used in the conventional ‘loose’ manner.”
Here’s a clarification (I hope!):
It seems to me (from my quick skimming of the book) that the thesis of Fein’s book is, basically, that “roadway” building in New York State has served to help enlarge government both in New York State and, through its example, in the country at large as well. If I remember correctly, many of the roadways he discusses (especially in the early part of the book) are, likely, four-lane black-top type roadways that he refers to as “highways.” From my point of view, although Fein is technically correct in doing this, I think his usage is misguided and that it confuses the discussion rather than helps it.
As previously mentioned in my original comment, I believe non-limited access roadways are, generally speaking, “good” public works and something that government should “grow larger” (if need be) in order to build. (I believe in limited government, and this is what limited government is for.) It’s limited access roadways — more commonly known as “highways” — that are problematic. So, from my perspective, the author contributes to a confusion of the “real” (obviously, in my opinion) issues in the discussion by not making more of the distinction between the various types of roadways that can be called “highways.” In his book, he does mention the rise of the limited access roadway but, in my opinion, he doesn’t make enough of this distinction. From my perspective, the distinction between non-limited access roadways and limited access roadways is crucial. (Also crucial, from my point of view, is whether the roadway is largely scenic and/or for private cars, rather than one that is primarily for commercial traffic.)
Benjamin Hemric
Thurs., January 27, 2011, 9:05 p.m.
P.S. — Hope people will not mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).