Reason Foundation - Publications

Study: Seattle Could Get $13 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and Seattle facing a major budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the region's economic output by as much as $13 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Seattle by 2030: Columbia Center, the University of Washington, Factoria Mall in Bellevue, Redmond, and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around major suburbs such as Redmond and the University of Washington, which could each add $13 billion a year to the regional economy and nearly $1 billion in annual tax revenues. The report found similarly large economic benefits for suburbs in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and Denver.

Improving accessibility around major retail sites, the downtown area, and SEA-TAC could each deliver $3 billion to $5 billion in annual economic benefits.

"This report shows how important it is to prioritize taxpayer money on infrastructure projects with the best benefit-cost ratios," said Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation. "If you focus on the projects proven to improve mobility and eliminate traffic jams, your investment will be rewarded several times over. Shorter travel times increase worker productivity, spawn more jobs and help create more shopping, entertainment and dining choices."

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Seattle, it can mean tens of billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on Seattle's economy in the coming decades. The Reason Foundation says that by 2030 traffic congestion in Seattle will be worse than it is in today's gridlock capitol of America, Los Angeles. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Seattle needs to spend approximately $5 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That's actually just a fraction of the more than $100 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website, Reason.com. For more information, please visit Reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: San Francisco Could Get $10 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and San Francisco possibly facing a $438 million budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the region's economic output as much as $10 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across San Francisco and nearby areas by 2030: Union Square and AT&T Park, Stanford University, Southland Mall in Hayward, the city of Berkeley, and San Francisco International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around retail sites such as Southland Mall, which could add up to $10 billion a year to the regional economy and $750 million in annual tax revenues.

Improving accessibility to and from Berkeley and Stanford could produce $4 billion to $5 billion in annual economic benefits. The report found the possibility of similarly large economic benefits in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver and Seattle.

"We studied eight regions and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like San Francisco and its surrounding areas, it can mean billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on the Bay Area's economy in the coming decades. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, the San Francisco-Oakland area needs to spend approximately $29 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That figure is significantly less than the $118 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Salt Lake City Could Get $700 Million Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

A Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the Salt Lake City's economic output by up to $700 million a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across the Salt Lake area by 2030: EnergySolutions Arena, Brigham Young University, Fashion Place Mall, American Fork, and Salt Lake International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around suburbs such as American Fork, which could add up to $700 million a year to the regional economy.

Salt Lake should be excited that it has the least traffic congestion among the eight cities studied and it has the fewest road capacity needs over the next 20 years. The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

"We studied eight regions and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Salt Lake, it can mean hundreds of millions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Detroit Could Get $7 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and Detroit facing a $300 million budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the region's economic output up to $7 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Detroit by 2030: Comerica Park, the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Twelve Oaks Mall, Pontiac, and Detroit Metro Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around suburbs like Pontiac, which could add up to $7 billion a year to the regional economy and over $500 million in annual tax revenues.

Improving accessibility around the baseball stadium, University of Michigan-Dearborn, and retail sites like Twelve Oaks Mall could produce $3 billion to $5 billion in annual economic benefits. The report found the possibility of similarly large economic benefits in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver and Seattle.

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Detroit, it can mean billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on the Detroit economy in the coming decades. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Detroit needs to spend approximately $24 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That figure is less than the $41 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Denver Could Get $38 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and Denver facing a $70 million budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the region's economic output by as much as $38 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Denver by 2030: Coors Field, the University of Denver, Aurora Mall, Lakewood, and Denver International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around major retail sites like Aurora Mall, which could add $38 billion a year to the regional economy and over $2 billion in annual tax revenues.

Improving accessibility around downtown, Denver International Airport, the University of Denver and suburbs such as Lakewood could produce $7 billion to $14 billion in annual economic benefits. The report found the possibility of similarly large economic benefits in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas and Seattle.

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Denver, it can mean tens of billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on the Denver economy in the coming decades. The Reason Foundation says that by 2030 traffic congestion in Denver will worse than it is in today's gridlock capitol of America, Los Angeles. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Denver needs to spend approximately $10 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That figure is far less than the $87 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Dallas Could Get $17 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and Dallas facing a $190 million budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost the region's economic output by as much as $17 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Dallas-Fort Worth by 2030: downtown, the University of Texas at Dallas, North East Mall, Duncanville, and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around universities like UT-Dallas, which could add $46 billion a year to the regional economy and over $3 billion in annual tax revenues.

Improving accessibility around suburbs such as Duncanville and major retail sites like North East Mall could produce $17 billion to $23 billion in annual economic benefits. The report found similarly large economic benefits for suburbs in Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver and Seattle.

Reducing traffic around the convention center and DFW Airport could deliver up to $7 billion per year in economic gains.

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Dallas, it can mean tens of billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on the Dallas-Fort Worth economy in the coming decades. The Reason Foundation says that by 2030 traffic congestion in Dallas-Fort Worth will be nearly as bad as it is in today's gridlock capitol of America, Los Angeles. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Dallas needs to spend approximately $27 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That figure is actually less than the $45 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Charlotte Could Get $22 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and the state facing a major budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could boost Charlotte's economic output by as much as $22 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Charlotte by 2030: downtown, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Concord Mills Mall, Fort Mill, and Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around major suburbs such as Fort Mill, which could add $22 billion a year to the regional economy and provide over $1 billion in additional annual tax revenues. The report found similarly large economic benefits for suburbs in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and Seattle.

Improving accessibility around the University of North Carolina at Charlotte could produce over $14 billion in annual economic benefits. Reducing traffic around downtown, around major retail sites such as Concord Mills Mall, and near Charlotte Douglas Airport could each deliver an additional $1 billion to $4 billion to the economy.

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Charlotte, it can mean tens of billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on Charlotte's economy in the coming decades. The Reason Foundation says that by 2030 traffic congestion in Charlotte will be worse than any current city in America, except Los Angeles, which is home to the nation's worst gridlock. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Charlotte needs to spend approximately $3 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That figure is actually less than the $11 billion the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: Atlanta Could Get $15 Billion Boost by Reducing Traffic Congestion

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

With the economy stuck in a recession and Atlanta facing a major budget deficit, a new Reason Foundation report finds that reducing traffic congestion and improving travel times could create jobs and boost the region's economic output by as much as $15 billion a year.

The Reason Foundation report examines the impact that population growth and longer commute times will have on five areas across Atlanta by 2030: downtown, Emory University, Cumberland Mall, Panthersville, and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

Of those locations, the Reason study says the biggest economic gains would come from eliminating severe congestion around major suburbs such as Panthersville, which could add $15 billion a year to the regional economy and up to $1 billion in additional annual tax revenues. The report found similarly large economic benefits for suburbs in Charlotte, Dallas, Denver and Seattle.

Improving accessibility around major retail sites such as Cumberland Mall and around colleges like Emory University could produce over $12 billion in annual economic benefits. Reducing traffic around downtown Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson Airport could deliver over $5 billion per year in economic gains the study finds.

"We studied eight cities and the findings are clear," said David Hartgen, author of the report, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Reducing traffic congestion by 10 percent improves productivity by over one percent. One percent may sound small, but in a city like Atlanta, it can mean tens of billions of dollars in economic gains. The biggest gains come from enhancing mobility around suburbs, universities and malls. Smaller economic increases are made around central business districts and airports."

Traffic congestion is going to have increasingly negative impacts on Atlanta's economy in the coming decades. The Reason Foundation says that by 2030 traffic congestion in Atlanta will be worse than it is in today's gridlock capitol of America, Los Angeles. Reason finds that if infrastructure investments are aimed at the projects that will relieve the most traffic, Atlanta needs to spend approximately $15 billion (in 2005 dollars) to eliminate severe traffic congestion by 2030. That's actually just a fraction of the more than $53 billion that the region plans on spending on transportation in its current long-range plans.

The study makes several recommendations, including:

Pay more attention to the accessibility of various locations, not just downtown.

Remove bottlenecks throughout the region. Relatively modest expenditures can have major impact on travel times, particularly if congestion is relatively concentrated geographically.

Add road capacity in and around the rims of cities. Investment in suburban accessibility often offers a very good return rate.

The Reason Foundation study takes an in-depth look at traffic and economic growth in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Seattle.

Full Report Online

The full study is online here.

Reason Foundation's transportation research and commentary is here.

About Reason Foundation

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2009

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EDT

Federal tax revenues have fallen to levels not seen since the Great Depression. The deficit is a record $1.8 trillion and rising. Led by California's $26 billion deficit, state governments across the country are facing a cumulative deficit of over $142 billion in fiscal 2010. And budget shortfalls are so bad at the local level that cities like Georgetown, Indiana, are considering filing for bankruptcy.

Amidst that backdrop, all levels of government should be looking for ways to save taxpayer money and cut costs. "When it comes to looking at how the city can fulfill its obligations to the public, and pay for it, no subject should be taboo," California Inspector General and former Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick aptly put it while addressing LA's deficit last year.

Reason Foundation's 23^rd Annual Privatization Report details the latest trends and examples of how public officials are reducing costs and improving service delivery through public-private partnerships, outsourcing, and performance-based government.

"Governments are swimming in red ink and realizing the effects of the recession will be felt long after the economy recovers," said Leonard Gilroy, editor of the report and director of government reform at Reason Foundation. "Interest in privatization is sky-high and rightly so. Now more than ever, policymakers need to study their priorities, re-examine what are really core government functions, and then tap the private sector's expertise in all of the areas where they can save taxpayer money and improve the quality of services."

The Annual Privatization Report highlights developments across the country, including:

Florida's Council on Efficient Government identified 511 outsourced projects in 2008. A review of 21 potential privatization projects forecast $94 million in savings for taxpayers.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal established a Commission on Streamlining Government that is using privatization to help reduce the size and cost of state government.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a public-private partnership law that enables and encourages the private sector to fund and manage road, prison and courthouse projects.
New York Gov. David Paterson created a Commission on State Asset Maximization to identify areas where public-private partnerships can save the state money.
New Jersey policymakers are achieving a major environmental goal by privatizing the cleanup of nearly 20,000 contaminated properties in the state.

At the local level, Chicago continues to be the leader in privatization efforts. In December 2008, Mayor Richard Daley agreed to a 75-year lease of the city's parking meters in exchange for a $1.15 billion upfront payment. "This is not a core business of the city of Chicago," Daley stated.

The Annual Privatization Report examines the operational issues and political challenges that have arisen in Chicago since the deal took place. Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and several other cities are closely monitoring Chicago's situation as they consider similar parking meter deals.

The report also highlights the growing number of taxpayers choosing to opt-out of deficit-riddled local governments that are wasting taxpayer money and not delivering quality services. The report says, "Over 80 percent of 37,000 residents of the north DeKalb County community voted in July 2008 to incorporate the new city of Dunwoody." Dunwoody became Georgia's fifth "contract" city. Following the lead of Sandy Springs, Georgia taxpayers are ditching bloated county bureaucracies and creating local governments focused on their priorities. In Dunwoody, safety is a main concern so 40 percent of the budget is directed towards law enforcement. To keep costs low, private businesses, not government agencies, provide nearly all non-safety-related services.

The Annual Privatization Report also examines privatization's progress in transportation, education, corrections, water and wastewater services and telecommunications.

Full Report Online

Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2009 is online here.

Previous editions of the Annual Privatization Report are online here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically-acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Leonard Gilroy, Director of Government Reform, Reason Foundation, (713) 927-8777

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Net Neutrality Means More Government, Fewer Options for Consumers

Thu, 28 May 2009 18:20:00 EDT

The Internet is a complete success story by almost all accounts. More people have more access to more information and connections with other people than ever before. And all of this happened without government regulation or control. Yet, net neutrality proponents claim the Internet is in danger. They say Congress needs to pass legislation regulating the way Web content flows through networks and government must require cable companies and Internet service providers to treat all customers and content alike. A new Reason Foundation study, however, finds net neutrality would stifle the very innovation that has allowed the Web to grow so quickly and become such a powerful, integral part of our lives.

The Reason study says to get the most out of the Internet we should promote competition, not neutrality. Network neutrality proponents fear that companies will risk alienating their customers by blocking websites, directing traffic only to powerful corporate Websites, and charge prices that drive bloggers and casual Internet users out of the market. But, according to the study, this speculation is unfounded and doesn’t reflect market realities that companies must fight to keep their customers by delivering the services (and Websites) that they want at prices they can afford.

Net neutrality would actually punish companies that seek to improve or optimize their networks or Internet offerings, creating red tape and strangling future advancements.

“Net Neutrality would open the door to unprecedented government intervention in all aspects of the Internet,” said Steven Titch, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the study. “Placing regulations and legal limits on the Internet won’t bring neutrality, it will stagnate the Web’s remarkable growth. The Internet has been doing splendidly without government, why on earth would we want them involved now?”

Full Study Online

The full report, The Internet Is Not Neutral (and No Law Can Make It So), is online here.

Reason’s telecommunications and network neutrality research is here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website. For more information, please visit Reason.org.

Contact

Steven Titch, Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation, (312) 925-0464

Ballot Measures Won't Fix California's Deficit or Cure Its Spending Addiction

Thu, 14 May 2009 09:56:00 EDT

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is warning that the state’s budget deficit will reach $21.3 billion and the state will face a “cash crisis” if voters don’t approve the budget measures on next week’s ballot. A new Reason Foundation study finds the measures are tax increases and accounting gimmicks that will do nothing but put a short-lived band-aid on the state’s massive $42 billion deficit.

“These propositions don’t bring any meaningful reform to California,” said Adam Summers, author of the report and a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. “The state will never fix its budget problems until it controls spending and shifts to performance-based budgeting that sets goals, measures outcomes and funds only the programs that are delivering results. California should’ve learned it can’t tax and borrow its way to prosperity. These propositions are more of the failed status quo.”

Proposition 1A – So much for temporary tax increases. This measure would extend previously passed “temporary” tax increases for two more years, costing taxpayers $16 billion. It also includes a watered-down spending limit that is unlikely to effectively reduce state spending.

Proposition 1B – Education funding mandates already handcuff the state budget process. Prop. 1B would require that the state spend another $9 billion on K-12 education and community colleges.

Proposition 1C – For years California has been borrowing billions, diverting funds and covering up the red ink. This measure would allow the government to borrow against future potential lottery profits to help reduce the short-term deficit.

Propositions 1D and 1E –These propositions would redirect funds that taxpayers had specifically authorized for children and mental health programs to the General Fund, where legislators can spend the money as they see fit.

Proposition 1F – A common sense initiative that says lawmakers shouldn’t get pay raises in years in which the state government is running a budget deficit.

Reason Foundation notes that runaway government spending is really to blame for California’s budget deficit. Spending nearly tripled from $51 billion in fiscal year 1990-91 to $144 billion in 2008-09. If California had simply limited spending increases to the growth in inflation and population since 1990, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus today.

“California’s budget problems are structural,” said Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation. “For years, the state has been spending more than it takes in. When the real estate market is thriving or dot-com companies are booming politicians spend that money like addicts. Then when leaner times inevitably arrive, politicians claim there’s nothing they can do and they have to raise taxes. Gov. Schwarzenegger has talked about cutting up the credit cards. It is time to actually do that.”

Full Report Online

The full report, California’s May 2009 Special Election: Analyzing the Propositions and Offering Alternatives for Real Reform, is online here.

Reason Foundation’s report, California Spending By the Numbers, is online here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website. For more information, please visit Reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Weighted Student Formula Produces Good Results In Some of the Country's Biggest Cities

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:00:00 EDT

Much of our education funding is wasted on bureaucracy. The money never actually makes it into the classroom in the form of books, computers, supplies, or even salaries for better teachers. Weighted student formula changes that. Using weighted student formula’s decentralized system, education funds are attached to each student and the students can take that money directly to the public school of their choice.

At least 15 major school districts have moved to this system of backpack funding. Reason Foundation’s new Weighted Student Formula Yearbook examines how the budgeting system is being implemented in each of these places and, based on the real-world data, creates a series of “best practices” that other districts and states can follow to improve the quality of their schools.

“To make schools more responsive and accountable to parents and students we need to stop wasting money in central and district offices and get the money flowing directly into classrooms,” said Lisa Snell, author of the Weighted Student Formula Yearbook and director of education at Reason Foundation. “In places where parents have school choice and districts empower their principals and teachers we are seeing increased learning and better test scores.”

The results from districts using student-based funding are promising. Prior to 2008, less than half of Hartford, Connecticut’s education money made it to the classroom. Now, over 70 percent makes it there. As a result, the district’s schools posted the largest gains, over three times the average increase, on the state’s Mastery Tests in 2007-08.

San Francisco Unified School District has outperformed the comparable large school districts on the California Standards Tests for seven straight years. A greater percentage of San Francisco Unified students graduate from high school than almost any other large urban public school system in the country. And across the Bay, Oakland has produced the largest four-year gain among large urban districts on California’s standardized tests since implementing results-based budgeting in 2004.

In 2008, Baltimore City Schools faced a $76.9 million budget shortfall. But Superintendent Andres Alonso instituted weighted student formula. He identified $165 million in budget cuts at the central office to eliminate the deficit and redistributed approximately $88 million in central office funds to the schools. By the 2010 school year, Alonso will have cut 489 non-essential teaching jobs from the central office, redirecting 80 percent of the district’s operating budget to schools.

The Weighted Student Formula Yearbook identifies key principles that improve educational outcomes as well as the transparency and accountability of our schools:

1.    Funding should follow the child to the public school of their choice;
2.    Per student funding should vary based on a child’s educational needs, with special education students and others receiving larger amounts;
3.    Funding should arrive at individual schools in real dollars, not in numbers of teaching positions or staffing ratios.

The experience with weighted student formula also shows that one of the most important factors in the success of schools is decentralized decision-making. As such, Snell finds principals should have autonomy over their budgets and hiring teachers. This local flexibility allows principals to tailor their schools to best fit the needs of their students.

“Eliminating the top-down bureaucracy lets principals and teachers focus on teaching,” said Snell.

Weighted Student Formula Yearbook Online

Click here for the complete Weighted Student Formula Yearbook.

Reason Foundation’s education research is archived here.

Lisa Snell blogs on education issues at Reason's Out of Control Policy Blog.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website . For more information, please visit our website.

Contacts

Lisa Snell, Director of Education, Reason Foundation, (951) 218-1171
Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

An American Beer Revolution

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EDT

In 1980, there were less than 50 breweries in the United States. Today, over 1,400 craft breweries help the U.S. produce more styles of beer than anywhere else in the world. A new Reason.tv video explores the history of beer in America and shows how deregulation paved the way for the recent American beer revolution.

European immigrants brought beer to America, building breweries wherever they settled. By 1870, there were more than 4,000 breweries in the U.S. But in 1920, prohibition decimated the industry. When prohibition ended, home brewing was still a crime punishable by five years in prison or a $10,000 fine.

In 1979, consumer choice and freedom finally returned when President Jimmy Carter signed a law allowing individuals to brew small batches of beer at home. Innovative home brewers became entrepreneurs and opened craft breweries across the country. The craft brewing industry generated over $6 billion in sales and produced over 8.5 million barrels of beer in 2008.

“The American Revolutionaries were beer drinkers who fought for a free society,” says Reason.tv editor Nick Gillespie. “Here’s to freedom, choice and great American beer.”

Full Video Online

The Drew Carey Reason.tv video, Beer: An American Revolution, is online at: http://reason.tv/video/show/683.html

An archive of Drew Carey’s Reason.tv videos is online at:
http://reason.tv/featuredvids/

Think Tank Proposes $5.7 Billion Congestion-Relief Plan for Lee County, Florida

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST

Traffic congestion in fast-growing Lee County, Florida, is expected to worsen dramatically in the coming decades. And the current long-range transportation plan does not adequately address those needs, according to a new Reason Foundation study.

The Reason Foundation report finds Lee County needs 488 new lane miles of road capacity by 2030 to handle population growth and eliminate severe congestion in the region. The study concludes that this can be accomplished by making all new lanes planned for I-75 variably-priced toll lanes and providing modestly-priced tolled overpasses at major intersections on key arterials. The overpasses, or “queue jumps,” would allow drivers to bypass stoplights in exchange for paying tolls.

The total cost of the new road capacity proposed by the Reason Foundation study is $5.7 billion, nearly all of which could be funded without taxpayer dollars using the projected toll revenues. The time savings resulting from reduced traffic congestion along with lower operating costs and fewer accidents would save the area $13.25 billion over 20 years. Thus, the savings would be 2.33 times as large as the investment.

The proposed queue jumps would not toll existing arterial roads, but would build new overpasses or underpasses along busy corridors like Cypress Lake Drive/Daniels Parkway. The study examined that corridor in detail, identifying specific queue jumps and estimating their costs. The entire corridor would cost $277 million to build. The “net present value” of toll revenues is estimated at $285 million, suggesting such corridors could be self-supporting.

The study sketched out a network of queue jump corridors along such major thoroughfares as:

Business 41/Metro Parkway
Summerlin Road
Veteran’s Parkway
Santa Barbara Boulevard
And the currently planned Colonial Blvd. corridor.

Since these corridors are economically viable, private companies would likely be willing to construct them at no taxpayer expense. The companies would make their money back by charging tolls on the queue jumps. The tolls at each of these intersections would be approximately 45 cents during rush-hours and less at off-peak times. People who do not directly benefit from the improvements would not be forced to pay for them through taxes.

For I-75, the study calls for expanding to 10 lanes by 2030 with all of the new lanes being tolled. The Southwest Florida Expressway Authority projects that the two additional lanes currently being added to I-75 will be congested within a few years. The Reason study says these two lanes should be made “high-performance” by using variable-priced tolls that rise and fall with traffic levels to keep traffic permanently free-flowing. This would also provide a revenue stream to continue to upgrade I-75 and possibly free up transportation dollars that could then be used on other projects. It would also guarantee a congestion-free alternative for emergency vehicles and buses.

Full Report Online

The full report, Reducing Congestion in Lee County, is available online here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Housing Bust, Stimulus Packages Are Making the U.S. Resemble Japan in the 1990s

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:47:00 EST

Los Angeles (February 20, 2009) – The current economic uncertainty in the United States, and the government’s response to it, is eerily similar to that of Japan’s “Lost Decade” according to a new Reason Foundation report.

The study finds that Japan’s housing prices rose by 51 percent and commercial real estate values rose 80 percent between 1985 and 1991. In the U.S., commercial real estate and housing prices both skyrocketed 90 percent from 2000 to 2006.

The Nikkei, Japan's stock index, fell from 38,975 in 1989 to just 18,934 by the end of 1999. During the continuing economic malaise, it dropped even further to 7,603 in 2003. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 14,115 in October 2007. On February 19, 2009, the Dow closed at 7,465, its lowest finish since 2002.

President Barack Obama recently signed a $787 stimulus package that includes over $60 billion for infrastructure and transportation projects. Japan passed 10 stimulus packages in the 1990s that would equal $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars. From 1992 to 1999, Japan spent over $500 billion (in today’s dollars) on public works projects. Despite this infrastructure spending, Japan’s unemployment rate more than doubled and the economy remained stagnant.

“The history lessons from Japan are clear,” said Anthony Randazzo, co-author of the brief and a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. “Huge stimulus packages and spending hundreds of billions on infrastructure and health care may deliver some short-term benefits, but, as Japan learned the hard way, they won’t bring the economy out of a recession. Even more worrisome is the prospect that these government interventions will likely do more economic harm than good.”

The Reason Foundation study also finds striking similarities in the way the U.S. and Japan dealt with failing banks, credit woes, toxic assets and other monetary issues.

“In both cases, the government created and worsened the situation through monetary interventions,” said Adam Summers, co-author of the study and a Reason Foundation policy analyst. “The central banks drove interest rates to artificially low levels causing an unsustainable credit expansion that led to numerous bad investments. An economic recession is the inevitable correction for such a bubble. More government interference will only make things worse.”

Full Study Online

The full report, Avoiding an American Lost Decade: Lessons from Japan’s Bubble and Recession, is available online here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

What Caused the Budget Mess? California's Spending Has Nearly Tripled Since 1990

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST

What Caused the Budget Mess? California's Spending Has Nearly Tripled Since 1990
Don't blame tax revenues for the deficit, they increased 167 percent

Los Angeles (February 18, 2009) - Facing a massive $42 billion budget deficit, California is laying off thousands of workers and issuing IOUs instead of paying its bills. A new Reason Foundation study examines two decades worth of state budgets and concludes that runaway spending is to blame for this fiscal disaster.

The Reason Foundation study shows that since former Gov. George Deukmejian's final budget in Fiscal Year 1990-91, state spending-including the General Fund, special funds, and bond funds-has skyrocketed 181 percent. Spending nearly tripled from $51.4 billion in FY 1990-91 to $144.5 billion in FY 2008-09.

Are California's taxpayers getting higher quality services than they did in the 90s? They should be. In FY 1990-91 the state spent $1,350 per capita. Today, the government spends $2,644 per person.

"California is swimming in red ink because of its extravagant spending," said Adam Summers, the policy brief's lead author and a policy analyst at Reason Foundation.

Politicians often blame falling revenues for California's budget woes, but state revenues jumped 167 percent between 1990 and 2008. In FY 1990-91, the state took in over $38 billion in General Fund revenues. By FY 2008-09 revenues were $102 billion. If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the California would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now.

The Reason Foundation study calls for spending and revenue limits along with a rainy-day fund to help avoid future budget disasters.

"The California Performance Review showed there are literally thousands of ways to eliminate waste in state government and improve its cost-effectiveness," said George Passantino, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and a former director on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review. "From public-private partnerships to eliminating needless boards and commissions to selling state-owned beach houses and golf courses, the blueprint for meaningful reform exists. Now we need leaders with the willpower to end the state's spending addiction and chart a new, healthy course."

Full Report Online

California Spending by the Numbers: A Historic Look at State Spending from Gov. Pete Wilson to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is online here.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Reason Foundation Praises President Obamaâ��s Transparency Memorandum

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:54:00 EST

Los Angeles (January 22, 2009) – On his first day in office President Barack Obama laid out his principles for transparency in the executive branch, a step towards keeping his campaign promise of leading the “most transparent and accountable administration in history.”

Back in August 2007, then-Sen. Obama became one of the first presidential candidates to sign the Oath of Presidential Transparency promoted by Reason Foundation and a diverse coalition of 35 other groups. The Oath of Transparency would require the executive branch to adhere to the concepts of ‘Google Government’ by making spending, earmarks and other documents available to taxpayers online. On Wednesday, Obama signed a memorandum on “Transparency and Open Government” that pledged “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

“It was very promising to see President Obama show real commitment to transparency and accountability on his first day in office,” said Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation. “Not many of his fellow candidates even signed the oath, so the President deserves real praise. Hopefully the Obama administration views this as just the first step in a process that makes the federal government more answerable to taxpayers. The bailout bills have clearly demonstrated that our system is plagued by secrecy, a lack of accountability and wasteful spending. President Obama would be wise to push for more transparency by calling on Congress to post any future spending bills online - before they are voted on. This would force members of Congress to own up to their pork requests and give taxpayers the chance to provide real-time feedback on plans to spend our hard-earned money. During the campaign, President Obama vowed to ‘post all bills brought to his desk online for five days before they are signed’ so he likely recognizes the value in asking Congress to do the same.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr were among the other candidates who signed the Oath of Presidential Transparency. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State, were among those who did not.

Transparency Oath Online

The full study, The Oath of Presidential Transparency signed by then-Sen. Barack Obama and information about the diverse coalition of groups promoting the oath is online at http://reason.org/oath/.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

KRM Commuter Rail Plan's Supposed Economic Benefits Aren't Credible; System Would Require Massive Subsidies

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

Los Angeles (December 16, 2008) - The claimed economic benefits of the proposed commuter rail line for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee corridor are "not credible" and other transit options should be studied, according to a new study by Reason Foundation, a free market think tank.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee analysis of the local economic benefits of the construction of the rail line wrongly assumes all expenditures, and jobs created, would be local, even though there is no local capacity to produce many of the components, such as the $48 million rail cars. And the $2.1 billion increase in property values the rail project alleges would mean that each of the 3,696 projected 2035 round-trip riders would be "worth" $568,000, a claim that "cannot be taken seriously" the Reason Foundation concludes.

Reason Foundation finds every new passenger boarding the commuter rail system would cost $28. Yet passengers would pay just $2.92 for a ticket, meaning taxpayers would subsidize over $25 for every new one-way rail passenger. By comparison, the total cost per passenger for the Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) in 2007 was $3.

"Amidst a recession and tough economic times, it is more important than ever to make decisions based on cost-effectiveness and benefits to citizens." said Tom Rubin, author of the Reason Foundation analysis and a transit consultant.

The rail plan fails to identify a source of funding for the approximately $20 million Muskego Bypass and the over 50 at-grade crossings along the route will pose serious safety and traffic congestion issues, the study concludes.

The Reason Foundation report says several other flexible and affordable transit options have been ignored entirely, or "given short shrift," and should be studied in-depth. These include:

I-94 Commuter Express Bus: Long-haul express bus service would make sense as a substitute for or as a supplement to commuter rail along the Lake Michigan shoreline and should be studied. Express buses are low risk and would require a much smaller upfront investment than commuter rail.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lite: This alternative would involve buses operating on city streets without special guideways. In Los Angeles, a similar program has increased bus route speeds by up to 25% and ridership by over 40 percent.
Carpools and Vanpools: The study states, "While vanpools will rarely capture a major share of the home-to-work trips, they will often provide among the greatest return on investment on taxpayer dollars that is available to governmental transportation decision-makers and staffs."

Full Report Online

The full study, Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) Corridor Transit Service Options: An Investigation and Analysis, is online at http://reason.org/ps372/.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

"Speaking from our experiences in Texas, Sam Staley and Adrian Moore get it right in Mobility First." — Texas Governor Rick Perry

"This book is a must read for urban managers of large cities." — Alain Bertaud, former Principal Urban Planner, World Bank.

"…an invaluable contribution to the looming public choice question in the debate over the proper use of roads and railways" — Prof. Lawrence Lai, University of Hong Kong

On the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama frequently talked about "rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools, and bridges." Today, many pundits and policy experts are encouraging him to be "bold," especially with big new infrastructure and transportation projects that might stimulate the economy.

In their new book Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Twenty-First Century, Samuel Staley and Adrian Moore challenge policymakers to rethink how best to fix America's gridlocked and deteriorating road and transit systems. For decades, America has struggled to prioritize and finance large-scale infrastructure projects. Staley and Moore detail how private capital investment and value-priced roads can usher in a new era, unclogging our transportation networks and unleashing a system capable of handling our 21st century economy. Obama has supported some of these principles by calling for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank.

In Mobility First, Staley and Moore put forth real-world examples from across the globe to chart a new course for transportation planning. Mobility First offers ways to modernize transit and expand road capacity, sets goals for congestion reduction, calls for a redesign of the regional transportation network, outlines performance standards to increase transparency, and provides a blueprint for attracting large private investments to help build needed infrastructure.

About the Authors

Samuel Staley, Ph.D., is director of urban policy at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank that has advised the last four presidential administrations on transportation issues. He is also author of the book The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think and What We Can Do About It.

Adrian Moore, Ph.D., is vice president of research at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank that has advised the last four presidential administrations on transportation issues. Moore is a commissioner on the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission created by Congress.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Mobility First, November 2008, ISBN 0-7425-5879-7, Rowman & Littlefield

Past, Present Freedom Communications Executives to Receive Reason Foundation's "Flame of Freedom" Award

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

Los Angeles (November 12, 2008) - In recognition of their constant, courageous commitment to libertarian principles, Reason Foundation will award the "Flame of Freedom" to R. David and Judith Threshie and Richard A. and Patricia Wallace.

"The Threshies and Wallaces have been unwavering voices in the ongoing battle to advance freedom," said David Nott, president of Reason Foundation. "As Reason celebrates four decades of free minds and free markets, we salute these families for their dedication to individual liberty."

Mr. Threshie is the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Freedom Communications and the former publisher and Chief Executive Officer of the Orange County Register. Mr. Wallace serves as a trustee of Reason Foundation and recently retired from his role as Vice President of Corporate Affairs of Freedom Communications. He served on Freedom's Board of Directors from 1968-2007.

Mrs. Threshie and Mrs. Wallace are granddaughters of R.C. Hoiles, the libertarian founder of Freedom Communications. Through the leadership of the Wallace and Threshie families, Freedom has continued to uphold Hoiles' commitment to liberty while acting as a partner in the vitality and growth of every community served by the company.

Hoiles, who built a communications empire based on his personal values of integrity, individual responsibility, and respect for freedom and community, died in 1970. Today, Freedom Communications, headquartered in Irvine, California, is a privately owned information and entertainment company of 33 daily and 77 weekly newspapers, eight broadcast television stations, and a wide variety of Internet publications and businesses.

The Flame of Freedom recognizes the contributions of the Threshies and Wallaces in developing, applying, and promoting the libertarian principles of individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. The award will be presented at Reason magazine's 40th anniversary gala on November 14th at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Nanny State Extends Smoking Bans to Private Homes

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

Los Angeles (November 12, 2008) -- Ten years ago, California became the first state to ban smoking in bars. Since then, numerous states and thousands of cities have passed similar laws. And now, as a new Reason.tv video shows, smoking bans have stretched into private homes.

The city of Belmont, California, has outlawed smoking in all apartments, condominiums and other multi-unit houses that share walls, ceilings or floors. What's next? To ensure a smoke-free environment, some cities are banning outdoor grilling and barbequing.

"You may like it when politicians ban something you hate, but sooner or later they will go after something you like," Reason.tv editor Nick Gillespie says. "Smoking bans in bars and restaurants set the stage for a proliferation of bans that have now reached into our homes."

The Reason.tv video shows life is imitating an old Denis Leary stand-up routine, in which the comedian asks, "What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket with all the lights out?" Nope, even that's now illegal in Belmont.

"I actually like smoking bans-I just don't like it when the government does the banning," says Gillespie. "Thousands of apartment owners, hotels and other businesses have voluntarily said no to smoking in their establishments, because their customers prefer a smoke-free environment. Others allow smoking because their customers want a choice. In a free, tolerant society, nobody needs politicians to tell them what to do."

Full Video Online

The Reason.tv video, Just Can't Quit, is online at http://reason.tv/video/show/577.html.

About Reason.tv

Reason.tv is an online community showcasing the best libertarian ideas and videos on the Internet. For more information, please visit www.reason.tv.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Universal Preschool Isn't the Silver Bullet

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles (October 23, 2008) - Despite the massive $700 billion bailout and record deficits, many are calling on the federal government to spend tens of billions of dollars on a new universal preschool bureaucracy. To make matters worse, according to a new Reason.tv video, those billions would be spent on the same types of programs that have failed to produce better students or lasting gains on standardized tests.

The Reason.tv video says government-run preschools in Georgia and Oklahoma, the two states with the longest-running universal preschool programs, successfully prepare children for kindergarten. Unfortunately, these short-term gains completely 'fade out' by the fourth grade, at which point there is no difference in the test scores of students who did or didn't attend preschool.

"In these tough fiscal times we need to make smart decisions and really focus our limited education resources on programs that deliver results," said Lisa Snell, director of education at Reason Foundation. "We don't need an expansive new universal preschool system that gives 'free' preschool to rich kids. The children who truly benefit from preschool are low-income and disadvantaged. Those are the kids that preschool advocates should be targeting by fixing Head Start, which has failed miserably, and partnering with successful private programs and charter schools."

The video says universal preschool would put private daycare centers and preschools out of business, eliminating the diverse early childhood education options that most parents have today. In addition to stifling choice and competition, expanding K-12 education to include universal preschool would bring mandated curriculums; require preschool teachers to be credentialed so unions can be expanded; and would guarantee more money for the flawed public school system.

"Universal preschool isn't the silver bullet for our failing schools," said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.tv. "The one-size-fits-all, government-run education system clearly isn't working. We need more choices and competition, not less."

Full Video Online

The Reason.tv Drew Carey video, Universal Preschool, is online at http://reason.tv/video/show/576.html. An archive of Reason.tv's feature videos is online at http://reason.tv/featuredvids/.

About Reason.tv

Reason.tv is an online community showcasing the best libertarian ideas and videos on the Internet. For more information, please visit www.reason.tv.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Examining California's Ballot Initiatives During this Economic Crisis

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles (October 14, 2008) - California's deficit may be $15 to $18 billion this year. The state's revenues for the first quarter of this fiscal year were short by more than a billion dollars. Standard & Poor's has warned that California is under a negative credit watch and its credit rating is already the second lowest in the country. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently said the government may need a $7 billion loan to pay its bills.

Despite all this, taxpayers are being asked to approve another $16.8 billion in borrowing. A new series of reports from the Reason Foundation examines all of the propositions on the state ballot, noting that California's general obligation bond debt nearly tripled from $42 billion in fiscal 2001-02 to $120 billion in 2007-08.

Here is a brief summary of Reason Foundation's analysis of the propositions:

Proposition 1A: "…annual ridership for the system by 2030 will likely be a whopping 64 percent below the projections claimed by supporters (23.4 million versus 65.5 million). Construction of the first phase of the project will more likely cost $40-$50 billion (not $33 billion as projected) with annual operating costs up to $1.76 billion (not $1.1 billion as projected)...These bonds will not fund the complete high-passenger train system and California taxpayers would be on the hook for a boondoggle of a massive scale."

Proposition 2: "…a one-size-fits-all approach that hurts California's farmers, reduces consumers' choices, and increases food prices, putting a further strain on household budgets."

Proposition 3: "While ensuring that children's hospitals have the resources to provide for children in their care is undoubtedly important, using bonds to finance the project is fiscally irresponsible."

Proposition 4: "This initiative represents an unwarranted expansion of government control and intrusion into what is currently a private matter involving families, individuals and their physicians."

Proposition 5: "California needs to reform sentencing and parole rules to ensure that public safety is upheld, reserving prison capacity for violent offenders, while helping nonviolent offenders become productive members of society."

Proposition 6: "Rather than adding more felony laws, lawmakers should engage in sentencing reform that will bring clarity and consistency to sentences. One of the most troubling provisions included in Proposition 6 is a change that would allow hearsay evidence or unverified evidence not obtained from actual witnesses in criminal cases. Hearsay is not evidence and allowing it to be treated as such will invariably result in more innocent people going to prison at a time when wrongful convictions due to prosecutorial and judicial abuse are emerging as a serious national concern."

Proposition 7: "…the measure would prevent California electricity customers from benefiting from the innovations and technological breakthroughs in renewable energy research that are expected over the next several years. Proposition 7 would 'lock in' today's expensive technology for tomorrow's energy needs."

Proposition 8: "…would result in California once again extending 'separate-but-equal' opportunities to its gay residents. If the rights are the same, the law should not distinguish between types of 'family relationships' or call them 'marriage' for one group of people and 'domestic partnerships' for another. A gay couple's decision to marry does not infringe upon a heterosexual couple's right to marry; so gay couples should be allowed the same opportunities and freedoms as heterosexual couples."

Proposition 9: "…would increase spending on California's criminal justice system significantly, while exacerbating the problem of prison overcrowding."

Proposition 10: "…would remove $10 billion dollars from the state general fund over the next generation without creating any significant, lasting infrastructure. In fact, most of the money would be spent on rebates for the purchase of new vehicles that will not necessarily be used in California."

Proposition 11: "…the concept of an independent commission to draw boundaries for state lawmakers is likely to reduce the odds of abuse and holds the promise of increasing competitive pressures for elected office. This could result in a more dynamic and responsive government. Furthermore, by protecting 'communities of interest' it would also end the practice of gerrymandering obscure district boundaries that confuse voters and undermine the relationship between the public and their elected representatives. At a bare minimum, it would introduce an element of objectivity to political boundaries that is painfully absent today."

Proposition 12: "…exploits a sympathetic group-veterans-so that lawmakers do not have to include funding for Cal-Vet in the normal budget appropriations bill. This allows legislators and the governor to circumvent their responsibility to make the difficult program trade-offs and prioritizations they were elected to make."

Full Reports Online

California General Election: Voter Guide is online at www.reason.org/pb71_voter_guide.pdf.

Drowning in Debt: Bond Measures Threaten California's Already Precarious Debt Situation is online at www.reason.org/pb73_bonds.pdf.

The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act: Prison Overcrowding, Parole and Sentencing Reform (Proposition 5) is online at www.reason.org/pb74_prop5.pdf.

Redistricting in California: Competitive Elections and the Effects of Proposition 11 is online at www.reason.org/pb72_redistricting_prop11.pdf.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109
Adrian Moore, Vice President of Research, Reason Foundation, (661) 477-3107

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, Gov. Rick Perry Praised as "Innovators in Action"

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

(September 25, 2008) - The Reason Foundation is heralding U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Texas Gov. Rick Perry as "Innovators in Action" for their work in developing fresh solutions to cope with our growing infrastructure and traffic problems.

In Innovators in Action 2008, Ms. Peters and Gov. Perry author columns explaining their visions and policy prescriptions for the future of transportation funding and construction.

Secretary Peters writes:

If we get the policy right when the new bill is written, it has the potential to be as far-reaching and visionary as the legislation President Eisenhower signed in 1956 giving birth to a national Interstate Highway system, which ultimately revolutionized the American economy and way of life.

Modern technology and new approaches to financing make it possible to empower consumers-through the mechanism of the market-to set transportation priorities, instead of government planners and regulators.

...The first step is to refocus our surface transportation program on a clearly defined federal role. When the government tries to be all things to all people, it fails to be coherent and risks being nothing to anyone. The program Eisenhower created 50 years ago was well-defined and well-suited to its time. The goal was clear: build the Interstates and connect the country-and we did.

Since that mission was accomplished more than a quarter of a century ago, our federal surface transportation program has lost its sense of direction. It has become a breeding ground for earmarks and burdened by a proliferation of special-interest programs, goals and requirements."

In his Innovators in Action piece, Gov. Perry writes:

"A decade ago, if I said there was a way to pay for all the roads Texas needed, if I had talked about a group of people who are eager to compete for the chance to spend their money to build our roads, many probably would have thought I'd lost my mind.

But the fact of the matter is, many financial institutions are willing to pay for the roads we need but can't afford, in exchange for the opportunity to recover their investment and make a profit over time. In fact, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters recently estimated that roughly $400 billion in private money is available worldwide for public infrastructure projects. It would be foolish for Texas to ignore such an opportunity.

I am convinced that private dollars, administered through private-public partnerships, are a part of the answer to our transportation infrastructure challenge. Such innovation can sometimes frighten those accustomed to the old way of doing things, those comfortable with the status quo. But the simple truth is: when it comes to roads, Texas needs more of them. And we need them now. We need leaders willing to think outside the box, to be innovative in their solutions, to take a chance."

"From crumbling roads to collapsing bridges to gridlocked roads, our nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and expansion," said Leonard Gilroy, editor of Innovators in Action and director of government reform at Reason Foundation. "Governor Perry and Secretary Peters have led us down a new path, a path that shows there are better and more sustainable ways to fund, build and operate infrastructure. Their leadership offers hope that after years of falling behind, we can build a 21st century transportation system that protects our mobility and spurs the economy."

Other public officials featured in Reason Foundation's Innovators in Action 2008 include:

Former U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker;
Utah State Senator Howard Stephenson and State Representative Craig Frank;
New Jersey State Senator Raymond J. Lesniak;
the late Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson;
King County, Washington Executive Ron Sims;
Denver Regional Transportation District CEO Cal Marsella; and
Olga V. Block, CEO and Executive Director of BASIS Schools.

"At every level of government there are officials of all political stripes who are implementing programs that give taxpayers more bang for their buck and improve accountability," Gilroy said. "Now we need these types of innovators to become the norm, rather than the exception."

Full Report Online

Innovators in Action 2008 is online at http://www.reason.org/innovators2008/.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush were featured in Innovators in Action 2007, which is available online at http://www.reason.org/innovators2007/.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Study: California's High-Speed Rail System Will Cost Tens of Billions More Than Estimated, Adding to State Deficit

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles (September 18, 2008) - Staring at a $15 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he'll veto the state budget because "nothing is more important than getting our fiscal house in order." In November, voters will get their own say on budget matters: Will they let the state borrow nearly $10 billion to start a high-speed rail system that will likely add billions more to the state deficit in the years to come?

The high-speed rail system will cost tens of billions more than advertised and ridership numbers will be much lower than predicted, according to a due diligence report on the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plans.

"The current high-speed rail plan is a fairy tale," said Adrian Moore, Ph.D., vice president of research at Reason Foundation and the study's project director. "The proposal suggests these high-speed trains will be the fastest ever; the most-ridden ever; the cheapest ever; and will convince millions of Californians they no longer need to drive or fly. Offering up a best-case scenario is one thing, but actually depending on all of these miracles to happen simultaneously is irresponsible public policy."

Proposition 1A would authorize $9.95 billion in bonds for a high-speed passenger train, but taxpayers should beware that this is just a fraction of the system's total price. The Rail Authority claims the first two phases of the system will cost $45 billion. But even that understates the total price. With the high costs of building in California and the history of cost overruns on rail projects, the final price tag for the complete high-speed rail system will actually be $65 to $81 billion, according to the Reason Foundation report.

And while the Rail Authority forecasts between 65 and 96 million intercity riders by 2030, the due diligence report finds these projections are dramatically inflated. After compiling numerous ridership studies previously conducted for California rail systems, the study demonstrates the state can expect 23 million to 31 million riders a year in 2030.

Any failure to meet the Rail Authority's lofty ridership projections would force ticket-price increases, further cutting ridership, or require taxpayer subsidies to cover the financial shortfall, adding to future budget deficits. The due diligence report finds "the San Francisco-Los Angeles line alone by 2030 would suffer annual financial losses of up to $4.17 billion."

Similarly troubling, the report finds that no existing high-speed rail train is currently capable of meeting the speed and safety goals set by the system's advocates. California will have to use heavier, slower trains than the world's other high-speed rail systems because it plans on using the same tracks as freight trains in some sections, instead of specialized tracks.

The due diligence report also concludes that the high-speed rail system's supposed impact on CO2 emissions is inconsequential and costly. In fact, a similar reduction could be achieved by improving the fuel efficiency of the state's cars and SUVs by just half a mile per gallon by 2030.

"Unfortunately, the California High-Speed Rail Authority hasn't leveled with the public about the high risks and uncertainties this project brings," said Joseph Vranich, who supports high-speed rail, served as president of the High Speed Rail Association in the early 1990s, and is one of the study's co-authors. "History tells us that you'll see construction overruns, higher operating expenses, and a failure to meet ridership projections."

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109