Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Ivy League studies Houston, new left urbanists want to control your life, improving Houston's flood resilience, and more

A whole bunch of backlogged smaller items this week:
"These activists have big dreams. They want local governments to rebuild the urban environment—housing, transit, roads and tolls—to achieve social justice, racial justice and net-zero carbon emissions. They rally around slogans such as “ban all cars,” “raze the suburbs” and “single-family housing is white supremacy”—though they’re generally white and affluent themselves, often employed in public or semipublic roles in urban planning, housing development and social advocacy. They treat public housing, mass transit and bike lanes as a holy trinity, and they want to impose their religion on you. 
“The residential is political,” wrote new left urbanists David Madden and Peter Marcuse in 2016. “The shape of the housing system is always the outcome of struggles between different groups and classes.” By dictating how cities build new housing, the logic goes, urbanists can dictate how people live and set right society’s socioeconomic, racial and moral deficiencies.
Activists use euphemisms like “transportation alternatives” and “transportation choices,” but at heart their vision is about control."
“It’s too easy to drive in this city,” said Phil Washington, the chief executive of LA Metro. “We want to reach the riders that left and get to the new ones as well. And part of that has to do with actually making driving harder.”
 “Sometimes you have to tell people what’s good for them,”
As you would expect, the piece lead all sorts of reactions:
"According to the University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, the average Los Angelean can reach 50 percent more jobs in a 20-minute auto drive than a 60-minute transit ride...
So tell me again, Mr. Washington, how is transit so good for people that it is worth slowing down the 90 percent of them who don’t ride it just to fill a few more bus seats?"
"Transit agencies (and reporters) need to recognize that they exist to serve people; people don’t exist to serve transit. If transit is no longer providing the service that people need, then it is time for the agencies to reduce their services, not to increase taxes."
"Yet like the famous Soup Nazi in “Seinfeld,” if you want to drive, own a house and live a middle-class lifestyle in L.A., no soup for you!"
"Houston’s living costs are 5.5 percent below the nationwide average and 22.8 percent below the average of the nation’s 20 most populous metropolitan areas, ranking it third most affordable among its peers (only Tampa and St. Louis are less expensive)."
And I've argued in the past that if you combine our high incomes from the energy and other industries with our low cost of living, we enjoy the highest standard of living of any major metro in the US and probably the world.
"The four strongest large metropolitan areas for job seekers, with nonfarm employment up by at least 3% in the 12 months ending in July are Orlando, Florida; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Seattle, Washington, and; Houston, Texas. The top four large metropolitan areas with more than a million nonfarm workers are in states without an individual income tax.
The three Texas metros accounted for 247,300 new jobs over the past 12 months, penciling out to 948 jobs added for every workday in a typical year in the Dallas, Houston and Austin areas. Texas’ big three produced more than 1-in-3 jobs created in the top-15 metro areas."
Finally, if this week's rains are making you nervous about flooding, come out to this Houston Stronger event Oct 2nd to learn more about what's being done to make us more resilient (click the graphic to enlarge).

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 08, 2019

Response to Jeff Speck's anti-45N expansion op-ed

I had a whole host of smaller items for this week, but all of that has to be put on the back burner to respond to a lot of flawed arguments in Jeff Speck's anti-45N expansion op-ed featured in the Sunday Chronicle today.  So let me take them one by one:
  • $7 billion: yes, it is expensive, but he fails to mention that this is *state money* that will go somewhere else in the state if we don't use it. Houstonians are being essentially offered $7 billion in free transportation infrastructure - are we really going to turn that down??
  • Lost businesses and jobs: these businesses, jobs, and economic activity don't evaporate, they just move.
  • Our lack of competitiveness: then why are we consistently at the top of the metro rankings for population and economic growth?  Why are people choosing with their feet to move here?  And why are the top cities he lists - SF, NY, Chicago - all out-migrating?
  • Freeways don't benefit downtown: if we tore down all the freeways going into downtown, I'd be willing to bet a *whole* lot more companies would be moving out than new residents would be moving in.  Those freeways are the lifeblood of those major downtown employers bringing their employees in from the suburbs that offer the quality of life (and schools) they want for their families.  If those freeways are gone, those employers will be moving out to them (like Exxon did), not vice-versa.
  • Induced demand: this is exactly what we should want! It means the government built transportation infrastructure that is in high demand, and that's exactly what taxpayers should want! Would you rather they built transportation infrastructure noone wants to use? (like a lot of rail lines built in the US these days...) My favorite example that makes this clear: if an airport built a runway, and no new flights used it, that makes it a boondoggle waste. But if it fills up with new flights, that's the definition of success!
  • The Katy expansion was a mistake: ask just about anyone that used to drive on the old 6-lane Katy freeway, and they'll all agree it's *way* better now. Nobody wants to go back to what it was before.  And it has enabled nothing less than a boom out there, including the Energy Corridor. Here's the most-liked online comment that points out the flaws in his numbers:
"What a truly garbage article, even though I agree with the premise that the I-45 expansion isn't being done correctly. All I had to do was look into the claim that "the PM commute on the Katy was up 55% since before construction". That's not true. Opening the link, that 55% rise was since 2011 - freeway construction was complete in 2008. There was no analysis of the commute times before the construction. 
Making fraudulent claims like that, Mr. Speck, completely undermines your argument. And you really think getting rid of the sections of 45 where you're speeding along at 70 MPH inches away from a concrete wall will somehow decrease safety? You really don't understand that per vehicle PM emissions are higher when the vehicle is idling in traffic (and thus has its engine on) longer? No discussion on the population and economic growth in West Houston since the expanded Katy opened? 
This is exactly why I got out of urban planning - unbelievable hypocrisy and ignoring of facts that don't fit your agenda. No the 45 expansion is not perfect, but leaving the freeway configured the way it is now in perpetuity is unacceptable. Go away please."
  • Safety: in addition to the comment above, he ignores the fact that when freeways are congested, people cut through local streets, and that is *way* more dangerous than keeping that same car on a freeway.
  • Air pollution: see comment above.  What causes more pollution than cars zipping down a freeway? Cars stuck in congestion on a freeway, or continuously idling on surface streets.
  • Future vision: he pretends like these are mutually exclusive, but they are completely compatible and both are doable and actually happening. The project includes removing the Pierce between downtown and midtown and sinking it in Eado and the Museum District, which enhances rather than detracts from his walkable vision!
"If I-45 is widened, it will be remembered that, in the decade prior, Houston enjoyed a brief glimpse of a better future. Downtown and Midtown have been reborn, lifted on a demographic shift that favors urban living. Regional bike trails grace the Bayou Greenways, and a brilliant Beyond the Bayous plan lays out an ambitious path for sustainable growth. Transit ridership is up, thanks to investment in light rail and a redesigned bus network. The mayor, members of city council, and county commissioners all sing the praises of a more walkable Houston. Sadly, all these trends will be reversed if Houston doubles down on its nation-leading commitment to fossil-fuel infrastructure."
I'll also point out what I've said before: personal and commercial vehicles are never going away. They may run on fossil fuels or electricity or fuel cells or whatever, but the basic vehicle is now a foundational element in our society.  These freeways will accommodate plenty of non-fossil-fuel vehicles in the future. 
  • Congestion-based pricing: finally, one good idea in here! And good news: the 4 new MaX Lanes down the middle of 45N will almost certainly have it (as well as supporting huge transit improvements in MetroNext!). But unfortunately, congestion pricing the whole thing is not politically feasible (nor federal or state-allowed, I believe).
I'll conclude by saying I applaud TXDoT's extensive efforts to respond to community input and mitigate impacts (and hope they continue to do so), but I also wish they would commission a regional poll on support for the project, which I'm sure would show overwhelming support and quash this illusion that the public is opposed to it.  Then we can get past this "do it/don't do it" debate and just focus on the "how do we make it better?" debate.

Previous posts on this project:
UPDATE: Great new online comment with additional points showed up under the article by LogiBoom:

"Why does the Chronicle print this garbage and give it the prime location in the Sunday op-ed? It would take a very long post refute all the nonsense in the Speck op-ed, but here are a few points.
  • Most new lanes on I-45 are managed lanes, which will be a critical part of future public transit options
  • Downtown will be greatly improved by removing the Pierce Elevated, sinking around 2 miles of I-69 below ground, and reducing the number of freeway structures on the west side of downtown
  • The expansion and improved single-occupant vehicle mobility will be most beneficial to people in blue-collar and mid-skill jobs, since those jobs are outside of downtown (warehouses, industrial sites, construction, medical, etc) and the only way to get to those jobs is to drive
  • The idea that the growth and revitalization of downtown will be reversed by this project is absurd. Downtown Houston interests help design this project and are highly supportive. When construction of the project starts, we'll see new development as developers anticipate the improvements.
  • Speck's solution, congestion pricing, will disproportionately impact the lower-income population. It's ridiculous to compare Houston to NYC. NYC has extensive public transit (mostly built 100+ years ago) and people can switch to transit. That's not an option in Houston, or just about any city outside of NYC."

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 02, 2019

TX beats CA, bike lanes backlash, tops for middle class and startups, clever flood protection for homes, TXDoT drop, place-based visas

I'm finally back from vacation with lots of items to catch-up on:
"Many struggling American communities are, among other things, losing people. Meanwhile, many millions more people would like to move to the United States of America than the country is prepared to allow in. 
Three economists have called for leveraging the latter into a solution for the former, allowing both communities and immigrants to opt into a special program that would allow communities experiencing population loss to issue temporary visas to skilled foreigners that would allow them to live and work in places that want more workers."
"Texas continues to rank ahead of other states that have multiple large metro areas, like California and Florida. 
In safety and performance categories, Texas ranks 1st in structurally deficient bridges, but is 33rd in urban Interstate pavement condition, 37th in overall fatality rate, and 43rd in traffic congestion.  On spending, Texas ranks 27th in total spending per mile. 
“Texas has the largest highway system in the country and could do the most to improve its overall rankings by reducing traffic congestion on urban highways, improving the pavement conditions on those urban Interstates, and lowering fatality rates on rural and urban highways. Compared to nearby states, the report finds Texas’ overall highway performance is still better than Louisiana (ranks 34th) and Oklahoma (ranks 41st), but just behind New Mexico (ranks 21st),” said Baruch Feigenbaum, lead author of the Annual Highway Report and assistant director of transportation at Reason Foundation. “Texas is doing better than comparable highly-populated states like California (ranks 43rd) and Florida (40th).” 
Texas’ best rankings are structurally deficient bridges (1st) and rural arterial pavement condition (13th). Texas’ worst rankings are in traffic congestion (43rd) and rural fatality rate (38th). 
Texas’ state-controlled highway mileage makes it the largest highway system in the country."
Finally, a very clever tech solution for home flooding protection. Check out the cool video. What I don't quite get from the video though is how it keeps water from seeping underneath it. More on the company here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 19, 2019

Flooding plan, faster cheaper Ike Dike, new MetroNext video, bad fad road diets, good gentrification, and more

A lot of items in the backlog this week, and I'm on vacation next week so probably won't have time to post, so here's your two-weeks worth! ;-)
"Houston is a top U.S. city for STEM grads and engineering talent with more than 300,000 educated millennials and 240,000 STEM workers. STEM talent powers some of the largest industries in Houston, from energy to life science and manufacturing. 
Houston also offers these UHD and other STEM students a top-tier job market. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center, Houston is the second best U.S. metro area for STEM workers. 
Technology, in particular, is thriving. According to the Partnership's most recent edition of Houston Facts, with more than 223,000 tech workers, Houston has the 12th largest tech sector in the U.S. Nearly two-thirds of Houston’s high-tech workers are employed in industries other than computers and software."
"The Cascade Policy Institute released a detailed study of a road diet plan whose effects include worse traffic congestion, less transit service, and no significant increase in bike and pedestrian traffic that had been projected. The study, “The New Sellwood Bridge: Promises Unfulfilled,” is a valuable case study of how the local politics of transportation and smart growth led to unfortunate outcomes."
  • The age of winner-take-all cities. Cool graph of metros by GMP. Houston is 5th largest metro by population in the country, but drops to #7 ranked by GMP, getting edged out by DC and SF.  Interesting fact: even with substantially fewer people, if you combine SF and San Jose's GMP they're notably larger than Chicago. That's the power of tech. 
"The top 25 metro areas (out of a total of 384) accounted for more than half of the U.S.'s $19.5 trillion GDP in 2017, according to an Axios analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis data."
Finally, I wanted to end this week's post with Metro's new MetroNext plan overview video, which I think is pretty well done getting it all packed into only two minutes. In particular, they do a good job explaining the MetroRapid BRT rail-like benefits, which the public isn't familiar with. Last week they officially approved the bond referendum for this November's ballot.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Benefits of the I-45 Expansion and the High Cost of Electric Buses

This week's post is a guest post by Oscar Slotboom

North Houston Highway Improvement Project (IH 45 expansion)
Recent Chronicle reporting on the North Houston Highway Improvement Project has been somewhat one-sided against the project. The Chronicle gave heavy publicity to the "boondoggle" report by a special interest group. On July 14 Tory posted a link to the response by Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation debunking the biased report. On July 14 the Chronicle featured an anti-project op-ed in the first page of the Sunday opinion section, which at 1818 words was far longer than the usual 700 word limit.
To bring some balance to the issue, I submitted a pro-project outlook op-ed and the Chronicle kindly published it this past week on August 3 (online) and August 8 (print). In short: I enumerate the extensive benefits this project will provide for mobility, downtown improvement and enhancement of adjacent neighborhoods, concluding that the project is a vital investment in Houston's future.
  • HoustonChronicle.com   Houston needs the I-45 expansion
  • PDF of online version (permalink, login not required)
  • PDF of print version, abridged from online version (permalink, login not required)
67% of weekday peak-period traffic on downtown freeways is passing through downtown, not originating from or going to downtown destinations. These trips are virtually impossible to serve with traditional public transit, since they are coming from dispersed locations and going to dispersed locations. The value of 67% was derived from the 2014 official traffic study, and is summarized below.

Freeway % Through Traffic Lanes
Through Lanes
Through Lanes
45 SB 62% 4 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
69 SB 72% 5 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
10 WB 71% 4 2 (50%) 4** (100%)
288 NB 76% 4
69 NB 50% 5 2 (40%) 4 (80%)
10 EB 69% 5 2 (40%) 4** (80%)
45 NB * 4 2 (50%) 3 (75%)
Average 67% 45% 78%
*Available data is not consistent with other freeways **IH 10 express lanes (2 each way) counted as only one each way due to one-lane entrance/exits

The capacity percent for through lanes is a simplification since in some cases connections occur before the narrowest point, but it is a good indicator for comparison. The existing downtown freeways have around 45% through capacity, compared to 67% of travel demand. The NHHIP will increase through-capacity to around 78%, well above 67%.

Due to the insufficient downtown through capacity, nine of the top 20 most congested freeways in Texas are included in the NNHIP or are immediately adjacent to it. The #1 most congested freeway segment in Texas is the West Loop between IH 69 and IH 10. Of course, plans to add lanes to the West Loop were canceled in the early 1990s, and this is the result - tens of thousands of people suffering in more severe traffic every day because of that bad decision.

Rank Freeway Limits
1 610 West Loop I-69 to I-10
2 IH 69 Southwest Freeway West Loop to SH 288
5 IH 69 downtown SH 288 to IH 10
10 IH 45 North Freeway Loop 610 to Beltway 8
11 IH 45 downtown and Gulf Freeway IH 10 to Loop 610 South
12 SH 288 South Freeway Loop 610 to IH 45
16 IH 10 downtown IH 45 North Freeway to IH 69 Eastex Freeway
17 IH 10 West (inside Loop) West Loop to IH 45 North Freeway
18 North Loop West IH 45 North Freeway to IH 10 Katy Freeway
20 IH 45 North Freeway IH 10 to Loop 610
Electric Buses
A couple recent articles about electric buses caught my attention.

The Dallas Morning News recently analyzed an implementation of 7 electric buses run by DART and concluded that the initial cost and overall lifetime cost of the electric buses is much higher than conventional diesel buses. Our million-dollar bus doesn't add up. We did the math
"The buses gobble up vast quantities of electricity for very little distance. Between seven buses recharging 34 times every weekday, the city spends about $1,000 per day on power for the electric buses. The city also spent over $800,000 on the new charging stations alone, which will need upkeep of their own over the years. ...Given all these costs, a simple net present value calculation shows that we'll spend nearly half a million more for a single electric bus over the course of its lifetime — or, the cost of a new diesel bus."
An article in Wired, Why Electric Buses Haven't Taken Over the World—Yet, explains why a conversion to electric buses is going to be difficult and expensive. In short, the entire workflow and infrastructure for servicing buses is going to need to be rebuilt, at a very high cost.
"But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that....Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output."
My conclusion from these articles is that there's no need for Metro to be an early adopter of electric buses. It's just going to cost a lot of money, and any air quality benefit would be negligible with a small percentage of electric buses in the fleet. Thankfully, it appears that Metro is proceeding slowly on electric buses, mainly due to concerns over the ability of electric bus air conditioning to meet summer needs.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, August 04, 2019

Atlanta is a cautionary tale for Houston

Aaron Renn recently wrote an excellent piece in the City Journal describing the challenges facing Atlanta, and it holds some cautionary lessons for Houston.

First, here are his excerpts related to Houston:
"Though still growing rapidly, Atlanta’s fortunes have taken a hit in the new century. From 1980 to 2000, metro Atlanta grew in population by an astonishing 82.3 percent, outdistancing Dallas–Fort Worth and Houston. But in the 18 years since 2000, its population growth rate was only 39.6 percent, which trails its Texas peers. Since 2000, the population gap between Houston and Atlanta more than doubled, rising from less than 500,000 to more than 1 million. And growth has continued to slow. From 2000 to 2010, Atlanta’s average annual population growth reached only 2.13 percent, and that has fallen to 1.45 percent since 2010.
Migration to Atlanta has significantly slowed. The city welcomed fewer domestic migrants than much smaller Charlotte and Austin did last year, and it’s drawing far fewer immigrants than Dallas, Houston, and even Philadelphia.
Atlanta also has huge transportation challenges. Its freeways are among the nation’s widest but also the most congested. Atlanta failed to rearchitect its freeway network as it grew, retaining its sixties-era beltway-and-spoke system. By contrast, Houston is working on its third beltway. The net result: Atlanta outside its I-285 perimeter is by far the most developed urban area in the world without non-radial freeways, according to demographer Wendell Cox. The metro area has the nation’s third-lowest share of jobs accessible to the average commuter in 30 minutes or less
The highway problems may be unfixable. Regional planners have been pushing transit expansion into the suburbs, but in the highly dispersed Atlanta region, transit has no chance of making a dent in mobility needs." 
I’ve been warning Houston for years about the risk of underinvestment in transportation infrastructure leading to employers leaving the core for the affluent suburbs like Exxon did.  Now I can point to an actual example of that happening in Atlanta (especially a lack of loop freeways), based both his piece as well as the comments there and at his blog.  There people discuss the jobs boom in the suburbs - not the core - because of congestion. Employers will move to where their employees want to live if they can't reach them within a reasonable commute time.

When a metro region gets too hard to get around – like LA and Atlanta – it fragments into an archipelago of isolated, zero-sum winner and loser “islands” rather than being a single cohesive labor market.  Houston faces the same risk if we don't invest in projects like the 45N expansion and connecting up a regionwide MaX Lanes network.

UPDATEAtlanta has hit a tipping point with dramatically slowing migration. Hat tip to Barry.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, July 28, 2019

How Metro should spend $400m, what brings people here, gentrification helps residents, expanding market-based parking, realistic Dome plans, Newsweek on HTX

This week the Metro board will be meeting to discuss what to do with $400 million in savings recently created in the MetroNext 2040 plan by consolidating two light rail lines to Hobby into one.  The initial ideas are a new park-and-ride for Kingwood (looks good) and extending the Hobby rail line to the Monroe park-and-ride (~$350 million!).  That extension is super questionable.  I have trouble understanding who exactly would use it? Anyone at that Monroe park-and-ride will be able to choose between a fast express HOV bus ride downtown (maybe 10 or 15 mins?) or a 45+ minute light rail ride - who's going to take the rail? Maybe to go to Hobby or UH, but if you're already in a car, why wouldn't you just go the rest of the way to their parking lots?  I just can't see a compelling use case. I'm curious what kinds of marginal ridership gains the Metro staff predict for the extension.

My own alternate suggestion: reduce rides system-wide to $1, including commuter buses. Any ride anywhere within Metro would only be $1.  This would attract a ton of riders to the park-and-ride express buses (which cost several dollars each way now, depending on the route), and reduce congestion on the freeways - a huge winner with voters across the Metro service area whether they ride transit or not.  Certainly, a lot of commuters now do the time+cost+parking math on park-and-ride commuter buses vs. driving and end up picking driving.  This would strongly tip that value equation back over to commuter buses for a *lot* of people.  If you're interested in putting in your two cents, the Metro board meeting is at 10am this Wednesday.

More on my Metro Moonshot proposal here.

Moving on to this week's smaller items:
Finally, a couple of links related to Houston's identity.  First, this local NPR Houston Matters episode on "What Brings People To Houston?"  Some great keywords you'll hear in it: opportunity, diversity (and how that spawns the amazing food scene), and a welcoming friendliness (Houspitality!).  And then this NY Times piece on "Want to Be Less Racist? Move to Hawaii -The “aloha spirit” may hold a deep lesson for all of us."  Again, I think Houspitality is our version of the Aloha Spirit, and something we should definitely hold on to and actively cultivate (starting with Houston drivers! ;-).

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 21, 2019

A proposal for our next "giant leap" beyond the moon: the Solar System Explorer

As we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing this weekend, the Chronicle asked "What’s our next ‘giant leap’ beyond the moon?"  That reminded me of an old unpublished op-ed I submitted way back in 2003, but I think it still holds up after all these years. See what you think and let me know in the comments.

A New Mission for NASA

“In Search of a Mission” reads the bold Sunday Chronicle headline, kicking off a six-part in-depth series on NASA after the Columbia tragedy.  In search of a mission, indeed.  The Columbia disaster has surfaced many reservations about NASA and its $15 billion dollar annual budget, especially about the limited scientific contributions of the manned shuttle and space station programs.  NASA seems to have lost its way, and a growing chorus of voices is calling for a renewed vision and reinvigorated leadership.

Some of the more extreme voices – focused purely on maximizing “bang for the buck” science – are calling for a severe curtailing or even elimination of the manned programs in favor of more unmanned robotic missions like the very successful Mars Rover.  But no matter how much the economics make sense, most people agree that there is something important and magical about manned exploration of space – a shared passion for simple human exploration that goes beyond the pure science.  NASA needs an inspiring vision that recognizes the importance of manned exploration, the value of good science, and the realities of budget constraints.

I believe that long-term vision – that big, audacious goal to motivate the tens of thousands of NASA employees, contractors, and scientists – should be no less than the eventual construction of a Solar System Explorer: a manned ship designed to go on long-range missions to Mars and the moons of Jupiter and beyond.  A flexible, modular ship that could perform base-building freight missions to the Moon in addition to its long-range exploration missions – designed to return to Earth orbit again and again and again for refitting and upgrades for the next mission.  This would be a ship designed to be built-in orbit and never touch the surface of a planet (although it would certainly carry landing modules).  The Solar System Explorer would bring a level of excitement back to the space program not seen since the 1960’s race to the Moon.

Unfortunately, such a ship is well beyond any budget reality that exists today.  This is where a short to mid-term vision for NASA comes in: they need to create a “Moore’s Law of Space Travel.”  Moore’s Law is named after Gordon Moore, who postulated in 1965 that the price/performance of semiconductor chips would double roughly every 18 months – a prediction that has held up remarkably well ever since to be the dominant driver of our computer and Internet revolutions.  Just as Intel has helped drive those improvements through sustained R&D investments, NASA should drive improvements in space travel economics through innovative R&D investments in propulsion and other systems.  Just as the NIH gives out grants to test innovative approaches to attacking our most intractable diseases, NASA should administer grants to test a wide range of possible approaches to reducing the costs of space travel.  Doubling every 18 months is a bit unrealistic, but even smaller gains can compound over time until the Explorer is financially feasible.

This approach allows NASA to “think big” – so critical to morale and public support – while staying grounded in economic realities: an inspirational mission balanced between head and heart to launch the space program to new heights in the 21st century.