Nation’s highways remain an issue for an Obama second term

[J N Winkler]

But that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate.  Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases.  To use your restaurant example, no restaurant industry has more government involvement than Cuba's, yet Cuban cuisine has all but died on the island itself (it really only flourishes outside the country and in establishments where quasi-capitalism exists).  What big government has done there is to squelch the competitive drive to make food that actually tastes good and attracts people.

It could be that some privatization of the highway infrastructure (smaller government) might actually yield better roads than heavily subsidizing them (bigger government).  I'm not enough of a politician to say that's certainly the case, but I just wanted to throw the notion out there.

I think the choice between US-style capitalism and Cuban-style communism is falsely dichotomous, as it relates either to highways or to food.  If by "big government" you mean a country in which the public sector allocates a relatively high proportion of GDP, then a more rigorous way of doing the analysis is to compare like to like (countries where the public sector allocates a high proportion of GDP to each other, and countries where the public sector allocates a low proportion of GDP to each other, with no cross-comparison between the two groups).  In the case of communist countries like Cuba and market societies with large public sectors like France and Sweden, this should lead to the intuition that the Cuban economy is much more tightly confined within its technological production frontier because, over the long term at least, resource allocation is much less efficient in a command economy.  (Not all of the limitations on the Cuban economy are the Cubans' fault, BTW.  Our embargo cuts off gains from trade.)

Put it this way:  why use Cuba as a comparator (it seems to be flavor of the month among young American leftists these days, BTW--why is that?  Easy access from Florida?) when you can look at France and Sweden and ask how it is they are able to have both great roads and great food?

Looking more closely at highways, there are certain reasons government tends to emerge as the provider of some types of public services even when the private sector can also provide them:

*  In some sectors of the economy, scale effects are at a maximum when there is only one provider as opposed to a collection of small providers.  This is particularly true for many types of networked infrastructure, and is why public utilities tend either to be owned or operated directly by the government or are allowed to remain in the private sector after consolidation but are regulated as to rate of return on capital.

*  In the highways sector particularly, the act of charging for use of the asset itself reduces usage of the asset and thus the social rate of return that can be expected from it, unless the asset would otherwise be congested.  This is the main reason toll roads are considered inefficient when there are free alternatives improved to a high enough standard to compete.  (While charging can be eliminated as a source of inefficiency by using a shadow-tolling system, toll roads also need up-front financing and the interest charges associated with this can easily lead to nominal fiscal drag as the loans are paid off.)  Charging also ensures that the number of corridors that are considered toll-viable is a small, proper subset of the corridors that will deliver a positive social rate of return if built.

*  Investments whose benefits are backloaded or whose short-term annualized rates of return are unattractive to the private sector tend to devolve to the public sector.  (Backloading of benefits and low short-term annualized rates of return are characteristic of highways and other forms of durable investment.)

*  Institutional reasons sometimes also apply--in most countries, for example, government has continued to be responsible for the roads partly because it was initially the incumbent owner and operator of them.

In regard to the general question of a "grand bargain" for American highways, raising the fuel tax is, I believe, the most fiscally sane short-term way to fund preservation and expansion.  Yes, it is a regressive tax, but the regressive effect is quite muted (particularly in the long term) since a tripling of the tax (as has been recommended by at least one USDOT blue-ribbon commission) is still quite small compared to the increases in the unit price of fuel that have been seen in the last five years as a result of the underlying high price of oil.  Meanwhile, the practice of allocating fuel tax revenues solely to highway improvement and maintenance is an institution which should be supported since it commits otherwise fickle legislators to a certain level of prudential provision.  I would even argue that the necessity of preserving it is so great that the impact of a fuel tax increase on low-income groups should be entirely mitigated by cutting their income taxes an equivalent amount.

As an economist I do not see that it is sensible to reject private financing for highways in situations where the private finance would accelerate construction and the annualized social rate of return on the private investment (not including financing costs) less the annualized social rate of return on the publicly funded investment is greater than the annualized cost of the private financing.  Experience, however, suggests that the corridors where this would happen are very few in number.  (This analysis does not apply to other forms of privatization which do not necessarily involve loan finance, such as contracting out construction and maintenance services.  There, it is more important for the state to ensure that contracting produces real efficiencies all the way down the chain, and that there are clear and well-drafted standards in place which can support quality control.)

P.S.  While it is understandable that much of the previous discussion has devolved onto the merits of trickle-down economics versus a full-employment policy, that line of discussion--aside from annoying moderators--does not really help us understand how much highway investment is optimum for the economy or for people's well-being.  Trickle-down economics is based on the intuition that setting the private sector free to invest benefits all income groups:  it can work, but frequently doesn't.  Similarly, a full-employment policy is based on the intuition that if all people are able to work, then all income groups benefit.  This can work (and work it did, for quite a while from the early 1940's to the early 1970's in the US), but it can also lead to inflation and price instability.  Where highways are concerned, the main difference between the two philosophies is that the state takes a greater role in directing public investment (including in highways) when attempting to implement a full-employment policy because public works are an important method of filling employment deficits.

A better way of relating highways to economic policy is to ask about the overall capital stock of the economy and how it is deployed.  We invest (i.e., expand the capital stock) for economic growth.  Both the public and private sectors invest.  Investment, and the growth that results from it, can redistribute income and wealth to a mild degree.  As economic actors we also operate on underlying rate-of-return expectations which are tied to long-term interest rates.  Highways are an important part of the overall capital stock, and like most other forms of durable investment, the annualized rate of return is fairly low but continues over a very long period of time.  This is incompatible with the way much private-sector investment is financed (short-term loans with relatively high interest rates), but highways and durable assets in general play important direct and indirect roles in supporting the rates of return that are available from private investment and thus in promoting the growth of the economy as a whole.  So how do you determine how far to turn the dial in favor of investment in highways?  Full general equilibrium analysis covering the range of commodities available in a modern economy is not computationally feasible even now, so we need to pick a simple metric and stick with it after appropriate validation.  I'd suggest two elements of it include "no bridges falling down" and "buildout of all new corridors that support an annualized rate of return in excess of the long-term interest rate."

[vdeane]

But that's akin to saying that everybody who favors small government must want our highway infrastructure to deteriorate.  Big government doesn't necessarily equal good production; in fact, the opposite is true in many cases.  To use your restaurant example, no restaurant industry has more government involvement than Cuba's, yet Cuban cuisine has all but died on the island itself (it really only flourishes outside the country and in establishments where quasi-capitalism exists).  What big government has done there is to squelch the competitive drive to make food that actually tastes good and attracts people.

Someone who genuinely enjoys making good food will continue to do so in the absence of a free market, so I suspect the issue is more complicated than that.

[empirestate]

As a general philosophy, I believe that government should provide for the general public (roads, national defense, etc.). There is a Constitutional component to roads; in fact providing roads is one of the permitted activities of the federal government. "Post offices and post roads," anyone?

I don't mind paying taxes for services I use. I don't even mind paying taxes for the general welfare; i.e., me paying school taxes even though I have no children. That's why I would have no problem with a slight increase in the gas tax, but only if that revenue is used for roads and not diverted for Obamacare or the EPA or the FDA or elsewhere. I don't think it should be diverted to transit, either. Raise the bus fares a quarter if transit needs money.

The importance of the post road, naturally, was one of communication, the dissemination of information being seen as critical to the Union. At the time of the Constitution, two things are worth noting: 1) all information had to be physically conveyed from place to place, and 2) a road was essentially nothing more than a public way of land travel, having no specific characteristics as to how it was improved.

About a half century later, a specific type of improvement involving rails was devised, and these new rail roads became an important category of post road. Non-rail roads, on the other hand, didn't see extensive improvement in terms of pavement and other modifications until the 20th century. By then, although information was still carried over these, that function was fairly incidental to their overall use. Much information was still physically conveyed by rail road, and what's more, non-physical means of communication had also been invented.

So as far as the congressional mandate on post roads is concerned, its natural evolution today would suggest government having the same interest in telephone, television and internet transmission that it originally had over roads. Now I'm sure that diverting fuel taxes to cable TV, internet providers and cellphone carriers is not what you've got in mind, so that shifts focus to another important congressional power, that of regulating interstate commerce.

Again going back to constitutional days, most goods were carried by water, and most people, for business purposes at least, weren't transported at all. Again, the first important roads for commercial purposes were the rail kind, which efficiently moved both goods and people. Now the concrete-and-asphalt kind of roads carries the majority of both, but railroads still move a lot of goods, and transit moves a lot of people. The way transit gets off the hook from federal involvement is that it isn't inter-state, so Congress has no power over it.

At any rate, the point is whether we should decide where our taxes may be spent because of their specific application, or because of their purpose in carrying out a governmental power. In other words, can a highway fuel tax not be used on a railroad because it isn't a highway? Or can it be, because the tax is intended to carry out the promotion of commerce? (And where does transit fit in, because while the people it carries don't always cross state lines, the business they conduct when they get there very well might?) Or is it actually intended for communication purposes, in which case it should be spent a little bit on highways, almost not at all on railroads, and mostly on cell towers and fiber optic data lines? (And by the way, is a railroad a highway?)

To boil it down as far as I can, should we tax the problem or the solution?

[hbelkins]

Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.

[bugo]

Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.

Yeah, let's make parks ugly.  Might as well erect billboards in national parks.

[NE2]

Only on the Interstates through the parks.

[deathtopumpkins]

Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.

Yeah, let's make parks ugly.  Might as well erect billboards in national parks.

Not necessarily. You'd be surprised where they can hide cell towers. There's one taking up two parking spaces in the garage across the street from me, and a nearby church steeple has one hidden inside. And I know of another one that sticks out of a disused smokestack at an old mill that was turned into upscale apartments. I'd actually hazard a guess that, at least in developed areas, the vast majority of cell towers are inside other structures rather than a structure of their own.
Even one of the cell towers disguised as a tree wouldn't look too out of place in a large forest at a park. They are much less of an eyesore than billboards.

And I agree with hb, cell phones are a necessary modern amenity, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed on highway ROW as long as they not only remain open to any service provider, but also remain owned by the state.

[NE2]

It could be a modern art installation. Put a fake tree in Sequoia National Park and see how many tourists hug it.

[triplemultiplex]

Well I doubt there are many places where a public park would be the best location for a cell phone tower, but highway r/w is certainly a reasonable place for them.  That's especially true for rural/suburban interchanges where the land between the ramps and the mainline freeway is essentially wasted.  I've also seen them many times atop a tower on a high voltage power line.  I like that kind of efficient use of space.

In the broader discussion of roads and the economy, infrastructure is one of those things that government has every business borrowing money to build.  The economic activity generated by smooth roads and functional pipes and reliable electricity more than makes up for the expenditure.  (Obviously assuming one is building stuff that's actually needed.)  And with the amount of terrible infrastructure in this country, it is inexcusable that America is not taking advantage of low interest rates and almost non-existent inflation to throw trillions of dollars at this problem.

Instead everyone is arguing over how much to chop out of the government and whose taxes to cut when none of that is going to do squat for this sluggish economy.  And I tell you, "our children" ain't going to give two shits about our "horrible debt" if their cities are falling apart around them.

[cpzilliacus]

Perhaps wandering a bit off-topic, but I think the government should allow cellphone providers to build towers on government-owned land such as parks, highway ROW, etc., without charge to the cell companies as long as equal access is allowed to all cell providers.

Though in underground rail transit systems, those phone companies have to pay the transit authority for getting approval to install underground cells.

[cpzilliacus]

Well I doubt there are many places where a public park would be the best location for a cell phone tower, but highway r/w is certainly a reasonable place for them.  That's especially true for rural/suburban interchanges where the land between the ramps and the mainline freeway is essentially wasted.  I've also seen them many times atop a tower on a high voltage power line.  I like that kind of efficient use of space.

I am confident that the owners of those power transmission towers do not give that space away for free.

In the broader discussion of roads and the economy, infrastructure is one of those things that government has every business borrowing money to build.  The economic activity generated by smooth roads and functional pipes and reliable electricity more than makes up for the expenditure.  (Obviously assuming one is building stuff that's actually needed.)  And with the amount of terrible infrastructure in this country, it is inexcusable that America is not taking advantage of low interest rates and almost non-existent inflation to throw trillions of dollars at this problem.

I strongly agree.

And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.

Instead everyone is arguing over how much to chop out of the government and whose taxes to cut when none of that is going to do squat for this sluggish economy.  And I tell you, "our children" ain't going to give two shits about our "horrible debt" if their cities are falling apart around them.

I've no problem with  spending money on public works to stimulate the economy.  President F. D. Roosevelt used that sort of spending to get the Blue Ridge Parkway started (though it was not completed until the 1980's), and Skyline Drive, immediately to the north of the Blue Ridge Parkway completed by 1940.

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

I strongly agree.

And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.

I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.

[hbelkins]

I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.

Any category is more favorable than a Krugman Keynesian.

Yeah, let's make parks ugly.  Might as well erect billboards in national parks.

A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.

Plus having cell service in parks, especially vast rural ones like Yellowstone, would make it easier for people to call for help in emergency situations. The same logic applies to highway ROW. Letting cell companies put towers along the ROW lets them collect revenue and eliminates the need for call boxes, which is an expense the government or tollway agency could then dispense with. And it would solve the problem of the lack of cell service in the Adirondacks along the Northway.

Hardly the same as erecting billboards, especially since as other posters have noted that cell towers can be disguised. I've even seem them posing as trees.

[Alps]

There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.

[empirestate]

There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.

Well, exactly. One day in the future, we'll look back at cell towers the way we shake our heads at old photos of vast nets of telegraph wires and belching black smokestacks...we'll have found less obtrusive ways to achieve the same technology. And of course, we'll have new technologies propagating new kinds of eyesores...

[Scott5114]

There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.

Satellites sure are a thing, aren't they?

A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.

I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)

[cpzilliacus]

I strongly agree.

And in spite of all of the carrying-on about U.S. government debt, interest paid on that debt is remarkably low, which tells me that the markets are not especially concerned.

I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.

I have the deepest of respect for Paul Krugman. Though I find it amusing that his all-time best column was one that Libertarians and other advocates in favor of free markets (especially when it comes to land use and zoning) were nearly unanimous (!) in commending.  He also turned out to be right.

It is still online on the NYT Web site: That Hissing Sound (08-Aug-2005)

[cpzilliacus]

I never took you for a Krugman Keynesian. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of you into a more favorable category.

Any category is more favorable than a Krugman Keynesian.

H.B., I know a lot of people who tend to be Republican don't like Krugman for the nasty stuff he's written (and writes) about the national GOP.

But in spite of that, he's also very much in favor of free markets (something that comes as a surprise to some).

Yeah, let's make parks ugly.  Might as well erect billboards in national parks.

A number of Kentucky's state parks are in areas where there is no cell service, which makes it very inconvenient for those attending business meetings there (not to mention tourist visitors who want to be able to stay in touch with family or work). Several years ago I went to a meeting at Dale Hollow State Park, right on the Tennessee state line. There was no cell service. During every break in the proceedings, people were driving up to the top of the hill to check email messages, make phone calls, etc.

Plus having cell service in parks, especially vast rural ones like Yellowstone, would make it easier for people to call for help in emergency situations. The same logic applies to highway ROW. Letting cell companies put towers along the ROW lets them collect revenue and eliminates the need for call boxes, which is an expense the government or tollway agency could then dispense with. And it would solve the problem of the lack of cell service in the Adirondacks along the Northway.

Hardly the same as erecting billboards, especially since as other posters have noted that cell towers can be disguised. I've even seem them posing as trees.

I have no problem putting cell phone service in areas designated as parkland, even lands that are supposed to be "wild."

Your point about limited cell phone service along some highway corridors is correct.  Cell phone penetration is now so broad that people expect that their phones will work everywhere, and there are clear public safety benefits (and transportation system benefits) to having nearly universal cell phone coverage.

[hbelkins]

I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)

The meeting was at one of Kentucky's resort parks, with a lodge and a conference center. Several of Kentucky's state parks are labeled "resort parks" because they have such facilities. This one was at Dale Hollow State Resort Park.

There must be a technology other than cell towers that can propagate a signal. I'd hope/wish that someone was working on that problem right now.

At the "Spice Rack" (a/k/a the Transportation Cabinet building in Frankfort), the conference center on the first floor is located in the interior of the building with no cell service available. Since the majority of state-issued BlackBerries use AT&T, they installed a repeater or signal booster that's compatible with AT&T to allow conference attendees to have service. (Doesn't help me, because my BB is Appalachian Wireless due to the fact that AT&T's coverage in this area is terrible). I don't know how feasible such technology would be for applications such as highway corridors.

I have no cell service inside my house, as it's at the periphery cell tower signal range for both AT&T (my personal phone) and App Wireless (my work phone), but I bought a booster device. Mounted a small antenna (maybe a foot long) on the roof and ran a cable down to a plugged-in transmitter, and it boosts the signal for both AT&T (GSM) and App Wireless (CDMA) in that room. Doesn't work for the whole house, though.

But in spite of that, (Krugman's) also very much in favor of free markets (something that comes as a surprise to some).

I've never, ever, ever gotten that impression from him, and his column is usually printed every week in the Lexington paper, and contrary to the opinions of some that I don't expose myself to offerings from the other side, I do read his work.

[kphoger]

I'd argue that whoever decided to have a business meeting in a state park is the fool here. While it might be nice to have a meeting in a park environment, were I to have this idea I would shoot it down after the initial thought because a park is simply not the right place to be conducting this sort of activity. Aside from the issue of no cell service, what happens if the weather is bad the day of the meeting? What if someone has a PowerPoint they want to show? Is the wind going to be blowing people's annual reports around? What about ants? People's allergies? It makes a lot more sense to use a dedicated conference center in like an urban hotel or something to alleviate these issues. (I guess on second thought there could be such a conference center on park grounds, but the fact that there is no cell service makes me think this was some sort of remote backwoodsy park and the speaker was standing on a picnic table or something.)

The meeting was at one of Kentucky's resort parks, with a lodge and a conference center. Several of Kentucky's state parks are labeled "resort parks" because they have such facilities. This one was at Dale Hollow State Resort Park.

Put even that aside.  I don't think it would be unusual for an outdoorsy-type company to have a meeting in a park.

[kkt]

Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan.  First, there's not the density of population there to justify them.  A handful of calls every day isn't going to pay for it.  Second, the cell phone towers need landlines or microwave links between them and power to run them.  The backcountry is not electrified, and I wouldn't want it to be.  Third, encouraging people to depend on calling 911 rather than making sure their party is self-reliant is a mistake.  Even if you get through, in the best case it's at least several hours before a rescue helicopter can get there.  Worst case, the same snowstorm that's got the hikers or climbers in trouble also grounds the helicopters and it takes a week to get a rescue party there.  Fourth, cell phone batteries don't last long enough for most emergencies.  The batteries go dead just when you need them the most.  Fifth, reception is spotty in any rural area.  If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone.  Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites.  Sixth, people yammering inanities on their cell phones is one thing I go to wilderness areas to get away from.  If you can't stand to be without your cell phone for a day, go hang out at a mall.  Or consider therapy.

[bugo]

They need to build a cell tower or two along US 59/270 in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  There's a stretch of about 30 miles with no service at all.  They also need to put one on top of Buck Knob in Scott County, Arkansas.  My dad lives in Posey Hollow and I can't get cell service out there.

[deathtopumpkins]

Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan.  First, there's not the density of population there to justify them.  A handful of calls every day isn't going to pay for it.  Second, the cell phone towers need landlines or microwave links between them and power to run them.  The backcountry is not electrified, and I wouldn't want it to be.  Third, encouraging people to depend on calling 911 rather than making sure their party is self-reliant is a mistake.  Even if you get through, in the best case it's at least several hours before a rescue helicopter can get there.  Worst case, the same snowstorm that's got the hikers or climbers in trouble also grounds the helicopters and it takes a week to get a rescue party there.  Fourth, cell phone batteries don't last long enough for most emergencies.  The batteries go dead just when you need them the most.  Fifth, reception is spotty in any rural area.  If you want something dependable, get a satellite phone.  Or if it's just emergencies you're concerned with, a personal locator beacon. They're affordable and connect to satellites.  Sixth, people yammering inanities on their cell phones is one thing I go to wilderness areas to get away from.  If you can't stand to be without your cell phone for a day, go hang out at a mall.  Or consider therapy.

We're not talking about the wilderness here, we're talking about along roads and at main establishments, i.e. cell service along the roads through the park and  maybe at the visitor's center and other main facilities. Not covering every square inch of wilderness with 4G.

Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.

[kkt]

Cell phone towers in the backcountry of large parks is not a good plan.

We're not talking about the wilderness here, we're talking about along roads and at main establishments, i.e. cell service along the roads through the park and  maybe at the visitor's center and other main facilities. Not covering every square inch of wilderness with 4G.

You're not, but cpzilliacus is.  Actually, even along the roads, there's often no electricity or telephone wiring.  And simple 2-lane blacktop is a lot less intrusive to the countryside than a series of cellphone towers.

Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.

There's pretty good reception at the tops of prominent mountains because it's line of sight to some tower somewhere.  Try going down 2,000 feet from the peak, especially in a ravine.

[bugo]

Although your point is kinda moot considering even the peak of Mount Everest has 3G now.

Mountains are more likely to have cell signals than valleys.