furnishes the basic ways (and terminals in some cases), while private carriers supply the equipment, organization, and working capital essential to carrier operations over public facilities. This mixed enterprise is characteristic of air, highway, and water transport, but not of pipeline and railway transport, fields in which private enterprise accepts the responsibility of providing both way and carrier facilities. As most countries operate their railways under public enterprise, this country's particular mix of private and public enterprise in transport is unique. As a broad generalization, one that subsequently must be qualified in important respects, it can be said that the American system of mixed enterprise in transport (with its relatively heavy emphasis on private enterprise) has worked tolerably well. It has produced a fully-developed, large-scale, multi-service, and essentially competitive transport system that appears the envy of most countries. However, Europeans often question whether automobiles and expressways can ever, by themselves, provide a solution for urban congestion, and observers from underdeveloped countries wonder how a country can afford the large amount of route and agency duplication involved in the American transport system. Nevertheless, the American policy of directly providing basic facilities, such as airways and inland waterways, and of financially aiding the states to furnish airport and highway facilities has not escaped severe and widespread internal criticism. Today, almost no one questions the desirability of public spending for the airways, airports, highways, and waterways. But increasingly the question has been raised whether it is economically desirable to furnish any of the carrier groups with the ways and terminals they require entirely free of charge, as in the case of inland waterways, or at user charges that may be inadequate to cover all relevant resource