Comments on: CATO Podcast: Transportation http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:37:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Emergent Disorder » Private Roads Work http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-3639 Emergent Disorder » Private Roads Work Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:31:50 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-3639 [...] June 10, 2008 — CATO Podcast: Transportation (7) [...] [...] June 10, 2008 — CATO Podcast: Transportation (7) [...]

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-208 Market Urbanism Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:45:41 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-208 That's exactly what came to mind when I was trying to think of feasible scenarios. It could work with just air-rights too. Think of the proposed Hudson Yards project in Manhattan. What if they bought part of the highway along the river? The project could make a very valuable connection to the river. Even the air rights have high value. Desirable locations along waterways may be the first place to look. That’s exactly what came to mind when I was trying to think of feasible scenarios.

It could work with just air-rights too. Think of the proposed Hudson Yards project in Manhattan. What if they bought part of the highway along the river? The project could make a very valuable connection to the river. Even the air rights have high value.

Desirable locations along waterways may be the first place to look.

]]> By: Stephen Smith http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-207 Stephen Smith Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:23:53 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-207 Personally I think the best first step would be selling roads in high-density metropolises like NYC. These are the ones that have the highest obvious opportunity cost, and also the ones that could be most profitably converted into alternative transportation rights of ways (imagine how many high-rises, pedestrian foot paths, and rail rights-of-ways could be crammed along one of Manhattan's main roads). Of course, it might also be more difficult because NYC already has a well-established, and well-subsidized mass transit system. Unlike most parts of the US, you'd probably have to shut this down/privatize it before you begin to see real private mass transit. Personally I think the best first step would be selling roads in high-density metropolises like NYC. These are the ones that have the highest obvious opportunity cost, and also the ones that could be most profitably converted into alternative transportation rights of ways (imagine how many high-rises, pedestrian foot paths, and rail rights-of-ways could be crammed along one of Manhattan’s main roads). Of course, it might also be more difficult because NYC already has a well-established, and well-subsidized mass transit system. Unlike most parts of the US, you’d probably have to shut this down/privatize it before you begin to see real private mass transit.

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-196 Market Urbanism Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:39:31 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-196 I agree, but I think it's much more than "marginal." If a scenario where the highway is demolished for other uses were even feasible in some situation, it would have to be extreme. I think to radically liberalize the road system over night is not practical. And some form of privatization is better than none. What if street parking spaces were sold? (as they should be) Is it likely that the space could be used a lawn? What if a restaurant used it for seating? It could happen, and it would almost definitely be a good thing... The thing is, we are so far from that. For the public to allow it, it would have to be incremental, or something revolutionary would have to happen. (like one of us being elected President or 'Market Urbanism' becoming bigger than Elvis :) ) <i>In fact, they might actually do the “market urbanism” cause harm rather than good, because people will then associate these roads with a free market in transportation and land use.</i> I guess I'd be willing to take that chance... Plus, it seems that many people already associate our system as "free-market". I agree, but I think it’s much more than “marginal.” If a scenario where the highway is demolished for other uses were even feasible in some situation, it would have to be extreme.

I think to radically liberalize the road system over night is not practical. And some form of privatization is better than none.

What if street parking spaces were sold? (as they should be) Is it likely that the space could be used a lawn? What if a restaurant used it for seating? It could happen, and it would almost definitely be a good thing…

The thing is, we are so far from that. For the public to allow it, it would have to be incremental, or something revolutionary would have to happen. (like one of us being elected President or ‘Market Urbanism’ becoming bigger than Elvis :) )

In fact, they might actually do the “market urbanism” cause harm rather than good, because people will then associate these roads with a free market in transportation and land use.
I guess I’d be willing to take that chance…
Plus, it seems that many people already associate our system as “free-market”.

]]> By: Stephen Smith http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-194 Stephen Smith Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:15:50 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-194 Because if you're not allowed to use the land for anything other than a highway, then I see "private" roads as only a very marginal improvement over the status quo, and certainly nothing to get excited about. In fact, they might actually do the "market urbanism" cause harm rather than good, because people will then associate these roads with a free market in transportation and land use. Sort of like how the United States' <em>relatively</em> free market in medicine and healthcare has engendered significant backlash against the private model of healthcare provision, despite the fact that the American system is still very heavily regulated and manipulated, and a legitimate free market in healthcare probably wouldn't even involve insurance (at least for anything other than catastrophic needs, and perhaps a insurance for mothers to pay before they give birth to cover the probability of their child being born with some sort of debilitating illness) to begin with. Because if you’re not allowed to use the land for anything other than a highway, then I see “private” roads as only a very marginal improvement over the status quo, and certainly nothing to get excited about. In fact, they might actually do the “market urbanism” cause harm rather than good, because people will then associate these roads with a free market in transportation and land use. Sort of like how the United States’ relatively free market in medicine and healthcare has engendered significant backlash against the private model of healthcare provision, despite the fact that the American system is still very heavily regulated and manipulated, and a legitimate free market in healthcare probably wouldn’t even involve insurance (at least for anything other than catastrophic needs, and perhaps a insurance for mothers to pay before they give birth to cover the probability of their child being born with some sort of debilitating illness) to begin with.

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-193 Market Urbanism Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:30 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-193 No doubt, they <i>should</i> be fully privatized as you say. However, I can only imagine that the privatized highways will be significantly regulated, and liquidation would not be permitted. (unfortunately) No doubt, they should be fully privatized as you say. However, I can only imagine that the privatized highways will be significantly regulated, and liquidation would not be permitted. (unfortunately)

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-192 Market Urbanism Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:07:38 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-192 That's a very interesting thought. I've never heard that argument before. I'm trying to imagine a situation where the highest and best use would bring enough value to justify the demolition costs and opportunity cost of lost tolls. It's definitely plausible, especially in extremely dense locations. That’s a very interesting thought. I’ve never heard that argument before.

I’m trying to imagine a situation where the highest and best use would bring enough value to justify the demolition costs and opportunity cost of lost tolls.

It’s definitely plausible, especially in extremely dense locations.

]]> By: Stephen Smith http://marketurbanism.com/2008/06/10/cato-podcast-transportation/#comment-191 Stephen Smith Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:16:31 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=99#comment-191 Does he argue that "privatization" should include the right not only to run the road how you see fit, but also to tear up the road altogether? Does he argue that “privatization” should include the right not only to run the road how you see fit, but also to tear up the road altogether?

]]>