Comments on: Matt Yglesias fails to make the right case against highways http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:30:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anonymous http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-6687 Anonymous Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:31:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-6687 As most sink units are <a href="http://www.blinddateuncensored.net/">blind date uncensored</a> placed in front of the kitchen window fabrics can easily be splashed with water causing mildew and unsightly stains. Venetian blinds are very easy to keep clean, another reason for their practicality for use in a kitchen. As most sink units are blind date uncensored placed in front of the kitchen window fabrics can easily be splashed with water causing mildew and unsightly stains. Venetian blinds are very easy to keep clean, another reason for their practicality for use in a kitchen.

]]> By: Stephen Smith http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-3798 Stephen Smith Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-3798 Yes, that's my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently. How is this at odds with established economic theory? Yes, that’s my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently.

How is this at odds with established economic theory?

]]> By: Rationalitate http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-8650 Rationalitate Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-8650 Yes, that's my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently. How is this at odds with established economic theory? Yes, that’s my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently.

How is this at odds with established economic theory?

]]> By: Rationalitate http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-8651 Rationalitate Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-8651 Yes, that's my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently. How is this at odds with established economic theory? Yes, that’s my point. The reason being that even if the roads are privatized, the land besides them is still not properly privatized – density restrictions (in the form of zoning, minimum parking regulations, and other ad hoc land use regulations) still encumber the land, preventing it from being used most productively. And, by extension, prevent the land underneath the roads from being used most efficiently.

How is this at odds with established economic theory?

]]> By: Tushar http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-3797 Tushar Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:11:12 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-3797 IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation and serving transportation needs especially using current technology? If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory. IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation
and serving transportation needs especially using current technology?

If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory.

]]> By: Tushar http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-8648 Tushar Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:11:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-8648 IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation and serving transportation needs especially using current technology? If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory. IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation
and serving transportation needs especially using current technology?

If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory.

]]> By: Tushar http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-8649 Tushar Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:11:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-8649 IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation and serving transportation needs especially using current technology? If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory. IS the point then that a private solution will probably not emerge if we just auctioned off all the land the roads use (as opposed to only the roads)? That prices will not signal scarcity efficiently? That entrepreneurs will not use these price signals for innovation
and serving transportation needs especially using current technology?

If so, that should be a tough case to argue using established economic theory.

]]> By: Eric http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/12/matt-yglesias-fails-to-make-the-right-case-against-highways/#comment-2368 Eric Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:02:07 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=461#comment-2368 Our hwy vs. transit arguments are based on yesterday's facts and methods...Who's studying what's going on now? The best argument for rail may be in fact cooking up in Houston as we speak. In Charlotte, the Road brigade were laughed out of town. To good measure. Close to 50% of all new red dirt on the ground three miles from downtown is 1/2 mile from the South Corridor light rail. (Check it out on Google Earth!) $1/2 billion of public investment just produced $2.1 billion (mostly in high density brownfield redevelopment). And that's the short term return on the South Corridor. Then there's also the handy fact that in one year of operation, we obliterated our projected ridership numbers...and are approaching the 2030 projections. Shows you just how out of date our science is. Randal, you have to base your diagnoses and solutions on what is going on NOW. Our hwy vs. transit arguments are based on yesterday’s facts and methods…Who’s studying what’s going on now? The best argument for rail may be in fact cooking up in Houston as we speak.

In Charlotte, the Road brigade were laughed out of town. To good measure. Close to 50% of all new red dirt on the ground three miles from downtown is 1/2 mile from the South Corridor light rail. (Check it out on Google Earth!) $1/2 billion of public investment just produced $2.1 billion (mostly in high density brownfield redevelopment). And that’s the short term return on the South Corridor. Then there’s also the handy fact that in one year of operation, we obliterated our projected ridership numbers…and are approaching the 2030 projections. Shows you just how out of date our science is.

Randal, you have to base your diagnoses and solutions on what is going on NOW.

]]>