You need to really understand the distinguishable aspects of describing urban and suburban areas, otherwise there would never make sense under any circumstances. In my knowledge, private roadways exist not only in the US but also in other parts of the world.

Please know your viewpoints well, and discuss with others about the merits of various roadways, not just private roadways but also public ones, too. Proceed with caution, Hemric. Other people will say about this.

However, my tentative initial assessment is that this whole line of thought is really only relevant to development in rural or suburban areas — and not to REAL cities or REAL urban areas (and thus to the REAL world of market urbanism). My point here is related to my earlier comment in a previous Market Urbanism thread, “Yes, Virginia . . . ,” that private roads seem to me to be truly feasible only on giant ranches in California or Texas. While the Dulles Greenway isn’t in either of those two states or, apparently, carved out of single giant ranch, it nevertheless seems to be close enough (a toll road through mostly unbuilt up areas).

Great points. I put emphasis on roads, even rural roads, as a critical feature of the Market Urbanism thesis that sprawl is induced through an over-socialized transportation system. Nonetheless, more dense cities are currently less feasible places for private roadways because of the extremely high transaction costs of tolling a very complex network of streets. Relatively straight stretches of highway are easier to toll with current technologies, and thus are better contenders for private operation. I think examples of private roads in urban areas are likely to be limited to driveways, loading docks, short private streets (as found in parts of Brooklyn), and home owner associations. But, I would argue that urban bridges are prime for private ownership…

However, my tentative initial assessment is that this whole line of thought is really only relevant to development in rural or suburban areas — and not to REAL cities or REAL urban areas (and thus to the REAL world of market urbanism). My point here is related to my earlier comment in a previous Market Urbanism thread, “Yes, Virginia . . . ,” that private roads seem to me to be truly feasible only on giant ranches in California or Texas. While the Dulles Greenway isn’t in either of those two states or, apparently, carved out of single giant ranch, it nevertheless seems to be close enough (a toll road through mostly unbuilt up areas).

Great points. I put emphasis on roads, even rural roads, as a critical feature of the Market Urbanism thesis that sprawl is induced through an over-socialized transportation system. Nonetheless, more dense cities are currently less feasible places for private roadways because of the extremely high transaction costs of tolling a very complex network of streets. Relatively straight stretches of highway are easier to toll with current technologies, and thus are better contenders for private operation. I think examples of private roads in urban areas are likely to be limited to driveways, loading docks, short private streets (as found in parts of Brooklyn), and home owner associations. But, I would argue that urban bridges are prime for private ownership…

“Demanding this kind of proof is unfair when the government maintains a monopoly on all city incorporation.”

Benjamin writes:

I’m not sure how this comment addresses the issue I raised in my original post, above.

Is a network of private roadways that would substitute for a network of public roadways feasible / desirable in real cities — especially large cities? Maybe they are; maybe they aren’t. But the fact that North Oaks, Minnesota (which is the example that Bart Frazier gives), has private roadways seems irrelevant to this question, since North Oaks, Minnesota, doesn’t seem to be a REAL city — but only a city in name only. (Rather than being a true city, as we commonly think of cities, it seems to be a relatively small suburban subdivision that got itself incorporated as a “city.”)

“Demanding this kind of proof is unfair when the government maintains a monopoly on all city incorporation.”

Benjamin writes:

I’m not sure how this comment addresses the issue I raised in my original post, above.

Is a network of private roadways that would substitute for a network of public roadways feasible / desirable in real cities — especially large cities? Maybe they are; maybe they aren’t. But the fact that North Oaks, Minnesota (which is the example that Bart Frazier gives), has private roadways seems irrelevant to this question, since North Oaks, Minnesota, doesn’t seem to be a REAL city — but only a city in name only. (Rather than being a true city, as we commonly think of cities, it seems to be a relatively small suburban subdivision that got itself incorporated as a “city.”)