A pictorial response to "who will build the roads?"

[Madison320]

I think one legit concern over privatizing everything is whether for example one city could have roads owned by 5 companies and turn into a weird patchwork of confusing road networks, gates, or even different traffic rules.

The concern I have with privatizing the roads is with public easement issues. I'm still not sure how that would work. It seems that anyone could basically trap you on your property.

[econ4every1]

Nobody here views liberty as a freedom from responsibility.

Liberty is the freedom to meet our responsibilities in our own ways, not to duck them with impunity.



Are you just checking to see if we're gullible, or do you actually believe this stuff? There are eight places where collisions can occur on a standard cloverleaf, and no need for any traffic lights. There are two disadvantages to a standard clover leaf--trucks are prone to overturn on them and they take up a lot of land, making them expensive to build. Many points where vehicles are trying to occupy the same space they do not have.

And yes, the private railroads in the U.S. are a model of compatibility and cooperation, and the government has precious little to do with that. Their system of sharing freight cars, for example, is over a century old and a model of efficiency. You should spend less time pontificating about your lack of knowledge about it and study it. The story if the American railroads has much to teach about how this nation evolved, the best and worst of business competition and cooperation, the hazards and folly of government regulation, and efficient network systems from which even smart computer programmers can learn useful tricks.

Nobody here views liberty as a freedom from responsibility.

How is it irresponsible that someone else decided to build and charge a fee to travel on their road?

Here, let's try this. Let's say I purchase all the land around your property including the only road for you to get into and out of. Now I charge you $100 to cross onto my property.

Have I hindered your freedom? Are you being "irresponsible" if you can't afford to pay me?

Liberty is the freedom to meet our responsibilities in our own ways, not to duck them with impunity.

Sure that's the case when the opportunity to meet your responsibilities reasonable exists. I was laid off during the .com crash and couldn't find work for 9 months. If I was unable to pay my bills, was that me being irresponsible?

Are you just checking to see if we're gullible, or do you actually believe this stuff? There are eight places where collisions can occur on a standard cloverleaf, and no need for any traffic lights.

Gullible? No. I don't think you're gullible, I just think you need to work on your communication skills. I made a claim, and while I didn't source it as it didn't occur to me that this would be a point of contention. Now I 'm going to back up my claims with factual data. The question is, can you accept the facts or will you deny them?

DDIs are proliferating because they’re safer than a traditional four-way intersection. Where two, two-lane roadways intersect, drivers have 32 separate opportunities to collide into each other. In a DDI, there are only 14. The DDI in Springfield, Missouri—the first in the U.S.—showed a 60 percent reduction in crashes since it was installed in 2009, compared to the old design. They can also be more cost-efficient than traditional diamond interchanges.

Here is the source, perhaps you can read it with some interest?

Where are two disadvantages to a standard clover leaf--trucks are prone to overturn on them and they take up a lot of land, making them expensive to build. Many points where vehicles are trying to occupy the same space they do not have.

Read the article above.

And yes, the private railroads in the U.S. are a model of compatibility and cooperation, and the government has precious little to do with that. Their system of sharing freight cars, for example, is over a century old and a model of efficiency. You should spend less time pontificating about your lack of knowledge about it and study it. The story if the American railroads have much to teach about how this nation evolved, the best and worst of business competition and cooperation, the hazards and folly of government regulation, and efficient network systems from which even smart computer programmers can learn useful tricks.

Nothing you've said here disagrees with what I said, however, in computing network infrastructure is an order of magnitudes more complex. With a train, the basic features to be standardized are things like width of the wheels, weights, speed around curves and traffic signals to name just a few. In computer networking trying to move a signal across disparate networks are a lot more complex. If two or more companies are heavily invested in their technologies and the consumer base is enough to support it, then incompatible technologies can end up coexisting. This makes the system less efficient and has real global societal costs.

[econ4every1]

The concern I have with privatizing the roads is with public easement issues. I'm still not sure how that would work. It seems that anyone could basically trap you on your property.

It's even more complex than that.

Imagine there is a city and the road connecting that city to nearby farms are located in a valley that connects the two.

The cost of that road will obviously be maintenance, but also reflected in the demand for the commerce that travels over it. If there were no reasonable alternatives, the owner of that road would act like a parasite on commerce.

If you were located open an island and you wanted to evacuate because of a deadly storm, the owner of the bridge that connects the island to the mainland could boost his costs to astronomical fees. In a Libertarian laissez-faire world, is this wrong? No, prices communicate information about resources, remember? So raising the price on the bridge during a deadly hurricane communicates that there aren't enough bridges. But if the bridge that is in place can easily handle all of the traffic, even during an evacuation, wouldn't it be a waste of resources to build two?

Of course, it would.

[VIDEODROME]

It's even more complex than that.

Imagine there is a city and the road connecting that city to nearby farms are located in a valley that connects the two.

The cost of that road will obviously be maintenance, but also reflected in the demand for the commerce that travels over it. If there were no reasonable alternatives, the owner of that road would act like a parasite on commerce.

If you were located open an island and you wanted to evacuate because of a deadly storm, the owner could boost his costs to astronomical fees. In a Libertarian laissez-faire world, is this wrong? No, prices communicate information about resources, remember? So raising the price on the bridge during a deadly hurricane communicates that there aren't enough bridges. But if the bridge that is in place can easily handle all of the traffic, even during an evacuation, wouldn't it be a waste of resources to build two?

Of course, it would.

I was also wondering if there could be weird bidding wars or companies seeking exclusive pathways to destinations like the local city airport.

Or recently, there has been the discussion of Net Neutrality. Would we lose basic road neutrality? Maybe indirectly with companies like Lyft or Uber trying to contract for exclusive access on key roads to destinations?

[acptulsa]

How is it irresponsible that someone else decided to build and charge a fee to travel on their road?

Here, let's try this. Let's say I purchase all the land around your property including the only road for you to get into and out of. Now I charge you $100 to cross onto my property.

That isn't what you were talking about. You were trying to equate freedom with getting everything for free--a.k.a. stealing the labor of others. That's not our idea if liberty.

Now you're changing the subject. Sounds like a matter for civil court.

Gullible? No. I don't think you're gullible, I just think you need to work on your communication skills. I made a claim, and while I didn't source it as it didn't occur to me that this would be a point of contention. Now I 'm going to back up my claims with factual data. The question is, can you accept the facts or will you deny them?








Here is the source, perhaps you can read it with some interest?



Read the article above.

First you say cloverleaf, then you post a tract discussing a standard intersection at grade. One of us needs to work on our communication skills. It isn't me. What other terms are you misusing in your arguments, and should we take that as evidence that all your thoughts are so scrambled?

Nothing you've said here disagrees with what I said, however, in computing network infrastructure is an order of magnitudes more complex. With a train, the basic features to be standardized are things like width of the wheels, weights, speed around curves and traffic signals to name just a few. In computer networking trying to move a signal across disparate networks are a lot more complex. If two or more companies are heavily invested in their technologies and the consumer base is enough to support it, then incompatible technologies can end up coexisting. This makes the system less efficient and has real global societal costs.

Is that really all there is to railroading, in your mind? Loaded cars are brought from thousands of different points of origin, bundled into trains for efficiency, only to be ultimately divided among thousands of destinations. Have you ever watched classification at a hump yard?

You are underestimating railroads if you think you have nothing to learn from them in terms of logic, dispatching and networking. You are underestimating our attention to detail if you think you can call an intersection a cloverleaf and communicate effectively with us. You are underestimating our concepts of the philosophy of freedom if you think that means getting $#@! for free to us. Well, you have a right to underestimate all these things. But why are you lecturing us?

When you said there were 32 places where collisions can happen in a cloverleaf, I didn't go look them up. I visualized a cloverleaf and counted them. Do you try to understand the things you talk about, or do you just look up talking points and regurgitate them on faith? Because so long as you are content with regurgitation, these things will keep happening to you.

[Danke]

Your reply reminds me of a new type of traffic interchange I saw yesterday for the first time called the "diverging diamond":



While it looks like a confusing mess, it's actually a lot more efficient and has 50% fewer places for collisions (14 vs 32 in a standard cloverleaf)

.

I have driven many times on one of those. Notice the stop lights?

I guess it is preferable under some circumstances, like rush hour. But if the land is available, a half cloverleaf with long acceleration lanes if preferable.

[pcosmar]

Where is this nasty highway? it reminds me of some of the ridiculous roads around Chicago.. must have been built by Unions.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8761.../data=!3m1!1e3

[econ4every1]

That isn't what you were talking about. You were trying to equate freedom with getting everything for free--a.k.a. stealing the labor of others. That's not our idea if liberty.

Quote me please, not sure what you are referring to.

First you say cloverleaf, then you post a tract discussing a standard intersection at grade.

That's correct, I was referring to a standard intersection, not a cloverleaf, my mistake. The difference in the conflict points in a Cloverleaf and DDI are similar in number, but the DDI still has fewer accidents because the conflict points are adequately separated, thus it is still a superior design. The question is and always was, not to focus on intersections, but on the research that had to be done to learn this kind of information. I wouldn't claim to know if this was driven by profit or by public interest, but there are examples like this, where grant money, paid by the government, is spent to discover ideas with little to no marketable value, but because of increases in efficiency and the potential to save lives, the information does have value.

One of us needs to work on our communication skills. It isn't me. What other terms are you misusing in your arguments, and should we take that as evidence that all your thoughts are so scrambled?

See what I did? You were correct and I admitted my mistake.

What other terms are you misusing in your arguments, and should we take that as evidence that all your thoughts are so scrambled?

Hopefully as few as possible, but if there are more, I hope you will point them out.

Is that really all there is to railroading, in your mind? Loaded cars are brought from thousands of different points of origin, bundled into trains for efficiency, only to be ultimately divided among thousands of destinations. Have you ever watched classification at a hump yard?

No, I'm sure there is a lot more that goes into railroading, my point was that computer networks are much more complex. If you'd like to compare the two, let me know.

You are underestimating railroads if you think you have nothing to learn from them in terms of logic, dispatching and networking.

I believe I said that it would be interesting to study private railroads (among other things) as a way to evaluate purely private systems and contrast them against public systems.

You are underestimating our attention to detail if you think you can call an intersection a cloverleaf and communicate effectively with us.

Hopefully, we've addressed this.

You are underestimating our concepts of the philosophy of freedom if you think that means getting $#@! for free to us.

I'm sorry, again, where did I say, specifically in this thread that I think people are entitled to "free stuff"?

But why are you lecturing us?

Why do you assume this is a lecture? We are conversating about the topic, are we not? We are engaging in conversation. Lectures tend to be more one-sided.

When you said there were 32 places where collisions can happen in a cloverleaf, I didn't go look them up. I visualized a cloverleaf and counted them. Do you try to understand the things you talk about, or do you just look up talking points and regurgitate them on faith?

It was an example that I used to lend evidence to a point. I used the word "Cloverleaf" by mistake and you were kind enough to point it out and I'm sure you will be gracious enough to take me at my word when I say that's not what I meant. Having said that, I could be wrong about traffic patterns and still be right about the broader point I was making. Which you didn't even address.

For instance, you didn't address my other example of studying infant sleeping patterns. Something that has little no practical marketable profit (and even if you could, would you sell information like that?). Do you think that in a society driven entirely by individuals seeking profits that research like that would have been done? And remember, While I used a single example, that example is representative of lots of other research that is done in the public interest (that has little to no marketable value). So when you answer the question, remember I'm really talking about all the kinds of research like it that is done, not just one specific instance.

[econ4every1]

I have driven many times on one of those. Notice the stop lights?

Yes.

I guess it is preferable under some circumstances, like rush hour. But if the land is available, a half cloverleaf with long acceleration lanes if preferable.

The point was that vs standard intersections (I said Cloverleaf, I meant to say vs. standard intersection) is a vastly superior design. You are correct with respect to the partial Cloverleaf. The reading I've done says that it's comparable to the DDI design in terms of its overall traffic efficiency, however:

The Diverging Diamond Interchange type has two more conflict points than the ParClo types, but the conflict points at a DDI are all separated. Three of the conflict points for a ParClo A4 occur at one of the intersections and for the ParClo B4 two conflict points occur at an intersection. Therefore, one can make the statement that the DDI will be less prone to potential accidents since all the conflict points are separated.

[econ4every1]

I was also wondering if there could be weird bidding wars or companies seeking exclusive pathways to destinations like the local city airport.

Or recently, there has been the discussion of Net Neutrality. Would we lose basic road neutrality? Maybe indirectly with companies like Lyft or Uber trying to contract for exclusive access on key roads to destinations?

Sure and imagine that in a world without regulation, that private owners of roads (who also operate logistics) can use road fees as a way to increases costs for their competition?

I'm curious, do you think that in a world without regulation road owner could refuse to allow the owners of certain vehicles to travel on their roads? Or perhaps charge more?

Same goes for the internet. Can Verizon decrease the bandwidth of certain companies (like their competition) over others? Can the owners of infrastructure pick winners and losers?

Could the companies that provide infrastructure services to specific areas refuse to allow content that is objectionable to the owners of that infrastructure?

Seems to me like they could, but perhaps there is something I'm missing here? Does someone want to tell me why, in a world run entirely by profit without government regulation, that something like this wouldn't happen?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sure and imagine that in a world without regulation, that private owners of roads (who also operate logistics) can use road fees as a way to increases costs for their competition?

Sure, government is much better than the private sector. They would never charge excessive fees like private companies would charge. They would never be corrupt. They're always efficient. Must be a different breed of humans in gov.



Freedumb:




Pennsylvania: Audit Shows Motorist Cash Funds Lavish State Salaries


Officials, politicians and contractors charged in bribery scandal at Pennsylvania toll road.


The National Safety Council generates revenue from speeding ticket awareness courses, then gives cities grant funding to issue more tickets.


Top officials at a toll road in Pennsylvania have been charged with shaking down motorists and pocketing the cash.


Former superintendent for Dallas County Schools to plead guilty to federal bribery charges related to school bus camera system.


Ohio Town Cannot Survive Without Speed Camera Revenue


NHTSA Says Federal Law Requires Ticket Quotas


$44 Tolls Are Just The Start For Virginia Roads


Report Finds Smog Checks Pointless With Modern Cars


Federal Rules Add $2100 To Cost Of New Cars


The $1.1 trillion in federal, state and local government dollars handed to public transit systems over the past four decades has failed to make traveling by bus, rail or trolley any more popular.


Bankrupt Texas toll road stiffs subcontractor who goes to the second highest court in the state in a five-year battle over payment.


DC Cops Pad Salary With Photo Radar Cash


Since 2008, MWAA has used Virginia's Dulles Toll Road to finance a $2.8 billion Metrorail project.


Appellate court in Pennsylvania sends motorist back to square one on his four-year attempt to settle a speeding ticket.

[VIDEODROME]

So do we want a system that likely has even more fees and tolls?

[Madison320]

Sure, government is much better than the private sector. They would never charge excessive fees like private companies would charge. They would never be corrupt. They're always efficient. Must be a different breed of humans in gov.

I don't know. I think it's more like the military where you just have to live with the inefficiencies. I used to be more worried about "what" the government was doing, now I'm more interested in how to keep it from "growing". Most of us can tolerate a small government that only does a few things and could be funded with a 1% income or sales tax, even if they were in charge of the roads.

[econ4every1]

I don't know. I think it's more like the military where you just have to live with the inefficiencies. I used to be more worried about "what" the government was doing, now I'm more interested in how to keep it from "growing". Most of us can tolerate a small government that only does a few things and could be funded with a 1% income or sales tax, even if they were in charge of the roads.

Madision320, I'm curious, how do you define the growth of government? Is it in absolute size? Is it in size per capita? Is it based on the influence of government or something else?

And lastly, how might you define government?

It always cracks me up when people say they despise government (I'm not saying that you are saying that) and then organize into groups that try to make decisions (which is really just another form of government).

So saying that "big government" is a problem is, to me anyway, so vague I'm just not sure what it means.

For me, I'm for a government that serves its citizens and not the interests of the elected representatives. I think the system we have now is very poorly designed and has some very, very skewed incentives that allow career politicians to serve themselves instead of their constituents. The solution in my mind begins with separating the influence of money on the political system. What do you think?

Respectfully,

E4E1

[Madison320]

Madision320, I'm curious, how do you define the growth of government? Is it in absolute size? Is it in size per capita? Is it based on the influence of government or something else?

And lastly, how might you define government?

It always cracks me up when people say they despise government (I'm not saying that you are saying that) and then organize into groups that try to make decisions (which is really just another form of government).

So saying that "big government" is a problem is, to me anyway, so vague I'm just not sure what it means.

For me, I'm for a government that serves its citizens and not the interests of the elected representatives. I think the system we have now is very poorly designed and has some very, very skewed incentives that allow career politicians to serve themselves instead of their constituents. The solution in my mind begins with separating the influence of money on the political system. What do you think?

Respectfully,

E4E1

Size per capita is a good start. The biggest crime to me is the upper tax bracket, you're not free when the government steals over half of your income. I think the problem is unlimited democracy and the solution is some form of republican government with a restricted voting system where people getting free stuff from the government can't vote.

[otherone]

It always cracks me up when people say they despise government (I'm not saying that you are saying that) and then organize into groups that try to make decisions (which is really just another form of government).

Use those critical thinking skills of yours to discern the difference.
Hint: It's in your own words.

[pcosmar]

So do we want a system that likely has even more fees and tolls?

And Profit for the few.. don't forget Profit.. which is the whole point and purpose to everything..

[pcosmar]

I'm curious, do you think that in a world without regulation road owner could refuse to allow the owners of certain vehicles to travel on their roads? Or perhaps charge more?

I would expect the Highway Robber would very likely have a short life violently ended,, Without "regulation' he will be met by an armed group that removes his roadblock,, or spend his wealth in defense while people find another way around or through the obstruction.

[econ4every1]

I would expect the Highway Robber would very likely have a short life violently ended,, Without "regulation' he will be met by an armed group that removes his roadblock,, or spend his wealth in defense while people find another way around or through the obstruction.

So you think it's ok for the legitimate owner of a road to be removed with violence?

[pcosmar]

So you think it's ok for the legitimate owner of a road to be removed with violence?

Who is the "legitimate" owner?

[acptulsa]

Who is the "legitimate" owner?

It is a good question. I'm sure we'll all be sorely disappointed if you duck this one too.

Land is appropriated through eminent domain, and the owners are told it will be owned by the community and operated for the benefit of the community. Then, at a later date, it gets sold to a Spanish company which promptly erects toll booths, for money which is partially deposited in that government's treasury and partially lines the pockets of the politicians who arranged the deal (as always). Is this Spanish company truly the legitimate owner? The former owners may never have had any rights in the thing, but even so--there was a contract and the terms of the contract were violated. Does that mean anything? Or was this road built from scratch at this late date? With the exception of a few urban expressways, are roads really still being built? Or do we have enough to meet our needs already, making the whole 'Who Will Build the Roads' meme a liberal distraction which doesn't mean a thing?

Who is the legitimate owner?

[pcosmar]

, making the whole 'Who Will Build the Roads' meme a liberal distraction which doesn't mean a thing?

Who is the legitimate owner?

I wondered where that Dumb $#@! came from. And when he answers that,,,,

And then we can get into "Right of Way",, laws and history.

And then we can get to Impeding the Right of Way,,, which is a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause. (and the 2nd amendment)

Come on and listen for the echos.