4 ms·

I think the problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost. It's great for you if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in Sa

I think the problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost. It's great for you if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in San Ramon, but it's not great that you now need to drive your car to work on an elevated freeway through Oakland. Without having ruined that neighborhood, the property in San Ramon would be all but worthless. If people in exurbs all rode the train to work then probably fewer people would be tut-tutting about their odd streetscape.

mikeash 10y ago
That seems backwards to me. The natural state of things is no roads. In the human world, we typically start with property rights, and only take them away when it's deemed necessary. Looking at it that way, it's the road users who are enjoying benefits while foisting costs off on the residents whose property they drive past (or whose former property they drive over).
- rev_bird 10y ago
  Parent commenter wrote: "[t]he problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost... if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in San Ramon... you now need to drive your car to work on an elevated freeway through Oakland." You wrote: "[i]t's the road users who are enjoying benefits while foisting costs off on the residents whose property they drive past (or whose former property they drive over)." I'm pretty sure you two agree.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I do think you're right. I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. Sorry! Consider that to be strenuous agreement instead, OP.
    - baddox 10y ago
      > I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. I think there's some truth to that as well. Government roads in suburbs obviously drive down the population density and encourage the use of cars, which definitely makes mass transportation less viable.

mikeash 10y ago

That seems backwards to me. The natural state of things is no roads. In the human world, we typically start with property rights, and only take them away when it's deemed necessary. Looking at it that way, it's the road users who are enjoying benefits while foisting costs off on the residents whose property they drive past (or whose former property they drive over).

rev_bird 10y ago
Parent commenter wrote: "[t]he problem is that the people who enjoy the benefits are not the people bearing the cost... if you want to live on a cul-de-sac in San Ramon... you now need to drive your car to work on an elevated freeway through Oakland." You wrote: "[i]t's the road users who are enjoying benefits while foisting costs off on the residents whose property they drive past (or whose former property they drive over)." I'm pretty sure you two agree.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I do think you're right. I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. Sorry! Consider that to be strenuous agreement instead, OP.
  - baddox 10y ago
    > I thought they were saying that culs-de-sac screwed up transportation networks, but now I don't know why. I think there's some truth to that as well. Government roads in suburbs obviously drive down the population density and encourage the use of cars, which definitely makes mass transportation less viable.