4 ms·

You're confusing design, planning, and central planning. Traffic arteries are not the result of central economic planning. They are the result of the free mark

You're confusing design, planning, and central planning. Traffic arteries are not the result of central economic planning. They are the result of the free market dumping the externalities of cars. At that point you have two choices. Either you ban the car, and interfere in the free market and "pick winners and losers", something Hayek wouldn't like, or you adapt the infrastructure to what people are asking for in order to reduce traffic fatalities and other externalities of car ownership. Central planning would be saying - no, cars aren't working at scale, we will limit the production of cars. In this case the government didn't do central planning. It didn't pick winners and losers. It went with what the free market decided.

da_big_ghey 5y ago
Government overstepped to create large roads for cars, which create a problem of induced demand. Private can not use eminent domain and sieze property for roads.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Before they did people just die crushed by cars. Yes there was induced demand but it was already too late before then
Proven 5y ago
> Traffic arteries are not the result of central economic planning. They are the result of the free market dumping the externalities of cars. Complete nonsense. Where are those cities with privately planned, designed and owned roads you talk about?
drak0n1c 5y ago
Robert Moses, a planner, demolished and fractured thriving neighborhoods to build massive highways in New York City in his quest to see cars working at scale. Architects and planners of the time like Moses and Le Corbusier did not pay close attention to markets, they were focused on utopic designs and unrealistic beliefs of what humans would achieve in radically new spaces. That is why we have legacy highways and sprawling public housing projects.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Sure, and places without those big projects still became car dependent. Cars still ended up scaling. You found an unrelated problem.
  - specialist 5y ago
    TLDR: Roads were built despite the market's desire for mass transit. The first automobile suburb was Long Island. Created by Robert Moses. Copied by all. Money was stolen from public transit and spent on roads, stolen from urbans to pay for suburbs. In fact, cars did not scale. The road capacity did not, could not, ever, accommodate the demand. Physically, logically, economically impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/039...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      There is literally 0 market desire for mass transit. Mass transit is not viable on the free market functionally. It doesn't mean we should not build it. Before the first automobile suburb, cars were already in sufficient concentrations to require infrastructure to be taken away from other modes of transport and onto cars - the first example was in the 1910s, MUCH before Robert Moses designed any suburb - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term This is simply an a-historical take on reality. Cars got infrastructure by being enough of a nuisance to force the government to build around them. And it started in the city, not in the suburbs. Not that suburbs are good, but it's important to get these things right. Things can scale without scaling enough. Cars did scale, they just did so unsustainably. Since we're being pedantic anyways.
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        I wouldn’t say 0 desire. I don’t own a car anymore and rely on good mass transit to get around. It’s far less expensive than owning a car. There are also people who cannot drive who desire mass transit.
athrowaway3z 5y ago
You're going to have to explain why it's a binary choose between banning cars or not.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Either you ban/limit the sale of cars, you build infrastructure to support it, or you deal with people dying. I never said it was a binary.

da_big_ghey 5y ago

Government overstepped to create large roads for cars, which create a problem of induced demand. Private can not use eminent domain and sieze property for roads.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Before they did people just die crushed by cars. Yes there was induced demand but it was already too late before then

Proven 5y ago

> Traffic arteries are not the result of central economic planning. They are the result of the free market dumping the externalities of cars. Complete nonsense. Where are those cities with privately planned, designed and owned roads you talk about?

drak0n1c 5y ago

Robert Moses, a planner, demolished and fractured thriving neighborhoods to build massive highways in New York City in his quest to see cars working at scale. Architects and planners of the time like Moses and Le Corbusier did not pay close attention to markets, they were focused on utopic designs and unrealistic beliefs of what humans would achieve in radically new spaces. That is why we have legacy highways and sprawling public housing projects.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Sure, and places without those big projects still became car dependent. Cars still ended up scaling. You found an unrelated problem.
- specialist 5y ago
  TLDR: Roads were built despite the market's desire for mass transit. The first automobile suburb was Long Island. Created by Robert Moses. Copied by all. Money was stolen from public transit and spent on roads, stolen from urbans to pay for suburbs. In fact, cars did not scale. The road capacity did not, could not, ever, accommodate the demand. Physically, logically, economically impossible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Broker https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/039...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There is literally 0 market desire for mass transit. Mass transit is not viable on the free market functionally. It doesn't mean we should not build it. Before the first automobile suburb, cars were already in sufficient concentrations to require infrastructure to be taken away from other modes of transport and onto cars - the first example was in the 1910s, MUCH before Robert Moses designed any suburb - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term This is simply an a-historical take on reality. Cars got infrastructure by being enough of a nuisance to force the government to build around them. And it started in the city, not in the suburbs. Not that suburbs are good, but it's important to get these things right. Things can scale without scaling enough. Cars did scale, they just did so unsustainably. Since we're being pedantic anyways.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      I wouldn’t say 0 desire. I don’t own a car anymore and rely on good mass transit to get around. It’s far less expensive than owning a car. There are also people who cannot drive who desire mass transit.

athrowaway3z 5y ago

You're going to have to explain why it's a binary choose between banning cars or not.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Either you ban/limit the sale of cars, you build infrastructure to support it, or you deal with people dying. I never said it was a binary.