4 ms·

Have you thought about all the people who are unemployed thanks to gridlock on the US highway system? The massive inefficiency of people (in cities like Chicag

Have you thought about all the people who are unemployed thanks to gridlock on the US highway system? The massive inefficiency of people (in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) wasting 2-3 hours per day sitting in their car going 5 miles per hour is astounding. If the highway system were not held back by government planning, much of this inefficiency and waste could be eliminated, and reallocated into productive pursuits. Imagine if 80% of a city's' commuting professionals had two hours more per day to spend money on things (or to work more). It's easy to assume that highways are one aspect of central planning that works, but in urban, congested areas they are a disaster that hits the poor the hardest. Also, by making it seem "feasible" to live in suburbia and commute into the city, they led many middle class workers to flee cities, eroding the tax base, and causing the decay of city governments/services, etc. Everything has tradeoffs. The highway system got us a way to ship military personnel and tanks across the country, and benefitted home builders and strip mall owners, at the expense of the urban poor.

sc68cal 15y ago
I see there is another Kunstler fan on HN! An upvote for you, sir. For anyone else interested in this line of argument, there is a great introduction that Kunstler did for his TED Talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
- grandalf 15y ago
  Never heard of him but I'm definitely going to watch that talk :)
pessimizer 15y ago
I don't understand your argument. I don't know how gridlock on the highway system causes employment. I was born, raised, and currently reside pretty deep in the city of Chicago, so I'm familiar with commutes, though usually on public transportation, because the interstates are largely for long distance travel. They remain 2-3 hours a day (sometimes) without touching a highway, as they were before cars were even owned by average working class people. I have never owned a car in my life, and have no interest in or ability to drive. The highway system is a result of government planning. If it hadn't been "held back" by government planning, it would lack existence. This would be a tax on every good imported into the city (which is virtually every good.) I don't assume that highways are one aspect of central planning that works, I think that highways are one of a multitude of aspects of government (which I suppose you mean by "central planning") that are justified because, while not being profitable in themselves, they reduce friction for the entire system. The government is the only actor who can levy fees for that from the entire system, therefore the only one who can execute it. If the tax base is eroded in a city, this is a failure of paperwork, not a physical event. If black people and the white people who ran from them were in slightly closer physical proximity, but still entirely homogenously clumped together (assuming a huge decline in public transportation not caused by the highways) you're saying that there would be some benefit to the urban poor?
- pessimizer 15y ago
  "I don't know how gridlock on the highway system causes unemployment," rather:)
Anechoic 15y ago
>If the highway system were not held back by government planning, What do you mean by this? Are you opposed to the EIS/EIR process?
- grandalf 15y ago
  No, but such a process would be compatible with a far more aggressive/creative approach at facilitating the widespread cooperation (among public and private entities) needed to solve the problem. Perhaps government has a role in highway planning, but I think it should act more like cooperation infrastructure provider rather than system designer.
  - Anechoic 15y ago
    >No, but such a process would be compatible with a far more aggressive/creative approach at facilitating the widespread cooperation (among public and private entities) needed to solve the problem. That's pretty much what happens now in the environmental process. The problems tend to come because of political, engineering, legal and/or financial issues that get in the way. It's not as though the government says "this road shall be built here!" and then does it. A problem is identified ("we need to move people from here to here"), several options are created ("we could build a transit line, expand an existing road, build a new highway, build a bridge, etc"), and then opinions from the community are sought as part of the Draft EIR/EIS. One area that does need improvement is more consideration of projects on a regional basis (the effect on neighboring states for example rather than just looking at the immediate project area), but public and private entities are most certainly in the loop for current projects. If they weren't, these entities would just tie the project up in court.
    - grandalf 15y ago
      Well, I think the ideal role of government would be to facilitate the sort of meta-cooperation necessary to solve the problem. The current planning/funding role clearly doesn't work.
jevinskie 15y ago
How would the free market fix that problem? Do you have to pay a subscription fee to get a road to your home or business?

sc68cal 15y ago

I see there is another Kunstler fan on HN! An upvote for you, sir. For anyone else interested in this line of argument, there is a great introduction that Kunstler did for his TED Talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

grandalf 15y ago
Never heard of him but I'm definitely going to watch that talk :)

pessimizer 15y ago

I don't understand your argument. I don't know how gridlock on the highway system causes employment. I was born, raised, and currently reside pretty deep in the city of Chicago, so I'm familiar with commutes, though usually on public transportation, because the interstates are largely for long distance travel. They remain 2-3 hours a day (sometimes) without touching a highway, as they were before cars were even owned by average working class people. I have never owned a car in my life, and have no interest in or ability to drive. The highway system is a result of government planning. If it hadn't been "held back" by government planning, it would lack existence. This would be a tax on every good imported into the city (which is virtually every good.) I don't assume that highways are one aspect of central planning that works, I think that highways are one of a multitude of aspects of government (which I suppose you mean by "central planning") that are justified because, while not being profitable in themselves, they reduce friction for the entire system. The government is the only actor who can levy fees for that from the entire system, therefore the only one who can execute it. If the tax base is eroded in a city, this is a failure of paperwork, not a physical event. If black people and the white people who ran from them were in slightly closer physical proximity, but still entirely homogenously clumped together (assuming a huge decline in public transportation not caused by the highways) you're saying that there would be some benefit to the urban poor?

pessimizer 15y ago
"I don't know how gridlock on the highway system causes unemployment," rather:)

Anechoic 15y ago

>If the highway system were not held back by government planning, What do you mean by this? Are you opposed to the EIS/EIR process?

grandalf 15y ago
No, but such a process would be compatible with a far more aggressive/creative approach at facilitating the widespread cooperation (among public and private entities) needed to solve the problem. Perhaps government has a role in highway planning, but I think it should act more like cooperation infrastructure provider rather than system designer.
- Anechoic 15y ago
  >No, but such a process would be compatible with a far more aggressive/creative approach at facilitating the widespread cooperation (among public and private entities) needed to solve the problem. That's pretty much what happens now in the environmental process. The problems tend to come because of political, engineering, legal and/or financial issues that get in the way. It's not as though the government says "this road shall be built here!" and then does it. A problem is identified ("we need to move people from here to here"), several options are created ("we could build a transit line, expand an existing road, build a new highway, build a bridge, etc"), and then opinions from the community are sought as part of the Draft EIR/EIS. One area that does need improvement is more consideration of projects on a regional basis (the effect on neighboring states for example rather than just looking at the immediate project area), but public and private entities are most certainly in the loop for current projects. If they weren't, these entities would just tie the project up in court.
  - grandalf 15y ago
    Well, I think the ideal role of government would be to facilitate the sort of meta-cooperation necessary to solve the problem. The current planning/funding role clearly doesn't work.

jevinskie 15y ago

How would the free market fix that problem? Do you have to pay a subscription fee to get a road to your home or business?