Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember, this is from the position that a 5 BILLION dollar loss is "efficient"...I think the evils of a government created monopoly and government extortion are going to be too big a stretch...LOL
In America a considerable number of neighborhoods have privately-owned roads managed by a home-owners association. Many rural roads are owned by individuals, and some have neighborly agreements for maintaining the roads. I lived on a small gravel road with about twenty residences where everyone contributed a small amount when more gravel was needed.
It seems a bit unreasonable to think there wouldn't be any roads without government. Even in countries who effectively have no government there are roads. The main issue isn't that there would be no roads, it is more a question of convenience and quality.
Before we try to imagine the world without public roads, you first need to ask the question, who benefits from public roads?
There are many that argue that without the wide network of public roads, most businesses would be small. Big-business needs easy and relatively high-speed access over long distances. The absence of public roads would keep most things more local.
Secondly, we need to remember who really pays for what.
Take for instance a toll road. Toll roads are obviously annoying when you need to drive on them. But, who drives on them? In many cases, poor people basically never leave the city they live in, or if they do, it isn't often. The kinds of people who regularly travel long-distances are either businesses, truckers, or people with a decent income. These long and relatively empty highways are much more expense per passenger-mile than city roads, and people get better gas mileage at the higher speeds. Which means, even if fuel taxes paid for them, people with cars who get worse gas mileage(either because of quality or speed) will pay more per mile traveled.
This "problem" is especially true when discussing airports. Airports are basically all "municipal", and governments spend a lot of money to maintain them. As well as the traffic controllers and other branches of government. And for the most part, poor people almost never fly on a plane. I've never been on a plane in my life. I get to pay so rich people can fly on planes. Probably to Vegas or some place in the Caribbean.
I'm not going to say that there are some downsides of not having public roads. But let me tell you, if you are a liberal, you should "HATE" public roads.
In America a considerable number of neighborhoods have privately-owned roads managed by a home-owners association. Many rural roads are owned by individuals, and some have neighborly agreements for maintaining the roads. I lived on a small gravel road with about twenty residences where everyone contributed a small amount when more gravel was needed.
I can definitely imagine a private neighborhood roads, there are some already but not a six lane interstate. Lol
Show me a country where highways system was built and is operated by private companies without any inference from the government... Show me the money! Lol
I can definitely imagine a private neighborhood roads, there are some already but not a six lane interstate. Lol
Show me a country where highways system was built and is operated by private companies without any inference from the government... Show me the money! Lol
It would be a toll road. Instead of paying the government you pay a private company + some profit for the investors. It may or may not be cheaper to use a toll road.
It would be a toll road. Instead of paying the government you pay a private company + some profit for the investors. It may or may not be cheaper to use a toll road.
What's the difference if government leases contractors to operate the toll?
It would be a toll road. Instead of paying the government you pay a private company + some profit for the investors. It may or may not be cheaper to use a toll road.
The truth is, without the government nobody has enough money to build a highway system.
What's the difference if government leases contractors to operate the toll?
The difference is the profit. The government operates at cost, but may not always be the most efficient. I haven't looked into the details to see if private toll roads are more efficient than the public roads, but I don't think they are any cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts
The truth is, without the government nobody has enough money to build a highway system.
I don't think that is accurate. The money is there, but few people have the incentive. What typically happens is the government will sell off roads to private companies.
I can definitely imagine a private neighborhood roads, there are some already but not a six lane interstate. Lol
Show me a country where highways system was built and is operated by private companies without any inference from the government... Show me the money! Lol
Inference? I assume you either mean assistance or interference?
From a practical standpoint, it really wouldn't be that difficult for a private company to build highways in terms of raising the capital to build them and maintain them. I mean, Warren Buffet and his company have plenty of capital to build pretty much anything. For that matter, toll roads do exist now and in most cases, are actually fairly lucrative for the states. The real problem when it comes to roads, especially highways, is a problem of "right of ways".
I remember when I was living in Georgia, there were all these really weird windy roads that constantly took these 90 degree turns. My sister said "the roads follow the old farm property lines". Which made sense to me, but then I was like "Couldn't they just build across the properties more at an angle?". And she was like "Not if the farmer didn't allow them. Who wants their property cut in half by a road?". Made perfect sense.
The problem with building a highway as a private company, is that acquiring right of ways across a vast distance to produce a highway straight enough to travel at high speed for any length of time would be nearly impossible. The main advantage of governments is that they can just use eminent domain and build whatever they want wherever they want.
I mean, can you imagine trying to build a highway across an already populated major city? A single property out of thousands could basically prevent you from doing anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
It would be a toll road. Instead of paying the government you pay a private company + some profit for the investors. It may or may not be cheaper to use a toll road.
The odds that it would cost more to drive on a private road is basically nil. Not only would they be cheaper, but more importantly, the people who actually use them would be paying for them. And even more, having to pay to drive on a road would actually generally discourage its use.
This is why I actually get annoyed at liberals when it comes to roads.
Liberals hate urban sprawl. They want people to use mass transit, to expand our rail system, to have people drive less and consume less gasoline. They will complain about how roads and parking lots use up about 1/3rd of all land space in a typical city. Liberals will also claim that they hate big-business and want to protect "mom and pop" stores, and that they want to improve the lives of the poor.
In my opinion, there is nothing that would go further to doing all of these things than getting rid of public roads. Without public roads, people would drive less, consume less gasoline, buy more local, live in more densely packed areas, and use train/mass transit a lot more. Also, those wealthy people who want to live further away, and who do most of the driving over the expensive highways; Would be the ones paying for them. While poor people, especially those poor who don't have a car but are still forced to pay a variety of taxes which partially fund the roads(most egregious being the property tax). Would no longer be forced to subsidize the driving habits of the wealthy and businesses.
There is nothing that enables urban sprawl more than highways. Yet, liberals continue to have principles which prevent their own goals from ever becoming a reality. For that matter, if they wanted to help the poor, they would get rid of zoning laws and building codes. But for some reason they think making housing more expensive and creating an artificial housing shortage is somehow going to help the poor. Then they build the terrible housing projects where all the poorest and most government dependent people go to live in an ultra high crime environment. And liberals walk away thinking they did something good?
I promise you, no one likes government subsidized roads more than Wal-Mart and Exxon. Think about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
