LA Is Number One American City…in Traffic Congestion

The Los Angeles metropolitan area led the nation in traffic jams in 2005, with rush-hour drivers spending an extra 72 hours a year on average stuck in traffic, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The metropolitan areas of San Francisco-0akland, Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland, and Atlanta were tied for the second most gridlocked areas, according to the study by the Texas Transportation Institute.

More here.

There are solutions to such problems, but they all require rethinking the current (public) ways that roads are planned, built, and maintained (or not maintained).

As readers of reason know, "Traffic Jams Are Made In City Hall," and they can be solved, or at least greatly reduced through a series of five improvements ranging from creative construction, smarter management, market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and privatization. Read all about it--while you're stuck in traffic wasting as much as an extra 72 hours a year--hey, watch out for that stopped car!--here.

Comments

[\"Foul Weather Jake\" Boone]

1) I sense the approach of joe.

2) It be Talk Like a Pirate Day, swabbies, so get yer piratey slang a-workin'! Yarr!

[Hugh Akston]

Just for a bit of matter of perspective, 72 hours is about .8 percent of the total time one spends in a year.

Compare that to the time spent engaged in other, equally useless activities, it doesn't seem that bad.

[Hugh Akston]

Also, I apologize for the uncharacteristic incoherence of the above post.

[Finkelstein]

California liberals and their love affair with cars. Sheesh

[BakedPenguin]

Detroit was in a three-way tie with San Jose, California, and Orlando, with average delays of 54 hours...

Woohoo, O-town! Made it in the top ten! Take that, Tampa!

Oh, and Jake, if you're not going to help me taser Dan T., I'm not talking like a pirate.

[Sea Hag]

Pirates are gay.

[Episiarch]

You are the gayest monster pirate since gay came to Gaytown!

[Dan T.]

Putting aside the probablity that peak oil will solve many of our traffic problems, the obvious short-term solution is to tax the hell out of gasoline.

The problem is, the oil companies run the government and they really don't want us to buy less of their product.

[JW]

Speaking as a DC traffic warrior pirate, let me just say I'm shocked. Shocked, I say that we're number 2.

L.A. rigged the numbers. Argh! We wuz robbed! We'll be #1 next year, me hardies!

[robc]

It seems the "obvious" solutions are within those mentioned by Nick:

market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and privatization.

The 1st 2 can be handled by the 3rd.

[sage]

I was in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago, and I was shocked at how light the traffic was compared to Seattle. And I don't think I saw any construction. At this time of year, you cannot go anywhere in Seattle without running into contstruction of one sort or another.

the oil companies run the government and they really don't want us to buy less of their product.

You'd think, if that was the case, that being a troll would make you shove a steering wheel down your pants and scream "ARRGH! It's driving me nuts!" at the top of your lungs.

[No, I\'m not Lou Dobbs or Pat]

Los Angeles is also dead last in percentage of drivers who can read traffic signs written in English.

[Tim]

Would someone elaborate on how privatization of roads would actually work ?

If my house on a street that is privatized, it doesn't seem fair that I'd have to pay a private company the privilege of driving to my own home ?

And I agree, peak oil will effectively solve this problem. I also think we should stop using our Military to subsidize oil prices.

[SP]

I think Dan T. and Joe have recently demonstrated some non-trollish behavior. Their tones are obnoxious, but no more so than is typical of this forum, and recently I've noticed a number of valid points coming from both of them. Dan T. makes a valid point above.

I understand why they stick around, they get a lot more attention here than they would on forums of their own political bent. Here, they have the power to steer every conversation, to make every thread about them and their opinions. Many threads begin with an express invitation for their input. That's remarkable.

[Pro Libertate]

Orlando? Ah, yes, that village near Kissimmee.

[robc]

Tim,

I dont know how well privatization of local access roads would work. But it works really well for interstates and other exit based roads.

Check out Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway. There are other examples too.

[Dan T.]

I understand why they stick around, they get a lot more attention here than they would on forums of their own political bent. Here, they have the power to steer every conversation, to make every thread about them and their opinions. Many threads begin with an express invitation for their input. That's remarkable.

Can't speak for Joe, but I don't really want the threads to be "about" me, since that almost always means enduring insults.

But I do like to debate issues and so it makes sense to go to boards where my opinion is in the minority. Also, as I've indicated before, I'm in reality a lot more sympathetic to libertarian ideas than what I let on so to some extent I'm just putting them to the test here.

Some of you guys are really cool about it and fun to engage. Some, not so much.

[robc]

I was in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago, and I was shocked at how light the traffic was compared to Seattle.

Clearly you werent driving on the northside perimeter at rush hour. I didnt think Seattle was too horrible the one time I was there (2000). I go to Atlanta often and used to live there and it goes from awful to somewhat light depending on location, direction, and time of day. Maybe Seattle is more consistently crowded?

[Dan T.]

It seems the "obvious" solutions are within those mentioned by Nick:

market pricing for roads, market pricing for parking, and privatization.

The 1st 2 can be handled by the 3rd.

I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.

[sage]

Well, I took your "oil companies run the government" to be a troll-type comment. I was about to make a coherent response, but why bother.

[robc]

Dan,

You are fine when you are not being trollish. When you intentionally misunderstand in order to "put an idea to the test" it is frickin annoying. Stop doing that.

[Reinmoose]

Would someone elaborate on how privatization of roads would actually work ?

If my house on a street that is privatized, it doesn't seem fair that I'd have to pay a private company the privilege of driving to my own home ?

Driving to your own home? From where?
Perhaps you and the others on your street would own a cooperative, or it would be owned by the development owner (depending on where you live). Access to other privately owned roads would be something they would use as a selling point, and it would come out of your yearly fee.
That obviously wouldn't cover everyone, but that's just an example of how it could work.

[robc]

I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.

People for thousands of years got around on foot.

[Dan T.]

Well, I took your "oil companies run the government" to be a troll-type comment. I was about to make a coherent response, but why bother.

It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but there's no denying that oil interests have an awful lot of sway over government policy (case in point: Iraq).

I don't see how that's any more trollish than the very frequent and exaggerated claims about how the government wants to control everybody's lives.

[Dan T.]

People for thousands of years got around on foot.

True, but they were not living in communities that were designed with automobile travel in mind. I suspect there are very, very few places in America where you can live successfully without the use of a car or public transit.

[robc]

case in point: Iraq

I have been saying this since before it even started, if the war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela instead.

[Episiarch]

I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.

Seeing that roads are currently paid for through taxes (often gas taxes), if roads were privatized, these taxes would (yeah, right) be eliminated. This would place that money back in the hands of the driver, who could then use it to pay for the toll.

TAANSTAFL, Dan, and people are paying no matter what they do. This would make they payment more direct and would foster comepetition to keep prices down.

[J sub D]

...the obvious short-term solution is to tax the hell out of gasoline.

I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.

Do I sense a logical disconnect here?

[P Brooks]

"...that village near Kissimmee."

Kissimmee- home of the Big Bamboo Lounge, one of the coolest bars ever. Although I have heard a rumor that it is now gone. Replaced, no doubt, by a car wash.

-----

Grossly underpriced/ subsidized e-z parking is a major contributing factor to trafffic and congestion.

[robc]

Dan T,

Within most metro areas, most people could get around with a bicycle just fine. Also, market pricing on parking/roads would probably make the bus into a good deal, might even make bus/trains profitable. Wouldnt need to be public buses then.

[sage]

It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but there's no denying that oil interests have an awful lot of sway over government policy (case in point: Iraq).

So do feminists(title IX), terrorists (patriot act), and accountants (tax code). So would it be an equal exaggeration to say that terrorists run the government?

Oh, wait...

[P Brooks]

"I suspect there are very, very few places in America where you can live successfully without the use of a car or public transit."

It's the manifest Will of the People, Dan. Let 'em move to Munich if they want to ride on a trolley.

[K.]

I have been saying this since before it even started, if the war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela instead.

Venezuela is developing its oil resources and bringing them online pretty well, afaik. Iraq was (and still is) way below its potential.

[Dan T.]

Seeing that roads are currently paid for through taxes (often gas taxes), if roads were privatized, these taxes would (yeah, right) be eliminated. This would place that money back in the hands of the driver, who could then use it to pay for the toll.

TAANSTAFL, Dan, and people are paying no matter what they do. This would make they payment more direct and would foster comepetition to keep prices down.

Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest price?

[Reinmoose]

Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest price?

Why do they need to be parallel? If a city is laid out in a grid, why not take avenue B instead of avenue A?

[Reinmoose]

In Honolulu (and I imagine, in other cities as well) there are a lot of parking garages where, if you get your parking ticket stamped by the business you're buying from (restaurant, or whatever), you get a free hour or two of parking time for that visit.

[Reinmoose]

Oh, and that comment was meant to display how garage owners aren't the only ones who have a say over how much the person who parks pays for said parking.

[Dan T.]

Why do they need to be parallel? If a city is laid out in a grid, why not take avenue B instead of avenue A?

Because maybe the business I need to get to is on avenue A.

Frankly, with all the other things we've got to worry about I'd just assume not have to try to figure out what the cheapest set of roads are to get to any destination every time I went somewhere.

[Episiarch]

Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest price?

Nice troll, Dan--I answered your question regarding poor people affording the tolls, but you completely ignored that and asked a stupid question instead.

Thank you for reminding me not to take you seriously.

[Reinmoose]

Frankly, with all the other things we've got to worry about I'd just assume not have to try to figure out what the cheapest set of roads are to get to any destination every time I went somewhere.

Do you always buy the cheapest everything? Or do you may more for some goods/services for convenience, quality, etc? It would be cheaper for me to drive to JFK and fly to Austria instead of using my local airport, but frankly it's not worth the cost savings to me to put that much effort in.

[Dan T.]

...the obvious short-term solution is to tax the hell out of gasoline.

I guess the main problem with market pricing for parking and roads is that people who can't afford the market rate still need to be able to get around.

Do I sense a logical disconnect here?

Sort of. I guess any additional gas tax would have to allow for tax credits for the poor combined with more public transit options.

But I do think that the tax would work better because having "competing" streets is logistically impossible.

[Reinmoose]

should be: ...do you pay more for some goods...

[Dan T.]

Nice troll, Dan--I answered your question regarding poor people affording the tolls, but you completely ignored that and asked a stupid question instead.

Thank you for reminding me not to take you seriously.

So what's stupid about it? You're saying that competition would drive down the cost of private roads, and I'm asking exactly how that would work. For competition to exist, the customer has to have choices.

[CoveAxe]

I lived in LA for two months during an internship. I never in my whole life thought I would still see congestion on major highways at 8-9PM. Not even Chicago is that bad.

And it took me about 4.5 hours to drive to Tijuana (Which judging by only distance, would be about a 1 hour drive anywhere else).

[Dan T.]

Perhaps you and the others on your street would own a cooperative...

So, a group of people in an area would share ownership and the costs of a street? How is that different from public streets again?

[P Brooks]

"... garage owners aren't the only ones who have a say over how much the person who parks pays for said parking."

Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility the parking garage in question was built by the city, using federal and state money in much larger proportion than local dollars, and the garage owners are, in fact, the taxpayers. But they don't get a dividend check from their "investment."

[Skip]

I would be interested to see what our cities would look like had there never been subsidized roads/highways.

[Pro Libertate]

Skip,

We'd have flying cars and wouldn't need highways.

[robc]

Dan T,

So, a group of people in an area would share ownership and the costs of a street? How is that different from public streets again?

Okay, this is what I was talking about above with intentional misunderstanding, but in case you really are that stupid:

One is a privately entered into agreement, like owning shares in a corporation, which is private. One isnt.

Multi-owners does not make it public. It is still privately owned. Do you really not get the difference?

BTW, its the same as our HOA/government argument. An HOA isnt a government. A private corporation isnt public.

[Dan T.]

I think it's called "feudalism"

[robc]

Dammit PL, that was my argument from the other thread. Although, I guess I did give up the flying cars argument when I said we would have teleportation booths by now.

[sage]

You're saying that competition would drive down the cost of private roads, and I'm asking exactly how that would work. For competition to exist, the customer has to have choices.

And when the lease is up on the road in question, the customer could opt to have another company maintain it. You know, if they provided lame enough quality at a high enough cost.

[CoveAxe]

Competition? Are you going to build three parallel roads everywhere so drivers could choose the one with the lowest price?

While I can't speak for city streets, privatizing things like toll roads and other major highways works pretty well (I live in Indiana which did this). If you don't want to pay the toll, you are more than welcome to take the other routes. The Chicago skyway operates the same way too and I don't think you'll find too many complaining about it (I think it's still the fastest way to drive into Chicago if I'm not mistaken)

[Dan T.]

One is a privately entered into agreement, like owning shares in a corporation, which is private. One isnt.

Multi-owners does not make it public. It is still privately owned. Do you really not get the difference?

I'm saying the difference is mostly semantic. A "public" street is owned by the city, and what is a city but a collective group of people?

Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal Government to be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of the United States. Then everybody would be happy.

[CoveAxe]

Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal Government to be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of the United States. Then everybody would be happy.

I'll be happy if it means that I am free not to pay taxes to them against my will. Until then, they are not a private company, no matter how it is dressed up.

[Reinmoose]

perhaps the average person would move more frequently and own less real estate. The burden to keep down road prices would be placed on the developer of the apartment building in order to keep his/her rents up. This is, of course, unless there was an alternative form of transportation that was used by most of the building tenants. They may be able to walk to work, or take a subway, or a bus easily, depending on where they worked.

[ChicagoTom]

I have been saying this since before it even started, if the war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela instead.

That tree hugger Alan Greenspan would disagree with you.

[Dan T.]

The Chicago Skyway is still public, they just leased it to a private company to maintain and operate.

[Dan T.]

I'll be happy if it means that I am free not to pay taxes to them against my will. Until then, they are not a private company, no matter how it is dressed up.

My homeowner's association makes me pay dues against my will.

[Reinmoose]

I'm saying the difference is mostly semantic. A "public" street is owned by the city, and what is a city but a collective group of people?

Let me know when the city sends you a dividend check, Dan. A collective of people on a street who own the road would not just use the road for their own uses, but would be able to determine a price for others to travel on the road. This may result in the road paying for itself by through-travelers, or even turning a profit, shared by the stakeholders. On the other hand, if none of them care, they can just pave it with gravel, nobody will want to travel on it if they don't live on it, and it will be really cheap.

[CoveAxe]

My homeowner's association makes me pay dues against my will.

No, you agreed to that when you signed the deed/mortgage.

[Dan T.]

No, you agreed to that when you signed the deed/mortgage.

Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property there. I didn't have a choice.

[Pro Libertate]

robc,

Vrrrrooooom!

[robc]

Sometimes I think we should just declare the Federal Government to be a "private" organization owned by the citizens of the United States. Then everybody would be happy.

That would be fine if we had a specific enforcable contract saying what the private organization could or couldnt do and I also have the ability to buy more or sell my shares in the organization.

Also, voting done by number of shares owned. Works for me.

[Dan T.]

Let me know when the city sends you a dividend check, Dan. A collective of people on a street who own the road would not just use the road for their own uses, but would be able to determine a price for others to travel on the road.

Why couldn't a city do that?

I suspect that no city does because it's such an obviously bad idea.

[robc]

Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property there. I didn't have a choice.

No. The share in your HOA is PART of the property. They are connected, they are the same thing. Also, I bet there is an amount of money you could pay the HOA to get that removed from your deed. Like all private contracts, it is negotiable.

[CoveAxe]

Only because I had to as a requirement for buying property there. I didn't have a choice.

I don't get it, did someone put a gun to your face to force you to buy that particular property? Were you not able to back out before signing? You had plenty of choices, you just took one that you regret.

I hate HOAs too, know what I did? I didn't buy a house that had an HOA agreement.

[Dan T.]

That would be fine if we had a specific enforcable contract saying what the private organization could or couldnt do and I also have the ability to buy more or sell my shares in the organization.

Also, voting done by number of shares owned. Works for me.

So you're really just in favor of fuedalism. Sounds like a great way to protect individal liberties.

[robc]

A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce. Under feudalism, people were born with a permanent position in society.

Hmmm....sounds nothing at all like what I described.

[Dan T.]

I don't get it, did someone put a gun to your face to force you to buy that particular property? Were you not able to back out before signing? You had plenty of choices, you just took one that you regret.

I didn't say I regretted it, I'd just rather have the benefits of living under a government without having to pay the taxes...er, living under an HOA without having to pay the fees.

I hate HOAs too, know what I did? I didn't buy a house that had an HOA agreement.

I think the taxes in New York City are too high, so I don't live in New York City. So if you think Federal taxes are too high, why do you live in America?

[grumpy realist]

CoveAxe--if you don't like paying taxes to this government, why don't you move to a place that has no taxes at all? Like Somalia?

(Of course, there's not much in the way of infrastructure, but that's the breaks, right?)

The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics really pisses me off. According to libertarians, having a town dominated by one employer who determines everything is Good because the company is A Private Enterprise and If You Don't Like It You Can Always Quit Your Job And Move Elsewhere (nevermind that you may have no money because of the shit salaries and the fact that the company can do whatever it damn well pleases. Libertarians have a touching faith in the non-existence of employer influence on local law courts and other mechanisms for supposed checks and balances.)

[Dan T.]

Hmmm....sounds nothing at all like what I described.

If you seriously think government should work where people with money could buy additional shares, it would end up looking like that.

[Rhywun]

if the war in Iraq was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela instead

If Bush fils had had a pre-existing grudge to settle with Hugo Chavez (say, "finishing" an earlier war), maybe we would have.

In Honolulu (and I imagine, in other cities as well) there are a lot of parking garages where, if you get your parking ticket stamped by the business you're buying from (restaurant, or whatever), you get a free hour or two of parking time for that visit.

Yes, this is the same means by which downtown Buffalo has attempted to ape the suburbs and in the process pretty much destroyed itself.

Speaking of competition, back when the NYC subways were private, some lines paralleled each other all the way to the end, leaving large gaps of the city with no service. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[robc]

If you seriously think government should work where people with money could buy additional shares, it would end up looking like that.

You were the one suggesting privatizing government, I just agreed to go along with it.

Im in favor of a a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very (did I get the right number) tiny public government. But I will take the private one over what we have now.

[Dan T.]

The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics really pisses me off. According to libertarians, having a town dominated by one employer who determines everything is Good because the company is A Private Enterprise and If You Don't Like It You Can Always Quit Your Job And Move Elsewhere (nevermind that you may have no money because of the shit salaries and the fact that the company can do whatever it damn well pleases.

Exactly. The more layers I uncover here, the more I realize that the main problem libertarians have with democratic government is that a poor person gets the same number of votes as a rich person.

[robc]

The inability of libertarians to realize that the difference between "public" and "private" is simply a matter of semantics really pisses me off.

Maybe we have this inability because it ISNT a matter of semantics.

Ive been treated badly by corporations. Ive been treated badly by governments. I have never felt powerless when dealing with a corporation. Because I havent been.

[J sub D]

Do I sense a logical disconnect here?

Sort of. I guess any additional gas tax would have to allow for tax credits for the poor combined with more public transit options.

Yeah the tax code just isn't complicated enough now.

[Reinmoose]

Yes, this is the same means by which downtown Buffalo has attempted to ape the suburbs and in the process pretty much destroyed itself.

No, downtown Buffalo has astronomical taxes AND pay-for-parking, and a gazillion surface lots. They keep fucking themselves up and can't possibly imagine why.

[Reinmoose]

Dan T -
watch yourself. Don't take what robc says and apply it to everyone, and I don't think he really thought that either.

[CoveAxe]

if you don't like paying taxes to this government, why don't you move to a place that has no taxes at all? Like Somalia?

So if you think Federal taxes are too high, why do you live in America?

So wait, let me get this straight, you're comparing immigration, a legal minefield where many countries determine your citizenship just based on who your parents are, to a HOA, which is a completely voluntary agreement that you have to go out of your way to get into? Wow

[robc]

Rhywun,

If Bush fils had had a pre-existing grudge to settle with Hugo Chavez (say, "finishing" an earlier war), maybe we would have.

Exactly my point. The war wasnt about oil. The war was about a personal score to be settled. I dont think it was the unfished war, I think it was Saddam trying to have daddy assassinated - which I actually consider a legitimate reason to have removed him from power. If you try to have and current or ex president killed, no matter how bad they were, even Carter or Bush II, I think it is justified to go after you.

That doesnt mean I think the Iraq war is okay, especially not when there were bigger problems in Afghanistan, but at least it would have provided a legitimate basis for some sort of action, maybe.

[Rhywun]

No, downtown Buffalo has astronomical taxes AND pay-for-parking, and a gazillion surface lots. They keep fucking themselves up and can't possibly imagine why.

The "astronomical taxes" are irrelevant to my point. Some high-tax cities that HAVEN'T aped the suburbs are doing just fine (e.g. NYC, SF).

[Rhywun]

The war wasnt about oil. The war was about a personal score to be settled.

Actually, I think it's about both. There would not have been any pre-existing score to settle with Saddam if not for oil, because without oil we wouldn't give a shit about Kuwait.

[robc]

The silliness of the buying shares in government idea in fact proves that an HOA isnt a government.

I have 1 vote in my HOA. The couple next door to me have .5 votes each. I already have more votes in my HOA than most of the others. And, I can buy more votes just by buying a second property. I would then have 2 votes, or 4 times the voting power of my neighbors.

Its not just a semantic difference. There is a fundamental difference in the operation of public and private organizations.

[BakedPenguin]

I'm in reality a lot more sympathetic to libertarian ideas than what I let on...

Some of you guys are really cool about it and fun to engage. Some, not so much.

Okay Dan, I put the taser away.

ProLib: how's that baseball team down there workin' out for you? Oh, wait, you're not a Rays fan, you're a Braves fan, aren't you? How's that workin' out for you?

[Dan T.]

The silliness of the buying shares in government idea in fact proves that an HOA isnt a government.

I have 1 vote in my HOA. The couple next door to me have .5 votes each. I already have more votes in my HOA than most of the others. And, I can buy more votes just by buying a second property. I would then have 2 votes, or 4 times the voting power of my neighbors.

Its not just a semantic difference. There is a fundamental difference in the operation of public and private organizations.

It's still a government, it's just not a purely democratic government.

Although if one guy decided to buy 51% of the properties in your neighborhood and start changing the bylaws to fine you every time a dead leaf was found in your yard unraked, you might wish that it was!

[e]

When you intentionally misunderstand in order to "put an idea to the test" it is frickin annoying. Stop doing that.

But..but.. it's amusing when Stephen Colbert does it!

[JW]

It's still a government, it's just not a purely democratic government.

No, it's an association, it says so right in the name: Home owners Association. Y'know, a *voluntary* association. Unlike true guvmints, it's one you can opt out of any time you like (or not join at all) and all that changes is your address.

You don't have to learn a new language or a new culture or anything. Heck, you might even just have to move across the street.

You can grok that idea, can't you Dan old boy? Just leave if you don't like it.

[Bob Smith]

Congestion can't really be solved by congestion pricing. All that does is postpone the day of reckoning without addressing the problem: lack of capacity. That's because congestion is the result of virtually criminal lack of construction of new roads to accommodate demand. In some cases (Portland OR) congestion is the knowing and intentional result of the city's rulers. Those bozos *want* Portland to be like LA. In others, cars are "evil" so they waste money on light rail projects, which also happen to bring in a lot more subsidy than road building despite their worthlessness as actual people movers. We used to make road building a priority; now we don't bother due to the absurd belief that "you can't build your way out of congestion". We make it worse by continually increasing density with infill residential construction near roads that weren't designed for that level of demand. Congestion is solvable, if you want to.

[Reinmoose]

The "astronomical taxes" are irrelevant to my point. Some high-tax cities that HAVEN'T aped the suburbs are doing just fine (e.g. NYC, SF).

No, the "astronmical taxes" are not irrelevant. If you think the parking situation downtown is what killed it, you're crazy. Also, comparing Buffalo to NYC and SF (like a lot of urban Buffalo activists like to do) is just plain retarded. That would be like comparing policies in west bumblefuck, population 2,000 to Buffalo.

[Seitz]

Having lived both places for fairly long periods of time, Chicago's traffic is much worse. But I'd argue that the study is somewhat flawed. I would imagine that L.A. has more people traveling longer distances than Chicago? I'd imagine that there are more people commuting from San Bernardino or Riveriside to L.A. than there are people from Gurnee or Frankfort commuting to downtown Chicago. Commutes in Chicago just don't seem as long. So if you're driving further and there's traffic, naturally you'll be stuck in traffic longer. How much time is spent in traffic compared to the time spent in a normal commute? I think that would be a better metric.

As for the Skyway, it's a fairly quick way to go, usually, but the problem right now is the Dan Ryan, which is awful. The only way the Skyway makes good sense now is if you can take Lakeshore/Stony Island to and from. Fortunately, I live in the city, so I can do that if I need to head down that way.

[JW]

The more layers I uncover here, the more I realize that the main problem libertarians have with democratic government is that a poor person gets the same number of votes as a rich person.

Now that's just silly talk. Rich people don't need to vote; they just buy congresscritters. Why buy just the milk when you can have the whole cow?

[e]

That's because congestion is the result of virtually criminal lack of construction of new roads to accommodate demand.

Waah!!.... the mean Portland government won't subsidize my desire to drive at the expense of the majority's desire to have alternative modes of transport! They're CRIMINALS!!

[Rhywun]

No, the "astronmical taxes" are not irrelevant.

Yes, they are, because tax rates vary more from region to region than from city to suburb in the same region.

If you think the parking situation downtown is what killed it, you're crazy.

When a downtown turns itself into just another suburb, in the process demolishing half the building stock, there's no longer any compelling reason to go there over any other suburb. Lively cities are lively *precisely* because they remain cities.

Also, comparing Buffalo to NYC and SF (like a lot of urban Buffalo activists like to do) is just plain retarded.

Buffalo is a metropolis of over one million people, whether you want to admit it or not. The fact that the downtown has "given up" its role as the center of the region doesn't mean it has to remain that way.

[robc]

Although if one guy decided to buy 51% of the properties in your neighborhood and start changing the bylaws to fine you every time a dead leaf was found in your yard unraked, you might wish that it was!

51% isnt even close enough to the numbers to make that happen. Also, unlike governments, there are contractural limits on what changes they can make, even with 99% agreement. Plus, an HOA cant annex property against that property owners will.

[Reinmoose]

Rhywun:
so how precisely is this autonomous city supposed to regain its roll as the center of business? Consider that every effort employed by the city through "command-and-control" policies has failed.

New York is a metropolis of over 20 million people. Buffalo is a metropolis of over 1 million people. Hmmmm... My hometown is a "metropolis" of over 50,000 people... does that mean I can compare it to Buffalo?

[Pro Libertate]

BakedPenguin,

Oh, it's a poor season all around. The Rays have always been bad, so that's not so much a problem, but watching the Braves fail to win the division is annoying. At least I have the Gators and, for one week at least, the Bucs.

[Reinmoose]

Dan -
Do you not subscribe to the belief that small communities should be able to determine what is best for them, rather than some feds 1,000 miles away creating a uniform system for everyone? You're always saying that if a community has rules that you don't like, you should move. A HOA is a lot like that, only the rules of your contract can't change after you sign it, unlike they can in a community after you move there. The HOA can't seize your property to build a wider road. HOAs, if compared to governments, would be extremely small ones where literally every person in the association has signed a piece of paper agreeing to the terms. In regular governments, all you need is 51% of the people to agree to the terms, and 49% of the people to get screwed.

[CoveAxe]

Plus, an HOA cant annex property against that property owners will.

I've actually always wondered this. I've never been in a HOA so excuse my ignorance, but if you're breaking the bylaws and you refuse to pay them through fines, how do they make you pay?

[robc]

CoveAxe,

The put a lien on your property.

That doesnt have anything to do with annexation though.

[CoveAxe]

Ahhhhh... OK, that makes sense. Make the resale value go to shit.

[BakedPenguin]

ProL: more than just the one week for the Bucs - remember, they play the Falcons twice this year.

[Rhywun]

so how precisely is this autonomous city supposed to regain its roll as the center of business

Compete by offering something unique instead of imitating the suburbs.

My hometown is a "metropolis" of over 50,000 people... does that mean I can compare it to Buffalo?

I don't know why you're harping on the "compare" business. I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. But to spell it out for you, comparisons are either useful or not. The fact that Buffalo still has many of the same characteristics as other metropolises such as NYC but on a smaller scale, makes the comparison useful to me. The definition of a metropolis is fairly well-understood and available on the Internet. You might not find it useful, but it's hardly "retarded".

[Brandybuck]

What about right of ways? There are a thousand years of precedent for right of ways, and we can't just discard it in our overzealous desire for complete privatization.

Early in this thread someone worried about having to pay to drive to use the road in front of their home. But that's a right of way. I used to work in a business whose only access was through a private road. But we had a right of way, so that the road owner could not exclude us from its use. There are many rural agricultural areas that have the same situation.

I personally don't envision 100% road privatization anytime soon, but if by some strange occurance we do, then that system is going to have to account for right of ways.

[Reinmoose]

Look, the point is that you can compare Buffalo to, say, Louisville all you like. But comparing it to NYC is just silly because their urban areas are off by a factor of 20.

So you're saying that the autonomous city of Buffalo will up and offer something. You mean the city government of Buffalo will use tax money (local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand stupid schemes (Bass Pro, anyone?). I know that's not what you WANT it to do, but that's what it does. Why give them more money = more power, Rhywun?

[Dan T.]

Dan -
Do you not subscribe to the belief that small communities should be able to determine what is best for them, rather than some feds 1,000 miles away creating a uniform system for everyone? You're always saying that if a community has rules that you don't like, you should move. A HOA is a lot like that, only the rules of your contract can't change after you sign it, unlike they can in a community after you move there. The HOA can't seize your property to build a wider road. HOAs, if compared to governments, would be extremely small ones where literally every person in the association has signed a piece of paper agreeing to the terms. In regular governments, all you need is 51% of the people to agree to the terms, and 49% of the people to get screwed.

Reinmoose, my position is that HOA's are effectively a type of government, not that they are identical in powers and methods to other governments.

But membership is compulsory, taxes are levied, rules are created and enforced, officers elected, and contracts are signed on behalf of the community.

It seems to me that the main quibble here is that when you move to a city, state, or country you don't explictly sign a contract saying you'll agree to the rules.

Frankly, I have no idea why this is such a point of contention. For people who claim to put individual liberty as the most important ideal you folks seem to put a lot of stock in the notion that an group can limit the liberties of its members as long as its "private".

Consider this hypothetical: you own a house in a city, and the city council votes to pass a law that says you have to mow your grass once a week or be subject to a $50 fine. Most libertarians would consider this to be an unnecessary infringement of government upon the individual.

Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA that decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under punishment of a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that okay.

But from the individual's point of view, he's still being compelled to mow his lawn against his will, even though having an unkept lawn does not violate the rights of anybody else.

So at least in the case of government vs. HOA, we've got a distinction without a difference.

[Bob Smith]

Waah!!.... the mean Portland government won't subsidize my desire to drive at the expense of the majority's desire to have alternative modes of transport!

What majority? Portland's light rail system was voted down every time it was offered for a vote. TriMet ignored the vote and built it anyway. The MAX and tram systems were not on time, not on budget, and failed to deliver any of their claimed benefits. As for subsidy, so-called "alternative" modes of transport are subsidized to a far higher degree than mass transit, because transit has such low value users won't pay high fares. If anything, deliberate attempts to create congestion as a scheme to induce drivers to take transit is a subidy to transit.

[robc]

Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA that decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under punishment of a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that okay.

An HOA cant do that.

[robc]

So you're saying that the autonomous city of Buffalo will up and offer something. You mean the city government of Buffalo will use tax money (local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand stupid schemes (Bass Pro, anyone?). I know that's not what you WANT it to do, but that's what it does. Why give them more money = more power, Rhywun?

Thats exactly what Louisville has done (since that is the proper comparison). Not Bass Pro (that's in southern indiana) but just about every other stupid scheme they could think of. The last stupid scheme has actually been slightly more successful than I thought it would be, but some of the others took 10+ years to fail, so Im not giving them any credit yet.

[Rhywun]

But comparing it to NYC is just silly because their urban areas are off by a factor of 20.

No it's not silly--it's just a difference of scale. Otherwise Buffalo and NYC are more similar to each other than Buffalo is to a small town that is without: universities, orchestras, major hospitals and all the myriad other things that large cities have.

You mean the city government of Buffalo will use tax money (local, state, or otherwise) to subsidize grand stupid schemes (Bass Pro, anyone?).

Do you include the Skyway and Kensington Expressway among those grand stupid schemes? How about public parking lots (as almost all of them are)? The suburbanization of downtown Buffalo was every bit as publicly financed as recent attempts to reverse it. No, I don't support the Bass Pro thing. Corporate welfare is always wrong. But I support policies that stop trying to pretend Buffalo can compete with Amherst or Tonawanda on their terms. That means: Stop requiring minimum parking allotments for new buildings. Stop giving away free parking. Start encouraging building on parking lots that were themselves once buildings. Be different! Or, continue to watch your population decline as people flock to cities like NYC and SF that haven't turned into suburbs.

[Dan T.]

Now take the same scenario, except this time it's your HOA that decides that you must mow the lawn once a week, under punishment of a $50 fine. I guess most here would consider that okay.

An HOA cant do that.

I'm pretty sure mine can. One of my neighbors reported getting a warning letter about their grass being too high, and I'm pretty sure they would have eventually gotten hit with a fine had they not cut it.

[robc]

I'm pretty sure mine can. One of my neighbors reported getting a warning letter about their grass being too high, and I'm pretty sure they would have eventually gotten hit with a fine had they not cut it.

They can do it IF ITS IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SIGNED. They cant change them (subject, once again, to your rules) all willy nilly like a government can.

What I was saying they couldnt do is change the rules.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Reinmoose, my position is that HOA's are effectively a type of government"

And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a development with a HOA. People who do so know what they are getting into up front and individually choose whether they want to subject themsevles to the rules by moving in or not.

No such individual choice is available when it comes to government. There is no place in the country you can go that is not subject to the rule of some government entity.

[Dan T.]

They can do it IF ITS IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SIGNED. They cant change them (subject, once again, to your rules) all willy nilly like a government can.

What I was saying they couldnt do is change the rules.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood.

I think you're incorrect, though. I'm pretty sure that most HOAs have provisions that allow the association to amend the rules when needed.

In fact, here's an interesting link:

By law, a majority of the homeowners in an association have to approve any change in the bylaws. But many boards sidestep this by simply changing their house rules, which are as binding as bylaws but can usually be rewritten without asking all the homeowners. "Even if you were to be given the rules today, they're probably already out of date because [boards are] constantly making changes to the rules at whim," says Elizabeth McMahon, a co-founder of the American Homeowners' Resource Center, a San Juan Capistrano, Calif., consumer group. "And they couldn't care less if you don't like them."

At the Reston (Va.) Homeowners Association, for instance, only residents who used the swimming pools and tennis courts had to pay for their upkeep. But then in 1990, the board decided everyone ought to chip in, and it polled members. More than 70% of those who voted opposed the new rule, but it didn't matter. In the end, the board pushed it through anyway, and fees climbed 26%. "They disregarded the will of the people," says Thierry Gaudin, a Reston homeowner, "and that was wrong."

It may be wrong, but it's the board's right. Period. "Bottom line, the board has to have the right to run the show," says attorney Benny Kass, who represents associations. About all you can do is keep up to speed on any changes the board makes in the rules, and if you don't like them, complain. The sooner you raise a fuss, the better: Rules that have been around for a while tend to be the hardest to change.

http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/51

[Reinmoose]

Rhywun -
You have me completely confused about what your original problem with parking garages was.

Stop requiring minimum parking allotments for new buildings. Stop giving away free parking

Those are both issues that privatization and elimination of zoning would solve. Why then do you have a problem with a private developer building a parking garage, and then partnering with businesses nearby so that the businesses pay a portion of their customer's parking? I don't know what the exact arrangement is, but I imagine that they probably get some sort of discount over people who are just parking there but not frequenting the nearby businesses. I fail to see how this arrangement exists in the suburbs as suburbs do not generally have parking garages, nor do they charge people for parking.

[Dan\'s secret sockpuppet]

Gilbert, Dan's point is this...

And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a development country with a HOA government. People who do so know what they are getting into up front and individually choose whether they want to subject themsevles to the rules by moving in or not.

No such individual choice is available when it comes to government HOA. There is no place in the country development you can go that is not subject to the rule of some government entity HOA.

Fixed.

There's alot of talking past each other on this thread, and to be honest, I'm not sure I see the difference, just the distinction.

[Rhywun]

You have me completely confused about what your original problem with parking garages was.

My problem with excessive parking in cities that were not built to accommodate it is simple. It requires tearing down existing buildings and lowering the variety of uses that you find there. My point has nothing to do with how they're financed or whether it's a garage or a lot. The point is that places like downtown Buffalo have torn down much of the building stock, replaced it with parking and surrounded it with expressways in order to imitate the suburbs. I'm not advocating any "solution" or public financing. I'm merely pointing out a living arrangement that once worked very well in America and provides an example of one way of how to help alleviate the ubiquitous congestion that is the subject of this post.

[Reinmoose]

FYI:

In Honolulu, Rhywun, most of the parking garages are built into new buildings (since most buildings there are, in fact, pretty new. They also have one of the most used and most awesome bus systems in the country, consistently winning awards from the APTA.

Yes, I consider the Skyway and the Kensington Expressway to be among those stupid schemes(public money, confiscation of land (I think), etc.) Most of their mistakes were made back in the 60s (as was the case with most cities, Robert Moses, etc. etc.), but Buffalo can't seem to get its head out of its ass long enough to see that the answer is not more government penetration. Here I think we agree somewhat.

[Z]

In Dan T's defense, my HOA can do that. Mine isn't unique. My aunt's old HOA could do the same. The agreement we signed has provisions for amending the rules. So yes, if the majority decide they want to fine me for not mowing my yard, they can and will. If I don't like it, I have to mow, try to change their minds, or sell my townhouse.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gilbert, Dan's point is this..."

No, sockpuppet, neither you nor Dan has a point.

There is no such thing as a country without a government. A place without a government is not a country at all. About the only places left on earth that fit that description are the open ocean and Antartica.

HOA's do not rule over every domestic dwelling in this country and no one is forced to move into one if they don't like the rules. There is no place in the country you can go that is not subject to the rule of some government entity.

[Stevo Darkly]

And your position is wrong. No one forces you to live in a ... country with a ... government. People who do so know what they are getting into up front and individually choose whether they want to subject themsevles to the rules by moving in or not.

Yeah, I knew what I was getting into as I emerged from the womb and they thrust that "social" contract into my hands.

No such individual choice is available when it comes to ... HOA. There is no place ... you can go that is not subject to the rule of some ... HOA.

That's just 'tarded. In order for parallels to make sense, they need to:

1) Be parallel.

2) Make sense.

[e]

What majority? Portland's light rail system was voted down every time it was offered for a vote. TriMet ignored the vote and built it anyway.

After voters approved funding for the Westside MAX extension, .."

Apparently, at least one time, voters approved it.