Comments by "Bushrod Rust Johnson" (@MilwaukeeF40C) on "The hidden traffic metric that makes cities worse" video.

  1. Property owners should really be responsible for the infrastructure anyway, if they want something other than dirt.
    5
  2. Taxes are inefficient and coercive. They hide the direct costs of infrastructure and create moral hazard.
    5
  3. A lot of roadways in the U.S. are technically on the land of the surrounding property owners.
    4
  4. I am sure glad right now I can spend entire years without having to be within six feet of random schmucks I have no reason to interact with.
    3
  5. The property owner shouldn't even have to waste time with crap like that.
    3
  6. Nobody is entitled to any particular outcome. Individuals can adjust their behaviors when things like that are too much of a pain in the ass for them. If they put up with it, then the traffic is clearly not a big deal.
    3
  7. Things like this are so far from having analytical methods that there is almost no point in having a god damn design manual for everything.
    2
  8. I'm just saying that transit, walking, high density, mixed development, and "new urbanism" is like an idealized version of how things were in the early 20th century before governments took over pretty much the entire transportation market and crowded out all the private alternatives.
    2
  9. Theoretically any intersection could work like a roundabout. People are just too timid.
    2
  10. At a place with level "F" traffic, there is probably no room for a roundybout.
    2
  11. Governments shouldn't have anything to do with aesthetics. They suck at it.
    1
  12. Cities are likely to hold up any kind of development with these kinds of studies and long approval processes. Both housing and offices are persuaded to go to suburbs outside control of the city government entity for less restrictions. I doubt any kind of traffic study is done for most suburban development simply because it is not dense enough to be a major factor in anyone's decisions.
    1
  13. If you really want to encourage walking and transit in cities and higher density land use, get rid of all traffic laws and traffic control devices as well as tax funded pavement.
    1
  14.  @adorabell4253  That depends what you are considering early 20th century. The U.S. was reached what is considered mass motorization quickly by the 1920s and 1930s. The only thing that made them convenient and worth the cost was heavy road socialism. I am bringing up free market policy changes that would remove artificial incentives, not direct paternalism like "ban all the cars".
    1
  15. I am not sure how access to property would work without some kind of common law right of way.
    1
  16. So, you were trespassing?
    1
  17. Sheeeeeeiit.
    1
  18. I can get stuff in my car ready for the next day in my night clothes without anyone getting pissed off.
    1
  19. ALL development is essentially a Ponzi scheme as long as the government is subsidizing some of the infrastructure. It usually goes in to debt for the initial construction, then underprices continued service. This works as long as they keep adding new development paying taxes and utility bills, until the oldest infrastructure is completely depreciated. The costs of renewal will be unfeasible eventually especially since every government is essentially kicking the can as far as they can get away with.
    1
  20. California just doesn't have property rights.
    1
  21. Your aren't forced to use a car. In addition to the new roads, all the same roads that were here before cars existed are still here, with easier surfaces to walk on even.
    1
  22. Walking like that was the way of life for thousands of years until barely more than a century ago. Almost nobody ever had a horse. Five kilometers ain't shit.
    1
  23. Choosing where you live is what it is. Other things may effect your experience.
    1
  24. That's the best thing to do. Otherwise you create artificial incentives that skew development, or simply end up with wasted effort if the development doesn't come. In the U.S. pretty much all the collector and arterial roads that will ever be needed are already here, just increase the number of lanes when it is absolutely necessary.
    1
  25. I drove around Orlando and it seemed fine.
    1
  26. Cleveland leads the nation in drifters.
    1
  27. If five story parking garages are economical there then the people who own the million dollar houses and don't like the garage probably won't have a hard time finding someone else to better allocate the land the houses sit on for at least a million dollars. Boo fucking hoo.
    1
  28.  @ae1ae2  Not every goddamn thing is up for a vote. Voluntary individual liberty is self evident regardless of law.
    1
  29.  @nunyabidness3075  Permanent deed restrictions are impractical. Some still restrict liquor. But the dominant party is dead. Some still restrict colored people. I keep seeing this shade issue come up. Buy the land and it won't be a problem.
    1