reason.tv

anangbhai | October 14, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Awesome piece. Short and enlightening. I just came back from a summer trip to New Delhi which has just finished double deckering its roads and is in the process of connecting the entire city through a metro rail.
I was expecting a usual news journalism piece with an opposing viewpoint but its nice to just see a straight to the point "here's the problem and here's the solution" video. Keep 'em coming.

sage | October 14, 2007, 11:09pm | #

The roads are "free," but congestion is always a problem.

Cause and effect?

Fantastic | October 15, 2007, 7:56am | #

Fantastic! Video. You should let people embed this in their blogs by providing the HTML code like they do on YouTube.

rho | October 15, 2007, 8:57am | #

Really excellent. Good work all around. Drew makes a helluva presenter for these kinds of ideas.

A suggestion: perhaps a "related links" section below the video for reason or other online articles that are relevant?

Richard | October 15, 2007, 11:11am | #

This was an extremely slick presentation of a truly bad idea. The piece mentions toll tunnels in Australia and the 91 Express way. I suggest anyone interested google "Cross City Tunnel" to learn what a fiasco the former was. The 91 Express lanes were also a disaster for the same reason: Non-compete agreements.

The "generous" private companies that made these deals inserted provisions into the contract -- not available to the public -- forbidding engineering improvements on surrounding roads. Create congestion to drive traffic to the toll road. The state bought back both the CCT and 91 lanes at a massive loss. That, and anyone who's familiar with the 91 lanes, knows you can find yourself paying $8 to be stuck in traffic flowing worse than the regular lanes. I'm as libertarian as anyone reading this site, but building roads is one of the very few legitimate roles for government. Toll roads are just a gimmick for construction companies to loot your pockets.

Jack Ryan | October 15, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Problem about the piece though is the 91 Toll Roads were also granted an EXCLUSIVE monopoly for the 91 Freeway. Meaning if they wanted to add more lanes or build an road next to the freeway, it is forbidden.

http://www.motorists.org/tolls/home/why-toll-roads-are-a-bad-idea/

Too bad Drew Carey left out this important fact.

Richard | October 15, 2007, 1:19pm | #

I read the paper. It glosses over the non-compete problem by saying they are no longer required. That's simply not true. E470. Cross City Tunnel. There's plenty of evidence of TxDOT creating congestion with new traffic signals on roads around 183 and 130. These are all very recent deals -- I'd love to cite the contracts, but they're "proprietary" and hidden from scrutiny.

The measure of success of the 91 express lanes is not that people use the lanes, but whether conditions have improved. I grew up driving on the 91 freeway every single day. I know it very well. The lanes aren't a magic solution -- they're inconsistent. It's easy to pay $8 and get stuck in traffic driving to Corona anyway. The one absolute is that you *will* get stuck in the general purpose lanes. Opening all of the lanes to general purpose traffic would be far better from a traffic safety perspective and make everyone's drive more consistent and quicker. I believe the extra lanes could have been built as GP lanes from the beginning with the money wasted on buying out the contract -- or, if not, the numbers are pretty close.

This doesn't even get into the privacy problems that any true libertarian should be concerned about. As for the HOT lane article, it sorta presupposes that you think HOV lanes are good. They aren't. The problem is that federal law doesn't let you build any GP lanes anymore.

Sharona | October 15, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Great video, and good ideas. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

Southern California's ground is about as unstable as it gets, with the various fault lines. I can see problems ahead for roads built on top of other roads, and especially for tunnels. Private companies building and maintaining such roads would get their asses sued off with the first earthquake that injured/killed people because they were on (or under) such roads when the quake hit. What do we do about such risk? Is it reasonable to ask commuters using the roads to sign a statement that they won't sue? But what will stop those on government roads who are crushed by the private roads above them? They're certainly going to sue. Do we take away the right of redress, not allowing anyone to sue? That doesn't seem very libertarian to me, especially for anyone not using the private road who is then injured/killed by the private road above or below them.

I don't have a solution. I simply offer it up, because the statements in the video seem a bit simplistic. They don't take into account the region's geological instability. That's my biggest objection to it. And, if I can spot it, I know for sure others will, and will use the information to discredit libertarian solutions to the problem.

Highway 91, which doesn't go over other roads or under them (at least, according to the description in the video), is the way to go in an earthquake-prone region. I'd happily use a toll road that went over/under other roads if I were in a relatively safe location, geologically speaking. I personally would hesitate to use such roads in California.

I've been a libertarian since the age of 24 (I'm older than dirt now), so I have no philosophical objections to the solutions. I simply think this video should have included a bit more thought as to the solutions presented.

Sharona

Shawn | October 15, 2007, 3:59pm | #

I'm a fan of both Reason and Drew Carey and thought this was a great idea just from seeing the ad on the main page. It worked out every bit as well as I would have expected. Kudos.

"building roads is one of the very few legitimate roles for government"

This is tricky. I'm sure an entirely privatized transportation industry would suffer from some huge market failures, but I'm not sure those would be worse than the government failures that we get right now.

Since the Romans started using concrete what major innovations have we had in ground transportation? Steel, leading to the engine, leading to the train and car. Throw in the suspension bridge if you want. The last of those was invented over 100 years ago.

I don't have any precise idea on how transportation should be structured economically, but right now places like the California DOT flush more money down the toilet than is invested in ideas like this
http://www.taxi2000.com/index.html .

Richard | October 15, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Sharona,
Forty-two people died when the double-deck Nimitz Freeway in Oakland collapsed during an earthquake. It is no longer a double-decker. The double-deck Bay Bridge partially collapsed also.

Shawn,
The private sector is surely more efficient than a state DOT, but toll roads are inherently less efficient. Don't forget about the ridiculous infrastructure needed to collect tolls: e.g., left-lane exits, gantries, toll booths, extra right of way for that infrastructure (hello, eminent domain for commercial benefit), billing, enforcement, etc. The overhead is massive, even leaving investor profits out of the equation.

It's a false to pretend roads are a free market issue when they're built with the eminent domain sword of the government. Toll roads become as dirty, non-market an issue as local telecom franchise agreements. The spoils go to the company that offers the best campaign donations.

S Knight | October 15, 2007, 5:26pm | #

This video demonstrates our absolute myopia when it comes to transportation. LA is warm. This guy lives 16 miles from his workplace. But he would rather sit in his car for 1 1/2 hrs than get on a bike and ride it to work.

We should privatize all road building, including local roads. No special contracts. No eminent domain. Raise the funding. Acquire the needed property. Build the road. Build a viable business model to recoup your costs. Suspect that this would open the market for more innovative solutions than "more roads" and "more cars." Perhaps, for example, we might develop more efficient and lighter transportation solution based on flexible materials than metal pistons and frames. (Why does our transportation fail to take advantage of advances in materials science, e.g., to come up with something new?) Suspect also that significant investment in infrastructure would drive toward more scalable and highly utilized solutions than roads.

Road owners could charge users for all kinds of things including size and weight of vehicle (because these add to the costs of building roads), time of day that the road is used, etc. They could charge drivers for excessive speed and would have an interest in making sure their roads were safe (private roads would be subject to private lawsuits).

Although it would be painful in the short term, privatizing road building could open up a wave of creative destruction that could vault the US to a leadership position in transportation in ways that we can't even visualize.

The problem with the government subsidies of driving is that we are now myopically attached to one form of transportation. And, as Shawn points out, have not evolved very much in our transportation thinking. Hopefully, we will learn from our current transportation mess and how letting the government be responsible for something that is inherently private locks us into a particular technology or solution instead of allowing the forces of creative destruction to prevail and create business models that make sense.

Jack Ryan | October 15, 2007, 6:04pm | #

Private toll roads are simply a sanctioned MONOPOLY. Like I said before, the problem is the NON COMPETE clauses in these sweetheart contracts FORBIDS any new construction or expansions of roads or highways.

There is no economic incentive for the toll road operator to allow competing roads. I am aghast at how badly researched this Drew Carey sunshine piece is. The 91 Freeway can NO LONGER BE EXPANDED because of the Toll Roads' non compete clause. There will come to a point the Toll Road authority can charge what ever it wants for no additional benefit from this private monopoly.

It's about as competitive as MA Bell back in the 1970's.

Adrian | October 15, 2007, 6:47pm | #

Richard, rather that continuing to assert that these contracts are all "secret" go to http://www.dot.state.tx.us/services/texas_turnpike_authority/pub_priv_partnerships.htm and view the vast documentation on all the projects, and that is just the texas ones.

Sjaak | October 15, 2007, 7:29pm | #

I wonder what motivated the decision to do the whole documentary without music. It's kinda refreshing to see TV without musical wallpaper, but it can look kinda amateurish too.

dicentra | October 15, 2007, 8:03pm | #

What about asking companies to voluntarily stagger their office hours?

I mean, if you're a company with branch offices all over the place, your hours aren't the same anyway because of time zones.

And it's not as if everything HAS to be open at the same time. Me, I'd think that MDs and DDSs should be open from 2pm to 10pm to make it easier to get to an appt without losing work hours.

Unless, of course, the traffic sux at all hours. In that case...

nevermind.

Mike Hatalovsky | October 15, 2007, 9:54pm | #

Great job, Drew and Reason. Lookin fwd to the next mini-sode!

Richard | October 15, 2007, 10:25pm | #

Adrian, thank you for the contract links -- I stand corrected on secrecy in Texas. Of course, you also allowed me to find the non-compete clause, or at least something that sure looks like one to me. Please read SH130 contract section 11.3.2.1 (page 79) from this link:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tta/sh130_cda/facil_concession_agmt.pdf

If I am reading correctly, and I may not be because it's really long, TxDOT can improve adjacent free roads. But if it does so, it must pay the developer an amount equal to the estimated loss in toll revenue. TxDOT can offset this loss by doing nasty things like introducing a permanent reduction in the speed limit on I-35(!)

It's not a legal ban on developing free alternatives (so technically not a "non compete"), but in practice it has the same effect. It's a perverse economic incentive for the state to screw up nearby roads. As I mentioned, TxDOT is acting on this incentive by introducing congesting, unnecessary traffic signals on frontage roads.

As I also said previously, E470 in Colorado (finished 2003) and Cross City Tunnel in Sydney (finished 2005) have non-competes. So, yes, the 91 mistake has been repeated. Several times.

Charlie D. | October 16, 2007, 11:18am | #

Good video, but there are some major flaws in the solutions presented. Drew mentioned double-decking the highway. We've been trying to build our way out of congestion for the last 50+ years. It just causes more congestion. As driving becomes easier, people drive longer distances. We need to find ways to reduce the distance people travel between home and work. We also need to support more efficient ways of transporting people. Parking takes up an enormous amount of space, as do the cars themselves while traveling.

Why does Drew just brush over mass transit? Of course buses get stuck in traffic. Why not create bus lanes? Why not built subway and light rail? These are very efficient ways to transport people, in terms of space and pollution, and do not require huge parking lots at either end. If the issue is public vs private, why not suggest that private companies run the mass transit?

Toll lanes are only a partial solution. Adding more general lanes will just cause more congestion. "Induced demand" is well proven. More roads = more traffic.

Reilly Wood | October 16, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Charlie, I agree completely. One of the few things that annoys me about Reason is their refusal to believe that privatized mass transit will work properly - after living in Japan for a couple years, it's become apparent to me that that really isn't the case. Perhaps mass transit isn't the answer for some parts of North America, but for larger cities like LA it would be perfect.

aj | October 16, 2007, 1:31pm | #

Building more highway (lanes or toll roads etc) - public or private - increases capacity and perceived speed for a short time, until growth eats up that capacity. What I find staggering is that probably 99% of the people stuck in traffic are driving alone; with even simple solutions like a bus / carpooling lane, you could take 2-3 out of every 4 cars off the road. Of course that only works in cities that have decent urban planning; LA and many other American cities built post-WWII are so mired in suburban and exurban sprawl that you cannot participate in life without a car. The proper response to the problem is for our graphic designer to live closer to his workplace, which could be achieved by mandating higher residential density, encouraging Traditional Neighborhood Development (New Urbanism), changing zoning codes to allow mixed live/work areas, etc. It doesn't require a Big Government solution -- it's more about restoring the kind of town planning that makes places worth living in, and then letting the market meet the demand for living and working space with creative solutions.

As we are heading into a downward spiral in terms of future energy availability, the commuter lifestyle is pretty much dead anyway! But that's another discussion.

Richard | October 16, 2007, 2:09pm | #

The only thing I like less than the dirty contracts that come with toll roads is having other people tell me where and when I can travel. Mass transit and automated highways? No thanks.

Mass transit is the utopian fantasy of control freaks who want everyone else to live according to their personal vision of how other people should live. The reason that there is suburban sprawl is that a significant segment of society chooses *not* to live in a high-density area with all downsides (crime) that come with it. Mass transit simply fails outside of a dense city environment.

You might like riding a bicycle. You might not have a problem sitting on a bus full of strangers late at night in a less-than-desirable neighborhood. The guy in the wheelchair or the small woman trying to bring home bags of groceries while carrying an infant might have a different idea of what's best.

aj | October 16, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Richard said: "Mass transit is the utopian fantasy of control freaks who want everyone else to live according to their personal vision of how other people should live."

Well there's plenty of cities in North America -- and more in Europe and Japan -- where public transit works admirably well in a mix of transport options.

In terms of being told where to go, when you're driving between your house and your workplace every day, aren't you essentially following the same route over and over again? You might deviate a little now and again, but overall, you're travelling a fixed path 200 days a year, and when stuck in traffic, not travelling very fast, idling, wasting gas, time and money.

But well, there's personal pride and gosh, no-one can tell these people where to go and what to do, cos that'd be unAmericanish.

Consider that we used to have one of the world's best passenger rail services - and I include streetcars and the like in that mix - even poor former Eastern Bloc countries do better at providing this. We took a system that worked well at getting large numbers of people from suburbs to downtowns quickly and efficiently, and instead let that system rot, in favour of subsidizing the automobile to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

I mean if we're all for private enterprise and no government bailouts here, why does the public pay for roads, and furthermore, choose to design cities so that you can't get around -- well, certainly not quickly -- without a private automobile? Isn't this just a huge, hidden subsidy to the automobile manufacturers and oil companies?

Richard continues: "The reason that there is suburban sprawl is that a significant segment of society chooses *not* to live in a high-density area with all downsides (crime) that come with it."

You know, this isn't the 19th century where cities were full of pestilence and coal smoke. Or even the mid-20th century where cities were bankrupt and there were a few riots. Where citizens care and city governments are smart, cities are thriving and downtowns are alive, not these places that are dead after 5pm. Many American cities are dangerous simply because there AREN'T people there, not the opposite.

And when we talk about density, we don't need to think of Manhattan or Hong Kong-type density (which is a product of their particular patterns of land use), but simple things like allowing mixed-use zoning (apartments and offices above retail), encouraging more single-family houses on less land (row houses aka terraced housing), and not following the patterns of the 1950s where everything was separated into 'industrial park,' 'cul-de-sac subdivisions', 'shopping center'. You don't like being told how to live and where to go? Well, don't postwar suburban development patterns pretty much *remove* choice from your life?

The truth is that in trying to pretend that the postwar suburb is "country living" we have something that has the disadvantages of the country (long distances) but none of the advantages of the city (places to go, things to do, culture, the arts, community). Growing up in places like this -- I'm surprised more kids AREN'T on Ritalin.

"Mass transit simply fails outside of a dense city environment."

Um, again, no it doesn't. Mass transit fails when it's allowed to
fail, i.e. when governments choose to subsidize things like new highways, malls, and other accoutrements of the automotive lifestyle, and/or when they only half-fund or underfund transit systems so that there is poor service, inaccessible or inconvenient stops, infrequent stops, etc. The question is the lack of political will (or entrepreneurial will, you pick) to not listen to the car lobby.

In a fair, free market where certain options were not artifically hobbled, who wouldn't choose a sensibly-priced train or transit pass over the thousands of dollars in car payments, insurance, and gasoline? Or do you have that much money to hose around and don't care?

Scot Welker | October 16, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Poor poor poor planning. How do people effectively get around in NYC and DC? That's right...OUTSTANDING mass transit that gets folks there fast. LA's mentality is so screwed up when it comes to cars.

thomhall | October 16, 2007, 7:43pm | #

Just keep the money out of the hands of Liberal tax and giveaway programs and put it all into roads. It would make the whole city of LA 5x more productive, wealthy and efficient. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, so just move out of Los Angeles. I did.

jack ryan | October 16, 2007, 8:23pm | #

The problem is there will NEVER be enough parking or highways. Mass transit or denser capacity of cars is the only way to fit an exploding population in a limited amount of space.

You keep building more freeways, the current freeways will be perpetually clogged with under construction delays. It took nearly 6 years of traffic jams to put up with the 91 freeway toll lanes.

You have to bite the bullet and get more people around in less space.

I've seen quadruple decker freeways in China and traffic still sucks. Why? TOO MANY PEOPLE.

Bob Pegram | October 16, 2007, 11:34pm | #

In the early 1960s Alweg, a Swedish company, built the Disneyland monorail for free as a demo. They offered to build, for free on LA City owned right-of-way, a monorail from downtown to the airport. They would keep any profit, but it would have cost the city nothing. The city council voted it down.

A monorail might be a good private solution in some areas - fast and minimal footprint.

Pat Faith | October 17, 2007, 4:36am | #

The Quandary:

Privatize the roads and get what we got in central Texas, RAPED.

Allow your state DOT to build them and they squander your taxes(gas taxes in Texas) and then demand "new and innovative funding sources".

In Austin the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization(CAMPO) made up of elected representatives of the people voted to toll nearly every highway in the Austin area, we will be forced to sit in traffic while they squander the taxes that we have already paid and will continue to pay on top of the tolls that they would ideally like to force us into paying.

We need real innovation with road building and routing, instead we have these old crows that have dried up telling us we have to pay through the nose if we want to travel "freely".

My biggest issue with toll roads is that the poor and lower middle class have to commute daily, pay taxes and will still be unable to afford the tolls, when are they going to get a road that is not congested?

Charlie D. | October 17, 2007, 9:37am | #

Richard, imagine what the traffic would be like in cities with mass transit if they did NOT have mass transit! It wouldn't even be possible to store all the cars needed to transport everyone in the current physical space of those cities, unless of course you started building huge parking garages.

Transit is subsidized, for sure, but so are roads. Gas taxes, excise taxes, etc, do not come close to paying for the actual infrastructure costs of building and maintaining roads.

People choose their mode of transportation based on what's most convenient for them. What's convenient is determined by the planners and politicians who set up the transportation infrastructure. Transit has taken a back set to road building for many years, leaving most people with no choice but to drive.

MattSinger | October 17, 2007, 3:50pm | #

I enjoyed the video and would be most happy to take a helicopter to work any time Drew wants to treat. Congratulations on your first episode.

I'm open to all ideas which may be solutions to L.A. traffic problems. I actually do take public transit to work, in Los Angeles, a few days a week, and wish there were more transit whether publicly or privately financed. For me transit is the same amount of time and helps my sanity.

I look forward to seeing the next episode.

Josh lipking | October 17, 2007, 4:27pm | #

Mr. S Knight, I understand your point of view. I would absolutely love to ride my bicycle to work. Unfortunately the City of Los Angeles does not create functional bicycle paths on its most congested commuter routes. For example, anyone who has rode through the Sepulveda Pass knows how dangerous it is. The bicycle path is narrow and even non-existent in some places. Not to mention completely unlit at night and full of debris.

Alex Plewniak | October 17, 2007, 5:02pm | #

Motorcycles and Scooters offer a viable alternative to cars / trucks if you don't have to carry a great deal of "stuff" back and forth to work daily.

- In CA they are authorized in all HOV lanes

- much higher vehicle density on the existing roadways can be achieved.

- Yes, they are dangerous in many respects. That however, from a personal responsibility thing is actually good. The more people that ride and become aware of them the safer we will all be. Also, when riding with awarness of the possible consequences, one might actually make a better decision and exercise more courteous driving behavior. If one chooses to defy some of the natural laws, then social darwinism will naturally kick in.

- Individuals may actually find themselves enjoying their commute and looking foward to the ride. I do, even after 25+ years of riding and commuting via motorcycle in all conditions. It is said that there are no bad riding days, just bad riding gear.

Not for everyone, but not unreasonable either.

Erik | October 17, 2007, 7:16pm | #

Josh was 16 miles away from work. This is not an unreasonable distance to get to work, the time it takes is unreasonable. What is crap here is that 16 miles between a suburb and a metro area is not an unmanageable distance for a mass transit system. I realize that some people think they need to use a car for everything, but the reality here is that cars are the problem. You cannot fix the problem with more roads for the cars. There will just be more cars and people driving further, and in a few years that traffic will be backed up too. That's not a prediction, that's what has been happening for years now. There is not a palatable way to say that the current system is fundamentally unworkable and needs to be abandoned. You want cars, fine--but the misery you are experiencing is the cost of that freedom, and the system just plain does not scale so someday you may have to address mass transit anyway.

LANMAN | October 18, 2007, 9:53am | #

There have been many good points made. But those that talk about commute distance are hitting the nail on the head. People need to make an effort to live closer to where they work.

As it was pointed out above, if there are more lanes available, people will just fill them up as they sprawl. That is what has already happened, and will continue. So, Drew, additional lanes will not solve the problem.

I would support a public campaign that will encourage the public to live closer to their employ, if at all possible. Encourage renters to move to the new location as they change jobs. Encourage employers to hire the candidates that live closest.

I don't propose a police state to force these policies, but if we all gave it an effort to live in these tighter communities there would be a lot less criss-crossing traffic jamming everything up.

Charlie D. | October 18, 2007, 11:23am | #

I just watched the other video "Urban Legend - Gridlock & Asphalt" linked o the right. Comparing expanding roads to expanding schools is total bunk. People can't choose how much time they go to school and when they go. It's predetermined. Exactly how much time one spends in school is known. However, when you build or expand a road, not only do people already driving use it, people starting make more trips and drive farther distances because it is now convenient to do so.

In addition to the discretionary driving issues of road expansion, the issues of negative externalities of driving are not even mentioned. Do we really want to allocate more and more space for cars? Do we want more and more pollution and noise? Studies show that people who live near a freeway suffer from more breathing and lung problems that others.

Why not promote solutions that are more efficient, in terms of space, pollution, noise, etc? Why just promote the status quo of more cars?

Garble | October 18, 2007, 7:09pm | #

Government/Corporate differences aside, did I hear Drew tell that guy "I'd make them pull all the way up to the bumper in front of them"...?

Gah! That is exactly the last thing you want people to do! Lack of fluidity in heavy traffic is what creates grid-lock in the first place. Without space between cars, drivers can't change lanes. So they have to wait for an opening, thus making everyone behind them wait as well. Those few feet of space don't make up for everyone having to travel slower.
I hope Drew was being ironic there. Because... damn!

drew fan | October 18, 2007, 8:42pm | #

in the previous post i meant to say: does anyone else see a shell game at play here.

PJ Doland | October 20, 2007, 9:16am | #

Testing 123

Semi | October 21, 2007, 4:58am | #

I guess Carey is the new spokesman for private expressway "authorities". Selling you the idea of congestion free roads at a price society can't afford. Why? Because it gets your government off the hook when it comes to actually fixing the problem of congestion. In Carey's "documentary" you see highway lanes filled with 20mph traffic- that's the everyman, Joe Q. Citizen, there. Watching his tax-funded roadway being taken from him (us) and diverted to rich folks... and poor folks too stupid to realize that $500-a-month toll bills is NOT a normal expenditure.
California has the worst congestion: they keep creating pockets of developments in the hopes that everyone would live and work inside their own development. But, in reality, people live in one development and work in another. That's poor city planning with a dash of lousy transit implementation. California's hell-on-wheels is probably the worst in the nation.

Ari | October 23, 2007, 3:58am | #

After reading many of these comments I'm also much more disheartened by the plausibility of a solution than I was just after watching the video. I think a major problem exists here that might partially explain why it seems that that typical free market forces may not readily solve the traffic crisis: physicality. This issue in many ways hits on a very "material" problem that is interwoven with the permanent infrastructure of our cities and the unknowable expansion of the population (and number of vehicles). Not to mention how it is mixed up with politics, business, freedom of choice, environmental concerns, and communal responsibility.
Much of the problems our country has appear to be less physical and that makes them easier to remedy by removing governmental regulations. They represent issues of choice only in the psychological sense (sure you make choices on physical things you buy that have set prices, but the decision isn't actually played out in the real world). When you choose one product over another, and that company eventually sells out they can always make more; but when the highways fill-up its just not that easy to make more of them. Some argued that building many more lanes than we could presently need, but that brings about a host of other problems along with it. And there is also that tremendous problem of a public property being fairly transfered over to a private entity (without favoritism). Traffic and highways are so deeply ingrained in the outlay of a city (and how it could change in the future) it really presents a difficult challenge. I hope at least we continue to think about some viable solutions.

Jerry | October 25, 2007, 7:39pm | #

Is it just me, or does Drew Carey just look like that Foster character from the 1993 movie Falling Down? Glad Drew didn't snap though, and made a informative and entertaining clip instead :-)

Chris | October 28, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Obviously something needs to be done, including a push for greater mass transit, which should be privitized. However, when it comes to our roads, the government is responsible for infrastructure. We are already paying for these roads with our tax dollars! Privitizing our roads will only cost us through the nose!

The biggest problem we have here in the U.S. is the indifferent voter. My solution for all of our problems is to make a policy of voting out the incumbent, no matter how much we like them. If they've been in office for even a short time, they've learned they have to play the game, which means they are corrupt. Served your time? Thank you so much for your service to your country. Time to retire. Go home.

Maybe if we start making our voices heard and firing our elected representatives, they'll get the point and start doing their jobs. This country has plenty of resources to solve its own problems but our representatives are funneling those resources in the wrong direction to benefit themselves.

Great video... looking forward to the rest.

Geotpf | November 1, 2007, 9:14pm | #

Here's my "Libertarian" solution to traffic: Eliminate height restrictions and other zoning laws in the central areas of cities. That is, there would be more apartments available (at lower costs-supply/demand) in places closer to job sites. Now, not everybody is willing to live in an apartment, but lots of people would trade in a house for an apartment if it turned thier three hour a day commute into a ten minute walk-and it would improve traffic for those unwilling to move by taking thier cars off the road.

Star | November 2, 2007, 11:38am | #

Seems to me that instead of transporting the young graphic designer to sit in front of a computer 16 miles from where he lives, an additional computer should be provided at his home so he can telecommute and transport his intellectual ideas to the office via the internet (a super highway). Our problem isn’t more roads but our culture which has embodied urban sprawl. Our city planers in the 50s and 60s were duped by the automotive industry. They believed the automotive advertisements that the independence and freedom was going to be brought to the masses by owning a car. The believed it so much so they designed our cites into the urban sprawl we have today.

Have you seen a car ad lately, it’s the same as the ones in the 50s & 60s (talk about truth in advertising).

Building more roads private or public, variable taxing schemes, or flying through the air is just more of the same illusion that is needed to sell more cars or McMansions (the other illusion of independence and freedom).

Its going to take a culture shift from our belief of how to obtain freedom and independence by not driving an automobile but changing the culture that employees can work independently away from the corporate cubical which calculates productivity by means of monitoring employees with a “pit boss” to calculate the “piece work” of intellectual productive as if on a factory assembly line, counting the number of widgets manufactured in the last hour.

I’m sure that a large percentage of the automobiles snarled in traffic contains intellectual workers who could benefit by having a computer provide in their home to telecommute with and thus be able to be home by 5PM for dinner with the wife and kids. Plus they could have lunch together as well. I’ve been doing this for years.

There are other benefits as well. I can relocate and not lose my job, I can take a break from the cold weather and winter in the Caribbean for a few months and continue earning a wage. A telecommuter can even take advantage of the declining dollar by earning US wages and living part time in a developing economy and still live like a king. Check out the “Big Mac Index” at the Economist’s web site.

http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm

Why payout our wages for a car and a McMansion, get stuck in traffic when you can telecommute from any where in the world that has decent internet connectivity. Let alone address the issues of global warming.

Star | November 2, 2007, 11:47am | #

Video link explaining the Big Mac Index:
http://www.economist.com/media/audio/burgernomics.ram

Simeon Weinraub | November 2, 2007, 3:59pm | #

I have a problem with the solutions mentioned in this piece, in that they all seem to be both tied to private car ownership, and to privatization. Not that I am against either of those concepts per se, but it seems like there was a real failure to mention other solutions, and it seems like public transportation and government action were given short shrift. Using Los Angeles as an example, I can suggest that the best and quickest solution to beat freeway traffic is the Green Line, which runs the length of the 105 freeway. The problem is that rather than replicate that success with trains on every freeway,and feeder bus lines on every main street, with park and rides located beneath the freeways, we have Cal Trans building more and more HOV lanes... Also, what about the idea of dedicated bus lanes on surface streets to get public transportation out of the gridlock? I have more ideas, all using existing right of way. There are a lot of solutions beyond adding more freeways, and some of them could address surface street congestion. The main thing that would help is getting more cars off the road.

BE | November 2, 2007, 8:38pm | #

I think this image really tells us why the idea drew is presenting is a bad one.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_k8Y0SWU8PJM/Rym__7u6Z_I/AAAAAAAAACk/55XpSWglWoE/s1600-h/espacio+coches.jpg?

Josh | November 2, 2007, 11:06pm | #

It's too bad we need smooth surfaces to drive on.

If our vehicles hovered just a little we could escape the need for roads as we know them.

I'm not talking about flying hover-crafts all over the place like the Jetsons. I'm talking about something more like a car that just hovers a few inches off the ground.

juan silva | November 3, 2007, 7:34pm | #

i dunno much about this, but maybe those private companies could advertise on their roads somehow. dont you think theyd be much cheaper then?

Ray | November 5, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Josh -

If I read this correctly, there will be bike lanes on Sepulveda Boulevard soon: http://eng.lacity.org/uprs/internet/3600.pdf

I wouldn't give up on biking, yet.

OOIDA Media Affairs | November 12, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Privatization is a BAD idea.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5291346.html

Connor Ferster | November 13, 2007, 12:23am | #

1 - I agree with Nate. The idea of remaining in a paradigm of working 9-5 is arbitrary and outdated. I believe businesses will come to realize this (and I believe some already have) and will offer a flexible schedule as an employment incentive.

2 - I believe that the problem of traffic isn't so much one of how to create a band-aid solution of public vs. private but one that is more involved with centralized city planning. Many cities have been built around a 'bicycle wheel' plan (or variations thereof) whereby the suburbs surround a central industrial core where people work. This, of course, creates the large mass of people trying to get into one area all at the same time (as per point 1).

Beyond any sort of major innovation (www.taxi2000.com - as provided by Shawn [thanks!]) I believe that this problem will be long and slow and will have to involve businesses either re-locating their offices/warehouses/plants to areas other than 'downtown' or creating systems where people can work for home. I also believe that the very idea of a municipal government is obsolete. Almost every public utility can be built into a self-sustainable house (electricity, water, sewage) and would not need to be hooked into the 'grid'.

The question I ask myself is, "If people were able to build their living quarters anywhere they choose, would a city grow in a decentralized, organic fashion and thereby making current municipal problems (traffic, etc.) a thing of the past?" I don't know, but I'd be curious to try it! :)

Emilie | November 14, 2007, 11:15am | #

Awesome site and videos. Have you checked out Current.com? Upload your video and have the masses view. Even have a chance of it making it on the television.

Edwin J Mwakatika | November 30, 2007, 2:36am | #

on my view i had a lot of solution but cause of time at cafe,i will start with.those station of tv should be taxed acording to what they to watchers.

Vic | December 21, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Telecommuting, Telecommuting, Telecommuting!

qbasicjedi | December 28, 2007, 12:40am | #

DRew Carey is a genius.

I've been arguing that roads should be privately owned for a long time, but I thought I was alone!

Hannon44 | January 28, 2008, 11:16am | #

Legalize Competition BABY!

Privately built roads > Gov't built roads.

Terry | August 17, 2008, 6:49pm | #

This would be nice, but real world shows that one limited positive case goes against what really is going on.
I80 toll in indy, long lines at toll booth, rotten restrooms that have not been cleaned in days increased tolls and the state had to sign a not compete statement saying that the state will not repair surrounding roads of the toll to force traffic onto the toll and make weight limit change for trucks to force them onto toll roads as well. A good example of this was the PA toll they were going to do to I80. After changing the weight limit for non local del trucks, forcing trucks onto toll roads 70 and 80, a round trip on the roads from OH to NJ back to OH would go over 300 dollars per round. If a truck goes through pa 3 times a week 1200 dollar for tolls alone. Not including 1800 plus per week in fuel and tax. With loads paying about 1.30 a mile, plus paying driver .40 a mile+.10 maintenance .06 mile insurance ect. It would be to expensive to drive in pa and have to reroute to MD adding time away from home for the driver. There is a LOT more to this than just saving time. Terry (Star Wars) Truck drive, conservative, Christian, Nascar Fan, and will watch movies, and listen to music from those that are Family friendly first ( Jon V, Drew C, Bruce W.) Long before anything from Tom H, Micheal M, Brad P.
Now going to GATS Truck show in Dallas this week with wife and money I saved from listening to Kevin Rutherford.

Brooks Wolfe | November 11, 2008, 8:46pm | #

Just saw this on the DVD you guys sent out -- Thanks! As a pilot, I naturally loved Drew's helicopter solution to the commute from hell, but I'd be the first to acknowledge that a pilot's license isn't cheap, and operating a helo is hideously expensive. What surprised me is that one obvious solution was never mentioned: Motorcycles! Not only do they get great mileage, but in California, where this particular case occurs, "lane splitting" is perfectly legal. A typical lane-splitting motorcyclist can easily manage 20-40 mph while the cars on the road are stopped. A motorcycle license can be easily accomplished through the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's three-day course (much cheaper than the FAA's helo route), and a 60mph commuter bike can be bought new for under $5k. That Robinson R44 featured in the video starts at $400k. The commuter with that hellish drive could use all his new free time to figure out ways to save up for that Robinson...

Andrew Dawson | January 23, 2009, 2:25am | #

Another thing that people don't know is that the government has alowed over half of rail system in the US to be destroyed.

Just imagine if the government decided to abandon the street in front of your home?

Neil Geist | June 28, 2009, 11:27pm | #

To solve traffic in LA, just make every street a one way heading either South or West. I guarantee in three days tops, problem solved.

Replica Ugg Boots Sale | October 13, 2009, 12:20am | #

Best Fake Ugg Boots
Fake Ugg Boots For Sale
Lace Up Ugg Boots For Sale

ken | October 22, 2009, 9:36pm | #

Reason.tv Host Drew Carey examines the costs and consequences of traffic jams and explores several solutions that can get our roads moving. How does a speedy trip on the "Drew Carey Freeway" sound? Plus, one lucky commuter gets a helicopter ride to work, courtesy of Drew.

replica watch | November 4, 2009, 11:54am | #

replica watch
rolex watch
wholesale replica watches

Christian Louboutin Shoes | November 21, 2009, 1:33am | #

Everyone says Christian Louboutin beautiful, and I know. . A few days ago a blind a walk on the Internet are not careful Liu Dadao This Web http://www.christianlouboutinshoes.me, a look at so many good-looking, bought a pair of shoes to a friend, I am pretty good quality, but I find the prices a bit expensive We go to see if it is expensive ah, and now it hurts!

handbag | November 23, 2009, 3:16am | #

Us bags online,
handbags,
handbag

reading glasses | November 24, 2009, 9:11pm | #

Marc Jacobs sunglasses
D&G sunglasses
Mont Blanc sunglasses
Mont Blanc sunglasses

reading glasses | November 24, 2009, 9:12pm | #

Dupont glasses
Dupont eyeglasses
Dupont eyeglass frames
Dupont prescription eyeglasses

bob | November 26, 2009, 8:57pm | #

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
ugg classic tall
ugg classic mini last a long time...the quality of the boot is wonderful.
Nike Shox Shoes

replica rolex | November 29, 2009, 9:00pm | #

$75 Replica Rolex Watches sale, Our site provides Rolex replica, replica Rolex Watches,