The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Free-Market Transportation: Denationalizing the Roads 39
to others. Alternatively, the main owner-builder might decide to
keep one road for himself, renting out the other levels to different
road companies. This would follow the pattern of the shopping
center which builds a large facility for itself, but leases out
the remainder of the space.
Whatever the pattern of ownership, there would be several—
not just one—road companies in the same “place”; they could
compete with each other. If Avenue D, as in our previous example,
becomes multiple decked, then traveling from First Street
and Avenue D to Ninth Street and Avenue D need not call for a
trip along Avenue C or E, in order to take advantage of competition.
One might also have the choice between levels w, x, y, z, all
running over Avenue D!
Let us consider the objections of Z. Haritos:
There is joint road consumption by consumers with different
demand functions. The road is not as good as steel which may
be produced to different specifications of quality and dimensions.
The economic characteristics necessitate the production
of one kind of road for all users at any given place. 28
This statement is at odds with what we have just been saying.
In our view, the double or triple decking of roads allows for the
production of at least several kinds of road along any given roadway.
We would then be forced to reject Haritos’s contention. One
point of dispute is the equivocation in his use of the word
“place.”
For in one sense, Haritos is correct. If we define “place” as the
entity within which two different things cannot possibly exist,
then logic forces us to conclude that two different roads cannot
exist in the same place. But by the same token, this applies to
steel as well. Contrary to Haritos, a road occupies the same logical
position as steel. If roads cannot be produced to different
28Z. Haritos, “Theory of Road Pricing,” 13 Transportation Journal (Spring,
1974): 57.