U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:57 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
I'm not quite sure what you think is "non-sequitur" about what I said.

My point? A transcontinental highway system has to go across the continent. I'm almost certain now you've never driven I-80, at least in the western US. That road gets some heavy traffic.
It seems like a non-sequitir. I don't get how your point connects to his point. It's a lot of miles in a relatively low population state. Omaha's population shouldn't affect traffic volumes in the much emptier western part of the state.A state funds roads for local needs. Canada has a transcontinental highway system as well, but not to interstate levels, there's not the same level of national funding.

Edit: I-80 does get much more use than the Trans Canada. 8,000 - 15,000 in the sections in western Nebraska. Trans Canada averages around 4000 in Saskatchewan. So they're not really similar.

http://www.rm343.com/Commercial%20an...unt%20Maps.pdf

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-08....html#nebraska

Last edited by nei; 03-23-2015 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:21 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It seems like a non-sequitir. I don't get how your point connects to his point. It's a lot of miles in a relatively low population state. A state funds roads for local needs. Canada has a transcontinental highway system as well, but not to interstate levels, there's not the same level of national funding.
Maybe you could tell my WHY it's a "non sequitur". I know people like to throw out debate terms here on CD, though more commonly on P&OC.

It doesn't really matter what Canada's doing. Saskatchewan, the Canadian equivalent of Nebraska, I'd wager is far less dense than Nebraska.

I-80 through most of Nebraska is two lanes each direction, small for an interstate these days, smaller than what most interstates are through cities. To get your agricultural products from Omaha to SF, you have to have a road. If it were going by rail, there'd have to be rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:30 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Maybe you could tell my WHY it's a "non sequitur". I know people like to throw out debate terms here on CD, though more commonly on P&OC.
Western Nebraska is lightly populated. I-80 traffic is mostly interstate not local there. Without federal funds would states invest enough to bring it to interstate quality in low population areas? Or just let trucks deal with worse roads? I didn't see the connection to federal vs state funding, your posts didn't address that.

Quote:
I-80 through most of Nebraska is two lanes each direction, small for an interstate these days, smaller than what most interstates are through cities. To get your agricultural products from Omaha to SF, you have to have a road. If it were going by rail, there'd have to be rail.
There is rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:37 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Western Nebraska is lightly populated. I-80 traffic is mostly interstate not local there. Without federal funds would states invest enough to bring it to interstate quality in low population areas? Or just let trucks deal with worse roads? I didn't see the connection to federal vs state funding, your posts didn't address that.



There is rail.
Re: bold-you know this how? Most of the auto traffic seems local, as is the case everywhere I've ever traveled. There is a lot of truck traffic. How did we get into federal vs state funding. I didn't bring it up! Aren't the interstates a state/federal partnership?

Yes, I'm aware there is rail. I've sat in a few restaurants in Nebraska that have pictures of the transcontinental rail celebration in their city. That is my point. If you want to cross the continent, you need a means of doing so. There is no denying that rail building was highly subsidized, and rail still is highly subsidized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:43 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Re: bold-you know this how? Most of the auto traffic seems local, as is the case everywhere I've ever traveled. There is a lot of truck traffic. How did we get into federal vs state funding. I didn't bring it up!
Drivecarphilly's post you responded to was about that. When you respond to a post about that, presumably yours would be also. If it's not, it's a non-sequitir. As to the bolded, you mentioned long distance goods transport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 02:37 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Drivecarphilly's post you responded to was about that. When you respond to a post about that, presumably yours would be also. If it's not, it's a non-sequitir. As to the bolded, you mentioned long distance goods transport.
The interstate highway system is a federal/state partnership. I can't seem to find a number for the percents, though. This system was preceded by the US Highways system, which still exists, for ex, the famous (or is it infamous?) Route 66. Also Route 40, the Lincoln Highway. Here are some interesting articles about I-80 and US 40. Note that the route of I-80 is also the route of the transcontinental railroad, and, through Nebraska and Wyoming, the Oregon Trail. Also note that prior to the US highway system in 1926, there was another system of federal highways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...stem#Financing
Interstate 80 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. Route 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's a neat picture of Colfax Ave. in Denver, which is Route 40.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,670 posts, read 8,737,253 times
Reputation: 7280
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
^^My memories of Canada are similar. We once drove from somewhere north of Great Falls, MT to Vancouver. I do recall some parts of that highway not being of the same quality as interstates in the US. The price of gas was high, several times that of the US. I remember saying to my husband "What do they do with the gas tax here? They're not building much of a road system with it". To which he replied, "I think it all goes into the general socialism budget".
Several times higher? Certainly gas is more expensive in Canada, and it varies across the country. Vancouver right now is about $1.20 per litre, but in Calgary it's .87 cents per litre. Those prices equate to $4.53 per US gallon and $3.28 per US Gallon, in Canadian dollars.

Like in the US each province and even city will have different levels of taxes.

BC Fuel Tax | MyHusky.ca

From wiki...but I believe accurate.

"The Government of Canada collects about $5 billion per year in excise taxes on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel[4] as well as approximately $1.6 billion per year from GST revenues on gasoline and diesel (net of input tax credits). The Canada Revenue Agency, a part of the government, collects these taxes.

Collectively, the provincial governments collect approximately $8 billion per year from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel.

The federal taxes go into general coffers and help to fund a range of programs: $2 billion of the approximately $5 billion collected from federal excise taxes goes into the now permanent annual Gas Tax Fund for municipal infrastructure. Provincial tax revenues usually go to fund road repair and construction, and additionally in some provinces a portion of revenues (for example, 2 cents/litre in Ontario) is also distributed directly to municipalities.[5]"

Freeways are provincially run, so you will get a variety of conditions across the country.

I won't even try and comment on " general socialism budget "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 02:47 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,952,939 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
Maybe you could tell my WHY it's a "non sequitur". I know people like to throw out debate terms here on CD, though more commonly on P&OC.

It doesn't really matter what Canada's doing. Saskatchewan, the Canadian equivalent of Nebraska, I'd wager is far less dense than Nebraska.

I-80 through most of Nebraska is two lanes each direction, small for an interstate these days, smaller than what most interstates are through cities. To get your agricultural products from Omaha to SF, you have to have a road. If it were going by rail, there'd have to be rail.
I didn't say it to throw out a debate term. I said it because your response "didn't follow" and so I wasn't sure how to respond.

My post that you initially quoted was me just saying that, because the USDOT funds interstates our rural plains and mountain areas have interstates. If there wasn't that level of funding available for sparsely populated states we'd have cross country routes similar to what you'd find in Canada or Australia - there would still be highways but they either wouldn't be to interstate standards in rural areas (eg, 4 lane highways with median but not grade separated) or if they were to interstate standards they would be toll roads.

So, for me to say that, and then for you to ask "how do you think goods would get transported between the coasts?" doesn't really follow because I never said there wouldn't be roads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 02:53 PM
bg7
 
7,697 posts, read 8,159,922 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The ones in the UK have you drive on the wrong side. Normal speed limit there is 70 mph. Keep left except for passing.
And they have these amazing low cost cats-eyes which mark out the freeway brilliantly at night, show you the hard shoulder and the overtaking lane (differently colored), and consume absolutely zero energy. Plus they are cheap to make.

I have no idea why we don't have them here in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 03:03 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,952,939 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Several times higher? Certainly gas is more expensive in Canada, and it varies across the country. Vancouver right now is about $1.20 per litre, but in Calgary it's .87 cents per litre. Those prices equate to $4.53 per US gallon and $3.28 per US Gallon, in Canadian dollars.
IIRC I filled up for ~$3.10 yesterday. It was below $2 but the Bay Area has been having some refinery issues (shut down for maintenance) but it's apparently reopened now so we should see prices going back down soon.

When I was in Australia just a few months ago it was right around $1/liter but from what I hear it's crept back up to around $1.20/liter. There's a $0.38 excise tax per liter! and then 10% GST - so pretax a liter is something like $0.77. The rest of the higher cost is most likely wrapped up in less refining capacity, longer average distances for transport to the petrol stations, higher wages, and an overall lack of competition in the market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top