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.
So you do or don't think highway infrastructure would get more support if we scaled back the subsudies and let the people decide transportation themselves? Don't consider gas tax funding as a subsudy if it helps.
You're going to have to be more specific to what you actually mean to be honest.
By and large the least subsidized thing is the freeways and transit is the most subsidized, yet people are still choosing the freeways far more often.
I mean if we removed all transportation subsidies of any type altogether, the reality is we'd have a broken system.
Highways would be close to one of the few things that had a funding mechanism in place, but many things would be scaled back and cut across the board. Transit would stop on its tracks. The reality is we'd deter investment from our region altogether as we didn't build to support growth and condition of infrastructure would deteriorate.
While we need to widen I-85 to at least 3 general purpose lanes per direction throughout the whole state, we also need to take away any general purpose lanes that exceed 5 per direction.
Instead of 6 general purpose + 1 non-separated HOT, that should be 5 general purpose lanes to the right (with a small left shoulder), and then a managed HOT lane to the left, physically separated from the general purpose roadway with a short barrier wall. And that lane would have room for a right shoulder and a small left shoulder.
Then you take your GDOT gas tax money, and construct some new HOT-only physical entrance and exit ramps, for access to that lane. Which would heavily help out the experience of commuter transit buses originating in Gwinnett and beyond.
Well the 6th lane in this instance only exists between JCB and I-285 largely from the high amount of traffic caused from the high amount of merging in and out of different directions. Being one lane above the corridor's intention for that is likely warranted.
I do agree with the HOT system. In fact I'd put more lanes into HOT *depending on how they manage it. There is a point as the roadway gets to wide, you need something to make sure a part of it is flowing as efficiently as possible before dumping more money into merely creating more space for slow moving cars to fill only at peak hours.
The long-term strategy is to add an additional HOT lane from I-285 going north to at least 316 if not 985, but that will be an addition compared to the HOV->HOT conversion they did.
HOT isn't necessarily meant to be a revenue generator at its peak, but to make sure the added lanes are used as efficiently as possible. (ie. they never back up so much that the peak capacity of cars can't continue to keep driving by). That is the problem with severe congestion is that it is ruinous at allowing a peak capacity in each lane to keep going by. HOT lanes have an opportunity to circumvent that, but only when they are optional so there is queuing room for everyone and they are managed properly.
I disagree with you about the median wall, however. That adds so much space and width to the freeway it literally takes a way a lane.... and then some and you can't do that the entire corridor.
And then just have the left 2 lanes be HOT. So at that wide stretch in Doraville/Norcross it would be 5 + 2 lanes.
My three main points here are A) Those HOT lanes need barrier separation, B) They need more left-hand HOT access ramps, in order to eliminate the need for merging in and out of the general purpose lanes, C) 2 HOT lanes would work a lot better than one, and would increase the road's capacity, by transporting more humans (more people per vehicle count).
Or, perhaps lose one general purpose lane, shift the HOT system one lane to the right (with either 1 or 2 HOT lanes), then you'd have the space in the median to construct the new entrance/ exit ramps. Put them at bridges that don't have exits, like Old Norcross Rd right there. Or build new bridges. The idea would be that there would be park&ride lots nearby them.
You're going to have to be more specific to what you actually mean to be honest.
By and large the least subsidized thing is the freeways and transit is the most subsidized, yet people are still choosing the freeways far more often.
I mean if we removed all transportation subsidies of any type altogether, the reality is we'd have a broken system.
Highways would be close to one of the few things that had a funding mechanism in place, but many things would be scaled back and cut across the board. Transit would stop on its tracks. The reality is we'd deter investment from our region altogether as we didn't build to support growth and condition of infrastructure would deteriorate.
Let me ask it this way then: Would you prefer our transportation infrastructure was more like Japan / China / Singapore / Amsterdam / Italy / France?
What I am proposing is not new. There are plenty of counties out there where most of the highway & rail networks are privatized and receive much less (if any) subsidy. And not only did their trains not "stop in their tracks", they are kicking our butt in infrastructure.
If you are so sure that highways are getting the short end of the subsudy stick, why are you so hesitant to agree with me that we should scale back all transportation subsidies? I think deep down you know, if people had a choice of how to spend their money they would spend it on living closer to work and taking the train than they do now. Just like they do most other places in the world.
And then just have the left 2 lanes be HOT. So at that wide stretch in Doraville/Norcross it would be 5 + 2 lanes.
My three main points here are A) Those HOT lanes need barrier separation, B) They need more left-hand HOT access ramps, in order to eliminate the need for merging in and out of the general purpose lanes, C) 2 HOT lanes would work a lot better than one, and would increase the road's capacity, by transporting more humans (more people per vehicle count).
Or, perhaps lose one general purpose lane, shift the HOT system one lane to the right (with either 1 or 2 HOT lanes), then you'd have the space in the median to construct the new entrance/ exit ramps. Put them at bridges that don't have exits, like Old Norcross Rd right there. Or build new bridges. The idea would be that there would be park&ride lots nearby them.
Or what if "managed the flow" of the entire expressway? Make it all one big HOT lane instead of working about two separate sets of infrastructure / barriers / ramps for the same road?
Or at least we can agree to support legalizing the conversion of existing freeway lanes to HOT lanes, right? Because that is currently banned at a federal level.
Or what if "managed the flow" of the entire expressway? Make it all one big HOT lane instead of working about two separate sets of infrastructure / barriers / ramps for the same road?
Fine with me. I'm all for converting every single freeway across the country to a managed tollway, that would increase the toll amount based on congestion. Then the states could use all that revenue to build more new tolled freeways, including underground tunnel ones near major cities. Without raising taxes.
I would still keep the special lane system on the left, though. But it would be strictly for buses only.
Also, in this fantasy world, every vehicle would be an AV, and at least half the cars would be Uber.
Until Waze reroutes, commuter traffic down the local street. Then you have commuters who are already upset about traffic, glued to their phones and not paying attention.
I am fully convinced that you could be on an empty road with a straight shot to your destination, and Waze would still take you on some convoluted path of driveways and culdesacs. I think it is programmed specifically to make you think it's doing something amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
So you do or don't think highway infrastructure would get more support if we scaled back the subsudies and let the people decide transportation themselves?
They decide for themselves now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
If you are so sure that highways are getting the short end of the subsudy stick, why are you so hesitant to agree with me that we should scale back all transportation subsidies? I think deep down you know, if people had a choice of how to spend their money they would spend it on living closer to work and taking the train than they do now. Just like they do most other places in the world.
Sure. They really want to live in $2,500 shoebox apartments like they do in NYC! That's everyone's dream!
Then get on building that transit network. I know that you want to make everyone suffer so that they have to make choices, but that's a really dumb approach to fixing a problem.
Let me ask...let's say there was a really popular store, but they only had one door to get in and out (forget about fire codes for a minute). It was causing issues and they were losing customers. They were shown a new design which would fix their problem, and it would take only five years to design and implement. They could also knock down some walls and put in two more doors and relieve much of the problem in three weeks. This would get them by until the new design could be implemented, but it would push the new design to six years. Do you think it's foolish of the store to add the new doors instead of waiting for the new design.
If you do, then I think we're at an impasse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Fine with me. I'm all for converting every single freeway across the country to a managed tollway, that would increase the toll amount based on congestion. Then the states could use all that revenue to build more new tolled freeways, including underground tunnel ones near major cities. Without raising taxes.
I would still keep the special lane system on the left, though. But it would be strictly for buses only.
Also, in this fantasy world, every vehicle would be an AV, and at least half the cars would be Uber.
Let me ask it this way then: Would you prefer our transportation infrastructure was more like Japan / China / Singapore / Amsterdam / Italy / France?
What I am proposing is not new. There are plenty of counties out there where most of the highway & rail networks are privatized and receive much less (if any) subsidy. And not only did their trains not "stop in their tracks", they are kicking our butt in infrastructure.
If you are so sure that highways are getting the short end of the subsudy stick, why are you so hesitant to agree with me that we should scale back all transportation subsidies? I think deep down you know, if people had a choice of how to spend their money they would spend it on living closer to work and taking the train than they do now. Just like they do most other places in the world.
Actually no.... not at all. I see you planned a nice little 'trap' and I hardly came close to falling into it, so you ignored my reply and said your bit anyways. It is almost as you didn't read my replies at all.
1) I think that line of thinking is disastrous in that we need to spend money on our future growth. Cutting back in any way (more than we have already done) will only hurt us, the region, make us less competitive, and drive up housing and development costs. I already laid that out. I think it is bad for all forms of transportation in this region to be under-invested even more than it has during the period of rapid growth we have had the last 3-4 decades.
2) As has already been laid out... highways are the least subsidized thing and in the event we did cut back spending as you suggest, it is the only thing with a revenue stream at all. Transit would fold under immediately, since it can't even cover operations. The train wouldn't exist and people are already not choosing it and the cost of a train would only get more expensive should they attempt to drive the costs up.
3) People wouldn't afford to live closer to work, because the costs of development would be so high to make that work and most people already work in auto-centric environments were employment is scattered along corridors. It is a good pattern to lower commutes for auto-centric developments, but perhaps bad for most transit-only models. Most people aren't going downtown to a single-node. That is a harsh reality you're not wrapping your head around.
I have been to all 6 places you mentioned, spent a great deal of time in 4 of them and even got to sneak in some drive time in 3 of them. I'm glad we are not those places. They aren't alike and they are not entirely kicking our butts in infrastructure in all avenues (perhaps only in some forms you choose to care about), they are not entirely privatized and subsidized free as you're making it seem, and their larger cities (and all of Singapore) have extremely high development and housing costs, because they are constrained to short commuting distances and less land. There is a pro and con. Housing costs are extremely high. Singapore to an extreme extent, and to a far more limited extent China and Japan, have extremely subsidized housing just to make the costs of land and development make housing affordable enough to the typical family. Even then most live in tiny show boxes that would be fun to singles, but not necessarily a large family. In Singapore things are a bit more dire for singles who live with their families to late ages as they are not always eligible for the much needed housing subsidies.
Singapore has some downtown arterial road toll points, but it isn't universal. The highways are not tolled in many places. They have strict laws on who can drive when (mandates by the color of your license plate) and you have to pay a really high fee just to be able to drive. Singapore is actively and artificially increasing the cost of driving and mandating against driving to keep people out of their cars so much. They are a bit of a unique case in that they are stacked onto a tiny island and they are trying to create artificial favorites for some of the world's richest people using the country as a tax haven.
All qualities we don't have. The insane amount of wealth drawn in from tax havens, the extremely tiny sea-locked island, and extremely high development costs.
The fact that we can spread out a bit more really lowers housing and development costs, while increasing some qualities of life in some ways.
Singapore's transit was actually built from a government authority and was/is heavily subsidized. They given negotiated concessions to two different for-profit companies to operate the system under a strict set of rules. Even then, ridership is artificially generated through a series of laws, mandates, and artificial costs and taxes..... all on top of the fact the country/city is built on a small island with limited land makeing transit cheaper to implement across their region.
So no.... I'm glad I'm not in Singapore full time. I even enjoy riding the MRT and have nothing against it, but I wouldn't want to pay $400,000 to buy a government subsidized 1,000 sq ft condo on the edge of town with no yard and little street-level character either.
China and Japan's infrastructure is incredibly subsidized on all levels. China is still a partially communist country for crying out loud. Japan again, close to that of Singapore, is a larger country built on a small narrow string of islands. They have barriers we don't have, but also have barriers that add to housing and development costs that I am glad we don't need to live with.
Italy is a mess to be honest with you. It has the charm of an old empire that pre-dates most modern societies and that is about it. Of course, that is kind of the problem. They have too much history and most of the core of their cities were built in a far different time and place that pre-dates modern highways, cars, and yes... transit. Italians don't do much well on a large scale, aren't very efficient, and are closer to that of a second world country. Naples is ripe with organized crime, decaying infrastructure, out of control union-striking, and constantly has huge travel and garbage problems. I find charm in the old buildings of a distant empire, I find charm to the warmth and friendliness of some of the people, and I find a great deal of respect for some of the details craftsman ship that exists for some trades. However, overall... I'm very glad we aren't Italy.
If you really want to try to draw parallels to a well-run place, at least bring up Germany instead. Of course, that is heavily subsidized... but so is Italy.
France is probably one of the nicer countries you brought up and my knowledge is not as good about it, but have been through several cities there. They are older pre-auto cities with historical centers with out of control housing costs. However, in the non-tourists sections that is often not the case.
Of course, the last time I checked France and Italy had the 2nd and 3rd most subsidized rail road system in the world and that doesn't break into intra-city transit subsidies.
Don't get me wrong these places all have great things about them and I love visiting them. Many new ideas that are good often come up in other places that we should pay attention to. Those places are often times rich in culture and have much interesting to see and do, but ultimately no...overall I like who we are. I like that we are more efficient, more productive and can deliver a higher quality of life to more people for less money.
I'd love to see us advance on our transit and break some spending dead locks on some level, but none of that is ever going to happen until you face some realities on costs, subsidies and not merely poorly list off incorrect facts to fit whatever weird pseudo-libertarian pro-transit/anti-roads mentality you're trying to carve out for yourself.
Those places all heavily subsidize infrastructure in vast contrast to your argument and vision you lay out.
Fine with me. I'm all for converting every single freeway across the country to a managed tollway, that would increase the toll amount based on congestion. Then the states could use all that revenue to build more new tolled freeways, including underground tunnel ones near major cities. Without raising taxes.
Glad we agree.
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.
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.
