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.
I'm not sure why people are acting like highway and airport expansion projects aren't new infrastructure.
Infrastructure also includes the power grid, water, and many would also include schools, hospitals, etc.
Overall, I do think much of America should be shifting the focus towards maintenance rather than new projects. The population is still growing, but not that as rapidly as in the past. Natural increase is expected to go negative in 15 years so it will just be a question of immigration rates after that.
The pro-transit crowd will argue that private road travel, while generally faster, is more expensive, but that if there are no user fees (which by and large, there aren't) people will choose to drive. I think there might be some truth to that but with the way most of the country is built around cars, transit isn't going to be as cost effective as in, say, Seoul, Hong Kong or Madrid.
I think transit projects make sense in some cities, especially those seeing a lot of infill/urban core population growth like Seattle, but a lot of cities might be better off just focusing on improving their bus networks and improving QOL to get more people to more into the urban core.
I'm not sure why people are acting like highway and airport expansion projects aren't new infrastructure.
Infrastructure also includes the power grid, water, and many would also include schools, hospitals, etc.
Overall, I do think much of America should be shifting the focus towards maintenance rather than new projects. The population is still growing, but not that as rapidly as in the past. Natural increase is expected to go negative in 15 years so it will just be a question of immigration rates after that.
The pro-transit crowd will argue that private road travel, while generally faster, is more expensive, but that if there are no user fees (which by and large, there aren't) people will choose to drive. I think there might be some truth to that but with the way most of the country is built around cars, transit isn't going to be as cost effective as in, say, Seoul, Hong Kong or Madrid.
I think transit projects make sense in some cities, especially those seeing a lot of infill/urban core population growth like Seattle, but a lot of cities might be better off just focusing on improving their bus networks and improving QOL to get more people to more into the urban core.
Transit is only cost effective in concentrated populations and hub-and-spoke type commuting patterns.
We shouldn't build our cities like Seoul, Hong Kong or Madrid because we have something they don't. Space. We have options that they don't.
We should be focusing on spreading out the populations and having multiple, smaller urban cores. No one wants to commute on a packed rush hour train or a backed up freeway.
And we shouldn't be building new infrastructure for as long as the existing stuff is falling apart.
People move to new locations all the time. That means population growth in those areas, and a need for additional infrastructure to support that growth.
Texas is adding lanes to Interstate 10 West of Houston due to higher traffic levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
Ever heard of interstate air travel?
There is no reason to spend north of a trillion dollars building out train lines that no one uses.
However, you're more than welcome to build trains to nowhere that no one will use at your own expense.
What are you talking about? Did you miss the point entirely that if more people move to a new region, there will be infrastructure needs for those areas. That doesn't necessarily mean trains.
There is no reason to spend north of a trillion dollars building out train lines that no one uses.
However, you're more than welcome to build trains to nowhere that no one will use at your own expense.
This is what this debate always gets back to. What about trains??? Trains are a small part of the infrastructure that gets built and a lot of it is for transporting things, not people. Trains are like the straw man so many want to bring up. They don't earn a positive return on investment so yeah if that's the bogey they have to cover have at it, they aren't a good investment. But why are these types of debates devolved down to something relatively insignificant to the greater topic? Does one have to turn them all into quasi-political debates?
This is what this debate always gets back to. What about trains??? Trains are a small part of the infrastructure that gets built and a lot of it is for transporting things, not people. Trains are like the straw man so many want to bring up. They don't earn a positive return on investment so yeah if that's the bogey they have to cover have at it, they aren't a good investment. But why are these types of debates devolved down to something relatively insignificant to the greater topic? Does one have to turn them all into quasi-political debates?
We'll stop bringing up trains when politicians stop trying to build them and spend more money than God has ever seen on them, all of which have proven universally useless.
Our population hasn't stopped growing. And you are ignoring the movement of people between regions.
The population will stop growing within a few decades. My point is that when that happens the US won't have a huge overhang of infrastructure built out because we have been so stingy and ineffective at building it.
Migrating large numbers of people to new locations when the total number of people is constant is inefficient. If people want to move we can't stop them. But build costs will continue to rise as the younger generations get smaller, since building is largely done by young men in their 20s and 30s. So if people want to pay to move they can, but it will be far cheaper to stay put where there's already built-out stuff.
We'll stop bringing up trains when politicians stop trying to build them and spend more money than God has ever seen on them, all of which have proven universally useless.
Not all trains are useless. Light rail in Houston has worked out better than expected, and is used by a lot of people, especially going to events at NRG stadium, which doesn't have nearly enough parking and street capacity to handle full house crowds.
California high speed rail would have worked if they had it run from LA to San Francisco with no more than 2 stops in between, but they tried to please everyone and ran the costs up. It would be better than forever expanding I-5.
Without BART, San Francisco would be in far worse shape for commuting.
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.
