More proof that I-376 lacks sufficient lane miles for a major metropolitan area (Pittsburgh: neighborhoods, buying)

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

I own an SUV. Sometimes there are things a small car just can't do.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

I own an SUV. Sometimes there are things a small car just can't do.

Like bullying dawdling Buicks out of the passing lane?

[gg]

Originally Posted by slamont61

Those with Trucks and SUVs are most likely to feel the pinch first and they are by far the worst of the offenders anyways

I think a good tax would be on vehicle weight to subsidize road construction. If you are driving an Excursion, Escalade or H2 and the like, you should be taxed more than if you are driving a European sports sedan. The SUV's are so much more dangerous as well with the poor braking, handling and high center of gravity. Such a misnomer that they are somehow safer than a performance car, like the two I own. I had an SUV many years ago, but they are really too dangerous and I take driving too seriously to drive a box on wheels that can't get out of its own way.

[BrianTH]

Road damage actually goes up with the fourth power of axle weight. So a vehicle with twice the axle weight should really be paying something like sixteen times as much for road maintenance, and yet it will typically be paying more like twice as much in gas taxes.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

This is Pennsylvania we're talking about. Even in a hypothetical scenario where taxes go directly into road maintenance our roads would still look like Somalia's.

[ditchdigger]

Ya know, trucking companies don't just operate out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in it to make a profit, and if they don't, they'll quit operating. Any direct raise in operating costs is just going to be passed along in the form of higher freight rates. Demonize trucks if you like, but remember that everything you take home in that bag of groceries got to that store in a truck.

Just think of it as your highway taxes subsidizing your grocery bill...

[Steelers10]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Adding more capacity to congested urban highways isn't a long-term solution. If you succeed in temporarily reducing congestion, it will just induce more development along the highway, and soon you will be right back to the same levels of congestion.

Generally the Robert Moses vision of urban highways has been a big failure. Highways are very useful for intercity traffic. Within urban areas, though, networks of parallel streets provide more total capacity to cars, and if you need more peak capacity than that, you again really need to switch to investing in alternative modes, and may need to introduce congestion pricing.

I just don't forsee more "development" springing up along in-town highways. Pittsburgh is pretty much built out. Any area that isn't developed is probably because it is too rocky with too steep of a slope (which is why I don't see tunnel expansion being feasible). I could see pre-existing structures being razed and building "up" which I think would be wise given the infrastructure is already in place.

Originally Posted by wpipkins

You cannot have 10 highway lanes pouring into a downtown with narrow streets. If we were to widen our highways, it would be more costly than Bostons central artery.

Sorry guys, I wish I had better pictures. But who is to say that additional lanes have to dump off onto surface streets. I have always believed that I-376 should be redesignated I-76 to bring people in to see how wonderful and compact downtown Pittsburgh is, actually limit the downtown streets they can exit onto, then have the lanes dump them off into park n' ride lots for transit (notice the buses stacked up in the center of the first picture; fixed-rail anyone?). I agree with Brian TH's assessment of the "Moses" plan for downtown. But that is pretty much every large American city that had a considerable downtown in the 50s and 60s. Moses wanted to eliminate slums, not build effective transportation networks. But the die is cast and nothing will bring back what was demolished to make way for the urban controlled-access parkways in Pittsburgh, much less the Bronx.

Once again, I think the psychological impact of rebranding I-376 to what it was prior to the early 70s (I-76) will bring people into the urban core. The present system is literally inviting car traffic to bypass the city and encourage more sprawl. But in metro Pittsburgh, it is sprawl without growth as a perfectly good infrastructure is being abandoned in-town for increasingly more costly auto-dependent suburbs.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Ya know, trucking companies don't just operate out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in it to make a profit, and if they don't, they'll quit operating. Any direct raise in operating costs is just going to be passed along in the form of higher freight rates. Demonize trucks if you like, but remember that everything you take home in that bag of groceries got to that store in a truck.

But of course the vast majority of road users are doing something that will contribute to the economy. You still have to pay for roads, and barring a really compelling argument that distinguishes any one user over all the others, the thing that makes sense is to have road-users contribute in portion to the costs they are imposing, plus a generic subsidy if you think that is a good idea.

I might note as well that we often WANT road-users to switch to alternatives if they can't get a net benefit from using the road while paying their fair share of the costs. So, for example, maybe some of that freight should be going by rail or barge instead of truck. Having each truck paying their fair share is a way of making sure the trucks that do end up using the road are the ones who are getting the most value out of it.

[ditchdigger]

But of course the vast majority of road users are doing something that will contribute to the economy. You still have to pay for roads, and barring a really compelling argument that distinguishes any one user over all the others, the thing that makes sense is to have road-users contribute in portion to the costs they are imposing, plus a generic subsidy if you think that is a good idea.

Of course, I only picked out groceries as an example because that's something that absolutely everybody is an end user of.

But as I thought some more about it, after posting that, hey, maybe we should be making trucks pay a more proportional share of the costs they impose. That way, when the cost of everything that travels by truck goes up, (and that would be just about everything), it'll effectively get those who never purchase gasoline or diesel fuel themselves, or purchase minimal amounts, you know, the walkers, bike riders, bus riders, or those who choose their home location based on a very short car commute, to contribute their fair share of highway costs.

I had another thought too, about how many passengers a 35,000 lb bus needs to be carrying to make it a break even proposition in terms of highway wear, given that factor of four axle weight rule...

[Craziaskowboi]

Am I the only person in favor of expanding both rail transit and I-376?