(12-18-2017 09:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:07 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Large scale rail can only be feasible in the US when the distances between numerous large cities are relatively short (e.g. Northeast corridor) or you're in a large metro area where the cost of driving is prohibitively high in terms of commute time and/or price of parking (e.g. New York). Unfortunately the segregated rail issue that Owl describes prevents the first group of cities from reaching their potential, and the explosion of ultra-budget airlines like Allegiant almost makes it unnecessary when going from city to city. The second is harmed because many of the cities with the worst traffic problems in the US have massive urban sprawl since they were designed with the automobile in mind (e.g. LA, Houston) and it's nearly impossible to affordably build commuter rail over such long distances when you factor in land acquisition costs. There are better things we can spend our infrastructure dollars on for them to improve their situations (e.g. bus investments, rebuilding key stretches of interstates in conjunction with other urban planning measures) unless you happen to live in a metro like Chicago where the Metra is a legitimately good option for getting into the city.

At least some good people jumped into action in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/...-500358744

key statement....well done....

infrastructure and redesign in this capacity is there for the taking.....

DJT has to pounce on this one next year.....

It all depends on how you do it however. Often times cities repave and add a lane, yet traffic is just as bad (or worse) after because it's announced to much fanfare and new highway drivers quickly fill up the excess capacity. That may reduce the burden on surrounding roads, but growing populations sometimes cancel out whatever gains you make.

It's all about how you limit the exponential nature of traffic. Each road has a capacity in which you can drive comfortably, but once you hit it every car thereafter builds more and more towards gridlock; hence by reducing that small amount of cars that puts traffic over the top, you can improve conditions. Some of the most effective tools can be ramp stop lights, bus system expansion, planning steps to encourage diversified development instead of a few commercial hubs, and tolls. Overall it's an exceptionally complex issue because every city's transportation system differs so wildly, what works for one city would make no sense for another.

The problem with federal investment in infrastructure spending is that there's only so much cash you can spend at once on key projects before hitting diminishing returns, so inevitably political pressures arise to get things done ASAP in an elected official's district instead of doing things the right way. And when you factor in shady projects that really have no business being funded by the feds (hello US 27 expansion near Oxford, Ohio) you get a lot less bang for your buck in the aggregate. The best system imo would be one that establishes permanent funding sources (e.g. federal tolls) instead of writing a big check at once so you also cover long-term maintenance, though a big part of the problem now is that the feds pay for niche projects like bike trails and light rail that can work in specific instances but should be paid for by locals.