←back to thread

How good are American roads?

(www.construction-physics.com)
193 points chmaynard | 2 comments | 20 Nov 24 14:45 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
smilekzs ◴[20 Nov 24 17:24 UTC] No.42196192[source]▶
The SFBay I-880 and US-101 are always packed, often under construction, but still pothole-filled, with sections of extreme roughness. Compare this to our OR neighbors, where there are signs saying "your tax dollars at work" by ORDOT everywhere. I used to scoff at this as a display of insecurity, but apparently (from TFA at least), Oregonians' tax dollars _are_ at work.

CA takes so many tax dollars from my hands. Why aren't they "at work"?

replies(11): >>42196222 #>>42196287 #>>42196290 #>>42196332 #>>42196339 #>>42196533 #>>42196561 #>>42196800 #>>42196914 #>>42198006 #>>42199125 #
Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 18:45 UTC] No.42196914[source]▶
> The SFBay I-880 and US-101 are always packed

A lot of this is due to the freeway system being unfinished.

101 would have been supplemented by the Bayfront Freeway (CA 87): https://cahighways.org/ROUTE087.html#_ROUTING_SEG2

And 880 by routes 61, 238, 185, 13, and 77:

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE061.html#_HIST1964

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE238.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE185.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE013.html

- https://cahighways.org/ROUTE077.html

replies(1): >>42198326 #
wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42198326[source]▶
Would have just meant more commuters
replies(1): >>42198720 #
Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 22:19 UTC] No.42198720{3}[source]▶
Only because those people can't find somewhere to live that's near work. So sick of this incredibly stupid line of thinking from otherwise very smart people who refuse to realize that increased demand on transportation infrastructure is the flip-side of the housing shortage.
replies(2): >>42198791 #>>42202547 #
wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 22:29 UTC] No.42198791{4}[source]▶
I don't disagree but induced demand absolutely exists as people would move accordingly.
replies(1): >>42198824 #
Lammy ◴[20 Nov 24 22:32 UTC] No.42198824{5}[source]▶
Agreed, but I would say that inducing demand is the point of building anything. Nobody uses that term when it comes to building homes people want to live in. They only ever use it to oppose people being able to exercise their freedom of movement.
replies(1): >>42199053 #
1. wbl ◴[20 Nov 24 23:03 UTC] No.42199053{6}[source]▶
Very few people say roads help freedom of movement for others. They say it will help your commute, while higher capacity modes never get invested in.
replies(1): >>42200530 #
2. Lammy ◴[21 Nov 24 02:38 UTC] No.42200530[source]▶
I said it. Seems pretty straightforward to me that I am inherently less free to move via rail/sea/air than via my automobile unless the train/boat/plane can also take me anywhere, at any time, 24 hours a day, any day. I do prefer to commute via train if I can. In fact my office just moved and I've had to give up my one-shot train commute just in this last month :/

Unfortunately the alternative to divesting in road infrastructure won't be investing in rail infrastructure, it will be telling people to stay home. For sure a lot of demand for rail investment will come once it becomes harder to get around and more people lose their autonomy, but the reality for many people will just become not going anywhere at all. That means segregation-with-extra-steps for all too many places, and I was raised to believe that's a bad thing. Peep the Bay Area for example — it's really bad! http://radicalcartography.net/bayarea.html

Aside: I'm a huge railfan and have actually gotten to drive a locomotive at the Western Pacific Railway Museum even though it was very expensive and confined to a tiny circle of track. Highly highly recommend a trip out there for anyone, even if just to sight-see the gorgeous Feather River Canyon: https://museum.wplives.org/ral/