Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

happycamper

So... are we going to come to a bipartisan consensus that the country needs a massive infrastructure investment?

Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2021 at 7:32 AM, happycamper said:

Our dams, roads, airports, and power network are all well past their replacement cycles. That infrastructure is what makes us a first world nation. Are we finally going to bite the bullet and spend the trillions we've been deferring on things that, uh, matter?

I’m all for it if it has intrinsic value and increases productivity.  I’d far rather have tax dollars spent on something tangible rather than just mailing people $1200 checks.

But too often infrastructure projects become boondoggles like high speed rail from Bako to Merced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

When the debt gets so high half of revenue goes to pay interest on the debt, maybe, and that’s a big maybe, government may sit up and take notice.

 

Bad news for you, then.

 

Interest on the debt is about 10% of the incoming revenue.  Way too big as it is, but a LOOONG way from half.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with spending money to fix road infrastructure, but what we can't have is more highways going through the heart of urban cities. That and too much parking space can devastate cities. Studies also show that living next to highways is terrible for your health.

We do need to invest in HSR and other public transit. It has socio-environmental benefits

20210221_172111.jpg

960x0(1).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Maji said:

I'm fine with spending money to fix road infrastructure, but what we can't have is more highways going through the heart of urban cities. That and too much parking space can devastate cities. Studies also show that living next to highways is terrible for your health.

We do need to invest in HSR and other public transit. It has socio-environmental benefits

 

 

Light rail, HSR, and BRT would all be great investments. We currently have BRT being built out in Downtown Raleigh and out to some of the suburbs. There's also a nearly 40 mile commuter rail line in development to alleviate some of the road congestion. There was a light rail from Durham to Chapel hill in development, but Duke killed it off. Those types of projects, along with rejection of NIMBYism would be great things to work on in large urban/suburban environments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

Light rail, HSR, and BRT would all be great investments. We currently have BRT being built out in Downtown Raleigh and out to some of the suburbs. There's also a nearly 40 mile commuter rail line in development to alleviate some of the road congestion. There was a light rail from Durham to Chapel hill in development, but Duke killed it off. Those types of projects, along with rejection of NIMBYism would be great things to work on in large urban/suburban environments.

Agreed

It's embarrassing how much better some countries are on these issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

There are some studies showing that adding new lanes creates "induced demand." Whether that's the case or not, adding new lanes hasn't seemed to alleviate traffic enough. Perhaps more creative solutions are in order (including better public transit, which would reduce the amount of people driving ;))

To be clear, I'm not advocating against adding new road infrastructure (even highways). What we don't need is more highways going through downtown cities. Build them in smarter locations.

The before & afters of cities disturbs me :rant:

minneapolis_square2014.0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, retrofade said:

Light rail, HSR, and BRT would all be great investments. We currently have BRT being built out in Downtown Raleigh and out to some of the suburbs. There's also a nearly 40 mile commuter rail line in development to alleviate some of the road congestion. There was a light rail from Durham to Chapel hill in development, but Duke killed it off. Those types of projects, along with rejection of NIMBYism would be great things to work on in large urban/suburban environments.

Duke U was opposed? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maji said:

There are some studies showing that adding new lanes creates "induced demand." Whether that's the case or not, adding new lanes hasn't seemed to alleviate traffic enough.

To be clear, I'm not advocating against adding new road infrastructure (even highways). What we don't need is more highways going through downtown cities. Build them in smarter locations.

The before & afters of cities disturbs me :rant:

minneapolis_square2014.0.png

Many traffic planners and NGO's have reached that conclusion you allude to.  It may not be more people, but their studies showed that in their regions, adding lanes increased the amount of single-occupancy vehicles.

And the photo above could add to this conversation on infrastructure funding.  The double bridge in the upper right is the exact area of the I-35 bridge collapse back in 07, killing 13.  It had been inspected and received poor grades for years.

75964197_10.jpg?w=1500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Duke U was opposed? Why?

This was their reasoning.

Quote

In a letter to GoTriangle, Duke President Vincent Price and other officials cited issues with the light rail’s alignment along Erwin Road in Durham, which runs next to the university’s sprawling medical complex. Price expressed concerns that magnetic interference could hurt high-tech diagnostic and research equipment. Other issues included construction disruption that could affect a utility line, and vibrations from digging and placing the supports for an elevated track, and legal liability. In declining further talks, the Duke leaders said that the project’s route “poses significant and unacceptable risks to the safety of the nearly 1.5 million patients who receive care at our hospital and clinics each year, and the future viability of health care and research at Duke.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/why-duke-killed-the-durham-orange-light-rail-project

Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of other light rail implementations that have had routes close to medical facilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

dook does own a lot of property in West Durham.  May have altered their plans?  They are making a mint off of development right now.

Yeah, that's what I believe was their actual reasoning, but they came up with a different excuse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2021 at 2:35 PM, Maji said:

If we had dependable rail going from the suburbs to cities, I wouldn't drive. Instead, even many cities don't have sufficient public transportation options

I'm right there with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2021 at 4:31 PM, happycamper said:

Gotta blame the democrats for this too.

Yeah,  because they foolishly let the filibuster stand in the way of getting this done.   Total suckers

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Yeah,  because they foolishly let the filibuster stand in the way of getting this done.   Total suckers

uh...

no, because we've needed moderate to massive infrastructure investment for the last 30 years and we've had democrat control of the presidency for 16 of those, democrat control of the house for 10 of those years, and democrat control of the Senate for 12 of those years. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, happycamper said:

uh...

no, because we've needed moderate to massive infrastructure investment for the last 30 years and we've had democrat control of the presidency for 16 of those, democrat control of the house for 10 of those years, and democrat control of the Senate for 12 of those years. 

When the Democrats controlled the Senate, they had lots of conservative "blue dog Democrats." Heck, even the messaging from this Clinton ad seems pretty conservative:

Clinton also ran some adds about being tough on crime and deporting lots of immigrants, IIRC

The Democratic party wasn't as ideologically unified. The problem now is that it only takes one Dem Senator to tank entire legislation. Are Manchin and Sinema really going to support this effort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...