I guess free government money for your car to be stuck in traffic on a wider road is somehow exempt from complaint?
It’s a similar thing here in Austin. Rather than expand the light rail system, the state is expanding I-35 through downtown.
However, it’s not so cut and dry. See, the city has to fund the light rail expansion, while the Texas Department of Transportation funds the highway expansion. Both have access to the same data, but the latter is restricted by law to only spend money on expansions to alleviate traffic on highways. Alternative modes of transport aren’t even considered because it would be against the law to spend any money on it. So if the data says there’s too much traffic, the state has the money to fix it and they’re only allowed to fix it in precisely one way.
It’s ridiculous.
Expanding public transportation would alleviate highway traffic.
Of course it would, but the state department of transportation is forbidden from spending any money on anything but roads. The people in cities are already taxed to hell and back, so it’s a tough sell for them to be taxed more for a light rail system that wouldn’t be finished for another 20 years.
“PUBLIC TRANSIT HAS TO PAY FOR ITSELF!”
Query when private transport has ever paid for itself.
I was just reading a similar article about California High Speed Rail. One of the problems with that infrastructure project is the state had to fund most of it, while the federal government tends to fund 80% of highways.
And even then Trump screws up the funding every time he gets in office
I don’t buy that at all.
Thus far, Feds have provided some $15+ billion to CA for various projects related to HSR. If the state hadn’t completely blown its budget and schedule, that is more than enough to have gotten the starter line going. As well, we can look at BART-SJ which is getting $5+ billion – again more than enough to build that project if VTA hadn’t gone off the deep-end with its deep bore design alternative (current budget is now $12+ billion).
Which isn’t to say there are major issues with road vs. transit funding at the Federal level, but California’s problems are largely its own doing.
If a comment like yours is unpopular here then this community must be shit. You weren’t rude or making a joke or anything. Is fuckcars like a religion?
Yup. Spend hundreds of millions so that more people can sit in traffic? No problem, we’ll start work tomorrow!
Ask for a 100m multiuse path so that cyclists don’t get killed by crazed SUV drivers? “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND?? Who is going to pay for that? What about the kids? How will seniors survive?! What about my parking space! Cyclists don’t follow the rules! Where’s your helmet?!! I didn’t see you!!!” 😒😮💨
Looks like they are expanding what looks like a “decently designed” road into a full scale hwy?
Seems a little hasty and not understood tbh as roads should ideally not exceed 3 lanes. Road should also serve as a “connection”, where hwys empty out onto roads, and then roads empty out into streets.
Seems with this redesign you might get a full scale hwy emptying out onto a street which then will probably get redesigned into a “strode”.
Roads are throughways, streets are destinations.
What a road looks like:
What a street looks like:
Or my favorite, pedestrian only streets with tram lines.
No it is already a full scale highway. They just want to add one more lane.
JUST ONE MORE LANE… PLEASE…
