Call "time out" on highway boondoggles

Sports seasons are suspended. Concerts and public gatherings are canceled. Millions of us are cooped up at home trying to stay healthy and stay sane.

But the work of teeing up the next generation of boondoggle highway projects doesn’t stop – not even for a global pandemic.

Frontier Group - continues

 

You know, not to criticize, but if you're interested in fostering reasonable discussions, it may be a good idea to post articles from less biased sources.

This is the equivalent (or worse) than posting stuff from Breitbart or Vox in terms of flagrant one-sidedness.

I mean, should l start posting stuff from Clear Energy Alliance or the Center for the American Experiment?

 

Not sure how far I need to reply on this, but I started with the first example - Clear Energy Alliance. Their second sentence on their home page states; Much of what the media and activist groups tell us about energy is misleading or entirely false, which can lead to dangerous and expensive outcomes*. Their last sentence on the same short paragraph states; We arrive at our conclusions using logic, reliable data, human experience, history and rational analysis. I guess I should give them props that they didn't say "scientific data"?

How far do I need to go? I'd bet my last dollar I'd find examples like above for Center for the American Experiment. Frankly I would double my bet and say I'd find worst. And that's without even going to the home page!

*I guess one of these expensive outcomes is knocking off the highway expansion boondoggle stated above?

BTW, from my expedience on what I've read and posted is from reliable scientific data and research. Yes it's my angle. I'm the one that posted it.

 

I think you're missing my point.

Everything you post is from the angle of the far Left. Which is why I mentioned the two examples I did, which are on the other end of the spectrum.

Meaning, neither is objective and when such biases are so flagrant, the articles you post do not have the effect (I'm assuming) you think they do.

Posting such obviously biased sources undercuts credibility from the outset. Both for the article you link and yourself.

Hence my question, should I post stuff from the two sources I mentioned? Of course not. I know better than that.

 

OK noted, but the far left is where I come from. I know I can get more responses if I posted a "neutral" post. I'm not trying to get people to post a response. I'm trying to voice what I think is the correct way in proceeding in society, and quite frankly, I don't think everyone with their private steel box is the way to go.

 

@sneefy: every planner who isn't stuck in the 1970's is pretty strongly opposed to highway expansion. This isn't a far left view anymore, this has become the mainstream view.

The ones looking to expand highways are transportation engineers who can't seem to learn from history that every time highways are expanded within a few years traffic is straight back to the levels they were pre-expansion.

 

But, why? When one posts nothing but biased stuff coming from one side, nobody is going to have their mind changed.

If I posted a ton of articles but all my sources were on one side of the spectrum like Breitbart, the Daily Wire, PraegerU, is that going to convince anyone? Not likely. If all one espouses is sourced from bias, it's nigh impossible to take that person seriously because they just regurgitate whatever they are spoon-fed.

This is why I read and follow a ton of sources and try to be as objective as possible. I read Left and Right. I tend to be on the Right personally, but not the far Right and it's entirely issue dependent.

I mean, I get it, you hate cars. If you're just posting because it makes you feel good, ok, whatever. It just seems like a waste of effort.

 

Not really. Until someone invents a viable, autonomous (meaning independent, not necessarily robotic) method of transportation that works for anybody that lives outside of the inner ring of a city and does NOT use a strip of pavement, highways are here to stay. Anyone that argues that highways are already a thing of the past is not living in reality.

This is very true. However, it's simply because the infrastructure is never sized for either the current or projected population and doesn't keep pace with it's growth. Whether that's because of budgeting issues, poor decision making, (or if I was a conspiracy theorist, an intentional effect of city planners with an agenda...) the end result is the same. The highways around here have a capacity more in line with the 1960s and nothing is ever done to resolve that. None of the expansions you cite ever come close to resolving the capacity issue. They are so far behind the capacity curve that it would be cost prohibitive to expand to even current capacity needs, much less projected need.

 

The thing is, capacity is pretty much fine, we just have too many cars on the road. The ongoing crisis has proven many people can work from home, take that traffic off of the roads, that number will likely only grow as telecommuting software becomes better.

More people can and should carpool, I did it for the majority of the last year at my last job & it was great, we each saved 50% on gas & by switching off driving duties weekly saved the stress of dealing with traffic driving into the city.

More companies should locate where people actually live too. Locate where folks can walk or take public transit to the office.

You've said here that 'public transit should pay for itself,' while public transit costs way, way less than highway expansion & is way better for the environment.

The I43 expansion north of Milwaukee will widen a stretch of highway from four lanes to six (this is a stretch of highway I know well, I used to commute on it from Milwaukee to my job), for thirteen miles, starting at the far north end of Milwaukee up to one of the far north burbs.

At a cost of $550 million, over $40 million per mile to gain one lane in each direction. That would cover the entirety of Milwaukee County's transit service for 3.5 years, which serves 156,000 riders daily (20,000 more riders than drivers that would benefit in any way from the highway expansion), employs 1,000 people (and not on a temporary basis like highway construction), etc. (And remember, this is disregarding that MCTS does bring in money from users paying for rides, universities pay MCTS as segregated fees to give subsidized rides to students, etc.)

The people driving would still drive there with two lanes and they'd gain maybe five minutes on their commute to & from work each day with the extra lane. More people will be encouraged to drive by the smoother sailing & we produce more greenhouse gases, cover more miles in vehicles, etc.

People who use public transit are generally lower wage & may not have a route to work without the transit service.

Highway expansion is socialism for the middle & upper class, leaving behind the urban poor.

You don't have to hate cars to know the damage they do.

 

That's a false premise. Also incorrect. Capacity is objectively not 'fine'.

You build roads for the capacity you have, not what you wish it was or think it should be. Otherwise it's social engineering, which is anathema to anyone that believes in freedom. Your statement falls right into the conspiracy theory I mentioned above about city planners with an agenda. Perhaps it isn't a conspiracy theory after all?

I do not necessarily dispute the environmental impact (mostly) of cars or the economic disparities highlighted by driving vs public transit or urban vs. suburban vs. rural.

And, I completely agree that this crisis is showing just how capable we are, for many kinds of jobs, of telecommuting. It should have an impact on the number of cars on the road going forward and I very much hope it does.

But, none of that contradicts my statement above. It's just not terribly relevant. Government is supposed to serve its citizens. Infrastructure is one of those core things that government is actually chartered with. Cities have not been meeting the needs of the populace and not been spending tax dollars appropriately because the infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the capacity.

 

My views may come from one side, but the evidence comes from whatever the study shows. I've always have posted stuff that comes from legitimate sources that pretty have the same view point. Ultimately we rely on the study and what the scientific study produces. The right seems to pretty much embrace the scientific principle, if it helps in making their point, otherwise, *any* means necessary. Does Trump come to mind? His latest is regarding the WHO. Want to get the latest and best views from a leader/scientist?* Chancellor Angela Merkel. Keep an eye out for the "T word", I like calling it the T word (testing) as I imagine Trump using that.

*Close second would be our governor, Newsom.

 

Everything stated in your paragraph is agreed on. The one thing I would look at is to make things more expensive to drive. It's possible to regulate traffic by imposing fees to be there. Yes the well off don't have a problem with that, but that's how it goes. I like that rather than highway expansions. It would eventually pay off for the poorer people. For instance it would be very costly to drive, but low and I envision free for public transportation in the city.

 

I'm sure you're heard the expression: "There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

The problem is, and this goes for either side of the political coin, is there is data to back up any argument you want to make. The problem is the people citing that data are biased, selective, and not rigorous in what they research or cite. This is why it's so important to read and follow both sides. Different groups use different data to draw different conclusions and thus form their opinions that are then broadcast to the world through a cognitively biased lens.

So, what you cite as 'evidence' can be anything but. In our world of 'everybody has an agenda' so may studies are flawed before they start. This scientific community is not exempt. Which is why one must, again, read competing studies, read between the lines, and try to determine the author's agenda (because I guarantee they have one) before taking anything at face value.

 

And the authoritarian comes out. Punish the people until they fall in line with your worldview.

Boy, did I call it or what? Nearly without fail, inside the heart of the Leftist beats one of a dictator.

Those that wish to socially engineer others because they believe only their own ideas are righteous can sod the hell off.

Sorry if that's a bit heated. But seriously, a big F U to those that feel justified in social engineering because they think they know what's best for everybody else. The is the primary reason I can't stand politicians of any stripe. The arrogance is just sickening.
​

 

Of course it is- that's why they expanded the highways- for growing traffic. If they didn't expand the highways traffic would get worse.

As far as why to do it now- it's the best time. Less traffic on the road to get clogged during road construction.

 

It doesn't need to get worse though.

But yeah, spend money on road construction rather than helping low and middle income Americans during a pandemic.

Same effect as bailing out airlines rather than giving small businesses money.

Driving should be more expensive. That is not fascism, that is making an unsustainable activity more sustainable.

 

That's always the claim- why spend money on this when you could spend money on that? That's not how it works. Nobody can simply take a pile of money and push it elsewhere. Bonds are sold to build roads. That money has to go to roads. Or the legislature allocates it for roads, to be spent over a period of years.

And if you want to help the poor, raising the cost of getting to work isn't helping them.

Also I never said anything about fascism.

 

Your whole thread topic headline is presented as a question. Questions, especially in discussion forums are usually presented to spur conversation and debate. If you admit to not really wanting to spur response but just trying to advance your own personal agenda, then the question of the validity of your source is entirely valid.
Otherwise this isn't really a discussion thread, it's just an example of 1 person, cherry picking a specific source, with the singular agenda of advancing their viewpoint.

 

There are great numbers of people for whom driving is a necessity, not a luxury. As awesome as our newfound telecommuting capabilities are, there are many that can't do that and for whom public transport isn't possible or desirable.

The only way to change that is to force people to live in urban areas where only public transportation is allowed. Some believe forcing people to do that would be a good thing. Those people can shove their statist nonsense right up their backsides.

I get a bit riled knowing that there are such arrogant dictatorial people out there that would force their will on others if only given the chance. God help us if they ever gain any real power. Thankfully Bernie sold out. Again.

 

​​Yup. This.