Trump's Infrastructure Priorty List (Top 50 Projects) Leaked

Started by CanesFan27, January 24, 2017, 07:59:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pete from Boston

Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done.  Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen.  If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.   

If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that.  Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?

All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs.  You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.

Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue.  No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
 

I suppose -- in that context -- the concept of the greater good is right out the window!  Is it unreasonable to expect the roadside business owners in Breezewood to make plans to do what is necessary to keep at least a portion of their business going (slight nearby relocation, pressing for at least town interchange access to a throughput ramp system on I-70) if & when such nonstop ramps are in place?  Obviously, maintaining a "captive audience" situation is deemed necessary for these subregional endeavors.  But I'll reiterate the oldest cliché in the book:  you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!  Applied here -- you can make through traffic slog a few blocks down a commercial street, but you can't make anyone buy what you have to sell!  Clearly the town -- and the politicos supporting that stance -- are counting on "opportunities of non-convenience:  a traveler attitude of "well, as long as we're having to put up with this shit, we may as well stop and get a bag of chips/snag a Big Gulp/take a pee/whatever.........!"  I've been through Breezewood three times in my life, and declined to patronize the local businesses/franchises.  And I'll wager that with at least repeat visitors, that inclination outstrips the willingness to stop & buy!

I just don't think it's reasonable to expect these folks that are invested in the current situation to lead the way in undoing it.


kkt

This is such a long list.  It seems more like someone's "fictional highways" list that doesn't involve finding money or making difficult choices about what's most important.  Congress would have to agree to either higher gas taxes or additional deficit spending and both seem like political poison.

EdM

Looks like the ARC Tunnel is back -- and extended! (And its it mirror-imaged as well??). Quite a few other rapid transit projects like 2nd Avenue Tunell in NYC, the M-1 Railway in Detroit, the Purple Line in Metro DC Maryland side, and the Green Line Extension in Boston.*

* In 2015 when the estimates came in for the project for $2 billion, the new governor, Charlie Baker, told the engineers to reestimate and redesign to cut costs to $1 bn, double the cost of the M-1 project. Turns out the cost only grew! Stupid engineers!  :pan:

jeffandnicole

Quote from: EdM on February 10, 2017, 03:32:05 PM
Looks like the ARC Tunnel is back -- and extended!

It's not the ARC tunnel.  The ARC tunnel was a dead-end to Macy's Basement, which would've only been used by NJ Transit.

The proposed tunnel is what should've been done in the first place - it's a tunnel for Amtrak and NJ Transit to Penn Station, and will allow thru trains up and down the east coast.  It also will allow the original, current tunnel to be shut down and repaired.



sparker

Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2017, 07:21:28 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
The important part of the article was really about why these things don't get done.  Namely, it's not supported by the locals to do anything about it, so it's unlikely for anything to happen.  If you think people acting in their own best interest is unreasonable, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, some people acting in what they think is their best interest are called criminals (larceny, thief, burglary) - since their actions benefit them at a cost of significant losses for others.
I am not going to call Breezewood folks criminals, but definitely this is not the case of simple "acting in my best interest and doing no harm to others" as well.   

If that's the case, it's incumbent upon state officials to step in and make it happen, but they are not doing that.  Is it really incumbent on local officials to press for a major Interstate highway project, particularly one that will devastate their local economy?

All I'm saying is, no, they are not comparable to criminals because they are elected to protect diverse local interests including businesses and jobs.  You tell the people in depressed central Pennsylvania that elected you that you're going to work against local jobs, and see how it goes.

Yes, I understand it's a safety and regional economy issue.  No, I don't expect Breezewood to advocate for a change in the status quo.
 

I suppose -- in that context -- the concept of the greater good is right out the window!  Is it unreasonable to expect the roadside business owners in Breezewood to make plans to do what is necessary to keep at least a portion of their business going (slight nearby relocation, pressing for at least town interchange access to a throughput ramp system on I-70) if & when such nonstop ramps are in place?  Obviously, maintaining a "captive audience" situation is deemed necessary for these subregional endeavors.  But I'll reiterate the oldest cliché in the book:  you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!  Applied here -- you can make through traffic slog a few blocks down a commercial street, but you can't make anyone buy what you have to sell!  Clearly the town -- and the politicos supporting that stance -- are counting on "opportunities of non-convenience:  a traveler attitude of "well, as long as we're having to put up with this shit, we may as well stop and get a bag of chips/snag a Big Gulp/take a pee/whatever.........!"  I've been through Breezewood three times in my life, and declined to patronize the local businesses/franchises.  And I'll wager that with at least repeat visitors, that inclination outstrips the willingness to stop & buy!

I just don't think it's reasonable to expect these folks that are invested in the current situation to lead the way in undoing it.

Obviously one wouldn't expect Breezewood residents -- or even their legislative representatives at the state (or even national) level to take the lead in correcting the lack of route continuity there -- it's certainly not in their best short-term interest to do so.  But it is the responsibility of other agencies and entities to elucidate the problem, contact all parties involved, and come up with a solution that, to some degree, satisfies both the driving public and local interests.  Right now it's being portrayed as an "all-or-nothing" situation, with the status quo being cited as the only thing making Breezewood financially viable -- and it appears that both PennDOT and the turnpike authority have, at least passively, bought into that argument by not even putting any potential solutions or even compromises on the table; they're, in effect, perpetually kicking the can down the road.  This is something that may have to be dealt with at the federal level, by FHWA taking point in bringing the force of USDOT down on the situation.  But after 40 years of the existence of this situation, nothing's been accomplished, likely due to political pressure that's resulted in any possibility of federal action being stopped before it starts (being in a perennially Shuster district certainly hasn't hurt the status quo!).  It may take more generational change in attitudes before anything is done here. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.