Sierra Club's 50 Best and Worst Transportation Projects In the United States

[Grzrd]

Smart Choices, Less Traffic contains a state-by-state summary of "Stop" and "Go" projects.  They do like the Everglades Skyway ...

[NE2]

baa

Might be more interesting to look at other highway projects they support.
Wekiva Parkway: turns a busy two-lane surface road into a four-lane freeway (and two-lane frontage road) with many more bridges over swamps and bear habitat. Concurrently, the state has acquired a bunch of that land for mitigation. http://florida.sierraclub.org/northeast/ico/pelican%20summer%202004.pdf

[Scott5114]

This looks more like a list of simplistic "highways bad transit good!" entries. The vast majority of "good" projects are transit and the "bad" are all highways. They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens) and oppose the Seattle tunnel because it goes under a historic district (would you rather it go through??). Highway oppositions generally include a quote of what gas cost when the project was first proposed (because this is relevant information). Good projects are lauded for increasing density (which isn't inherently a good thing, and not all people want to live in that sort of environment).

[cpzilliacus]

This looks more like a list of simplistic "highways bad transit good!" entries.

Sure does look like that, doesn't it?

The vast majority of "good" projects are transit and the "bad" are all highways. They oppose the I-5 widening because of "induced demand" (since we all know that's an actual thing that happens) and oppose the Seattle tunnel because it goes under a historic district (would you rather it go through??).

"Induced" demand for highway capacity is used in order to make the claim that highways (and not people and not economic activities) somehow create the traffic that rolls on them.

Highway oppositions generally include a quote of what gas cost when the project was first proposed (because this is relevant information). Good projects are lauded for increasing density (which isn't inherently a good thing, and not all people want to live in that sort of environment).

Price of motor fuel is generally included in the travel demand forecasting process that is used to develop estimates of traffic.

More density is appropriate in some places.  But I can rattle off several instances of (transit-related) increases in residential densities which have had significant negative impacts. 

[NE2]

This thread looks to be simplistic "highways good transit bad!" posts. baa

[Brandon]

This thread looks to be simplistic "highways good transit bad!" posts. baa

Hardly, Dan.  Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others.  It really depends on the density of the area and the commuting patterns of the area.  That said, the Sierra Club lost their good will around here when they opposed I-355's extension.

[NE2]

Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others.

The Sierra Club agrees. The only difference is where they draw the line. They're not in the pay of the dumb growth industry.

[Brandon]

Transit is appropriate is some cases, as are highways in others.

The Sierra Club agrees. The only difference is where they draw the line. They're not in the pay of the dumb growth industry.

"Dumb growth industry", is that like a "vast right wing conspiracy", Dan?  Never realized "dumb growth" was directed from above.  I always thought it was merely poor planning.

[NE2]

The dumb growth industry is the developers who pressure local governments to approve their projects. Compare to CP's "smart growth industry".

[Scott5114]

Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.

[NE2]

Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.

Yep. "Clean coal", anyone? You have to look at the effects, and how dumb growth wastes resources much more than smart growth.

[cpzilliacus]

Calling things "dumb" or "smart" does not necessarily make them so.

That is correct.  And many Smart Growth proponents are people that live in low-density suburban or exurban communities (e.g. "dumb" growth) and don't want more people near them. 

So Smart Growth is frequently little more than a form of PIITBY (put it in their back yard).

[NE2]

Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.

[Brandon]

Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.

And good people have bad concepts, so don't get your spui in a twist.  "Smart" and "Dumb" are subjective terms.  How communities grow is not determined by corrupt developers and corrupt government always, Dan.  There are zoning laws that they follow that commonly dictate the type of growth the community has.

[SP Cook]

Groups like the SC are little more than a crowd of hypocrites that want to pull the ladder of a better life up behind them.  Their views on any subject should be dismissed without analysis.

[cpzilliacus]

Bad people always get behind good concepts. Pointing this out is an old tired talking point.

And good people have bad concepts, so don't get your spui in a twist.  "Smart" and "Dumb" are subjective terms.  How communities grow is not determined by corrupt developers and corrupt government always, Dan.  There are zoning laws that they follow that commonly dictate the type of growth the community has.

Smart Growth is a term that may have originated with then-Gov. Parris Glendening (D-Md.) during his 1997  campaign for a second term in office (1998-2002).

He  won office in 1994 after scoring a razor-thin victory over Republican Ellen Sauerbrey (R) in the general election.  In the 1994 campaign, he advocated in favor of the Md. 200 (ICC) toll road and other highway improvements, though by the end of his first term, he had changed his tune, apparently helped in part by his mistress at the time, Jennifer Crawford, a state employee and hard-core environmentalist (a year or two after he was re-elected in 1998, his affair with Crawford became public and he dumped his wife and moved in with Crawford, got her pregnant and eventually married her). 

In 1999 he chose to ignore his so-called Blue Ribbon Panel (its formal name was the Transportation Solutions Group) and decreed that Md. 200 should be cancelled - at the same time, he spent an enormous amount of time and energy (and taxpayer money) on Smart Growth, to the exclusion of most other things.  Fortunately, the road remained on the county master plans, and a new environmental impact statement (EIS) was started as soon as Glendening left office at the end of 2002 by his successor, Bob Ehrlich (R).  Ehrlich's administration was able to put the work of the Transportation Solutions Group to good work in developing an EIS which was to pass muster with the federal courts in 2007 (the Club and its friends filed two lawsuits, both of which were ultimately rejected).

[cpzilliacus]

Groups like the SC are little more than a crowd of hypocrites that want to pull the ladder of a better life up behind them.  Their views on any subject should be dismissed without analysis.

It has always impressed me how many Sierra Club members (and their allies) preach opposition to any and all improvements to the highway network, as well as suburban lifestyles that involve single-family detached or attached housing - usually demanding that all new residents (but not suburban members of the Club) in a metropolitan area should be forced to live in high-rise apartment buildings on top of a rail transit station without a private automobile (the only rubber-tired vehicle allowed in the Sierra Club's utopia is a bicycle).

At the same time, the Sierra Club neglects to mention that the rail transit systems that it claims to cherish and support are funded in such a way that assures that if a metropolitan area ever reached the Club's "carfree" ideal, the trains and light rail vehicles and streetcars would immediately cease operation, for most of them (at least in the United States) are as auto-dependent as any suburban subdivision when it comes to funding never-ending transit operating and capital deficits - and the money to pay for those deficits usually comes from diverted highway user taxes and diverted highway tolls.

It always amuses me to see Sierra Club members show up at a public meeting or hearing in single-occupant vehicles to express the Club's opposition to highway improvements and especially any proposal to add new capacity to the highway network.

[NE2]

yawn

[Scott5114]

yawn

If you don't like the reaction it's getting here, go post it in a transit forum or something. A group of roadgeeks is going to generally turn a wary eye to any report from a biased source that generally slams highways as being borderline Satanic while holding bus projects up as a paragon of All That Is Good And Right in the World as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.

[kphoger]

as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.

* kphoger eagerly waits for NE2 to post a picture.....

[cpzilliacus]

yawn

If you don't like the reaction it's getting here, go post it in a transit forum or something. A group of roadgeeks is going to generally turn a wary eye to any report from a biased source that generally slams highways as being borderline Satanic while holding bus projects up as a paragon of All That Is Good And Right in the World as though Jesus Christ himself shits out a bus every morning.

In my part of the world, the Sierra Club seems to dislike transit buses almost as much as the private automobile.  All of the Club's affection seems to be reserved for vehicles that run on steel rails and use "clean electric" traction power (even though they do not generally wish to discuss the source of that "clean" power, including dirty  coal-fired electric generating stations).

[realjd]

My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.

In my part of the world, the Sierra Club seems to dislike transit buses almost as much as the private automobile.  All of the Club's affection seems to be reserved for vehicles that run on steel rails and use "clean electric" traction power (even though they do not generally wish to discuss the source of that "clean" power, including dirty  coal-fired electric generating stations).

Since the Sierra Club is anti-oil, this makes sense. Although I will point out that they typically do support bus projects that run on cleaner fuel sources like natural gas.

As for "clean electric", as you point out that is entirely dependent on how the electricity is generated. There was an article in Time earlier this year talking about how in China, electric cars are worse because of their nasty power plants. Since the US has more stringent regulations on power generation, our electricity is much "cleaner" and an electric car makes more sense from an environmental standpoint. Regardless, I think we can all agree that car exhaust is nasty stuff.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/

[wxfree]

Different people have different motivations; that's what makes us human.  I think we err when we want to conclude that one side is "correct" and the other is "incorrect."  Truth, and good solutions, are not found at the extremes, but are found when considering many different perspectives.

The Sierra Club makes valid points.  It's fortunate that Americans finally figured out that we need to start thinking about the future of the planet.  But, while some of their points may be valid, it's likely that their full agenda is too extreme.  "Smart growth" needs to be a consideration, not an absolute doctrine, and not entirely discarded as a concept.

People, given the choice, seem to prefer suburban lifestyles and longer commutes.  This, also, is neither good nor bad; it's a consideration for planners, who want to try to give people what they want, but not beyond what's feasible.

It's good to have these discussions, even (especially) when people disagree.  What's unfortunate is when one immerses himself in a pool of the like-minded and sees his beliefs constantly reinforced.  This tends to close the mind and make people forget that other views also hold validity.  With online forums, radio and television shows and networks tailored toward particular inclinations, Facebook showing you stories they think you're most likely to agree with, and so on, the modern world presents a challenge for those wanting to remain open minded, by making it easy to hear and read only what you agree with.  Again, this is only a consideration to be borne in mind, not an assertion that we should abandon these things.

[vdeane]

My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.

They'd be better off supporting research into better batteries so we can all drive electric cars in the future.

[realjd]

My take on this is that the Sierra Club isn't anti-highway, they're anti-oil. They typically don't support highway projects not because they feel highways are inherently bad but rather the cars that drive on them are heavy polluters. They support transit because it reduces oil consumption. They're more than happy to support highway projects that they feel have a net environmental benefit such as the Wikeva Parkway.

They'd be better off supporting research into better batteries so we can all drive electric cars in the future.

They do support research into better batteries. Also, they support research into cleaner traditional fuels like biodiesel and they support higher fuel efficiency standards.

http://www.sierraclub.org/transportation/default.aspx