Infrastructure Bill 2021

[HighwayStar]

I would submit that surface transportation arteries (roads and rail) divide communities more than elevated ones.

It's pretty easy to just walk or drive underneath the elevated structure. Not quite so easy to cross surface facilities when they're in use.

Roads, as a long area of hazardous traffic, does divide land. Wildlife, community, what not.
So do rivers, for example.
It's a vicious circle, if you will - you need traffic line (rail, street, highway) for people to move around; people start building up around that line, traffic grows, road becomes hard to cross.
Grade separation is great but expensive, even if we're talking simple over/under passes. Things can be somewhat mitigated by long-term pre-planning; but that pre-planning back in 60s was... objectionable by today's standards.

What "advocates" don't understand is the true cost of transit, and that without roads and proper transit communities would not survive.... Destruction is easy, problem solving is difficult.

No, roads only divide foot traffic. Anyone with a car can simply drive across. Not once have I said "damn, I wish I could get there from here, but I can't because there is a road to cross." I just get in the car and go.

So the BS about roads "dividing" places is really just a complaint that people cannot walk there, which is really trivial in the scope of things, and in many cases a barrier to foot traffic is actually desirable. Example, two houses for sale one described as "lovely house on a quiet cul-de-sac" the other as "lovely house at a major intersection", the former is more desirable and commands higher prices as a result.

Walking is pretty natural, many people wouldn't mind walking few thousand feet to a business. At some point, you have to choose between walking and 1 acre parcell, though.

And in our suburban area, highway division IS somewhat a thing. Not really bad, but it is.
We have 3 highway exits nearby separated by about 5 miles, and no crossings between those (one foot trail doesn't really count). Getting to the business on the other side of highway requires quite a drive, even if I can see that pizza place from my driveway. Frankly speaking, most businesses cluster around highway exit anyway, though
It's not really bad, but sometimes it is irritating.

Under ideal climatic conditions, with tons of time to blow, and nothing heavy to carry back like groceries, nor any small children to haul there and back then sure, it is fine to walk thousands of feet to the store. Most of us living in the real world recognize how rarely those criteria are properly met.
I would only find driving that way irritating if I was in a crap car.

[Scott5114]

None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

[jlam]

I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.

[Avalanchez71]

How many strings are attached?

[Scott5114]

How many strings are attached?

Seven and a half. Next question?

[hbelkins]

None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.

[Rothman]

None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.

Given the accounts and sources, quite.

[Scott5114]

None of this shit is about the infrastructure bill. Back on topic, or it'll be your post that gets demolished.

I would suggest that the suggestion about "racist bridges" is on-topic, given that Buttgieg referenced Robert Moses in his comments about it.

I have never read the book. I just wonder how accurate it is.

If this specific bill is funding the specific removal of a specific bridge, that's on topic. Otherwise, it isn't. It can still be discussed elsewhere, as has been done in the past, because it's transportation policy, but this thread should be about what this specific bill is going to fund.

[mvak36]

Posted this in the Missouri thread, but they're going to have meetings about updating their High Priority Unfunded Needs list. IMO, I think some of the Tier 1 Unfunded projects will get funded with this infrastructure bill. Will be interesting to see what comes out of these meetings.

[Buck87]

The signing ceremony for this bill is currently underway.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman just finished his remarks, in which he mentioned the Brent Spence bridge by name as a project that "we've been trying to do for 25 years, and that this bill gives us the tools to finally accomplish" (quoted section paraphrased by me)

As I was typing this New York Senator Schumer mentioned by name the Gateway project, cross Bronx expressway, 2nd avenue subway, I-81 in Syracuse, and the inner loop in Rochester as things that will all "have the ability to get going"

[US 89]

The unthinkable has happened... this bill, at long last, has been signed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/infrastructure-bill-biden-signing-ceremony-white-house/

[DenverBrian]

I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.

Third bore for the tunnels?

[Plutonic Panda]

I feel that Colorado's funding will mainly go to the improving of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels, the completion of the HOV lanes, and a widening of I-270. Some fictional ideas of mine are to complete the NW parkway and an upgrade US 34 between Loveland and Wiggins to an expressway. Neither of the latter will likely happen in the foreseeable future, however.

Third bore for the tunnels?

How about a new deep bore tunnel that is tolled and doesn't go as high as the current road does. That'd do wonders for freight.

They also need to connect the NW Parkway to Boulder Turnpike. Such a small and simple project I can't understand why it hasn't been done yet.

[Avalanchez71]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

[hbelkins]

I saw something that described Buttgieg as the most powerful transportation secretary ever because he had control of so much discretionary grant money.

I wonder if specific promises were made for some of that money. Specifically, the Brent Spence Bridge? Portman from Ohio voted for the bill, but of course he's a lame duck and won't suffer any ramifications in a primary. McConnell voted for it, too.

It will be interesting if someone later comes out and says they were promised a certain project would be funded if they voted for the bill, but they get angry if their project doesn't get funded.

[kalvado]

I saw something that described Buttgieg as the most powerful transportation secretary ever because he had control of so much discretionary grant money.

I wonder if specific promises were made for some of that money. Specifically, the Brent Spence Bridge? Portman from Ohio voted for the bill, but of course he's a lame duck and won't suffer any ramifications in a primary. McConnell voted for it, too.

It will be interesting if someone later comes out and says they were promised a certain project would be funded if they voted for the bill, but they get angry if their project doesn't get funded.

A second most powerful unelected transportation official after Robert Moses? Or overtaking for a #1 position?

[froggie]

Buttigieg's "power"  in this case is mostly financial and stems from Congress increasing the purse for the discretionary programs under his purview.  He can perhaps influence transportation policy with the type of projects he selects, but it's still mainly financial.

Moses' power was FAR beyond just financial.

[Scott5114]

Buttigieg's real power is that he is a notably good speaker who can think on his feet and explain what his/the administration's goals are and why, without tripping over his words or getting bogged down in details nobody understands or cares about. That's a skill a lot of Democrats lack (and it's something that hurts them in elections, because while Democrats are going over their nuanced sixty-point plans to lower the deficit, raise wages, rotate the tires on every car in this country, and make everyone waffles for breakfast, the Republican opponent is summing up their own platform in four words, which comes across a lot clearer). Even when the interviewer is hostile–he goes on Fox rather often for a Democrat–he's rarely knocked off-message and doesn't fall down the rabbit holes the interviewer tries to lead him down.

So I would imagine we're going to see a lot of Buttigieg in the next few months, as the administration is going to send him out to be the poster boy to sell the benefits of this bill to the others. As Transportation Secretary, he's the right person to do it, and it meshes with his skill set perfectly. So while the bill isn't giving him very much in the way of hard power, it is giving him quite a lot of soft power that could serve his reputation well in the future–assuming he doesn't fuck it up somehow.

[Scott5114]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

[kalvado]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

[Scott5114]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.

[kalvado]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.

There is also an exemption review process for other road deficiencies. Yet, it is a good idea to ensure clearance whenever practical.
I hope this would not be zero-tolerance, and if truck doesn't fit everyone is off to detour type of ADA thing though. But we had at least 3  bridge strikes within past week in the metro area, including 2 strikes of same bridge within an hour.  There is some hope around that funds from this bill may fix some of those bridges.

[Plutonic Panda]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

Because it is generally a good idea to have some expectations actually working?

I mean, as far as I know, minimum bridge heights were never, at any point, discussed during the negotiations over this bill. And they really shouldn't be; appropriate bridge heights need to be determined by engineers. Things like the 11'8" bridge were built because of circumstances that made that the only viable option, not because bridge engineers were trying to get away with a cheap bridge or whatever flight of fancy or imagined government evil Avalanchez is chasing this week.

I was under the impression the bridge height requirements were made to be 17ft or something to that extent. California recently completed a project to raise bridges on I-80 to meet or exceed federal standards.

[hbelkins]

Does this mean that bridges must be built with a minimum height now?

Why would it?

This is just another tangent of the Buttgieg vs. Moses comparison.

[Scott5114]

As far as I know, Buttigieg wasn't directly involved in determining the contents of the bill; that was Senate staff.