How One's Perceptions are Shaped by Where One Lives

[SkyPesos]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

And am I not allowed to support both good road infrastructure and good public transit (and good walking/biking infrastructure) at the same time?

[HighwayStar]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

And am I not allowed to support both good road infrastructure and good public transit at the same time?

You are and you are not.

On one level I support both since both are nice to have.

However, in the real world we have tradeoffs. Every dollar spent on one is a dollar that cannot be spent on the other. So while you can support both in theory, you must in reality choose one over the other at all times. Which is not to say you cannot strike a balance, but the rival nature of resources has to account for something, so there is that angle.

[skluth]

I-64 is the only interstate highway out of the Hampton Roads region, which is often heavily congested. And it's only useful when heading to specific destinations. Otherwise, it's all arterial highways for hundreds of miles (except only around 50 miles to I-295 via US-460 and 80 miles to I-95 via US-58) with artificially low 55 mph (ooh, they give you 60 mph on parts of US-58 and a small bit of US-17) limits until reaching an interstate highway / freeway (I-95, I-85, I-295, DE-1, I-77, I-81).

This is a good point, the Hampton Roads/Tidewater region is one of the most heavily populated areas that I can think of that's so poorly served by the Interstate highway system. Essentially, it's I-64 and not a lot else. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel gives you (expensive) access northward, but via US 13 which is not a freeway for the most part. It's a long haul to Wilmington, DE on that one. And routes to and through neighboring NC are 1950's style arterials, though that is slated to change eventually.

All this aside, the Hampton Roads metro is a top 40 market (population wise) but it's at a dead end on our IH system.

Tidewater may be a dead end on the interstate system, but that's true of many coastal cities including Charleston and San Francisco. Tidewater has pretty good highway connections. US 58, which arguably should be a freeway to South Hill, is mostly expressway and freeway connecting Tidewater to I-85 and I-95. US 17 south is four lanes past Elizabeth City down to the excellent NC highway system. US 17 north is a leisurely four lane road through mostly rural Eastern VA. VA 168 to US 158 is four lanes to the Outer Banks. US 13 north is four lanes through the Delmarva Peninsula to Dover with good highways connecting to the I-95 corridor. The underused, slow US 460 is four lanes to I-295 around Petersburg. For only having one interstate highway, Tidewater is still pretty well-served for highway transportation with the main problem being the local bottlenecks any time one needs to cross a body of water (HRBT, High Rise Bridge, etc).

Agreed on the points about the good, built up 4 lane highway system. And US-460 becomes divided four lanes west of Petersburg / I-85. The freeway system, however, lacks, for a metropolitan area over 2 million population with other major cities in a 4-5 hour radius.

My only two complaints -
- There should be at least two other freeway leaving the area, such as US-58 at least to Emporia / I-95, and then US-460 to Petersburg / I-295. The US-17 / US-13 corridor through North Carolina, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula should ideally be a continuous interstate highway corridor as well, but that's obviously in the realm of fiction.
- The speed limits on the existing divided highways should be at least a minimum of 65 mph, ideally 70 mph. Despite not being limited access, they can still easily handle it based on current geometry. It becomes a slog crawling along at 55 mph or 60 mph for 60+ miles of wide open road.

I'm less concerned about interstate status itself. We both agree that US 58 should be a freeway (or at least a non-stop four-lane highway) west to I-95, or even I-85 (my preference). I never saw the need to upgrade US 17 to interstate when I lived in Portsmouth, though the recent upgrades along Dominion Blvd may have changed that. I do think US 17 to Williamston NC and US 13 in Delmarva should be converted to Wisconsin-style expressways. US 17 may be there now (it's been 15 years since I lived in the area). The 55 mph limit on US 460 is ridiculous; it can be ignored elsewhere but there is so little traffic once you get to Sussex and especially Prince George county that bored cops would probably pull someone over for hitting 65.

[Roadgeekteen]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

[hotdogPi]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

According to consensus on this forum, the states with bad road infrastructure are NM, IL (except the tollways), PA (where HighwayStar lives, although that's a statewide assessment and it might be different in Philadelphia), and OK.

[Roadgeekteen]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

According to consensus on this forum, the states with bad road infrastructure are NM, IL (except the tollways), PA (where HighwayStar lives, although that's a statewide assessment and it might be different in Philadelphia), and OK.

It's not like Oklahoma's transit is anything special...

[thspfc]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

And am I not allowed to support both good road infrastructure and good public transit at the same time?

You are and you are not.

On one level I support both since both are nice to have.

However, in the real world we have tradeoffs. Every dollar spent on one is a dollar that cannot be spent on the other. So while you can support both in theory, you must in reality choose one over the other at all times. Which is not to say you cannot strike a balance, but the rival nature of resources has to account for something, so there is that angle.

It really just depends on the city. For example, Houston and Atlanta. Those two cities have some of the best freeways in the world from an aesthetic and design standpoint, yet both are notorious for their bad traffic. In 2008 TXDOT spent $2.8 billion to make the Katy Freeway the widest and most impressive in the world, yet it's still just as backed up as it was before the project. At that point you need to look elsewhere for solutions to your traffic problems. I think the main focus should be keeping the people that are only traveling a few miles off the freeway. Can't do anything about the thru traffic or the people who live in the far suburbs 20+ miles from downtown, but you can do something about the people who hop on the freeway for 3 miles then exit off. If you cut down on that it's less exiting, less merging, less weaving, less accidents. That's where bike paths and the like come in.

On the other hand you have Chicago, who has great public transit and a decent network of mixed use paths, but their freeways are way below par considering the huge population of the metro area. Chicago needs to invest in freeway upgrades rather than alternative transportation.

[hbelkins]

My perspective is that the haves continue to get improvements while the have-nots languish.

I always use the Mountain Parkway widening as an example. The existing road was built as a super-2 in the early 1960s and doesn't necessarily meet modern standards, especially the number of curves, but traffic moved well on it. The state is pushing to widen it to four lanes and there has been a drive to four-lane it for decades.

Meanwhile, you could take the existing super-2 portion of the Mountain Parkway and place it in any of following areas, and the residents of those areas would think that an interstate had been built for them:

Between Irvine and Stanton
Between Irvine and McKee
Between Frenchburg and Owingsville
Between Beattyville and Irvine
Between Beattyville and Jackson
Between Booneville and Jackson
Between Booneville and Manchester
Between Harlan and Hyden
Between Harlan and Hazard
Across Pine Mountain on US 119
Between Morehead and Sandy Hook
Between Sandy Hook and Louisa
Between Inez and Warfield
Between Warfield and South Williamson
Between Manchester and Berea
Between Monticello and Whitley City/Stearns

[kphoger]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

And am I not allowed to support both good road infrastructure and good public transit at the same time?

You are and you are not.

On one level I support both since both are nice to have.

However, in the real world we have tradeoffs. Every dollar spent on one is a dollar that cannot be spent on the other. So while you can support both in theory, you must in reality choose one over the other at all times. Which is not to say you cannot strike a balance, but the rival nature of resources has to account for something, so there is that angle.

If better transit removes some of the drivers from the roads, then it is possible that the existing road system will better serve the remaining drivers–thus providing a functional improvement to the road system.

Of course, the difference will invariably be negligible.

[HighwayStar]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

According to consensus on this forum, the states with bad road infrastructure are NM, IL (except the tollways), PA (where HighwayStar lives, although that's a statewide assessment and it might be different in Philadelphia), and OK.

Most of the northeast has poor roads, not just Philadelphia. DC, Baltimore, New York, and Boston all suffer for lack of infrastructure.

I also find the criticism of Atlanta, Dallas, Houston highways to be superficial. Maybe by some technical measure the congestion is "worse" but I find it far easier to get around any of those than Philly or Chicago.
And even to the extent it is not, I would much rather spend an extra 10 minutes in a Town Car in Houston waiting for traffic to clear than ride public transit in the likes of Philly or Chicago.

[sprjus4]

Baltimore not having I-70 continue to I-95 is not a "lack of infrastructure" .

[HighwayStar]

Baltimore not having I-70 continue to I-95 is not a "lack of infrastructure" .

Oh yes it is. So is the fact that I-95 has a gap in DC, the fact that I-76 is 4 lanes leaving Philadelphia, the fact that I-95 was half assed through Boston, and the fact that NYC has few freeways at all.

[SkyPesos]

I also find the criticism of Atlanta, Dallas, Houston highways to be superficial. Maybe by some technical measure the congestion is "worse" but I find it far easier to get around any of those than Philly or Chicago.
And even to the extent it is not, I would much rather spend an extra 10 minutes in a Town Car in Houston waiting for traffic to clear than ride public transit in the likes of Philly or Chicago.

Granted public transit in US cities aren't that great compared to the rest of the world, but would you still avoid riding a comparable European city's rail transit, or high speed rail for intercity trips, like the plague in favor of driving on their crowded roads and highways?

[sprjus4]

Baltimore not having I-70 continue to I-95 is not a "lack of infrastructure" .

Oh yes it is.

The I-70 extension would have been nice to have been built, but it's really not the end of the world as you make it out to be. I-695 to I-95 is a viable alternative and has comparable travel times. Anyone heading to Downtown is using that routing, which is all freeway and not losing anything. You act like it's the end of the world and they have to travel blocks of city streets, severely clogging up local routes, taking 30+ minutes to travel a few miles, etc. It's not, not even close.

How much traffic is truly heading to Downtown Baltimore that's overwhelming the other routes, of which are built with 8+ lanes, are fully controlled access interstate highways, and have a free flowing flyover at the I-695 / I-95 junction?

[kphoger]

And even to the extent it is not, I would much rather spend an extra 10 minutes in a Town Car in Houston waiting for traffic to clear than ride public transit in the likes of Philly or Chicago.

What does your preference have to do with anything?

I, for one, love taking public transit in Chicago.  I'm currently planning a family vacation there, and my plan is to leave the car at the hotel and never get in it again till it's time to go home.  One of the things I look forward to the most is that my kids will get to ride the L for the first time.

[TXtoNJ]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

You've got the chain of causality backwards. Public transit is supported where comprehensive road infrastructure is almost wholly inappropriate. Good roads are built where necessary (largely due to past policy decisions that are hard to reverse).

And there are far more boondoggle roads than public transit projects.

[paulthemapguy]

The "one should use the freeway system as the backbone of all local trips" mindset was something I had growing up, lost in college, and only regained upon moving to the Capital District.  The "one should use the interstate system as the backbone of all trips" mindset only developed upon moving here...

New York in Illinois are similar in that they have the highest quantities of 2-digit Interstates* (i.e. they rank second and first, respectively).  Illinois has expressways, whose miles are almost entirely labeled with some Interstate designation--even the tollways.  This notion of using Interstates as the backbone of every trip is very prevalent here, even if the density of expressways in Chicagoland is overall pretty sparse considering the massive sprawl of this metropolis.  Illinois has expressways that are fully limited-access, 55-mph country roads, and 45-mph 4-lane roads in the suburbs.  That's about it for highways.  This state sees no other options.  The rural expressway is almost a foreign concept, though the advent of IL-336 in recent years is challenging the lack of intermediate highway options.

Another facet of growing up in Chicagoland: tollways are accepted as normal.  They might not be considered anything besides aggravating to some, but they're at least recognized as a part of normal life.  We simply get ourselves an IPass at the local supermarket, and move on.  And at least around here, the tollways are built and maintained to a higher standard than that of the freeways.


*Fully realized Interstates.  For example, I-2, I-69, and I-14 in Texas can buzz off.

[kphoger]

Another facet of growing up in Chicagoland: tollways are accepted as normal.  They might not be considered anything besides aggravating to some, but they're at least recognized as a part of normal life.

And, I might add, a convenient way to get rid of unwanted spare change!  That is, before they stopped taking cash...

[hotdogPi]

Another facet of growing up in Chicagoland: tollways are accepted as normal.  They might not be considered anything besides aggravating to some, but they're at least recognized as a part of normal life.

And, I might add, a convenient way to get rid of unwanted spare change!  That is, before they stopped taking cash...

For a while, I usually gave exact change at businesses if I have it; I still do for some totals. (I've used up most of my dimes and nickels except for the ones in my collection.) Most businesses give out more coins than they receive.

[Roadgeekteen]

Baltimore not having I-70 continue to I-95 is not a "lack of infrastructure" .

Oh yes it is. So is the fact that I-95 has a gap in DC, the fact that I-76 is 4 lanes leaving Philadelphia, the fact that I-95 was half assed through Boston, and the fact that NYC has few freeways at all.

Oh no not this again

[skluth]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

[Flint1979]

Detroit is a city that lives and dies by the automobile. I guess considering it's the Motor City that is just a bit ironic but mass transit is pretty non existent in Detroit. The bus system is really the only public transportation available. The People Mover keeps you downtown, the QLine is basically a supplement to the Woodward bus route and only takes you to Grand Blvd., DDOT's Route 4 takes you to 8 Mile.

The freeway system is vast as it was built for a city of 2 million people (metro area currently has around 4.2 million). The Lodge, Chrysler, Fisher, Ford and Jeffries all take you out of town. Lack of infrastructure is that Detroit doesn't have a better transit system. The freeways are routinely jammed up with traffic and the lack of a mass transit system is part of the problem. Even Cleveland (a city that has roughly the same population density that Detroit does) has a subway granted it's only one line, the other's are Light Rail.

[TheStranger]

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

I worked for 6 years in SF in Civic Center before the pandemic has afforded me the opportunity to work from home, and rode BART probably 70% of the time.

I hesitate to call 2010s-present BART "clean" for the most part, and did opt to drive to work if I was heading outside of the downtown core afterward, or simply wanted to avoid the unkempt stations. 

SF's transit setup is so oriented towards the downtown core and Mission Street that anything west of Divisadero only works on a transit level if one is either right on the 38 line (Geary) or along the streetcar lines (i.e. the N Judah and L Taraval).  Otherwise car usage becomes much more important again in the Richmond District and in most of the Sunset.

BART had proposed a Geary line in the 1960s (which would have partially replaced the streetcar service that ended on that street in 1956-1957) but that died out when the extension to Marin County via Golden Gate Bridge was nixed, and has never been revisited.  A second transbay tube is in long-term planning, though not slated to exist before 2040 or so.

[SkyPesos]

SF's transit setup is so oriented towards the downtown core and Mission Street that anything west of Divisadero only works on a transit level if one is either right on the 38 line (Geary) or along the streetcar lines (i.e. the N Judah and L Taraval).  Otherwise car usage becomes much more important again in the Richmond District and in most of the Sunset.

Yea that's a flaw I see with BART; not enough coverage for a dense area like SF. And both Muni and VTA light rail aren't that great in terms of service quality (and maybe even coverage) for SF and SJ respectively imo.

A BART line under Geary (thinking probably either a Blue or Green line reroute) would be great for that area, though I don't see it happen in the near future unfortunately.

[HighwayStar]

Generally speaking, those from regions with poor road infrastructure are quick to support "public transit" schemes and other boondoggles, while those who know what good roads look like prefer good road infrastructure.

Like what regions?

I'd say it's more about population density than how good the roads are. Dense urban areas like NYC, SF, DC, and Chicago all support public transit because driving in those urban areas is usually more difficult than hopping on a subway or other transit. A lot of people think most of the US needs to drive while forgetting the sheer mass of people living in urban areas. The NYC metro area alone is almost 19M people. Driving was near impossible the one time I visited NYC in the late 70's. It hasn't gotten better. I didn't mind the subway, though it's not as pretty or clean as the DC Metro or BART. These metro areas have transit comparable to those found in Europe or Japan.

Less dense urban areas tend to revolve around the car. Dallas, LA, and Kansas City are all good examples of less dense metros. All have minimal transit systems for their size, especially compared to similar-sized cities in Europe and East Asia.

Those areas support public transport because the roads are awful to start with and because so many people are too broke to afford a car anyway.