Highway Bill ends soon...funding at stake: here we go again!

[Revive 755]

Is it really a national disaster if Oklahoma uses blue guide signs or if Nebraska uses the Swiss road font? Every traffic light on earth uses red for stop and green for go without a single UN mandate, because standards for actual life-critical details will be naturally implemented over time.

For the same reason everyone who posts on here uses the same font, size, and color.

I'm not sure that is a valid conclusion; I just usually post the same because I don't want to take the time changing the font, while for a state to deviate from the national norm all they have to do is write a new standard specification.

[J N Winkler]

Again, when is the last time you have seen a "whites only" sign or other blatant racism? Okay, there are a few bad apples in a county of 300 million, but racism is pretty much gone by now. I included that statement as a reply to JN Winkler's remark about how state DOT's had a history of being racist. I don't deny the past that they may have racial intentions, but while there may be a few bad apples inside the DOT, as a whole they are colorblind.

Actually, I did not say that state DOTs (or their predecessor agencies) had a history of being racist; instead, I made that observation in relation to regulated transportation providers like bus companies and railroads.  In the case of state DOTs the historical record is actually rather mixed.  State DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent.  These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.  On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class.  The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind:  think of the title character in Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.

It is a fundamental part of the common-carrier obligation of regulated transportation providers that they will carry the traffic offered without fear or favor.  This is why Norman Mineta, USDOT secretary during 9/11 and one of the nisei subjected to forced resettlement during World War II, reminded the airlines that they were not to discriminate against Muslims or anyone else when he re-opened American airspace for civilian travel.

[hbelkins]

Racism is far from dead, but overt racism has been mostly erased.

So too, I would assert, is institutionalized racism.

State DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent.  These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.  On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class.  The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind...

Talk about some wild-assed and overly generalized and stereotyping statements...

[cpzilliacus]

Actually, I did not say that state DOTs (or their predecessor agencies) had a history of being racist; instead, I made that observation in relation to regulated transportation providers like bus companies and railroads.  In the case of state DOTs the historical record is actually rather mixed.  State DOTs will recruit blue-collar workers (generally maintenance employees like snowplow operators) from segments of the population in which discriminatory attitudes are highly prevalent.

Increasingly, low-level hourly labor, even at state DOTs, is provided by the private sector.  Virginia DOT uses private companies to maintain very nearly all of its Interstate system these days.  Quite  a few "laborers" working for Maryland SHA are actually employed by private-sector firms.

These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.

Recruitment for public-sector civil service jobs is generally done without regard to skin color or (in many states) sexual preference.

On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class.  The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind:  think of the title character in Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.

Have you considered that many of those jobs require a college education?  In some cases a graduate degree?

[J N Winkler]

These attitudes are less likely to include overt racism these days, though it is still there, but now prominently feature naked homophobia.

Recruitment for public-sector civil service jobs is generally done without regard to skin color or (in many states) sexual preference.

The obligation not to discriminate attaches to the state DOT that does the hiring, not to the employees that are hired, and it requires continuing personnel management to ensure that any latent prejudices recruits bring into the organization do not blossom into a hostile working environment.

BTW, I wouldn't recommend referring to sexual orientation as "sexual preference."

On the other hand, state DOTs recruit their white-collar employees (primarily engineers and administrators) from among professionally trained people, who are almost invariably drawn from the middle class.  The American middle class, regardless of period or geographical location, likes and has always liked to pretend that it is color-blind:  think of the title character in Driving Miss Daisy insisting furiously to her black chauffeur that she is not a racist, and then inviting him to join her to hear a speech by Martin Luther King purely as an afterthought.

Have you considered that many of those jobs require a college education?  In some cases a graduate degree?

Yup.  That is actually my point.  The minimum qualification for engineering-related positions at most state DOTs is a BSCE.  For other white-collar non-engineering positions a bachelor's degree tends to be required as well.  The people who meet these qualifications have managed to find the resources to go to college and finish a four-year college degree, and therefore have at least one foot in the middle class if they are not themselves middle-class.

[on_wisconsin]

Hey has anyone had a chance to actually read the bill, if so are there any surprises or significant changes in it?

[Scott5114]

Hey has anyone had a chance to actually read the bill, if so are there any surprises or significant changes in it?

There is this:

"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.

I interpret that as cutting AASHTO out of the loop on Interstate designations. I mean, I guess FHWA could still require AASHTO to sign off on anything first before they'll okay it, but it reads like if FHWA wishes they can just sign off on it, and then it becomes an Interstate.

EDIT: More interesting stuff: I-11 has been given the I-99 treatment and has been written into law.

[route56]

There is this:

"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.

So, if the USDOT Secretary (with the suggestion of the KDOT secretary) decides that US 69 between KC and Fort Scott makes sense to receive an interstate designation, we could see a I-535 or I-149 in Kansas?

[Zmapper]

I wanted to touch on the argument that Milwaukee and Chicago have high transit ridership just like Toronto. I use boardings-per-capita because that statistic considers not only work trips, but also school, shopping, and all other trips. To figure out this statistic you take the annual ridership of the transit agency you are looking at and divide that by the number of residences in the city or region.

While researching, I see that someone already did the work for me: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4066462&postcount=15

Toronto has 181 boardings, Chicago has 78, and Milwaukee has 38. Not... even... close...

The most likely reason for this has to do with the suburbs. Toronto has divided transit agencies that only focus on their area, which makes it easier to service all areas. The TTC can focus on Toronto, and run service most appropriate to an inter-city region. Mississauga, Brampton, YRT, and DRT can focus on their decent sized urban areas, which means that all suburbs get transit service useful to them.

In a transit-friendly city, 25% or so of all jobs are in the CBD. Sure, those 25% are the easiest to service, but it is the 75% of jobs not in the CBD that matter. If you only focus on one-fourth of the total market, you will only capture one-fourth of your possible ridership. Toronto makes it easy to access your suburban job, first by actually servicing your job location, and second by running a grid system so that you can get anywhere-to-anywhere in a tolerable amount of time. Transit agencies in the US either don't service the suburbs at all, or they run a 7a-7p M-F service only useful as a senior lifeline.

A Melbourne based transit advocacy group has written more on this: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density.shtml Basically, if your city is big enough to have traffic congestion, it is big enough to have useful public transit.

EDIT: Ames, IA, the large transit-mecca that everyone knows about, where Democrats are always elected and cars are banned, has a per-capita ridership of about 105. You don't need to be a world city to have a functioning transit system that attracts riders.