Comments on: American Transport Policy, Stuck in Highway Mode

By: Future Schema

Future Schema — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:07:36 +0000

One aspect of this story that I find interesting, but is missing from this and other articles, is the progressive under-representation of urban areas in Congress. As urban areas have grown, the number of representatives has remained fixed. Congressional and state assembly districts, once created, do not go away, so as urban areas grow in residents and density, it becomes harder and harder for them to extract more representation in the legislature. Rural areas remain relatively more represented and they have been instrumental in keeping highway and road interests paramount. Virginia is a good example where the population of the state has remained relatively constant, the urban areas have grown and yet the power in the state house has turned more on the voting patterns of rural districts.

A shift to more transit oriented funding will hinge in part on urban areas gaining a greater voice in the legislatures.

By: Mad Park

Mad Park — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:13:58 +0000

@6 – In the end, the requirements outlined by various stakeholders in of the conurbation of Portland must be met. They are the folks, after all, who in some ways have shown the rest of us “The Way” on so many transport and planning issues. This is not to say MAX and the streetcar and the zoning guidelines, etc are perfect, but they started to DEAL with these issues a quarter of a century ago. The era of building highway-only bridges is over – multi purpose, multi functional are the 21st Centruy ways. The sooner we all absorb this, the better off we’ll be.

By: EngineerScotty

EngineerScotty — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:31:22 +0000

Part of the reason that the proposed Columbia River Crossing between Oregon and Washington (a replacement for the functionally-obsolete Interstate drawbridges where I-5 crosses the Columbia) is a widely-derided $4 billion piece of pork, is the need to please both transit and road lobbies in Oregon and Washingon State (let alone inside the Beltway).

Portland, OR won’t support the project unless it includes light-rail and pedestrian facilities. The two DOTs, and the feds, want to bring a five-mile stretch of I-5, with the bridge at the center, up to current highway standards (right now there are numerous closely-spaced interchanges and too-short onramps on both sides of the river). Other cheaper options, such as an auxilary bridge adjacent to the existing bridges, seem to be completely out of scope, based on the project requirements set forth by ODOT and WSDOT.

It will be interesting to see what happens; as nobody on either side of the river seems interested in paying the current pricetag…

By: Deacon

Deacon — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:06:54 +0000

“In other words, by blackmailing the roads lobby…” IMHO lobbying and blackmailing are the same thing, its just a difference of where the money changes hands. Blackmailing the blackmailer and vice versa sounds like a lot of fiddle-dicking going on at the expense of the people

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:51:01 +0000

Sounds like our New York State Legislature. Democrats and Republicans working together to derail progressive reforms and screw the people of New York!

By: BLambert

BLambert — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:26:58 +0000

Fair enough.

By: Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:02:04 +0000

I suppose I meant both.

By: BLambert

BLambert — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:57:15 +0000

I’m pretty sure you mean “monomaniacal” and not “megalomaniacal” there…