No actually I do trust you. I trust that you are honest about this, I just think your wrong. Trustworthy people can be mistaken as easily as anyone else.
What evidence do you have that makes it wrong?
.during the developmental stages of the highway, developers come in and start to develop the land adjacent to the new road. By the time the new road is opened, what was once rural has been developed, causing the freeway to be close to full capacity if not at full capacity when it opens for traffic.
Most highway building isn't out in to rural areas. Its in to suburbs or as bypasses of urban areas or widening of existing roads.
Now in the beginning, when there was just the Earth and the Garden of Eden, God said unto Moses, "Go forth and multiply". Oh sorry, wrong theory!
When the freeways were first discussed in the 40s, 50s and 60s their proposed rights of way were intended to go as far out as what was then considered country. The reasoning was that as metro areas grew, and in the 50s and 60 they were growing very fast, commuters would have good roads to allow them to commute back and forth to their work downtown.
Urban beltways like the one that encircles DC were intended to bypass cities because the earlier built freeways were too congested to be carrying through traffic. However, the beltways experienced the same fate as the freeways. As soon as their rights of way were known, developers began to build apts., offices, and retail so that when the beltways opened, they too were met with almost full capacity.
It was a beltway on which Boston's hi tech industry developed. It was so successful at drawing hi tech projects, Boston had the state and Feds build a second beltway to encourage more hi tech development. Frankly, you must know about what I speak........according to past posts, you drive the DC beltway everyday.
besides people want thre own house with their own land at a sem-reasonable price. Sprawl is going to happen even without highways in to formerly rural areas.
Sprawl does not have to be as bad as in LA, or Dallas or Phoenix. We have ways of mitigating its impact......but our laissez faire economy opposes any kind of restrictions. Eventually, those cities that follow the LA model will strangle on their own traffic.
And I was talking about road building not just highway building.
And it is not just new road building that environmental laws and regulations stop. The road that I take to work is being improved but half of the overpasses that they where going to build are not going to be built now because of money taken away from road contstruction because of violations in air quality regulations. So now the cars will sit at lights and polute more.
There is a lot of implementation of counterproductive laws because of the conflicting jurisdictions in a metro area. In places like Mpls and Portland, OR, they have a kind of metro gov't that oversees everything that's going on in the metro area and it is able to reduce the numbers of conflict laws. Other places do not have an overseeing umbrella and so things are a mess.
Plus environmental laws are based on logic. DC has some of the worst air in the country particularly in the summer. Logically, you would think people would not want to live there. Logically, you would think residents who currently live in the DC area would pass laws that restrict future development. However, people are not logical when it comes to where they live and how they view future development. That's where the conflict comes into play.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
