|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#101
January 17th 05, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
| Ads |
|
#102
January 17th 05, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:50:29 -0600, (Brent > P) wrote: > >>In article >, Dave Head wrote: >>> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an >>> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to >>> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth. >> >>Who's homes are you going to tear down? > The ones that are on a line between point A and point B. > Give them 2X the value of their property - 1X for the property, the other for > the inconvenience of having to relocate suddenly, and get on with the concrete > and rebar. Homeowner opposition to relocating would virtually evaporate > overnight. The problem might become people bribing engineers to locate the > roadway thru their property. Where is this money going to come from? Oh and around here, the elected officals and their budies would buy up the property at market rate knowing what was coming before anyone else. Nice corruption opertunity you create there. And guess what? Adding lanes won't do much good because the blockers will STILL manage to end up side by side. Even at 2-3am I still encounter clumps because 3-6 drivers have managed to get themselves close enough together as to form a moving road block. Where there is no way to safely get around. Net improvement from adding lanes alone will be small without lane displine given the traffic volumes. There is no way to get traffic density down to rural 1930s levels where all the idiotcy and sloth doesn't make a difference. Where "consideration" doesn't delay people. >>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population >>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades >>ago. > > That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4 > - $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much > expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. We can drive excessively and correctly. They are not exclusive. Driving well is not difficult. Too many people have simply been taught to be self centered and lazy. Oh, and to pay for roads to get traffic densities down to rural 1930s levels will likely mean at least $6 a gallon gasolone.
|
|
#103
January 17th 05, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:50:29 -0600, (Brent > P) wrote: > >>In article >, Dave Head wrote: >>> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an >>> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to >>> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth. >> >>Who's homes are you going to tear down? > The ones that are on a line between point A and point B. > Give them 2X the value of their property - 1X for the property, the other for > the inconvenience of having to relocate suddenly, and get on with the concrete > and rebar. Homeowner opposition to relocating would virtually evaporate > overnight. The problem might become people bribing engineers to locate the > roadway thru their property. Where is this money going to come from? Oh and around here, the elected officals and their budies would buy up the property at market rate knowing what was coming before anyone else. Nice corruption opertunity you create there. And guess what? Adding lanes won't do much good because the blockers will STILL manage to end up side by side. Even at 2-3am I still encounter clumps because 3-6 drivers have managed to get themselves close enough together as to form a moving road block. Where there is no way to safely get around. Net improvement from adding lanes alone will be small without lane displine given the traffic volumes. There is no way to get traffic density down to rural 1930s levels where all the idiotcy and sloth doesn't make a difference. Where "consideration" doesn't delay people. >>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population >>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades >>ago. > > That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4 > - $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much > expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. We can drive excessively and correctly. They are not exclusive. Driving well is not difficult. Too many people have simply been taught to be self centered and lazy. Oh, and to pay for roads to get traffic densities down to rural 1930s levels will likely mean at least $6 a gallon gasolone.
|
|
#105
January 17th 05, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:27:26 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote: >In article >, Dave Head wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:50:29 -0600, (Brent >> P) wrote: >> >>>In article >, Dave Head wrote: >>>> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an >>>> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to >>>> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth. >>> >>>Who's homes are you going to tear down? > >> The ones that are on a line between point A and point B. >> Give them 2X the value of their property - 1X for the property, the other for >> the inconvenience of having to relocate suddenly, and get on with the concrete >> and rebar. Homeowner opposition to relocating would virtually evaporate >> overnight. The problem might become people bribing engineers to locate the >> roadway thru their property. > >Where is this money going to come from? Same place it comes from now, augmented with the savings from not having to battle innumerable homeowners who oppose the new road. >Oh and around here, the elected >officals and their budies would buy up the property at market rate >knowing what was coming before anyone else. Nice corruption opertunity >you create there. Just as long as the road gets built - fine. You can put these people in jail later, but at least the road would be built. >And guess what? Adding lanes won't do much good because the blockers will >STILL manage to end up side by side. Even at 2-3am I still encounter >clumps because 3-6 drivers have managed to get themselves close enough >together as to form a moving road block. Where there is no way to safely >get around. Another reason we need more roads as well as wide ones. Get enough roads, and there won't be enough traffic available to allow them to do that. >>>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population >>>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades >>>ago. >> >> That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4 >> - $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much >> expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. >Oh, and to pay for roads to get traffic densities down to rural 1930s >levels will likely mean at least $6 a gallon gasolone. I don't think so. Another way to increase the capacity of roads would be to build up the rail systems and force the end to long-haul trucking. The only damn trucks in the mix should be local delivery, not these 2000-3000 mile treckkers that clog up the roadways thru every city and town that the interstate highway system passes through and beat the **** out of the roads so we only have 2 seasons - winter and construction. We need rapid loading and unloading trains, and no sitting in railyards/railheads waiting for something/anything. Train arrives with a trailer, there better be a tractor there waiting to start moving it again - don't care if its 3AM.
|
|
#106
January 17th 05, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:27:26 -0600, (Brent P) wrote: <2x market rate> >>Where is this money going to come from? > Same place it comes from now, augmented with the savings from not having to > battle innumerable homeowners who oppose the new road. They will still oppose it. >>Oh and around here, the elected >>officals and their budies would buy up the property at market rate >>knowing what was coming before anyone else. Nice corruption opertunity >>you create there. > Just as long as the road gets built - fine. You can put these people in jail > later, but at least the road would be built. I'm not fond of giving elected and appointed officals more chances to line their pockets at public expense regardless of the outcome. >>And guess what? Adding lanes won't do much good because the blockers will >>STILL manage to end up side by side. Even at 2-3am I still encounter >>clumps because 3-6 drivers have managed to get themselves close enough >>together as to form a moving road block. Where there is no way to safely >>get around. > Another reason we need more roads as well as wide ones. More roads are even easier to block. It's more likely to get two of them together on two different roads than four of them on one road. > Get enough roads, and there won't be enough traffic available to allow them to > do that. To get to that density level, we would only have roads. There won't be anything along side them except the next road. >>>>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population >>>>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades >>>>ago. >>> That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4 >>> - $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much >>> expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. >>Oh, and to pay for roads to get traffic densities down to rural 1930s >>levels will likely mean at least $6 a gallon gasolone. > I don't think so. Then you don't understand the traffic volumes in question. > Another way to increase the capacity of roads would be to build up the rail > systems and force the end to long-haul trucking. See my countless posts on this topic.
|
|
#107
January 17th 05, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:27:26 -0600, (Brent P) wrote: <2x market rate> >>Where is this money going to come from? > Same place it comes from now, augmented with the savings from not having to > battle innumerable homeowners who oppose the new road. They will still oppose it. >>Oh and around here, the elected >>officals and their budies would buy up the property at market rate >>knowing what was coming before anyone else. Nice corruption opertunity >>you create there. > Just as long as the road gets built - fine. You can put these people in jail > later, but at least the road would be built. I'm not fond of giving elected and appointed officals more chances to line their pockets at public expense regardless of the outcome. >>And guess what? Adding lanes won't do much good because the blockers will >>STILL manage to end up side by side. Even at 2-3am I still encounter >>clumps because 3-6 drivers have managed to get themselves close enough >>together as to form a moving road block. Where there is no way to safely >>get around. > Another reason we need more roads as well as wide ones. More roads are even easier to block. It's more likely to get two of them together on two different roads than four of them on one road. > Get enough roads, and there won't be enough traffic available to allow them to > do that. To get to that density level, we would only have roads. There won't be anything along side them except the next road. >>>>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population >>>>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades >>>>ago. >>> That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4 >>> - $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much >>> expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. >>Oh, and to pay for roads to get traffic densities down to rural 1930s >>levels will likely mean at least $6 a gallon gasolone. > I don't think so. Then you don't understand the traffic volumes in question. > Another way to increase the capacity of roads would be to build up the rail > systems and force the end to long-haul trucking. See my countless posts on this topic.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
