Streetsblog Capitol Hill » Report: Get Out of the Highway-Obsessed Eisenhower Era

Streetsblog Capitol Hill » Report: Get Out of the Highway-Obsessed Eisenhower Era

The Federal tax to spend ratio for highways has always been disproportional. So there needs to be a solutions, especially since discretionary funding is being cut. However, if the Federal government gets out of highway spending, politicians on both sides of the isle will cry foul. Federal funding has always been critical for our nation's highway infrastructure.

The solutions suggested in the report are fair. Yet will never fly in the political atmosphere. It's amazing how many people don't realize their gas tax comes no where near to paying for the road infrastructure (as noted in the report). The highways system is way more costly than most people realize.

The sad thing is even if the highway problem got solved, other forms of transportation aren't anywhere near to a solution. The populous wouldn't support any tax raise for highways, let alone transit.

And our infrastructure crumbles, traffic becomes worse, and we become more and more dependent on one form of transportation. 

Letter: We pay for our suburban lifestyle | Opinion | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, LA

Letter: We pay for our suburban lifestyle | Opinion | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, LA

Love the comments pertaining to the dangers of urban Baton Rouge. While I don't live within the exact areas being discussed (Baton Rouge does have some of the higher murder rates within this country)... I do live within a mile of these areas, and my street isn't short of street solicitors and the occasional gun shot. Yet, I walk daily. In fact, the only time I use my car is for my commute to work. Imagine. Five years later, I'm still alive.

I also love the fact that it is totally incomprehensible for people of all ages to walk for groceries, etc.... when it was the only form of transportation less than 75 years ago. Imagine what they did thousands of years before the car?!? Imagine the 8 million people in New York today; and the countless other urban cities (including our very own New Orleans). How are we not loosing millions of people a day to shootings, heat stroke, and overall depression because of people's urban lifestyle.

I'm OK with people saying that they would rather live in the suburbs. But it's a lifestyle choice. It has nothing to do with safety. So don't rationalize my tax dollars being used to keep yourself safe.

Why America’s Young And Restless Will Abandon Cities For Suburbs | Newgeography.com

Why America’s Young And Restless Will Abandon Cities For Suburbs | Newgeography.com

Generational movements are interesting to observe, mainly because it shows trend progressions. While statistics back the trend of young people (20's and 30's) choosing inner-cities, the article shows a movement back to the the suburbs. As an urban dweller and suburban worker, I like this trend. The site specific boom and bust periods of housing markets might be over. Instead of developing one area and leaving the other to decay, maybe the market can finally utilize both. It would finally take the strain off city infrastructure - both urban and rural. This housing crisis somewhat proved this theory. It wasn't an industrial revolution that left the rural areas in poverty; and it wasn't a white flight period that left the urban areas in shambles. This crisis was (more or less) felt across the market.

While I may personally not like the suburban life, many of my millennial friends have opted for this transition. But here's the kicker. They opt for the suburbs under certain conditions. Most are buying into communities that hold the urban qualities of convenience and choice, while making sure it fits in the the suburban gimmicks of 'new', spread out, and car oriented. I contend this development is more expensive. Given they are less dense and need more infrastructure (thus should pay more). But that's another topic for another day.

What I don't get is Louisiana. The national trend of buying in both the suburbs and cities seem to hold statistically true. Yet for none of the same reasons. Most urban areas are still dilapidated with little public improvements; while developers in the suburbs aren't blending housing with convenience.

The reason? Maybe status quo? Or are their still underlying factors? Houses are newer in the suburbs here, but traffic is still horrible, environmental conditions are troublesome, jobs aren't following (companies normally follow the populous), and the suburbs aren't incorporating convenience/choice into developments. Which is not the present day national trend for the suburbs. So one can only conclude our movement is still directly related to crime, poverty, and lack of education. Which Louisiana (Baton Rouge and New Orleans especially) rank at the bottom tier of all those. But since the bedroom communities are OK with the status quo, infrastructure investment isn't happening. Neither are developers taking more concern in future trends. That's OK now... but ten years we will be stuck with development that people don't want (let alone are sustainable with our current infrastructure).

Streetsblog.net » Dallas Demonstrates How Not to Build a Modern Streetcar

Streetsblog.net » Dallas Demonstrates How Not to Build a Modern Streetcar

I like Dallas. But there are many things I don't get about Dallas. One of those things in their transit system. They have a very extensive system, and with exception to this new line, it seems well thought out. The suburban park and rides are cheap and easy; the rail in the inner city services many of the old business districts; and they have developed many TOD's around new stations. Yet on visits to Dallas (including my most recent), no one uses the system. I mean, Generation X and Y'ers will use transit purely on principal. I mean common, Portland built an entire city overnight based on that principal. Now the city is dependent on their system.

Then enter Dallas. The system has been in place almost as long as Portland's and Washington, DC's. yet it obviously hasn't taken hold like those two cities. Mind you, I haven't been there during the work week and I can only hope it's utilized by commuters. But the fact people my age never consider the alternative, I don't have high hopes. Maybe the system is still too new. Maybe the car is just too prevalent. Maybe it's just the south. But even people in New Orleans use the highly inefficient Streetcar just, well, because.

But the only thing that I can think of is the CATS tax initiative and how the Dallas outcome would kill anything transit in Baton Rouge forever. And as always, I fear the worse. People say they would definitely ride a train over a bus. Yet at the end of the day, the underlying concepts are the same. And those underlying cocepts need to be at the forefront from the planning stages, all the way through to execution. Somewhere it was lost in Dallas. And Baton Rouge doesn't have the convenience of a nice highway infrastructure to fall back on like Dallas.

Although I find it a little hypocritical, if not just wrong, I drive two miles to the LSU/City Park Lakes to do my four our five mile jog on the weekends. I mean, partaking in outdoor recreation should not start with a trip in your car. But I find it difficult to run in Mid City. Where there are sidewalk, there are so many curb cuts that a leisurely run into a stressful activity of checking countless curb cuts. In fact, the Capital Heights "project" just rubs salt in the wounds of the pedestrian IMO. It took a two lane road, re-stripped the road to kinda sorta make an attempt to accommodate bikes and pedestrians. Now Mid City has a "walkway" that doubles as illegal street parking, that runs alongside a one-way, high speed road that is one constant curb cut.

Thus I'd rather drive two miles to City Park. This is, in fact, the only place within the neighborhoods that provide a safe environment (because of course, the river trail is a great resource). Yet every time I run the lakes I am sickened. It's a great place. Integrated within in the heart of Baton Rouge, linking the the neighborhoods and downtown (or could) with the University. At any given day, the path is filled with countless people. Well, where there is a path. Because of course the entire east side of the lakes has no path. Instead it is a dangerous winding narrow walkway/road. But then again, I wouldn't call the five foot wide path on the western portion "safe" either. Not only is it narrow, but bikes and pedestrian's are suppose to share the path. Which does not coexist very well at all.

So you think the city AND university would have this entire area in view for a major renovation. (I mean, there are so many grants, both private and public that could accomplish this project). Most major cities in the past five or ten years have established a lengthy bike and pedestrian trail through their city. Usually they have come about through vacated rail lines; but they can also be established along waterways, and even existing sidewalk right of ways. New Orleans is finally getting the LaFitte Grenway (2) stated; Minneapolis has had a long history of a citywide system; Atlanta's PATH system; Buffalo Bayou in Houston; and an interesting urban trail in Indiana called the Cultural Trail, which connects to the 10 mile Monon Trail. 

Instead Baton Rouge has a rough, five foot wide, asphalt trail that links City Park to the University. ALong the trail, mixed signage makes an allusive suggestions that pedestrians aren't even suppose to be there. However, because of the abundance of pedestrians, bikes have basically vacated their trail to use Dalrymple Drive instead. Some of my favorites portions of the trail are the crosswalks. They are marked as "bicycle crossings". Which (by no law I know of) gives the legal right for a car to yield to bicycles. However, does the car have to yield to pedestrians (as the law states). Or are pedestrians not allowed in the bicycle crossings?

How can the City and University have such a jewel, and not even have an update plan on the books?

Inner-City Bus

I was going through my news feed (like I always do) and I saw a posting on MegaBus and how it undermines High Speed Rail. Of course, this statement hits so out of the ballpark for me (as a Louisianian), that the claim is isolated in my head to a far off world. Yet I can relate. When I left the Midwest, MegaBus had just created a hub in Chicago; and my friends on the East Coast have definitely been using MegaBus for a while... not to mention everyone in Europe.

So what's the problem? MegaBus is still a regional transportation option, and if you live on the East Coast with limited financial means, MegaBus is a great alternative to high speed rail if you have the extra time. Maybe from an East Coast perspective, it does take away ridership numbers on the Acela line... But coming from the Midwest MegaBus was just the next step to strengthen regional transportation. We (my generation ) is pulling teeth to get any kind of regional transit because the 40/50/60-somethings don't think efficient (i.e. attracts low income people). MegaBus is changing the perspective... and might I say fast. I left Indiana five years ago with no MegaBus. Now Chicago hubs lines to all the major cities. The more regional transportation options, the more people will diversify their transportation. Not only is the Midwest expanding MegaBus, they are also upgrading their Amtrak lines, including the nation's second high speed rail line to St. Louis. More options beget more options.

Heck, after seeing the article I didn't look for more articles supporting this theory... I did a Google search to see if MegaBus was looking to expand outside the East and Midwest. A Houston/Dallas/New Orleans hub? Please? While I appreciate Greyhound. I'm a 20-somethings (almost thirty) and totally fall for the more mainstream version of MegaBus. I mean, common. They look cool. They have wireless and TV. AND it's so European (company gone American). Brings me back to my backpacking days.

Urban Highways

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0302/Downtown-need-a-makeover-More-cities-are-razing-urban-highways

Just an interesting article concerning urban highways. A lot of cities in the past decade have been rethinking urban highways. Boston with the Big Dig and San Francisco with the Embarcadero Expressway (way back in the 80s I think). Now New Orleans wants to remove I-10 through downtown.

Interstate Highways are not the best way to provoke urban development. People can claim it's for traffic efficiency, but my personal anecdotal experience cries foul on that theory. I've seen many urban boulevards that carry a high traffic volume at high speeds. Yet they still provide road frontage for development that don't divide neighborhoods. Take Spanish Town: one side of  I-110 is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city, while on the other side is vacant land, hugely separated by the remaining of the Spanish Town subdivision. The highway concept stopped development abruptly from crossing the interstate.

Yet, the fast moving traffic only cuts a few minutes off a trip because most people aren't traveling a great distance. But when there is an accident, traffic is stuck on the interstate with a lack of connectivity. No alternative choices, except at the interchanges that are a mess because hundreds of cars are exiting in one place.

Sometimes you can get interesting spaces like the Perkins Overpass, or down by the Mississippi River Bridge. But those are far and few between. Even so, they are not good public spaces to say the least. It is only interesting because, well, it's kinda shady. No matter how hard cities have tried, you can't make these places "attractive". It's too loud, harsh, and just creepy. But it does provide wonderful parking areas.

So, in my opinion, the urban highway is a traffic efficiency myth.