Commuter Buzz: "You can not build enough lanes on Interstate 4 to take care of the problem," Senator Ben Nelson said in Orlando. "We need to go to alternative forms of transportation."

 

Go Florida!

Toledo didn't make the list, nice. There really aren't many areas where traffic backs up.

 

Commuter Buzz: "The main gist is widening, adding more lanes for traffic to flow easier," Ohio Department of Transportation spokesperson Liz Lyons told The Cincinnati Enquirer Nov. 2, 2009, about new construction on I-75.

 

Yeah, that will solve all your problems... :roll:

 

It actually is needed on i-75. If it were the number of lanes on 75 and 71 were reversed, I'd say let it be but i-75 in some areas through Cincinnati is dangerously narrow due to the large number of 18 wheel trucks.

 

They probably would have done it a long time ago but there is some major bureacratic tape and negotiating that has to take place when you're trying to cut into the city's prescious park land.

Now that I think about it, those trucks should just have to pay a toll to use 75 through Cincinnati. That would force a lot of them to just cross over from the Norwood lat. or Ronald Reagan and alleviate congestion. Make them pay a ridiculously large toll!

Now that I think about it, those trucks should just have to pay a toll to use 75 through Cincinnati. That would force a lot of them to just cross over from the Norwood lat. or Ronald Reagan and alleviate congestion. Make them pay a ridiculously large toll!

 

Much of the long-haul freight now on I-75 (and other interstates) should be in trailers on flatcars or in road-railers. If the interstate highway system were required to recover its operating costs and generate a competitive return on investment via tolls, a lot less long-haul freight would be rolling across the country on rubber tires on asphalt.

Now that I think about it, those trucks should just have to pay a toll to use 75 through Cincinnati. That would force a lot of them to just cross over from the Norwood lat. or Ronald Reagan and alleviate congestion. Make them pay a ridiculously large toll!

 

Much of the long-haul freight now on I-75 (and other interstates) should be in trailers on flatcars or in road-railers. If the interstate highway system were required to recover its operating costs and generate a competitive return on investment via tolls, a lot less long-haul freight would be rolling across the country on rubber tires on asphalt.

 

Yeah it would be interesting to see the trucking industry turn into something much more localized. The industry would clearly be scaled down but it would operate so efficiently.

If Cincy wants to keep semis out of the city, I imagine that banning hazardous chemical traffic inside 275 a la Columbus would cut semi traffic considerably. Most semis have at least something hazardous on them.

Usually a truck drivers' breath....

Pennsylvania agencies concerned about rejected toll road plan

 

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has announced it might have to drop more than 20 projects now that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has rejected Act 44, a plan to turn Interstate 80 into a toll road. The agency would have obtained funding from collected tolls.

 

At the top of the list is a $100 million project aimed at establishing a new fare collection system and $100 million project designed to reconstruct the Broad Street Line’s city hall station.

 

Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22970

 

Wait, Pennsylvania wanted to use tolls on Interstate 80 -- which carries a high proportion of out-of-state drivers, to fund non-highway transportation projects? Or projects that do not directly benefit Interstate 80 travelers?

 

This is the second time this proposal has been rejected by FHWA.

I mean look at this..... I can't achieve 15 mph with all these people in the way.  Make it a six lane bicycle freeway and call it a day

 

 

 

In all seriousness, there are plans for widening.

You... weren't kidding.

What a mess! If we could get more of them to drive cars instead, it would relieve a lot of congestion on the bike paths.

LOL, yet notice the Lakeshore expressway to the right.  It's jammed as well

 

 

Here's a rendering of what the new flyover ramp will look like near the LSD bridge.  It should help alleviate bicycle congestion and accidents.  At the very lease, it will take bicyclists above the park.  The bridge will cost $40 million to build.

 

 

 

Source: Chicago Journal

http://chicagojournal.com/Blogs/Near-Loop-Wire/12-17-2009/More_renderings_of_the_Navy_Pier_Flyover

 

 

 

 

So I think this flyover should be built immediately.  I was involved in a multi bicycle accident the other day on the Lakeshore Drive bridge.  I was behind a slow moving family of cyclists.  There were joggers ahead of them and a big crowd of cyclists in the oncoming direction.  This d-bag behind me couldn't wait until the passing lane opened after the bridge and tried to bypass it all.  Unfortunately he didn't notice the pinch before the bridge by a vertical steel column.  He had already passed me but one of the family members maneuvering around the column got side-swiped by this idiot.  They slam on the brakes and I had no choice but to head straight into the side of the column or else I end up hitting them from behind.  The steel rivots put a nice gash in my arm.  Keep in mind this involved a few "fender benders" with other cyclists.  Definitely not a tour-de-France accident, but one that could have gotten ugly.

 

In find it ironic that the detour for bikes when the bridge was under repair was much more safe and effective:

 

 

Biking has gotten too popular in Chicago.  While a good thing, the city's infrastructure needs to be upgraded to handle demands.  Some of the 1950's bridgework and approach ramps for the bike paths are too narrow, need higher railings, and better merge points. 

 

 

I hear you on that C-Dawg.  It's not only convenient but an awesome experience.  Flying through the city at night over bridges, through basements, under el tracks, past vibrant business districts, just something I can never explain to people.  My favorite is doing 35 mph down Michigan Ave at night when traffic clears out and the lights sit green a little longer.

 

 

 

 

    "And even more shocking is that despite the size of the city, the water is very clean. "

 

  Chicago gets its water supply from Lake Michigan, but discharges its wastewater to the Mississippi via the Chicago River and Illinois River. I can't think of another city in the world that is so well sited in terms of water and wastewater.

 

 

A solution for the bike path on the LSD bridge is way overdue.  You have families in those 4 wheelie rental things and douchebags that think they are in the tour de france.  Add rollerbladers flailing their arms and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Chicago gets its water supply from Lake Michigan, but discharges its wastewater to the Mississippi via the Chicago River and Illinois River. I can't think of another city in the world that is so well sited in terms of water and wastewater.

 

Man made design by the reversal of the river flow... and Chicago has been sued for it by states down the river.  Plus Lake Michigan is almost twice as deep as Erie and stays much colder

 

The beaches are closed a lot for high bacteria...they blame it on Milwaukee dumping it's waste in the lake.

As much as I like this city... (Chi.) It and the state of Illinois stewardship on rivers has been overall, really bad. Worse in many ways than Ohio, or Indiana. Just ask Professor Larry Page... http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/staff/Page.htm

 

Met him a few times... a wealth of knowledge about rivers. He used to teach in Illinois, I believe. He looks at river and sees things the untrained eye cannot see. He's amazing.

And this thread is a reminder of Chicago's greatest strength- urban beaches. No other Great Lakes city has as many public beaches as Chicago- not Toronto, not Milwaukee, not Cleveland, not Buffalo, not Toledo, not Duluth, etc.Public access to Lake Michigan is shockingly good. It's a model city in this regard. And even more shocking is that despite the size of the city, the water is very clean.

 

Good points. Cleveland proper has not a lot of shoreline to work with in terms of beach. Our shoreline we see now...especially near downtown, is mostly...all made from fill. I wish there were some remaining natural areas for beach environment. Look how it enhances a city as in the photos.

 

This kind of vision often seems to be difficult to get across here to the powers that be, because there is an archaic thought process that sees a place left in its natural condition as worthless. It would be nice to see some areas implemented with development and an attempt to restore or re-create a more natural shoreline where people can swim.

 

However, with the current disregard for what little shoreline we DO have in the proper, like Edgewater, (Ie: littering, sewage) I would only hope that increased access would not simply invite more. We really need an education about the natural attributes and functions of our shoreline here amongst the general public, so that we better respect it.

 

Many visitors to this park simply trash it. (Edgewater) Places where they respect and appreciate their beaches, you don't see nearly as much of this. Sydney has 100's of miles of beach and you are hard pressed  to find litter--and all walks of life visit them.

 

Here...  you can gather 5 bag fulls in just 50 yards if you look hard enough. This really has something to say about how some people see this resource. (as their trash can/sewer) If I were "dictator" for a day, I would do what Florida does in some state parks...charge a small admission. That will be enough to keep some of the riff raff out who poop on the place. Also, no throw-away items allowed in the park like plastic bottles. Instead, promote the use of items you would re-use and take home, etc.  I'd promise, you'd have a superior quality experience and shoreline.

 

Now, On rivers....one thing that is a no no to rivers based on what we know about their ecology today is channelization...and that is not something I would want to emulate. I will take the meandering Cuyahoga anyday over the channelized Chicago river.

 

  The Chicago River is not only channelized, but REVERSED. The equivalent would be reversing the Cuyahoga so that water flows from Lake Erie through the Cuyahoga eventually to the Ohio and Mississippi. Then, Cincinnati would get Cleveland's sewage as well as Pittsburgh's.

 

 

^Wow! Forgot about that part... 

What people perceive as clean in Chicago's rivers is only downtown.  The water downtown is perfectly safe for human contact though they still don't recommend drinking it. 

 

However...

 

The north and south branches are contaminated.  Untreated sewage still get dumped into these rivers after heavy storms.  Going over a few bridges, it's not uncommon to see tons of trash floating around in the river.  The bleaching plants on the north side release unfriendly smells into the air and give you an idea of what's going in.  I was most disgusted after hearing a kayaker talk about Chicago jellyfish floating in the river.  I'll give you a clue....it's not a living thing, made of latex and is in the sewers.

 

President Obama has proposed a long term plan to make all Chicago waterways safe for swimming.  It will come at a very high cost, but all the new development and increased interest in recreation demands it.  Furthermore, the deep tunnel project should help eliminate raw sewage discharge.

 

 

A solution for the bike path on the LSD bridge is way overdue.  You have families in those 4 wheelie rental things and douchebags that think they are in the tour de france.  Add rollerbladers flailing their arms and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

LOL, word. It literally does scream disaster.  When my parents come to visit, my mom won't do the lakefront bike trail because it's too much chaos.  I'm just waiting for one of those "family cycles" to get slammed into.

 

And those the tour de france bikers really aggrevate me.  But I've seen some pulled over and ticketed for not abiding by the 15 mph speed limit.  To be honest as cool as they think they are as "professional cyclists" I have way more respect for people who make bicycling a lifestyle whether it's going to work, the store, AND a hobby.  These people are the most experienced riders.

^ Interesting. Just thinking though....The plan should not be just a goal to make Chicago's waters safer.. What about the rest of us? Is that a national issue or local? All the GL's and their watersheds are interwoven. As a nation we really need to rally around saving these treasured and shared resources. Getting rid of CSO's is an important part of this investment.

^--- As polluted as our waters are now, they are much improved from 50 years ago.

^--- As polluted as our waters are now, they are much improved from 50 years ago.

 

I actually have to sometimes contest what is often this comforting thought. 50 years ago many waters were of poor quality for many reasons--mostly centered around the industrial pollutants, sewage, and agriculture, etc. And, while they certainly have improved in many ways from the typical pollutants of the past....we seldom mention the fact that their are a whole new host of challenges that can prove equally detrimental to waters (factory farm agriculture, chemical runoff from suburban lawns and parking lots, construction, litter, exotics, point/and non-point source pollutants, increasing population encroachment on tributaries, etc)--although usually less visually dramatic of the past polluting scene.

 

This, coupled with population increase, presents a whole new set of challenges that we cannot afford to sit on our laurels because we think we cleaned up the environment once......and we're good to go. It is not something we do once and forget about. Some waters were so bad in the past that any improvement was a good one, therefore, I personally do not like to use these past conditions as a benchmark or set of standards for the goals to achieve water quality and when we improve it, think we've done the best we can.

 

 

I admit, I dream a little higher....Alternately, as a rule of thumb, I like to allow conditions before mega-agriculture and industry existed  as something to try and get as close to as possible, if at all.....But just as close as we can, in achieving the best standards. This is why preserving tributary and main stem riparian buffer zones is so important. These areas act like huge filters for our rivers--and our larger bodies of water are only as good as the smaller ones flowing into them.

 

I don't want to sway this way off topic, people...so I'll just post this thread I started a while back...there can be such discussion there.... It takes us under streams, lakes and rivers for some local "fishwatching"  and a great article recently in the Toledo Blade about lesser known small fishes which are great water quality indicator species.

 

Here it is....  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,19687.0.html

 

^--- As polluted as our waters are now, they are much improved from 50 years ago.

 

Yet Chicago is still one of the few cities in the US that does not disinfect wastewater

 

 

 

 

FYI for more on Chicago's pollution mitigation technologies, see The Deep Tunnel Project.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23497.0.html

But I've seen some pulled over and ticketed for not abiding by the 15 mph speed limit.  To be honest as cool as they think they are as "professional cyclists" I have way more respect for people who make bicycling a lifestyle whether it's going to work, the store, AND a hobby.  These people are the most experienced riders.

 

Completely agree.  Also, it seems too many people drive home on the Kennedy, go out for a leisure ride on the path, but forget that is what it is....A leisure ride!  I see so much road rage behavior on a freaking leisure path.  People yelling at each other and cursing.  Come on now, it's supposed to be a nice calming activity...there are plenty of annoyances, but don't forget why you are actually there.  It is to de-stress...not get stessed out by idiots.

 

My advice, bike north to Hollywood Beach and back instead of south near Oak St/North Ave beach and Navy Pier.  It is a much calmer situation North of Diversey Harbor.  The only real pinch point is Belmont.

 

Good idea.  What always drives me nuts is people hang out on the ramps that access the pedestrian subway.  It's very annoying.  I've recently begun doing more of the Southside leg, but typically I will only get on at McCormick.  There's way too many intersections near the museum campus

[ ... ]

 

And those the tour de france bikers really aggrevate me.  But I've seen some pulled over and ticketed for not abiding by the 15 mph speed limit.  To be honest as cool as they think they are as "professional cyclists" I have way more respect for people who make bicycling a lifestyle whether it's going to work, the store, AND a hobby.  These people are the most experienced riders.

 

I subscribed to Bicycling magazine for a long time, but several years ago I dropped my subscription as the magazine became all about competitive-style cycling and thousand-dollar-plus bikes (that was back when a thousand dollars was a lot of money for a bike  :wink: ), and the full-page ads were for high-dollar four-by-four SUVs that could carry the adventuresome riders in comfort to places where they could attack the natural environment by careening over hiking trails and unspoiled, undeveloped terrain on their expensive off-road bikes with big knobby tires.

 

The last straw was an article about a newly-opened path in a major city, where a comment about gay cruising activity in a park that the path passed through morphed into an extended gratuitous homophobic rant. The author/perpetrator of the article was one of the editors of the magazine.

 

I haven't looked at an issue of Bicycling in a long time, so I don't know if it has gotten back in touch with the world that normal people live in.

I subscribed to Bicycling for just a year but really didn't find much of an interest in the all-competitive cycling magazine. I used to bike competitively, but grew tired of the aggravated cyclists, the ultra-competitive nature of the sport (much worse than most activities), and the boring training routes. You are not missing much, Rob. I have some unopened magazines if you want them.

 

That said, I don't think it's fair to lump "professional cyclists" into the "tour de france bikers." My average speed (unfortunately, not the night with you Ian) is around 18-25 MPH and I don't have any problem biking on the roads in heavy traffic. I kind of enjoy it, actually, given that cyclists have every right to the road as autos except for in certain cases -- i.e. interstates and freeways. FTW, I can't find anything in the books Ian about where we were required to bike on the sidewalks in Chicago. Lake Shore Drive is one thing (bike on the path or alternate streets).

 

And I can't recall a 15 MPH speed limit sign on the bike path. Is that what they really expect people to keep it down to? I can see why, but I'd like to see this raised once it is widened or more alternatives given.

From the perspective of someone who's more of a leisure biker with no aspirations of getting more competitive, if I were in an area that was more crowded with cyclists, I'd appreciate the 15MPH limit.  I think boards like this attract people that can maintain 20+ comfortably and who have been doing it so long and/or often that they forget about more casual riders.  I'm very seldom going faster than four-minute miles.  Usually I'm closer to 10-12MPH (5-6 minute miles).

I can't find anything in the books Ian about where we were required to bike on the sidewalks in Chicago.

 

As it stands now, the lower deck sidewalk of the LSD bridge is officailly part of the path.  It's narrow and crowded.

 

And I can't recall a 15 MPH speed limit sign on the bike path. Is that what they really expect people to keep it down to? I can see why, but I'd like to see this raised once it is widened or more alternatives given.

 

I don't know if the whole path is 15mph, but there are probably only incidents of ticketing where there is a high occurance of accidents or lots of newbies(tourists) present.  I have not seen anyone ticketed myself.  The alternatives are already there...use the streets or take Metra out to the less congested trails outside the city.  The lakefront bike path is meant for leisure, not training for a race is the point.  I've had many friends that trained for rides, and they didn't use the path unless they went out there at 5 am.  LSD is 40 mph because it is a "Drive", not a freeway...the same principle applies with the path.

 

 

And I can't recall a 15 MPH speed limit sign on the bike path. Is that what they really expect people to keep it down to? I can see why, but I'd like to see this raised once it is widened or more alternatives given.

 

It's not posted on signs, but I recall reading it under the parks and recreation website "Please abide to speeds that are safe and prudent --15mph".  In general 15 mph when pedestrians are present.  I just clocked 35 mph on the lakefront trail today with wind assistance between navy pier and the Oak Street subway at 2:00 a.m this morning.  I've realized the trail isn't designed for those speeds.  Ever since they've begun raising the pavement on the bike lane areas, you get less turning radius.  Keep in mind, I would never travel this fast daytime, but at 2:00 am all I saw out for a mile were two kids tagging the cement.  Blowing past them at 35 scared the sh!t out of em.  Ever since I got my bike tuned up, it runs silent.  I'll have to try this again at 5:00 a.m.  You can really achieve some ridiculous speeds and not have to worry about anyone being there.

 

 

The Unpaving of Rural America:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/trend-watch-unpaving-rural-america-back-the-stone-age.php

 

 

Roads to Ruin: Towns Rip Up the Pavement

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html

 

Article mentions complaining about the condition of the roads, but opposing additional taxes to keep them in good repair.  But, one person mentioned privatizing.  Hmmm.  Don't want to pay taxes for the roads, but privatizing won't hit your wallet just as much (if not more)? 

 

 

Disclaimer: The following is stuff I've assimilated by reading and hearing the anecdotes of people who were old when I was in my teens and twenties. I haven't done in-depth research on the topic, but I think some of it is reasonably accurate as it applies to the midwest. Anyway, the topic is a good excuse for me to launch another geezer reminiscence/ramble.

 

< :yap: >

 

Prior to the late nineteenth century, most rural roads and some city streets were just dirt, and rains turned them into quagmires churned by wagon wheels and horses' hooves. Even a muddy road could be traversed by horse-drawn wagons and buggies though, unless the mud was really deep and/or slippery. After the mud dried, the wheel tracks became ruts and ridges

 

For the most part, no government function existed to maintain rural roads. If dirt roads were maintained at all, they were maintained by individual residents, sometimes taking turns and sometimes working together with pick-and-shovel hand labor and basic horse-drawn equipment.

 

The advent of mechanical transportation, propelled by wheels and heavy compared with buggies and wagons, changed the picture. Early automobiles and the steam traction engines used to move and power harvesting machinery quickly became deeply mired in mud, and it took a lot of back-breaking labor to extricate them.

 

On the other hand, the advent in the 1880s of mobile steam power and powerful mechanical rock crushers resulted in both the need for improved roads and the means to improve them. In the midwest, crushed limestone became the surfacing material of choice; eventually it packed into a hard surface that didn't become muddy, and the roads could be maintained in a passable state in most kinds of weather.

 

In the early twentieth century, local government units began to take responsibility for road maintenance. At first, many of them didn't own machinery, and they levied road taxes upon property owners and then contracted with owners of tractors or steam traction engines to maintain roads. The tractors and engines powerful enough to do the job were expensive beyond the reach of small farmers, but a prosperous farmer or a group of small farmers could make a substantial offset to their investment with road maintenance revenue. The road work was done mostly outside planting and harvesting seasons when equipment and manpower was available.

 

What people commonly refer to as gravel roads usually are crushed limestone. Gravel as I think of it is made up of pebbles of harder stone of varying sizes (Think of the pea gravel used in landscaping), and the only gravel roads I've seen in Northeast Indiana are in Steuben County, where gravel is abundant and usually dipped with a dragline from water-filled pits and ponds. It's less dusty than crushed limestone, but I don't think it compacts as well. Crushed limestone roads are easily navigable on a bike with a little practice (stay in the packed wheel tracks, and avoid the loose stuff at the center and on the edges), but gravel can be treacherous.

 

</ :yap: >

I've always wondered why Ohio seems to have so few gravel or dirt roads.  Maybe I'm just not looking in the right areas, but it seems that they are much more prevalent in Indiana and Michigan.  We have a lake house in Southern Michigan and the road leading back to the lake is a straight dirt road.  So are a large number of the other rural side roads in the county.  It is a pretty poor county so that may have something to do with it.

There are some dirt or limestone roads in southern Ashtabula county.

My family has a farm near Winchester, Ohio, and some of the roads back to it  look like they were solid pavement at one point, but have crumbled in most places.  The rest of the roads are all the crushed limestone type gravel mentioned above. 

 

The street I grew up on in Loveland was only paved for about a hundred feet, then a mile (dead end) of gravel.  They paved and widened it when they filled the farms that were on it with McMansions about 10 years ago.  Seems like anything within a 50 mile radius of a metro area is paved now, though.

 

Rural governments in particular I've found do a poor job communicating with their constituents about exactly how much it costs to build and maintain a mile of paved road, particularly one that's going to take a pounding from trucks and heavy machinery.

 

Privatization would fail.  Most rural roads cannot be made economically viable.  If you formed an LLC with its only asset as miles of paved road, it would go bankrupt almost instantly, and there wouldn't be anyone to even convert it to crushed limestone.  I doubt there would be any bidders for the asset without some other, actually-performing asset included in the package to sweeten the deal.  Even the cost of recovering the raw materials (i.e., the asphalt), even at today's elevated prices for asphalt, would probably not justify the costs of recovery.  And, of course, even if that math worked, the people in the area who dogmatically chant "privatization" as a mantra would be aghast at the sight of the private company ripping up the asphalt to sell it in wealthier areas.

Privatization would fail. Most rural roads cannot be made economically viable.

 

If they are not economically viable, why should we have them? If a road does not provide more of a benefit than it costs, it should not be maintained. Civilization has had roads for thousands of years--they were built by private entrepreneurs because they provided an economic benefit one way or another. Perhaps our governments wouldn't be such expensive enterprises if we didn't maintain so many underutilized roads. Really, if you choose to build your house in the middle of nowhere, why should the rest of us have to pay to pave what is essentially your driveway?

 

Maintenance of these roads are probably the single biggest contributor to suburban sprawl even more than freeways, and are probably responsible for the death of early public transportation. At least around Cleveland and Cincinnati, most of the main roads were private turnpikes, and interurban companies built railroad lines to compete with their business. Once the roads went public, the interurbans lost too much ridership, ending the golden era of intercity public transportation.

Really, if you choose to build your house in the middle of nowhere, why should the rest of us have to pay to pave what is essentially your driveway?

 

 

Privatization would fail.  Most rural roads cannot be made economically viable. 

If they are not economically viable, why should we have them? If a road does not provide more of a benefit than it costs, it should not be maintained. Civilization has had roads for thousands of years--they were built by private entrepreneurs because they provided an economic benefit one way or another. Perhaps our governments wouldn't be such expensive enterprises if we didn't maintain so many underutilized roads. Really, if you choose to build your house in the middle of nowhere, why should the rest of us have to pay to pave what is essentially your driveway?

 

All things considered, roads, even underutilized ones, are among the most economically viable public expenditures.  (That's more an indictment of government spending than a defense of underutilized roads, of course.)  However, the case for roads, like other transportation and communication infrastructure investments, lies also in the public and inchoate benefits of a more interconnected society.

 

Very few government programs are held up to economic viability standards.  They are instituted to satisfy public demand, not because they provide anything remotely resembling return on investment as that term is understood by those outside the public sector.  As private unemployment and health insurance companies, HHS and Medicare would be insolvent.  Medicaid is basically just charity.  The ROI on social security is anemic or negative; it is not economically viable as a pension fund.  Our governments would be less expensive if they built and maintained fewer underutilized roads, but they would be infinitely more solvent if they built and maintained fewer overutilized entitlement programs.

 

Also, I think you may want to check your history.  Civilization has had roads for thousands of years, but very seldom have they been maintained by private entrepreneurs.  The first civilization really known for its roads was the Roman Empire.  Its roads were publicly maintained for commercial and military purposes.  Most other great powers throughout history--friend and foe, or antedating America entirely--have followed this model.

 

That said, I'm OK with at least some measures that would (a) allow some roads to transition back into lower-maintenance, lower-volume states, and (b) increase the financial cost of driving on the roads that remain.  Privatization would definitely accomplish both of those, but I think it would go too far in the *other* direction.

You're right about the point of road history; I confused world history and American history. Governments in the United States, with the exception of municipal governments, didn't really look into using public funds to maintain roads until the 1890s, which is what I was referring to. There are exceptions to this rule.

 

I suppose you're right, though, it's a moot point to argue economic viability at this point, considering the damage is already done. Had this country maintained a policy not to use public funds to expand its road system for any other purpose except intercity transportation, residents would have settled more efficiently. But now that we have already paved the black ribbon to everyone's door, we have created a bilateral monopoly situation for those who live in rural areas and inefficiently rely on the road.

 

As for new development, though, I see no reason why a public entity should ever decide to annex a privately build road ever again. Roads and infrastructure are tools of economic efficiency and their use does not promote any targeted social goals (such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels). So what are we accomplishing by growing this network of liabilities?

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels?  While that may be a targeted social goal, it hardly occupies the apex of the hierarchy of social goals.  In addition, the advent of the electric car may well disconnect fossil fuel independence from car independence.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a federal vehicle-miles-traveled tax controlled for the weight class and number of axles of the vehicle in question, with the revenue used to supplement the gas tax and bring the costs of the road network closer to balance with its income stream.  However, that runs into a real problem with state, county, and township roads (since most roads aren't maintained by the feds)--the wrangling over revenue-sharing would be absolutely horrendous (or else the federal government would have to take over every road in the country, which I'd also rather not see).

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a federal vehicle-miles-traveled tax controlled for the weight class and number of axles of the vehicle in question, with the revenue used to supplement the gas tax and bring the costs of the road network closer to balance with its income stream. 

 

That sounds like a lot of work for a marginal difference in fairness. 18 wheel semi-trailers cause the most wear and tear by far on roads. There's already a federal highway use tax on heavy vehicles. I think my dad mentioned something about having to record his milage through each state and maybe paying a tax for that; I can't remember. I do agree with you though; something should be done. If all of our roads were to pay for themselves, the cost of gasoline would realistically have to be about double.

 

    "McAdamized" is the proper name for roads built of layers of crushed stone.

 

    In my area, there was a "road tax" where citizens were required to pay not in cash but in hand labor to improve the roads. If one was wealthy enough, he could hire a substitute. 

 

    There is a big difference in the function of McAdamized roads and roads paved with asphalt and that is speed. If we were to replace some asphalt paved roads with McAdamized roads, it could change traffic patterns significantly.

 

    You might be surprised who is the single largest constructor of roads in the United States, measured by miles of roads. It is the United States Forest Service. Many of the roads are McAdamized, and most are of high quality and well maintained.

 

    Architect Christopher Alexander in his book "Pattern Language" argues for the construction of low-speed roads in neighborhoods, with connections to high-speed roads. In suburbia, most residential streets are designed for a speed of at least 25 mph, and often up to 45 mph.

 

    A typical person can walk at 2 mph at an easy pace, and up to 4 mph at a fast pace. Also, a typical person can bike at 7 to 10 mph. If the local roads could only support a speed of 5 mph, it would be just as fast to bike, and take only slightly longer to walk, reducing the tendency to drive automobiles short distances.

 

 

Neighborhood and little-used rural roads probably should be reverted to gravel/macadam anyway.  I'd like to see more of this kind of thing on city streets too.  Rather than repaving a road then putting in speed humps to slow traffic, just make it gravel.  Use the savings to make sure the curbs/gutters are in good shape and to keep it properly maintained.  This has the added benefit of reducing storm water runoff and solar heat gain.  On slightly busier roads pave the travel lanes but make the parking area permeable. 

 

A big determining factor on the condition of unpaved roads historically and through today is the type of soil.  Here as in many places we have clay and loam which turns to muck when wet, so gravel at the very least is necessary for a stable road.  That's not true everywhere though.  My parents live near Pinehurst, NC which is in an area called the Sandhills.  It's basically an area of ancient beach dunes.  The sandy soil is very coarse and packs well, while maintaining drainage (septic systems work beautifully there).  Because of this, logging access and other remote country lanes are simply what would be described as dirt roads.  They just scrape away the vegetation and level it out, no gravel or anything else necessary.  A disadvantage though is that they can be very dusty. 

We probably over-roaded - it was by far the dominant investment made during the New Deal. Expanding paved roads was a way of expanding the market. Ironically, a move back toward unpaved rural roads could potentially drive demand for rail spurs (guess why the RRs could reduce their footprint so dramatically in the last 50 years).

 

I do wonder if it there might be space available for innovation in building roads that don't need to be paved, but need to be reliable for use by automobiles (don't forget that if too many roads deteriorate you'll drive back up demand for 4-wheel drive cars and trucks w/ heftier suspensions that use more gas/diesel, because little econoboxes will be stuck in the cities - welcome to Latin America). I could see some sort of permeable substrate placed below a gravel road that prevents the worst kind of ruts and other related problems.

 

Architect Christopher Alexander in his book "Pattern Language" argues for the construction of low-speed roads in neighborhoods, with connections to high-speed roads. In suburbia, most residential streets are designed for a speed of at least 25 mph, and often up to 45 mph.

 

    A typical person can walk at 2 mph at an easy pace, and up to 4 mph at a fast pace. Also, a typical person can bike at 7 to 10 mph. If the local roads could only support a speed of 5 mph, it would be just as fast to bike, and take only slightly longer to walk, reducing the tendency to drive automobiles short distances.

 

Wow, you really think that's rational? 5mph is nothing. It would take people in Dublin 10 minutes just to get out of their subdivision. I'm all for traffic calming and renouncing speed but 5mph seems a little excessive to me. Sure, it would encourage people to walk or bike but suburbs are designed for cars. Neighborhoods would have to be re-designed with easements galore for better-connected streets, walking paths and sidewalks. Suburbs would definitely need a lot of work.

 

    Various kinds of pavers including Belgian blocks, bricks, cobblestones, concrete pavers, etc., last must longer than asphalt in Ohio's climate and also reduce storm water runoff. I don't think McAdam is very viable in high traffic urban settings because the stone tends to move around.

 

    I've got a book about Ohio roads in the 1930's. It says that the first problem was to get farmers out of the mud. This is a structural problem; the road surface has to be strong enough to support the load. When roads were paved with asphalt, however, another problem appeared. Accidents increased due to high speed, and traffic congestion problems arose. Remember, traffic control didn't just pop up overnight; we had an established system of streets and roads before we had any traffic control.

 

    By the way, the traditional definition of a street is "a paved way." The traditional definition of a road is "a ride on horseback." We use the words interchangeably now, and almost all streets and roads are paved with either asphalt or concrete, with a small amount of pavers, but in the old days streets were associated with cities and roads were associated with the country.