Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Road Funding Equity

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
Reference #1 for Scott and John:
http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/costs.html

This applies equally to the U.S., but does not address mass transit
(only pedestrian/bicycle users, of which there are a lot here in
Austin).

Mike Dahmus mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
From another paper on a different site, full text available at
http://www.transact.org/wolf/wlfmn.htm

talking about highway "user fees"...

Overall, are gas taxes really being
diverted to general government
purposes, or are general revenues
being used for highway purposes?

Are gas taxes really being diverted to
general government purposes, or are general
revenues being diverted to pay for
highways? The American Automobile Association
and the American Highway Users Alliance
would have you believe that the transfer
of gas tax funding to non-highway uses is
causing a ‘crumbling infrastructure crisis.’

In fact, the evidence indicates that an
equivalent amount of general government
revenues at the state, local and federal
levels are being used for road purposes as are
gas taxes being used for non-highway
purposes.

Most proponents of the diversion argument
cite the fact that 87% of federal highway
funds are paid for by user fees. However,
what they don’t usually mention is the fact
that of the $21.2 billion spent in local
transportation funds, only 7% is generated from
highway user fees.

The difference is made up by various
general revenue sources, including local
property taxes. Clearly, the diversion
argument doesn’t hold water.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>
> Reference #1 for Scott and John:
> http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/costs.html
>
> This applies equally to the U.S., but does not address mass transit
> (only pedestrian/bicycle users, of which there are a lot here in
> Austin).

Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
transit-only advocacy. Pardon my bluntness, but his notions have been
beaten to death on these newsgroups.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>
> From another paper on a different site, full text available at
> http://www.transact.org/wolf/wlfmn.htm

The URL won't FTP yet.

> Most proponents of the diversion argument
> cite the fact that 87% of federal highway
> funds are paid for by user fees.

No, you are not reading what I posted, or else you are deliberately
twisting what I said.

From my original post with the table:

This is the 1994 data from the US DOT concerning total HUR (highway/road
user revenues) and total expenditures. About 34% of the HTF (Highway
Trust Fund) went to non-road uses (mass transit, deficit reduction).
Here's the table:

Comparison of Overall National HURs and Expenditures for All Levels of
Government for 1994 ($ Billion)
Year and Category Federal State Local All Levels
1994 HURs: (rounded)
Used for Highways & Transit 21.0 43.0 2.3 66
Other Uses 11.0 7.5 0.1 18
Totals 31.0 50.5 2.4 84

1994 Expenditures:
From User Revenues 21.0 45.0 2.2 68
From Other Sources 1.2 5.0 23.0 29
Totals 22.2 50.0 25.2 97

This table accounts for actuals for ALL public road
revenues/expenditures at ALL levels of government.

On the table, it can be seen that not all HUR is spent on roads, and not
all road expenditure comes from HUR. The totals presented represent
total HURs and total road expenditures.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation figures, the total
federal-state-local 1994 HUR was $84 billion, versus $97 billion total
road expenditures. (total HUR is 87% of total expenditures).

All the shortfall comes in the area of local roads. That makes sense,
because most local roads benefit far more than just motorists (cars and
trucks). Many of them benefit abutting homeowners, businesses, farmers,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit busses. So it's only fair that a
good chunk of their administration comes from local non-road tax
dollars.


These ratios generally held through 1998, although TEA-21 will change
them somewhat. I will have to see actuals for FY1999 before I can post
them, though.

> However, what they don't usually mention is the fact that of the
> $21.2 billion spent in local transportation funds, only 7% is
> generated from highway user fees.

What you conveniently don't mention, is the billions of dollars in
highway/road user revenues annually diverted to non-road uses. In 1994,
only $21 billion from the federal Highway Trust Fund was used for road
purposes, out of the $31 billion road user funds collected; $10 billion
was diverted. Those ratios held through 1998, and TEA-21 will narrow
that considerably, although TEA-21 will still provide 18% of its monies
to mass transit.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:57 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> hired an infinite number of monkeys to
write:

>mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>>
>> Reference #1 for Scott and John:
>> http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/costs.html
>>
>> This applies equally to the U.S., but does not address mass transit
>> (only pedestrian/bicycle users, of which there are a lot here in
>> Austin).
>
>Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
>for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
>misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
>transit-only advocacy. Pardon my bluntness, but his notions have been
>beaten to death on these newsgroups.

Because your own automobile bias has run out everyone who isn't as
stubborn as yourself, or so I observed.

Look, unlike yourself, I admitted that these studies were produced by
organizations which we can reasonably expect to be biased. The only
way to talk about these studies is to examine the methodology for
flaws, unless you can find a bunch of other studies which weren't
funded or controlled by one ideological group or the other.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:

>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:57 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
> >>
> >> Reference #1 for Scott and John:
> >> http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/costs.html
> >
> >Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
> >for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
> >misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
> >transit-only advocacy. Pardon my bluntness, but his notions have been
> >beaten to death on these newsgroups.
>
> Because your own automobile bias has run out everyone who isn't as
> stubborn as yourself, or so I observed.

That's baloney any way you slice it.

Your 2-month-long observation obviously hasn't noticed my pro-transit
enthusiasm in the various transportation newsgroups. Check here
http://www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me.

Have you ever looked at my websites, which showcase both highways and
mass transit?

List of transit articles (there are many photos) in "Roads to the
Future" (Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.):
- Norfolk/Hampton Roads Light Rail Transit
- Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway (I-95 and I-395)*
- Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-495 and I-95)*
- Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Line Completion
- Metrorail Glenmont Route
- Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Commuter Rail Lines
- Dulles-Loudoun Metrorail Extension
- Interstate 66 and Metrorail Vienna Route
- Washington D.C. Area Interstate HOV is a Success
- Baltimore Central Light Rail Line
- Baltimore Metro Subway
- Richmond Railroads
- Virginia Expressway HOV Lanes

*Major transit component

List of transit articles (there are many photos) in "PENNWAYS"
(Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley):
- Regional Commuter Rail
- Center City Commuter Connection (Commuter Tunnel)
- Airport High Speed Line
- Route 100 Light Rail Line (P&W)

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/30/98
to
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:07:31 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"

<koz...@richmond.infi.net> hired an infinite number of monkeys to
write:

>mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:


>>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:57 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>>
>> >mdaho.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Reference #1 for Scott and John:
>> >> http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/costs.html
>> >
>> >Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
>> >for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
>> >misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
>> >transit-only advocacy. Pardon my bluntness, but his notions have been
>> >beaten to death on these newsgroups.
>>
>> Because your own automobile bias has run out everyone who isn't as
>> stubborn as yourself, or so I observed.
>
>That's baloney any way you slice it.
>
>Your 2-month-long observation obviously hasn't noticed my pro-transit
>enthusiasm in the various transportation newsgroups. Check here
>http://www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me.
>
>Have you ever looked at my websites, which showcase both highways and
>mass transit?

Yes and yes. And I still don't buy it. You're a perfect example of the
stereotypical suburban highway engineer who builds roads to the
suburbs and then throws a bone or two to transit afterwards, when it's
far too late for it to do any good (because the style of development
in the areas you want to serve has already been changed by the roads
you built out to them previously).

Believe it or not, I have been lurking in this group for almost a
year. I've seen you run off a lot of transit advocates through nothing
more than a stubborn recitation of typical highway engineer
propaganda. However, I'm every bit as stubborn as you are. Trust me.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to

Mike Dahmus (mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:07:31 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>
>>> >Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
>>> >for an extremely anti-auto agenda.

Todd Litman is a respected researcher who has produced many thoughtful
and insightful reports on the true costs of ground transportation networks.

>>Your 2-month-long observation obviously hasn't noticed my pro-transit
>>enthusiasm in the various transportation newsgroups. Check here
>>http://www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me.
>>
>>Have you ever looked at my websites, which showcase both highways and
>>mass transit?

To be fair, Scott has produced some pro-transit material on his Web site,
and he does (claim) to ride an express bus to work regularly. However:

> Yes and yes. And I still don't buy it. You're a perfect example of the
> stereotypical suburban highway engineer who builds roads to the
> suburbs and then throws a bone or two to transit afterwards, when it's
> far too late for it to do any good (because the style of development
> in the areas you want to serve has already been changed by the roads
> you built out to them previously).

Yes. To read his Usenet posts, it's pretty clear that he's a pro-car
person 90% of the time.



> Believe it or not, I have been lurking in this group for almost a
> year. I've seen you run off a lot of transit advocates through nothing
> more than a stubborn recitation of typical highway engineer
> propaganda.

He does tend to repeat the same mantras over and over, while decrying
those of us who repeatedly try to correct his errors. Then he has the
nerve to call the rest of us names along the lines of "you never learn,
do you?"

> However, I'm every bit as stubborn as you are. Trust me.

Glad to hear it. I for one am getting rather tired of trying to repost my
facts to counteract the material that Scott insists on regurgitating ad
nauseum. He can't admit even the slightest possibility that there might be
another interpretation of the facts, or other sets of figures that
disagree with his figures (witness his insults of Mr. Litman above).

--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> Mike Dahmus (mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:07:31 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> >
> >>> >Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
> >>> >for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
> >>> >misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
> >>> >transit-only advocacy.
>
> Todd Litman is a respected researcher who has produced many thoughtful
> and insightful reports on the true costs of ground transportation networks.

He has one set of opinions. I haven't seen any evidence of his research
being accepted by the American transportation establishment.



> >>Your 2-month-long observation obviously hasn't noticed my pro-transit
> >>enthusiasm in the various transportation newsgroups. Check here
> >>http://www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me.
> >>
> >>Have you ever looked at my websites, which showcase both highways and
> >>mass transit?
>
> To be fair, Scott has produced some pro-transit material on his Web site,
> and he does (claim) to ride an express bus to work regularly. However:
>
> > Yes and yes. And I still don't buy it. You're a perfect example of the
> > stereotypical suburban highway engineer who builds roads to the
> > suburbs and then throws a bone or two to transit afterwards,

Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
am a strong supporter of Metrorail.

> > when it's
> > far too late for it to do any good (because the style of development
> > in the areas you want to serve has already been changed by the roads
> > you built out to them previously).

You are the perfect example of someone who doesn't know the people in
m.t.r.

I am NOT a highway engineer, matter of fact, I described my occupation
in this thread a couple days ago.

Thanks for playing.

Check this article of mine, and examine the extensive research about a
multi-modal transportation corridor (highway, rail transit, bus transit,
HOV):


"Interstate 66 and Metrorail Vienna Route"

http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm/Int66_MetroViennaRte.html

"Since these two transportation facilities form an integrated
multi-modal transportation corridor in Fairfax and Arlington Counties in
Virginia, I am providing an article that discusses both" ........

I wrote over 5,000 words in that well-researched article, and spent a
great deal of time preparing it. Read it and let me know what you
think.

> Yes. To read his Usenet posts, it's pretty clear that he's a pro-car
> person 90% of the time.

And pro-transit 100% of the time:

http://www.dejanews.com/profile.xp?author=koz...@richmond.infi.net&ST=QS
There are 3591 unique messages by koz...@richmond.infi.net:
1253 misc.transport.road
1248 misc.transport.urban-transit
446 alt.planning.urban
226 dc.driving
85 phl.transportation
60 misc.transport.rail.americas
36 rec.bicycles.soc
30 alt.disasters.aviation
25 dc.general
25 sci.military.naval
20 dc.biking
14 nyc.transit
(misc. others)

How's that for multi-modal diversity?

Try to find _one_ example of a major criticism of mine of a mass transit
project.

> > Believe it or not, I have been lurking in this group for almost a
> > year. I've seen you run off a lot of transit advocates through nothing
> > more than a stubborn recitation of typical highway engineer
> > propaganda.

Believe it or not, I think you know not what you speak about. I have
participated enthusiastically in countless transit discussions in the
transit newsgroups.



> He does tend to repeat the same mantras over and over, while decrying
> those of us who repeatedly try to correct his errors.

Such as?

"Colin does tend to repeat the same mantras over and over, while


decrying those of us who repeatedly try to correct his errors".

Pot, kettle, black.

> Then he has the nerve to call the rest of us names along the
> lines of "you never learn, do you?"

Documentation, please.

> > However, I'm every bit as stubborn as you are. Trust me.
>
> Glad to hear it. I for one am getting rather tired of trying to repost my
> facts to counteract the material that Scott insists on regurgitating ad
> nauseum. He can't admit even the slightest possibility that there might be
> another interpretation of the facts, or other sets of figures that
> disagree with his figures (witness his insults of Mr. Litman above).

"I for one am getting rather tired of trying to repost my facts to

counteract the material that Colin insists on regurgitating ad nauseum.

He can't admit even the slightest possibility that there might be
another interpretation of the facts, or other sets of figures that

disagree with his figures (witness his insults of Mr. Kozel above)".

Colin, you are a troll.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:


>> > Yes and yes. And I still don't buy it. You're a perfect example of the
>> > stereotypical suburban highway engineer who builds roads to the
>> > suburbs and then throws a bone or two to transit afterwards,
>
>Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
>metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
>construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
>If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
>am a strong supporter of Metrorail.

So? Metrorail is not an effective mass transit system - it only works
at all because you ran out of space to build more roads, and now it
costs $9 billion to build because people spread out in exactly the way
your highway establishment encouraged them to do by the
inappropriately designed road network.


Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
> >metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
> >construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
> >If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
> >am a strong supporter of Metrorail.
>
> So? Metrorail is not an effective mass transit system - it only works
> at all because you ran out of space to build more roads, and now it
> costs $9 billion to build because people spread out in exactly the way
> your highway establishment encouraged them to do by the
> inappropriately designed road network.

Metrorail is indeed an effective mass transit system - it carries
275,000 riders per day, and the Metrobus system carries another
225,000. Actually there IS more space to build more roads; the
cancelled portions of the D.C Interstate system were to run mainly along
the CSXT mainline railroad corridor, through a few tunnels, and through
an undeveloped area. These areas are still open and available.

Metrorail is a relatively compact 103-mile system (the last 8 miles is
under construction and will be complete in 2001). It cost $9 billion to
build, simply because that is how much it costs to build an
approximately-half- underground rapid rail transit system in a large
urban area. The underground segments are typically in the most
urbanized areas, and they are by far the most expensive per mile. The
suburban segments are mostly aboveground, and typically cost about 1/3
the cost per mile as compared to the subway segments.

"People spread out in exactly the way they did" because of the millions
of individual choices by citizens in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and
the government(s) built what the public collectively wanted. Also, I
don't work for a "highway establishment", I work for a "department of
transportation"; VDOT supports all modes of transportation, involved
politically and financially. The same situation is true with regard to
USDOT/FHWA.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:51:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:

>"People spread out in exactly the way they did" because of the millions
>of individual choices by citizens in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and
>the government(s) built what the public collectively wanted. Also, I
>don't work for a "highway establishment", I work for a "department of
>transportation"; VDOT supports all modes of transportation, involved
>politically and financially. The same situation is true with regard to
>USDOT/FHWA.

Bull. You work for an organization which I can only damn with faint
praise by saying it's one of the more balanced state DOT's. Very faint
praise because they've done absolutely NOTHING to influence land-use
patterns, instead copping out with "we must serve demand", and
ignoring future traffic generated by the roads you built as
irrelevant.

If you build suburban highways, and create an environment where
suburban-style development is heavily subsidized, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to predict what kind of residences people will
"choose".

George Conklin

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
In article <363c889...@news.io.com>,
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:


>If you build suburban highways, and create an environment where
>suburban-style development is heavily subsidized, it doesn't take a
>rocket scientist to predict what kind of residences people will
>"choose".
>
>
>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
>http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/

Mike, you have it all backwards, as usual, and your
ignorance of history is total.

Urban densities began to decline BEFORE the automobile, as
soon as the trolley car systems let people escape crowded
urban areas. First, they used the steam trains and set up
areas in Philadelphia known as Main Line...lowered density
for the rich. Then the street car lines (as in Sharon Hill
in Philadelphia) let the middle class escape the crowded
housing no one wanted. Finally, late in the game, cars came
along. Your problem is that you just detest the average
person getting a good chance at life. You hate the average
person....that is your problem. Your hate the fact people
reject how you would force them to live against their will
in your crowded urban anti-utopias.

People don't want what you want, and you cannot accept
that fact. Why don't you get a soap box and demand everyone
listen to you on the steet corner...at least then you would
undersand the context of your rantings.


Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:51:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >"People spread out in exactly the way they did" because of the millions
> >of individual choices by citizens in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and
> >the government(s) built what the public collectively wanted. Also, I
> >don't work for a "highway establishment", I work for a "department of
> >transportation"; VDOT supports all modes of transportation, involved
> >politically and financially. The same situation is true with regard to
> >USDOT/FHWA.
>
> Bull. You work for an organization which I can only damn with faint
> praise by saying it's one of the more balanced state DOT's.

Why thank you Mike! I do indeed consider it to be balanced. That is
why I chose this organization in the first place, and that is why I've
stayed.

For 30 years, VDOT has been a multimodal transportation agency, changed
from the original VDH that only dealt with roads. The main VDOT mission
is roads and highways, since extensive road systems are present in all
counties and cities of the state, however VDOT provides about $100
million per year in aid to the various mass transit systems in the
state. They have provided financial and political aid to transit
systems across the state. This includes the 30-mile Metrorail rapid
rail transit system in Northern Virginia, and the 85-mile Virginia
Railway Express commuter rail system in Northern Virginia, and the
proposed light rail transit system in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area.
VDOT has provided major financial aid for the last 25 years to help keep
the Eastern Shore Railroad and Chesapeake Bay rail ferry (old PRR) in
operation. VDOT has implemented 93 miles of Interstate HOV lanes, and
more are under construction.

> Very faint praise because they've done absolutely NOTHING to
> influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must

> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
> roads you built as irrelevant.

It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.



> If you build suburban highways, and create an environment where
> suburban-style development is heavily subsidized, it doesn't take a
> rocket scientist to predict what kind of residences people will
> "choose".

Just like rural and urban roads are necessary and desired by the public,
the suburban roads are also. Absence or presence of development
subsidies depends on a variety of different factors, and suburban roads
by themselves do not guide this.

craz...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
Ah yes, he shouted from his Ivory Tower...you are a total idiot for daring
to think differently than George Conklin Professor, PHD...hey George isn't it
odd how the mass migration to the country began shortly after we "tamed" the
wild west and those dreadful savages, eradicated wolfs, buffalos, and grizzly
bears and made the world safe for all those "dudes" to leave the mean old
cities and get "back" to nature?? Manifest destiny George..right up your
alley! The new manifest destiny is all about taming the west for Barnes and
Noble, Home Depot, Red Lobster, Pier One, Target, Wal-Mart, The Olive Garden,
Pet Mart...come on out to Montana George and you can get your jollies
watching them slap up another box to suck some money out of the pockets of
poor Montanans!

In article <71g458$o7j$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,


hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>. Your problem is that you just detest the average
> person getting a good chance at life. You hate the average
> person....that is your problem. Your hate the fact people
> reject how you would force them to live against their will
> in your crowded urban anti-utopias.
>
> People don't want what you want, and you cannot accept
> that fact. Why don't you get a soap box and demand everyone
> listen to you on the steet corner...at least then you would
> undersand the context of your rantings.
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:54:44 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:

>mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>
>> Very faint praise because they've done absolutely NOTHING to
>> influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must
>> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
>> roads you built as irrelevant.
>
>It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
>patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
>boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.

Cop-out. Most of the time those organizations get exactly what you
tell them they're going to get, just like here in Texas. You provide
them with a list of possible alternatives, all of which are basically
oriented towards suburban development and car use.

>> If you build suburban highways, and create an environment where
>> suburban-style development is heavily subsidized, it doesn't take a
>> rocket scientist to predict what kind of residences people will
>> "choose".
>
>Just like rural and urban roads are necessary and desired by the public,
>the suburban roads are also. Absence or presence of development
>subsidies depends on a variety of different factors, and suburban roads
>by themselves do not guide this.

Another cop-out. The presence of cheap suburban highways, subsidized
by city taxpayers, is the primary factor which allows for the
development of these areas in a way which would otherwise be
unsustainable.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Mike Dahmus (mdahNO...@io.com) wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>>> > Yes and yes. And I still don't buy it. You're a perfect example of the
>>> > stereotypical suburban highway engineer who builds roads to the
>>> > suburbs and then throws a bone or two to transit afterwards,
>>
>>Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
>>metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
>>construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
>>If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
>>am a strong supporter of Metrorail.
>
> So? Metrorail is not an effective mass transit system - it only works
> at all because you ran out of space to build more roads, and now it
> costs $9 billion to build because people spread out in exactly the way
> your highway establishment encouraged them to do by the
> inappropriately designed road network.

Just consider the inverse: If the subway existed and it was the highway
network in the DC metro area that had to be built from scratch today,
with already-existing development blocking every corridor, every highway
underground because of opposition from the communities it had to cut
through, how much would that highway network cost?

(Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long. And how many people
will it carry daily, compared to a subway or the N-S commuter rail tunnel
link of the same length and a fraction of the width?)

To be fair about the cost and necessity of going underground, these
highways _could_ be built on the surface if you adopt the 1950s attitude
of "expropriate and bulldoze", and accept the consequences of disrupting
the communities. The cost of buying 14 lanes wide worth of property is
pretty prohibitive these days, though - in the end, it might just be
cheaper to tunnel under everything anyway.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Since this is still crossposted to alt.planning.urban, let's add some
relevance to planning issues, because they *are* critical.

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>>

>> Very faint praise (of Va DOT) because they've done absolutely NOTHING

>> to influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must
>> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
>> roads you built as irrelevant.
>
> It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
> patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
> boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.

And this is exactly where the entire governmental system falls flat on its
face. Many politicians, bureaucrats, and the general public have not yet
come to the realization that there is a strong two-way correlation between
land use and transportation networks. The shape of your land use policies
will determine the shape of your transportation network, and the shape of
your transportation network will equally determine the shape of your land
use.

The local MPOs and governments are only looking out for their own
parochial interests. One recurring theme in planning in large American
metropolitan areas is that there are too many small organizations who only
care about maximizing their profit on a few sqaure miles, without
considering the impacts on (and of) the urban area as a whole.

It's pretty easy for the local agencies to swing a good deal for their own
municipalities when their "big brother" (not in the Orwellian sense), i.e.
the state, is willing to pick up most of the cost of providing the
transportation services to the communities that they build and profit
from. I've seen numbers from here that indicate that the cost of providing
transportation infrastructure to a new fringe development outweigh the
costs of the water and sewer infrastructure by a factor of about 4:1. If
those towns and counties had to build 14 lane wide expressways through
their communities out of their own funds, rather than relying on the State
to build them a couple of miles away, they might think twice about their
"investments".



>> If you build suburban highways, and create an environment where
>> suburban-style development is heavily subsidized, it doesn't take a
>> rocket scientist to predict what kind of residences people will
>> "choose".
>
> Just like rural and urban roads are necessary and desired by the public,
> the suburban roads are also. Absence or presence of development
> subsidies depends on a variety of different factors, and suburban roads
> by themselves do not guide this.

The shape of the transportation network has an extremely strong impact on
the shape of the land use patterns, and vice versa. Especially when
somebody else is paying the bills to build it for you.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> > <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:

> >>Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
> >>metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
> >>construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
> >>If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
> >>am a strong supporter of Metrorail.

> Just consider the inverse: If the subway existed and it was the highway


> network in the DC metro area that had to be built from scratch today,
> with already-existing development blocking every corridor, every highway
> underground because of opposition from the communities it had to cut
> through, how much would that highway network cost?

That is an inappropriate comparison, because by definition, urban rapid
rail transit lines are usually built UNDER major urban streets, because
the patrons need to be within general walking distance of the stations.
Highway interchanges don't generally need to be within walking distance,
so the highways can be located outside of the business and residential
districts.


> (Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
> entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long.

Of course, Metro began in 1969, with over half under construction by
1979, so in today's dollars, Metro would easily cost $20 billion or
more.

In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a
transportation project, since the existing 6-lane elevated highway could
have been rehabilitated and widened to 8 lanes for probably no more than
$1 billion. The $8.4 billion to depress and bury the Central Artery is
IMO about 85% funded to urban renewal and urban open space creation,
because it is removing the expressway from surface visibility, and
creating over 150 acres of open land in the CBD.

"Project benefits include creation of more than 150 acres of open land,
including 27 acres where the existing Central Artery now stands, 105
acres at Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor (where Project dirt is
capping an abandoned dump), and 40 more acres of new parks in and around
downtown Boston. Clay and dirt from the Project is being used to fill
and cap landfills throughout the Boston area"
(http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/summary.htm).

> And how many people
> will it carry daily, compared to a subway or the N-S commuter rail tunnel
> link of the same length and a fraction of the width?)

Probably 200,000. How much freight will the subway or commuter rail
line carry?



> To be fair about the cost and necessity of going underground, these
> highways _could_ be built on the surface if you adopt the 1950s attitude
> of "expropriate and bulldoze",

The power of eminent domain is a constitutional legal process whereby
the state can acquire land for highway projects, and other necessary
projects such as aboveground rail transit lines (such as most of
suburban Washington Metrorail), airports, and seaports.

There was great public support for building the urban Interstate
highways, and very few were cancelled. Those that were, transfer
options were available to transfer the Interstate highway funds to mass
transit, such as the $2 billion that was transferred from cancelled D.C.
Interstate highways to Metrorail construction, in the 1970s.

> and accept the consequences of disrupting
> the communities. The cost of buying 14 lanes wide worth of property is
> pretty prohibitive these days, though - in the end, it might just be
> cheaper to tunnel under everything anyway.

I doubt that there are more that a couple hundred miles of highways 14
lanes (or more) wide in the U.S., so I don't see the logic of that
statement.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> > mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
> >>
> >> Very faint praise (of Va DOT) because they've done absolutely NOTHING
> >> to influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must
> >> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
> >> roads you built as irrelevant.

Colin edited my words and inserted "(of Va DOT)". You and Mike have
shown no knowledge that would allow you to reach that conclusion about
Virginia. You are free to analyse Texas and Ontario.

> > It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
> > patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
> > boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.
>
> And this is exactly where the entire governmental system falls flat on its
> face. Many politicians, bureaucrats, and the general public have not yet
> come to the realization that there is a strong two-way correlation between
> land use and transportation networks. The shape of your land use policies
> will determine the shape of your transportation network, and the shape of
> your transportation network will equally determine the shape of your land
> use.
>
> The local MPOs and governments are only looking out for their own
> parochial interests. One recurring theme in planning in large American
> metropolitan areas is that there are too many small organizations who only
> care about maximizing their profit on a few sqaure miles, without
> considering the impacts on (and of) the urban area as a whole.

So you seem to be concluding that "the entire governmental system falls
flat on its face" because there is no one single governmental agency
that controls transportation and land-use planning in a metropolitan
area. The various municipalities and states involved are dynamic, and
often have long histories of autonomy. Single-metro government is not
the way that government is done in the U.S., so the regional planning
commission provides quasi-governmental oversight over an area.



> It's pretty easy for the local agencies to swing a good deal for their own
> municipalities when their "big brother" (not in the Orwellian sense), i.e.
> the state, is willing to pick up most of the cost of providing the
> transportation services to the communities that they build and profit
> from.

The "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays for the
facilities.

> I've seen numbers from here that indicate that the cost of providing
> transportation infrastructure to a new fringe development outweigh the
> costs of the water and sewer infrastructure by a factor of about 4:1.

And I've seen numbers from here that indicates that that is not true.

> If those towns and counties had to build 14 lane wide expressways through
> their communities out of their own funds, rather than relying on the State
> to build them a couple of miles away, they might think twice about their
> "investments".

I doubt that there are more that a couple hundred miles of highways 14


lanes (or more) wide in the U.S., so I don't see the logic of that
statement.

> > Just like rural and urban roads are necessary and desired by the public,


> > the suburban roads are also. Absence or presence of development
> > subsidies depends on a variety of different factors, and suburban roads
> > by themselves do not guide this.
>
> The shape of the transportation network has an extremely strong impact on
> the shape of the land use patterns, and vice versa.

I agree fully.

> Especially when somebody else is paying the bills to build it for you.

Again, the "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays the
bill.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
mdahNO...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:

>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:54:44 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
> >patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
> >boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.
>
> Cop-out. Most of the time those organizations get exactly what you
> tell them they're going to get, just like here in Texas. You provide
> them with a list of possible alternatives, all of which are basically
> oriented towards suburban development and car use.

Not true here. The local planning and political bodies usually don't
get anything unless they ask for it; e.g. initiate the project. If they
don't want a highway, there are many other areas of the state that would
gladly accept the highway funds.

> >Just like rural and urban roads are necessary and desired by the public,
> >the suburban roads are also. Absence or presence of development
> >subsidies depends on a variety of different factors, and suburban roads
> >by themselves do not guide this.
>

> Another cop-out. The presence of cheap suburban highways, subsidized
> by city taxpayers, is the primary factor which allows for the
> development of these areas in a way which would otherwise be
> unsustainable.

"Cheap suburban highways", as opposed to "expensive urban highways"? By
your logic, the subsidy would go in the opposite direction.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:07:31 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > >
> > > >Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is a well-known
> > > >for an extremely anti-auto agenda. The "transport" in the name is a
> > > >misnomer, "transit" should be substituted. His work is pure
> > > >transit-only advocacy.
> >
> > Todd Litman is a respected researcher who has produced many thoughtful
> > and insightful reports on the true costs of ground transportation networks.
>
> He has one set of opinions. I haven't seen any evidence of his research
> being accepted by the American transportation establishment.

[...]

> > I for one am getting rather tired of trying to repost my
> > facts to counteract the material that Scott insists on regurgitating ad
> > nauseum. He can't admit even the slightest possibility that there might be
> > another interpretation of the facts, or other sets of figures that
> > disagree with his figures (witness his insults of Mr. Litman above).
>
> "I for one am getting rather tired of trying to repost my facts to
> counteract the material that Colin insists on regurgitating ad nauseum.
> He can't admit even the slightest possibility that there might be
> another interpretation of the facts, or other sets of figures that
> disagree with his figures (witness his insults of Mr. Kozel above)".
>
> Colin, you are a troll.

People who have been in this newsgroup for 6 months or more, understand
the nature of the long-running conflict that I have with Colin. For new
people or those who don't understand, but want a detailed explanation,
e-mail me and I will provide it.

IMO he started all this about a year ago; I only want to discuss
transportation in the general area where I live, from the perspective of
a state DOT employee, and he seems to want to force his views on
everybody else.

For instance, I'm perfectly satisfied to let other cities and countries
develop any transportation system they wish. On the other hand, he
frequently wants others to do things HIS way.

If he didn't insist on attacking American transportation policy
(national, state and local), and then refusing to accept any rebuttal,
then he and I would likely have no conflict at all.

My comments about Mr. Litman were a bit too strong, he has provided some
worthwhile transportation research. However, he and Colin have IMO both
come across as Canadians who want to control Americans, and that is
rather irritating.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:44:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"

<koz...@richmond.infi.net> hired an infinite number of monkeys to
write:

>ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:


>>
>> > On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>> > <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
>> >>metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
>> >>construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
>> >>If you know anything about my publicly-stated beliefs, you know that I
>> >>am a strong supporter of Metrorail.
>

>> Just consider the inverse: If the subway existed and it was the highway
>> network in the DC metro area that had to be built from scratch today,
>> with already-existing development blocking every corridor, every highway
>> underground because of opposition from the communities it had to cut
>> through, how much would that highway network cost?
>
>That is an inappropriate comparison, because by definition, urban rapid
>rail transit lines are usually built UNDER major urban streets, because
>the patrons need to be within general walking distance of the stations.
>Highway interchanges don't generally need to be within walking distance,
>so the highways can be located outside of the business and residential
>districts.

However, in most cities highways cannot be built solely in industrial
areas as you allege (if true at all, it's only in a few cities on the
East Coast). All 4 of Austin's major freeways pass next to residential
property, as will the ones in planning stages now. Both of South
Florida's major freeways cut through residential areas.


>> To be fair about the cost and necessity of going underground, these
>> highways _could_ be built on the surface if you adopt the 1950s attitude
>> of "expropriate and bulldoze",
>
>The power of eminent domain is a constitutional legal process whereby
>the state can acquire land for highway projects, and other necessary
>projects such as aboveground rail transit lines (such as most of
>suburban Washington Metrorail), airports, and seaports.

And here is the problem: In today's world, this is effectively
destroying urban neighborhoods for the sake of suburban commuters, who
don't even pay taxes to the city which is losing major parts of its
tax base. The freeway closest to where I live severed many connections
between what is now two halves of two of the most valuable
neighborhoods in the city. You can't get across the freeway unless
you're willing to bicycle on a major arterial.

And in this part of town, the freeway was built on the right of way of
an existing railroad! (although it required some purchases of property
immediately next to the railroad and also added traffic to the area as
TxDOT converted a couple of residential streets into frontage roads!)

Mike Dahmus mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:51:34 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"

<koz...@richmond.infi.net> hired an infinite number of monkeys to
write:

>mdahNO...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:


>>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:54:44 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
>> >patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
>> >boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.
>>
>> Cop-out. Most of the time those organizations get exactly what you
>> tell them they're going to get, just like here in Texas. You provide
>> them with a list of possible alternatives, all of which are basically
>> oriented towards suburban development and car use.
>
>Not true here. The local planning and political bodies usually don't
>get anything unless they ask for it; e.g. initiate the project. If they
>don't want a highway, there are many other areas of the state that would
>gladly accept the highway funds.

I simply don't believe that your "multimodal" approach is anything
more than lip service, slightly better than here in Texas, where the
DOT doesn't even build sidewalks on the roads it constructs and
maintains. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but so far all you've shown
is that when things get incredibly desperate, your agency is willing
to throw a few dollars at a train.

>> Another cop-out. The presence of cheap suburban highways, subsidized
>> by city taxpayers, is the primary factor which allows for the
>> development of these areas in a way which would otherwise be
>> unsustainable.
>
>"Cheap suburban highways", as opposed to "expensive urban highways"? By
>your logic, the subsidy would go in the opposite direction.

"cheap suburban highways" as in "no tolls".

Exile on Market Street

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

> People who have been in this newsgroup for 6 months or more, understand
> the nature of the long-running conflict that I have with Colin. For new
> people or those who don't understand, but want a detailed explanation,
> e-mail me and I will provide it.

[...]


> My comments about Mr. Litman were a bit too strong, he has provided some
> worthwhile transportation research. However, he and Colin have IMO both
> come across as Canadians who want to control Americans, and that is
> rather irritating.

Even so, I can't help but get the feeling that this long-running argument
is the American Revolution (War of American Independence for our
north-of-the-border friends) recapitulated.

I guess one of the big ironies in this argument is that if there is any
jurisdiction anywhere in the U.S. that actually used mass transit as a
planning and development tool as many Canadian cities (Toronto most
notably) did in the years since WW2, it is Greater Washington, and in
particular Arlington County, Va. The Arlington Boulevard corridor has been
*completely transformed* by Metro, and that is as Arlington County planners
intended. The result is an expansion of Washington's "urban core" across
the river.

In Canada, it seems to me, central (here meaning provincial, not Federal)
government plays a larger role in shaping urban policy [including municipal
boundaries -- IIRC, the recent consolidation of Metro Toronto into one
single municipality -- which one of my favorite urbanists, the New
Yorker-turned-Torontonian Jane Jacobs, opposed -- was a provincial
initiative], and just as the Tories couldn't understand what it was the
Patriots were so exercised about -- after all, didn't the Crown protect us
from those hostile tribes at no small expense, and oughtn't we have to
share that burden? -- so Canadians don't quite understand our tendency to
hang onto local prerogatives on matters large and small.

Given our cultural influence, I actually find Scott's comment about
"Canadians wanting to control Americans" rather amusing -- usually the
complaint runs in the other direction. That said, I still find this grudge
match between two people whose views I respect dismaying.

--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Webmaster Mail webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/

"Think! It ain't illegal yet!"
--------------------------------------------------------------Funkadelic--

larry gross

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:54:44 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:


>> Very faint praise because they've done absolutely NOTHING to


>> influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must

>> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
>> roads you built as irrelevant.


>
>It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
>patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
>boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.

this is a cop out IMHO. Why does FHWA make it so hard to put
new INTERCHANGES on the NHS? It is simply because they know
that the land around the new interchange will be developed and
will put more traffic on the road. VDOT, on the other hand, gladly
accepts land/money proffers for new interchanges on non-Federal
roads - thus guaranteeing that new roads can easily be used for
development.

larry gross

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 22:12:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:

>
>
>The "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays for the
>facilities.

correct... and then VDOT decides....
>

>> Especially when somebody else is paying the bills to build it for you.
>
>Again, the "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays the
>bill.
>
>

.... and the point? taxpayers pay... and VDOT decides.... even if
the taxpayers don't want it.

larry gross

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:51:34 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>Not true here. The local planning and political bodies usually don't
>get anything unless they ask for it; e.g. initiate the project. If they
>don't want a highway, there are many other areas of the state that would
>gladly accept the highway funds.

yes.. and here in Virginia.. if you don't build the road that VDOT
wants... they'll give the money to some other locality that will build
what VDOT wants. Further.. if you don't select the 'preferred' road
they'll liable to threaten your other funding. Been there.. seen it
happen.
>

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
lgr...@pobox.com (larry gross) wrote:

>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 19:54:44 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >It is not the place for the state DOT to solely influence land-use
> >patterns, that is the mainly the job of the MPOs, city councils, county
> >boards of supervisors, and local zoning boards.
>
> this is a cop out IMHO. Why does FHWA make it so hard to put
> new INTERCHANGES on the NHS? It is simply because they know
> that the land around the new interchange will be developed and
> will put more traffic on the road. VDOT, on the other hand, gladly
> accepts land/money proffers for new interchanges on non-Federal
> roads - thus guaranteeing that new roads can easily be used for
> development.

Larry, I asked you before for a list of Virginia "proffered"
interchanges. Can you list them? Where are they?

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
lgr...@pobox.com (larry gross) wrote:

>
> On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:51:34 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >Not true here. The local planning and political bodies usually don't
> >get anything unless they ask for it; e.g. initiate the project. If they
> >don't want a highway, there are many other areas of the state that would
> >gladly accept the highway funds.
>
> yes.. and here in Virginia.. if you don't build the road that VDOT
> wants... they'll give the money to some other locality that will build
> what VDOT wants. Further.. if you don't select the 'preferred' road
> they'll liable to threaten your other funding. Been there.. seen it
> happen.

Like the Outer Connector in your area, which FAMPO (Fredericksburg Area
MPO) just approved? I saw the newspaper article "Connector Wins FAMPO
Nod", _The Free Lance Star_, 10-15-98. The article gives me the
impression that most of the local people favor it.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
lgr...@pobox.com (larry gross) wrote:

>
> On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 22:12:36 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Again, the "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays the
> >bill.
>
> .... and the point? taxpayers pay... and VDOT decides.... even if
> the taxpayers don't want it.

I disagree. The most controversial road in Virginia's history was
Interstate 66 from I-495 to Rosslyn. Check this article of mine, with
documentation about the process and controversy: "Interstate 66 and
Metrorail Vienna Route" --
http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm/Int66_MetroViennaRte.html

While it was controversial, still a clear majority of the citizens
wanted the road to be built. I believe that the historical record shows
that it would not have been built otherwise, and that the money would
have been transferred to Metrorail construction.

Oscar Voss

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Exile on Market Street wrote:

> I guess one of the big ironies in this argument is that if there is any
> jurisdiction anywhere in the U.S. that actually used mass transit as a
> planning and development tool as many Canadian cities (Toronto most
> notably) did in the years since WW2, it is Greater Washington, and in
> particular Arlington County, Va. The Arlington Boulevard corridor has been
> *completely transformed* by Metro, and that is as Arlington County planners
> intended. The result is an expansion of Washington's "urban core" across
> the river.

Actually, it's the Wilson Blvd.(/Fairfax Dr./Clarendon Blvd.) corridor
that was followed, and transformed, by Metro's Orange Line and the
county government's planning efforts focused around Orange Line
stations. The Arlington Blvd. (US 50) corridor (about a mile to the
south, except where it curves north to within a few blocks of
Arlington's two easternmost Orange Line stations) has been almost
completely unaffected by the Metro.

--
Oscar Voss, Arlington, Virginia, ov...@erols.com
(NOTE: ov...@ibm.net is closed, but will forward mail sent there
until mid-November)
--
My photo tour of Alaska's Dalton Highway:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3175/corr24a.htm
Recent photos from Nevada's Extraterrestrial Highway:
http://members.tripod.com/~andy75/nev375-1.htm

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:44:36 -0500, in alt.planning.urban
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
....

>> (Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
>> entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long.
>
>Of course, Metro began in 1969, with over half under construction by
>1979, so in today's dollars, Metro would easily cost $20 billion or
>more.
>
>In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a
>transportation project, since the existing 6-lane elevated highway could
>have been rehabilitated and widened to 8 lanes for probably no more than
>$1 billion. The $8.4 billion to depress and bury the Central Artery is
>IMO about 85% funded to urban renewal and urban open space creation,
>because it is removing the expressway from surface visibility, and
>creating over 150 acres of open land in the CBD.

....

However much the Big Dig was a going away present for Tip O'Neil, and
however ridiculous it is for the rest of America to pay for it, anyone
with a minimal sense of aesthetics has to applaud the improvement it
will offer to downtown Boston. It isn't worth much to me, but I
certainly understand why the Boston area fought for it.

craz...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
DOT fifedoms...they seem to exist in most states. Combine that with a local
PW Director that has highways in his blood, and you have road building run a
muck on a local level. Remember when state DOT use to be called the state
Highway Department? The name has changed, but the game continues.

In article <363e3860...@news.erols.com>,
lgr...@pobox.com (larry gross) wrote:


> On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 21:51:34 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >Not true here. The local planning and political bodies usually don't
> >get anything unless they ask for it; e.g. initiate the project. If they
> >don't want a highway, there are many other areas of the state that would
> >gladly accept the highway funds.
>
> yes.. and here in Virginia.. if you don't build the road that VDOT
> wants... they'll give the money to some other locality that will build
> what VDOT wants. Further.. if you don't select the 'preferred' road
> they'll liable to threaten your other funding. Been there.. seen it
> happen.
> >
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>> > mda...@io.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Very faint praise (of Va DOT) because they've done absolutely NOTHING

>> >> to influence land-use patterns, instead copping out with "we must
>> >> serve demand", and ignoring future traffic generated by the
>> >> roads you built as irrelevant.
>
> Colin edited my words and inserted "(of Va DOT)".

Sorry, those should have been square brackets, to indicate context of the
quote that wasn't part of the original quote. My goof. And they were Mike's
words, not yours.

> So you seem to be concluding that "the entire governmental system falls
> flat on its face" because there is no one single governmental agency
> that controls transportation and land-use planning in a metropolitan
> area.

It doesn't have to be a single agency. There just has to be some
coordination, and that is plainly lacking in most major American cities
(and some Canadian cities as well).

>> It's pretty easy for the local agencies to swing a good deal for their own
>> municipalities when their "big brother" (not in the Orwellian sense), i.e.
>> the state, is willing to pick up most of the cost of providing the

>> transportation services to the communities that they build and profit
>> from.
>
> The "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays for the
> facilities.

The cost of those facilities gets diffused over all the taxpayers of the
state, diluting the correlation between costs and benefits of the local
people. IOW, the local municipality reaps all the benfits of the tax base
generated by development, while having everybody else in the state pick up
the costs of providing the transportation infrastructure. Little wonder
they're all so gung-ho to promote auto-oriented sprawl under that setup.

>> I've seen numbers from here that indicate that the cost of providing
>> transportation infrastructure to a new fringe development outweigh the
>> costs of the water and sewer infrastructure by a factor of about 4:1.
>
> And I've seen numbers from here that indicates that that is not true.

Perhaps the situation is different in your state, then. The analysts
working for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton have an excellent
handle on the costs of providing government services, and those were the
numbers that they came up with.

>> If those towns and counties had to build 14 lane wide expressways through
>> their communities out of their own funds, rather than relying on the State
>> to build them a couple of miles away, they might think twice about their
>> "investments".
>
> I doubt that there are more that a couple hundred miles of highways 14
> lanes (or more) wide in the U.S., so I don't see the logic of that
> statement.

Regardless of the width of the highways, the statement holds true.

>> The shape of the transportation network has an extremely strong impact on
>> the shape of the land use patterns, and vice versa.
>
> I agree fully.
>

>> Especially when somebody else is paying the bills to build it for you.
>

> Again, the "state" doesn't pay for anything, the "taxpayer" pays the
> bill.

The point is that the direct links between cause and effect, and costs and
benefits, are lost, leading to distortions in the perception of which
courses of action are cheapest.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

alt.planning.urban dropped from the crosspost

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:

>> > On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 02:51:23 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>> > <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Like a $9 billion "bone" to new rapid rail transit in the D.C.
>> >>metropolitan area, when the total area investment in expressway
>> >>construction in the same 30-year time period is less than $2.5 billion?
>

>> Just consider the inverse: If the subway existed and it was the highway
>> network in the DC metro area that had to be built from scratch today,
>> with already-existing development blocking every corridor, every highway
>> underground because of opposition from the communities it had to cut
>> through, how much would that highway network cost?
>
> That is an inappropriate comparison, because by definition, urban rapid
> rail transit lines are usually built UNDER major urban streets, because
> the patrons need to be within general walking distance of the stations.
> Highway interchanges don't generally need to be within walking distance,
> so the highways can be located outside of the business and residential
> districts.

You're the one who raised the issue of costs. The main reason that subways
are so expensive to build today compared to the cost of building the
highways is that the highways were built first, using up the
easily-available rights of way, leaving no place to put the rail lines. If
the situation had been reversed, we'd be discussing the high cost of
building highways instead of the high costs of building subways. As an
example:

>> (Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
>> entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long.
>
> Of course, Metro began in 1969, with over half under construction by
> 1979, so in today's dollars, Metro would easily cost $20 billion or
> more.

Twice the cost of the Big Dig (last I heard, somewhere around $10B and
still climbing), for a network about 100 miles long. Not a bad deal at all.

> In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a
> transportation project,

Yes, but that's tangential to my point.

>> To be fair about the cost and necessity of going underground, these
>> highways _could_ be built on the surface if you adopt the 1950s attitude
>> of "expropriate and bulldoze",
>
> The power of eminent domain is a constitutional legal process whereby
> the state can acquire land for highway projects, and other necessary
> projects such as aboveground rail transit lines (such as most of
> suburban Washington Metrorail), airports, and seaports.

The point being that such practices were acceptable (and even encouraged)
in the 1950s and 1960s when the highways were being built, and are not
considered quite so acceptable today. This returns to my first point above:
if the situation were reversed with an extensive rapid transit network
in place and we were trying to build a highway network today, it would be
extrememly costly and difficult.

larry gross

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:55:32 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:


>Like the Outer Connector in your area, which FAMPO (Fredericksburg Area
>MPO) just approved? I saw the newspaper article "Connector Wins FAMPO
>Nod", _The Free Lance Star_, 10-15-98. The article gives me the
>impression that most of the local people favor it.

AT the two location public hearings - more than half spoke against it.
At the 3 locality hearings, like the one in Stafford.. all but one
person spoke against it. The City of Fredericksburg voted against
it.

larry gross

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 05:10:58 GMT, craz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>DOT fifedoms...they seem to exist in most states. Combine that with a local
>PW Director that has highways in his blood, and you have road building run a
>muck on a local level. Remember when state DOT use to be called the state
>Highway Department? The name has changed, but the game continues.
>

Yes... the players have changed a little but the game is still the
same. The 'public process' consists of 'commenting' on the final
plans in most cases - pro forma... then on with the road.

larry gross

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:24:08 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:


>Larry, I asked you before for a list of Virginia "proffered"
>interchanges. Can you list them? Where are they?
>

Scott, I know of one for the Outer Connector - subsequently
withdrawn but it is the policy that is important. If VDOT does
accept the proffers then developers become proponents of
roads that 'open up' new raw land. In the Outer Connector
case, the localities stated in resolution form that their
support of the road was to be combined with no new interchanges
for 25 years. VDOT made a point of stating that it would be VDOT
not the localities that decided on when and where new interchanges
would be placed. In the mean time.. the land along the proposed
road is being speculated by investors who know that if they put
the 'right' package together that they can get an interchange.

George Conklin

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <363eec1c....@news.erols.com>,

This is how they are planning a rail line. Architects
have come up with ideal-type housing, basically 1920s
apartments in order to support high-density. Then all the
supporters get a mailing, show up, and voila, everyone in
the world wants to live on a rail line in 16+ apartments per
acre. It is a bit like asking the Triangle Vegetarian
Authority where to get a good meal on Thanksgiving.


Ralph Herman

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

Colin R. Leech wrote in message <71mglo$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...


very major snip

>The main reason that subways
>are so expensive to build today compared to the cost of building the
>highways is that the highways were built first, using up the
>easily-available rights of way, leaving no place to put the rail lines. If
>the situation had been reversed, we'd be discussing the high cost of
>building highways instead of the high costs of building subways. As an
>example:
>

As usual Colin, your not dealing with political and economic realities. In
most major cities I know, subways (and I think we all know subways are
placed beneath the gound in major urban centers these days) where there is
*no* easily available right of way. Building any new subway line in any
downtown area is disruptive and can cause economic hardship for those
business depending on access during the lenghty construction period.

A perfect example of your flawed logic is the Red Line Subway line in Los
Angeles... $300 million *a mile*. Many business along Lankershim Blvd in
North Hollywood have gone out of business duirng the Red Line construction.

snip

>The point being that such practices were acceptable (and even encouraged)
>in the 1950s and 1960s when the highways were being built, and are not
>considered quite so acceptable today. This returns to my first point above:
>if the situation were reversed with an extensive rapid transit network
>in place and we were trying to build a highway network today, it would be
>extrememly costly and difficult.
>
>

*ANY* transportation network (road, rail, airport) built today is "extremely
costly and difficult" to build today, Colin. To attract ridership, rapid
transit facilites *must* be placed in high density areas... by definition,
that is usually the most expensive and difficult site to build on. *Any*
mass transit system will change the character of the neighborhoods near
transit stations.

In the US today, rail and transit projects must play by the same rules....
THAT is why rail is so expensive.

Ralph

craz...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
George, are you putting the chicken before the egg, or the cart before the
horse? Rail line...housing....housing rail line. Which is it? perhaps they
would be better off building an airport! Seriously, when it comes to
transportation, state DOT and the MPO's for the most part have a one- size-
fit-s all public process. And it basically sucks. (as do most "public"
processes as we know them) There is a little thing called the Transportation
Plan...I believe it is generally a 20 year plan, though it could be 10 year.
And your community has one! The projects are ranked and voted on by the MPO
and put into that plan. How much the public follows that process, and
participates in the ranking of the projects is open to a lot of debate.
However, at sometime in the future those projects happen. And surprise,
surprise!!! A lot of time, money, energy, political capitol, and design work
has already been expended! And there is no turning back! BUT for most people
affected it's a NEW PROJECT and THEY have had NO imput! The old, "you didn't
ask me if I approve of this" thing! WOW! And by the time this project is up
for the actually doing it's in the hands of those damn local planners. And
they will be very happy, as will the state DOT to tell you ALL ABOUT the
wonderful public process they had 2, 5, 10 years ago that led to this
project. So Georgie boy...pay attention, and vote early and often on these
projects. Oh, and another, don't let your Ivory Tower view of the world get
in the way of understanding how things are really changing out there.

In article <71mtnf$llj$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

George Conklin

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <71np3n$5oe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

<craz...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>George, are you putting the chicken before the egg, or the cart before the
>horse? Rail line...housing....housing rail line. Which is it? perhaps they
>would be better off building an airport!


Actually the airport is fine. The rail line, just between
Raleigh and Durham, will cost more than the airport and run
a huge loss. The airport makes a good profit, and pays for
all its own improvments too.

The idea that planners are going to change America's
housing desires by building a rail line is absurd. But the
process the same as building a road: it arrives prepackaged
presented only to supporters who always love what they see
and declare that they represent the entire public. It is
just like the Triangle Vegetarian Society giving advice on
Thanksgiving Dinner.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:

[Snipped major questions/statements that were well-addressed by Ralph
Herman's post]

> >> [cost of urban highways]


> >> (Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
> >> entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long.

About 5 miles long.

> > Of course, Metro began in 1969, with over half under construction by
> > 1979, so in today's dollars, Metro would easily cost $20 billion or
> > more.
>
> Twice the cost of the Big Dig (last I heard, somewhere around $10B and
> still climbing), for a network about 100 miles long. Not a bad deal at all.

No, you just heard $8.4 billion from my post. An Engineering
News-Record article within the last month said that the project is
on-budget and on-schedule.



> > In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a

> > transportation project, since the existing 6-lane elevated highway could
> > have been rehabilitated and widened to 8 lanes for probably no more than
> > $1 billion. The $8.4 billion to depress and bury the Central Artery is
> > IMO about 85% funded to urban renewal and urban open space creation,
> > because it is removing the expressway from surface visibility, and

> > creating over 150 acres of open land in the CBD. [[restored snippage]]



> Yes, but that's tangential to my point.

But precisely on-point for me. The CA/T is a red herring example of
urban highway construction, with extremely high costs, something that I
would never recommend building solely based on the transportation
benefits. I consider only about $1 billion of those funds to truly be
"highway" funds, with the rest being "urban renewal" funds. All of the
U.S. is helping pay for the project. Even so, the cost is being spread
over a 10-year construction schedule.

I-95 was completed through 14 miles of Baltimore city in 1985 at a cost
of $1.4 billion, about $100 million per mile, and this included the
7,200-foot-long 8-lane Fort McHenry Tunnel under Baltimore Harbor. It
would cost about double ($200 million per mile) for that highway today,
and this is more typical of urban expressway construction costs.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to

"Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
> Colin R. Leech wrote in message <71mglo$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>>The main reason that subways
>>are so expensive to build today compared to the cost of building the
>>highways is that the highways were built first, using up the
>>easily-available rights of way, leaving no place to put the rail lines. If
>>the situation had been reversed, we'd be discussing the high cost of
>>building highways instead of the high costs of building subways. As an
>>example:
>
> As usual Colin, your not dealing with political and economic realities.

That's why I wrote "IF" - it's all hypothetical in today's political reality.

> In most major cities I know, subways (and I think we all know subways are
> placed beneath the gound in major urban centers these days) where there is
> *no* easily available right of way.

There is lots of easily-available r-o-w. Typically between 25% and 35% of
urban land area in major cities is devoted to roads (not counting parking
lots, driveways, etc. - just the public roads). From a pure economic
perspective, does it make sense to devote a 14 foot wide path to a
transportation system that can carry 600-800 people per hour (urban
street lane) or perhaps 2000 people per hour (freeway lane) when we could
be using it to carry 10,000-40,000 people per hour instead? (busway or
rail line)

The problem is not lack of available space. The problem is the lack of
political will to inconvenience a few hundred or a few thousand motorists
in the interests of moving *people* efficiently instead of moving steel
cages.

Rapid transit lines can hum along quite happily on the surface, and not
cost an arm and a leg to build. There are two major reasons for moving
them to grade separations, whether completely underground or with
over/underpasses in selected locations:

(1) Inability to use available space efficiently, as described above
(2) The ability to provide the cars with an uninterrupted path. Nobody
wants to have car traffic on a major street disrupted every minute or two
by a train cruising through the intersection, so we build an
under/overpass to help keep those cars moving. The high costs of such
grade separations are a subsidy to the motorists, not to the transit line.

>>The point being that such practices [expropriate and bulldoze]


>>were acceptable (and even encouraged)
>>in the 1950s and 1960s when the highways were being built, and are not
>>considered quite so acceptable today. This returns to my first point above:
>>if the situation were reversed with an extensive rapid transit network
>>in place and we were trying to build a highway network today, it would be
>>extrememly costly and difficult.
>
> *ANY* transportation network (road, rail, airport) built today is "extremely
> costly and difficult" to build today, Colin.

Right. The road networks already exist, so it's not so much an issue for
them. If the rail lines had been built in the 1950s when it was easier to
acquire r-o-w, and we were trying to build the road today, people would be
screaming about the $1 billion per mile cost of building a freeway, rather
than screaming about the cost of the subways. It's a function of which
came first and which we're trying to build today, not an issue of the
actual technologies being built.

> To attract ridership, rapid
> transit facilites *must* be placed in high density areas... by definition,
> that is usually the most expensive and difficult site to build on.

See above as to why this is true. For example, Portland built their
downtown LRT line very cheaply because they simply closed a street to
traffic, and converted it to LRT instead. No problem.

> *Any*
> mass transit system will change the character of the neighborhoods near
> transit stations.

As will a highway. The main difference is that a transit station (after
the construction is finished) will generally enhance the neighbourhood,
whereas the freeway will degrade it (noise, pollution, etc.)

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
>> >> [cost of urban highways]
>> >> (Hint: Look at Boston, where the Big Dig is costing about as much as the
>> >> entire DC Metro, and it's only a few short miles long.
>
> About 5 miles long.
>
>> > Of course, Metro began in 1969, with over half under construction by
>> > 1979, so in today's dollars, Metro would easily cost $20 billion or
>> > more.
>>
>> Twice the cost of the Big Dig (last I heard, somewhere around $10B and
>> still climbing), for a network about 100 miles long. Not a bad deal at all.
>
> No, you just heard $8.4 billion from my post.

OK, whatever. So we're still talking about approximately the same cost for
103 miles of subway, and 5 miles of freeway. Still looks pretty good to me
for the subway.

>> > In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a
>> > transportation project,
>

>> Yes, but that's tangential to my point.
>
> But precisely on-point for me. The CA/T is a red herring example of
> urban highway construction, with extremely high costs, something that I
> would never recommend building solely based on the transportation
> benefits.

And I agree that it is hard to justify on the basis of transportation
requirements alone. But you're still missing my point.

My point was that it demonstrates the huge cost of building underground
freeways. The reason for building it (whether it's a transportation
function, or an urban renewal/beautification function), is irrelevant. If
somebody wants to build an underground freeway elsewhere (for whatever
reason), that's the sort of money they can expect to spend.

It does make sense, though. The LA subway is costing $300 million per
mile, for a two track = two lane facility. It makes sense that an 8 lane
facility should cost four times as much, or $1.2 billion per mile - in
line with the Big Dig costs.

> I-95 was completed through 14 miles of Baltimore city in 1985 at a cost
> of $1.4 billion, about $100 million per mile, and this included the
> 7,200-foot-long 8-lane Fort McHenry Tunnel under Baltimore Harbor. It
> would cost about double ($200 million per mile) for that highway today

The tunnel has one major cost advantage: it doesn't have to deal with
utility relocation and all the other existing infrastructure that goes
with building under an existing city (underpinning adjacent buildings,

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> >
> It does make sense, though. The LA subway is costing $300 million per
> mile, for a two track = two lane facility. It makes sense that an 8 lane
> facility should cost four times as much, or $1.2 billion per mile - in
> line with the Big Dig costs.

No that really doesn't make sense, the 8-lane tunnel still has two
bores. The cost of the 8-lane Mall Tunnel in D.C. was almost $100
million when it was completed in 1973, for a 3,400-foot-long tunnel, and
that cost included the depressed approaches. So perhaps $300 million
would be needed for the same project today (3x inflation), about 3/4 of
that cost for the tunnel itself.

Building a rapid rail transit line is not only a civil engineering work
(like a highway), but also, in effect, building a gigantic system of
high-tech machinery. There are running rails, power 3rd rails, power
substations; plus massive mechanical, electrical, electronic, and
computer systems. There are the trains themselves, plus the station
infrastructure (escalators, elevators, etc.). Then there is the
automatic train control systems, plus automated fare collection
systems. Then there are large service, inspection and storage yards for
the trains.

Urban highway tunnels are not typically built under major thoroughfares
(like a subway needs to be), but under parks or semi-developed land.
The vehicles are privately owned and operated, unlike the subway trains
and personnel.



> > I-95 was completed through 14 miles of Baltimore city in 1985 at a cost
> > of $1.4 billion, about $100 million per mile, and this included the
> > 7,200-foot-long 8-lane Fort McHenry Tunnel under Baltimore Harbor. It
> > would cost about double ($200 million per mile) for that highway today
>
> The tunnel has one major cost advantage: it doesn't have to deal with
> utility relocation and all the other existing infrastructure that goes
> with building under an existing city (underpinning adjacent buildings,
> etc.)

That ignores the fact that subaqueous tunnels are _extremely_ complex
and expensive.

One problem here is the fact that there are very few examples of
underground urban expressways to analyze. There was a discussion I had
with Peter Schleifer of NYC in m.t.u-t a couple months ago, comparing
the I-478 Westway to the Second Avenue Subway. They weren't fully
active projects at the same exact times, but we did seem to determine
that they both had roughly similar lengths and estimated construction
costs (neither were built).

I maintain my position, that the Big Dig is an extreme example of the
costs of underground highways, and major parts of it are aboveground
anyhow. The tunnel is on a curving alignment through the Boston
downtown, built under the active underpinned elevated 6-lane Central
Artery; with extensive underpinning of large buildings, plus there is an
extremely complex interchange with I-90 that has elevated, at-grade, and
underground roadways; plus the huge cable-stayed Charles River bridge
(actually 2 separate bridges with a total of 14 lanes) is a part of the
project; plus the tunnel passes under 2 different rail transit lines*;
plus there are other underground interchanges. Building the D.C. Mall
Tunnel was cheap in comparison.

*Counters your notion about urban roads being in cities before rail
transit.

For a high-end example of underground rail transit costs, look at the
proposed LIRR extension (actually relocation) from Queens to Grand
Central Terminal. Two miles long; a recent Engineering News-Record
article said that the cost was estimated at from $2 to $4 billion. That
would be $1 to $2 billion per mile. Plus it will use the already-built
(e.g. paid for) 63rd Street Tunnel under the East River. Like Ralph
Herman said a couple days ago, ANY urban transportation project is
expensive today.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> "Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
>
> > *ANY* transportation network (road, rail, airport) built today is "extremely
> > costly and difficult" to build today, Colin.
>
> Right. The road networks already exist, so it's not so much an issue for
> them. If the rail lines had been built in the 1950s when it was easier to
> acquire r-o-w, and we were trying to build the road today, people would be
> screaming about the $1 billion per mile cost of building a freeway, rather
> than screaming about the cost of the subways. It's a function of which
> came first and which we're trying to build today, not an issue of the
> actual technologies being built.

This is historical revisionism. Assuming that you are talking about New
York City, you know full well that the railroads and rail transit lines
in nearly every case were built BEFORE the highways. True in other
large U.S. cities too. And please don't give me the Konspiracy theory
about the auto companies putting the trolleys out of business.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> Building a rapid rail transit line is not only a civil engineering work
> (like a highway), but also, in effect, building a gigantic system of
> high-tech machinery. There are running rails, power 3rd rails, power
> substations; plus massive mechanical, electrical, electronic, and
> computer systems.

Underground highways need sophisticated ventilation systems and lighting,
unlike electric rail lines. They also need traffic control systems.

> There are the trains themselves, plus the station
> infrastructure (escalators, elevators, etc.).

Access/egress ramps.

> Urban highway tunnels are not typically built under major thoroughfares
> (like a subway needs to be), but under parks or semi-developed land.

There are no major differences in what a highway or subway could be built
under. Some highways are built under other streets, buildings, and parks,
and some rail lines are built under streets, buildings, and parks.

> The [Big Dig] tunnel is on a curving alignment through the Boston


> downtown, built under the active underpinned elevated 6-lane Central
> Artery; with extensive underpinning of large buildings,

Subways generally don't need underpinning (or to a much lesser degree)
since they are only perhaps 35 feet wide instead of several hundred feet
wide.

> plus there is an
> extremely complex interchange with I-90 that has elevated, at-grade, and
> underground roadways;

Subway stations are typically simpler because they are just a box under
the street level.

> plus the tunnel passes under 2 different rail transit lines*;

Various NYC subway projects have been very complex, threading under and
even between existing other rail and subway tunnels as well as other
utilities and buildings.

> plus there are other underground interchanges. Building the D.C. Mall
> Tunnel was cheap in comparison.

Artificially cheap since it was under a park, so they didn't have to worry
so much about other utilities and buildings being in the way.



> *Counters your notion about urban roads being in cities before rail
> transit.

Never said it was an absolute rule.

> For a high-end example of underground rail transit costs, look at the
> proposed LIRR extension (actually relocation) from Queens to Grand
> Central Terminal. Two miles long; a recent Engineering News-Record
> article said that the cost was estimated at from $2 to $4 billion. That
> would be $1 to $2 billion per mile.

The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously
expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely
complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,
building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple
two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not
comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> "Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
>>
>> > *ANY* transportation network (road, rail, airport) built today is "extremely
>> > costly and difficult" to build today, Colin.
>>
>> Right. The road networks already exist, so it's not so much an issue for
>> them. If the rail lines had been built in the 1950s when it was easier to
>> acquire r-o-w, and we were trying to build the road today, people would be
>> screaming about the $1 billion per mile cost of building a freeway, rather
>> than screaming about the cost of the subways. It's a function of which
>> came first and which we're trying to build today, not an issue of the
>> actual technologies being built.
>
> This is historical revisionism. Assuming that you are talking about New
> York City, you know full well that the railroads and rail transit lines
> in nearly every case were built BEFORE the highways. True in other
> large U.S. cities too. And please don't give me the Konspiracy theory
> about the auto companies putting the trolleys out of business.

You don't know much history, do you? The city streets have always been
there, carrying pedestrians, horses, etc. But NYC had an extensive network
of surface trolley and elevated rapid transit lines as well as the
subways. Those lines handled the transportation needs quite well until the
automobile came along and created traffic congestion on the city streets.
Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
around the Els without disrupting them.

Douglas Andrew Willinger

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>
> You don't know much history, do you? The city streets have always been
> there, carrying pedestrians, horses, etc. But NYC had an extensive network
> of surface trolley and elevated rapid transit lines as well as the
> subways. Those lines handled the transportation needs quite well until the
> automobile came along and created traffic congestion on the city streets.

Conjestion did not exist on city streets before the advent of
automobiles?

> Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
> and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
> around the Els without disrupting them.

Interestingly, at least one of the Robert Moses proposals for a
cross-town Manhatten expressway (I believe during the 1950s) would have
soared higher then the elevated railroads (which I believe were gone by
that time), as a "skyway" directly through the 5th (10th?) floors of
buildings that were to be intergrated with the highway.

Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio

Robert Coté

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
In article <720o17$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Colin R. Leech) wrote:


=The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously
=expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely
=complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,
=building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple
=two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not
=comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.

Amazing how the horrendous extra costs of urban infrastructure are
repeatedly denied until it can be used as an "excuse" for the
horrendous extra cost of a transit project.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
[alt.planning.transportation (different from alt.planning.urban) removed
from header; a.p.t has virtually no activity except for a small number
of cross-posted articles]

> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:

> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:

> >> "Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
> >>
> >> > *ANY* transportation network (road, rail, airport) built today is > >> >"extremely
> >> > costly and difficult" to build today, Colin.
> >>
> >> Right. The road networks already exist, so it's not so much an issue for
> >> them. If the rail lines had been built in the 1950s when it was easier to
> >> acquire r-o-w, and we were trying to build the road today, people would be
> >> screaming about the $1 billion per mile cost of building a freeway, rather
> >> than screaming about the cost of the subways. It's a function of which
> >> came first and which we're trying to build today, not an issue of the
> >> actual technologies being built.
> >
> > This is historical revisionism. Assuming that you are talking about New
> > York City, you know full well that the railroads and rail transit lines
> > in nearly every case were built BEFORE the highways. True in other
> > large U.S. cities too. And please don't give me the Konspiracy theory
> > about the auto companies putting the trolleys out of business.
>

> You don't know much history, do you? The city streets have always been
> there, carrying pedestrians, horses, etc. But NYC had an extensive network
> of surface trolley and elevated rapid transit lines as well as the
> subways. Those lines handled the transportation needs quite well until the
> automobile came along and created traffic congestion on the city streets.

> Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
> and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
> around the Els without disrupting them.

This is historical revisionism. The city had high congestion long
before the auto came into common use. I've seen photos of the business
districts, waterfront areas, and residential areas, taken around the
turn of the century (1900); I've read about it too, and there was
considerable horse, pedestrian and commercial traffic congestion in many
parts of the city. Also, there was much less mobility then, and many
people rarely traveled more than 5 miles from their home; also, the city
had about half the population that it has today, and very little
population in what is now the suburbs outside of the current city
limits. Today's Greater New York City transportation system provides
far greater mobility to a far greater population.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
[alt.planning.transportation (different from alt.planning.urban) removed
from header; a.p.t has virtually no activity except for a small number
of cross-posted articles]

> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> >

> > Building a rapid rail transit line is not only a civil engineering work
> > (like a highway), but also, in effect, building a gigantic system of
> > high-tech machinery. There are running rails, power 3rd rails, power
> > substations; plus massive mechanical, electrical, electronic, and

> > computer systems. There are the trains themselves, plus the station
> > infrastructure (escalators, elevators, etc.). Then there is the
> > automatic train control systems, plus automated fare collection
> > systems. Then there are large service, inspection and storage yards for

> > the trains. [[restored snippage]]


>
> Underground highways need sophisticated ventilation systems and lighting,
> unlike electric rail lines.

Not quite. Extensive ventilation systems are needed in subways, and
extensive lighting systems are needed in the stations.

> They also need traffic control systems.

See my above comment about automatic train control systems. Expressway
traffic control systems are very simple in comparison.



> > There are the trains themselves, plus the station
> > infrastructure (escalators, elevators, etc.).
>
> Access/egress ramps.

The elevators (required for physically challenged patrons) cost over $2
million apiece, and many urban stations have 2 separate elevators.
Escalators are expensive too.


> > Urban highway tunnels are not typically built under major thoroughfares
> > (like a subway needs to be), but under parks or semi-developed land.

> > The vehicles are privately owned and operated, unlike the subway trains

> > and personnel. [[restored snippage]]


>
> There are no major differences in what a highway or subway could be built
> under. Some highways are built under other streets, buildings, and parks,
> and some rail lines are built under streets, buildings, and parks.

But an urban subway by definition needs to be within walking distance of
most of its patrons, to attract adequate ridership. Underground
highways can often be shifted a quarter-mile or more away from the
highly developed area (witness Mall Tunnel and once-proposed Westway).



> > The [Big Dig] tunnel is on a curving alignment through the Boston
> > downtown, built under the active underpinned elevated 6-lane Central
> > Artery; with extensive underpinning of large buildings,
>
> Subways generally don't need underpinning (or to a much lesser degree)
> since they are only perhaps 35 feet wide instead of several hundred feet
> wide.

Colin, I've been following Washington Metro since it started in 1969,
and subways often DO require extensive underpinning. A deep-level bore
can avoid that, but with the other expenses of solid-rock tunneling,
plus long shafts to reach the tunnel.

Your figures there are a typical exaggeration. Try 50 feet wide for the
subway tunnel, 100 feet wide for the (WMATA) station, and 140 feet wide
for the Mall Tunnel (8 lanes plus 4 10-foot shoulders).

> > plus there is an extremely complex interchange with I-90 that
> > has elevated, at-grade, and underground roadways;
>
> Subway stations are typically simpler because they are just a box under
> the street level.

A _large vault_ in the case of WMATA. It makes for a much more
desirable station, IMO.



> > plus the tunnel passes under 2 different rail transit lines*;
>
> Various NYC subway projects have been very complex, threading under and
> even between existing other rail and subway tunnels as well as other
> utilities and buildings.

So you're agreeing that there are exceptional cases where an individual
subway segment can be very complex.


> > plus there are other underground interchanges. Building the D.C. Mall
> > Tunnel was cheap in comparison.
>
> Artificially cheap since it was under a park, so they didn't have to worry
> so much about other utilities and buildings being in the way.

That's often an option with highways, which don't need to be within
walking distance of its patrons. The cancelled I-695 Tidal Basin Tunnel
would have been similar in that it would have been under a park,
although the cancelled I-66 K Street Tunnel would have been more
complex, mitigated somewhat by the fact that it would have been under a
straight 147-foot-wide avenue, with minimal ramp access.



> > *Counters your notion about urban roads being in cities before rail
> > transit.
>
> Never said it was an absolute rule.

Good! We've managed to agree on something! :-)



> > For a high-end example of underground rail transit costs, look at the
> > proposed LIRR extension (actually relocation) from Queens to Grand
> > Central Terminal. Two miles long; a recent Engineering News-Record
> > article said that the cost was estimated at from $2 to $4 billion. That
> > would be $1 to $2 billion per mile.

Plus it will use the lower level of the already-built (e.g. paid for at
$1 billion) 63rd Street Tunnel under the East River.


> The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously

> expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely

> complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,

> building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple

> two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not

> comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.

I'm sure that it will carry a lot of ridership, although it will be a
mix of new ridership and existing (relocated) ridership. So now we've
determined that both the Central Artery and the LIRR extension projects
are at the high end of the cost per mile spectrum for each respective
urban transportation project type. And I'll agree that the LIRR project
is probably the best deal priority-wise for NYC, if it had only one
multi-billion dollar transportation project to choose from. I am in no
way diminishing the project. The Central Artery project will likewise
improve the capacity of the Boston expressway network for autos, trucks
and busses, and it will create 27 acres of open land in the CBD where
the elevated highway now stands.

David Jensen

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:35:14 -0500, in alt.planning.transportation
Douglas Andrew Willinger <doug...@idt.net> wrote:

>Colin R. Leech wrote:

....

>> Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
>> and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
>> around the Els without disrupting them.
>

>Interestingly, at least one of the Robert Moses proposals for a
>cross-town Manhatten expressway (I believe during the 1950s) would have
>soared higher then the elevated railroads (which I believe were gone by
>that time), as a "skyway" directly through the 5th (10th?) floors of
>buildings that were to be intergrated with the highway.
>
>Douglas A. Willinger
>Takoma Park Highway Design Studio

I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
existed and why it died?


Douglas Andrew Willinger

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to


Such a plan was undertaken during the early 1950s; a design report was
released in 1954 for a 4 lane connection with 2 lanes in each
direction. This was to be for a set of 2 lane cut and cover tunnels
beneath the existing right of way of 2 existing cross town roads. This
design report- which I have seen at the library of U.S. Department of
Transportation in Washington, D.C., features a road with design specs
similar to the Holland Tunnel- narrow, no shoulders. A better plan was
needed in my opinion

For more info, check out

http://members.tripod.com/%7eande264/mid-manhattan/

Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio

.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to

Douglas Andrew Willinger (doug...@idt.net) wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote:
>>
>> You don't know much history, do you? The city streets have always been
>> there, carrying pedestrians, horses, etc. But NYC had an extensive network
>> of surface trolley and elevated rapid transit lines as well as the
>> subways. Those lines handled the transportation needs quite well until the
>> automobile came along and created traffic congestion on the city streets.
>
> Conjestion did not exist on city streets before the advent of
> automobiles?

I think it's safe to say that there is an order of magnitude of difference
between a city block filled with several streetcars carrying hundreds or
thousands of people and sidewalks full of pedestrians, in comparison with
the same city block filled with a couple of dozen people sitting in their
cars. (The N-S blocks in NYC are very short - scale these figures up or
down as appropriate to your local block lengths.)



>> Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
>> and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
>> around the Els without disrupting them.
>
> Interestingly, at least one of the Robert Moses proposals for a
> cross-town Manhatten expressway (I believe during the 1950s) would have
> soared higher then the elevated railroads (which I believe were gone by
> that time), as a "skyway" directly through the 5th (10th?) floors of
> buildings that were to be intergrated with the highway.

Oh boy, where to I sign up to get an office in one of those buildings with
a highway on the other side of the wall from me? Must be a heck of a
desirable place.

Douglas Andrew Willinger

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> Douglas Andrew Willinger (doug...@idt.net) wrote:
> > Colin R. Leech wrote:
> >>
> >> You don't know much history, do you? The city streets have always been
> >> there, carrying pedestrians, horses, etc. But NYC had an extensive network
> >> of surface trolley and elevated rapid transit lines as well as the
> >> subways. Those lines handled the transportation needs quite well until the
> >> automobile came along and created traffic congestion on the city streets.
> >
> > Conjestion did not exist on city streets before the advent of
> > automobiles?
>
> I think it's safe to say that there is an order of magnitude of difference
> between a city block filled with several streetcars carrying hundreds or
> thousands of people and sidewalks full of pedestrians, in comparison with
> the same city block filled with a couple of dozen people sitting in their
> cars. (The N-S blocks in NYC are very short - scale these figures up or
> down as appropriate to your local block lengths.)

Certainly, such as the difference between a street clogged with street
cars, versus buses, ox carts versus truck, and horseless carriages
versus automobiles- along with the reletive occupancy of each of these,
and other factors- e.g. the number of stops for street cars/buses/ or
for that matter, taxis, the width of the sidewalks, as well as
alternative right of ways such as underground transit and other roadways
for the more express traffic. There are a good deal of possible
combinations of factors, to produce all sorts of magnitudes and
variations of traffic control and traffic flow.


> >> Building an elevated highway in NYC would have been much more difficult
> >> and expensive then compared to today since they would have had to work
> >> around the Els without disrupting them.
> >
> > Interestingly, at least one of the Robert Moses proposals for a
> > cross-town Manhatten expressway (I believe during the 1950s) would have
> > soared higher then the elevated railroads (which I believe were gone by
> > that time), as a "skyway" directly through the 5th (10th?) floors of
> > buildings that were to be intergrated with the highway.
>
> Oh boy, where to I sign up to get an office in one of those buildings with
> a highway on the other side of the wall from me? Must be a heck of a
> desirable place.

Perhaps in an alternate reality. Such proposals for an elevated
expressway (through buildings nonetheless) were never built. {Too bad
the TV show "Sliders" has apparantly never shown alternate scenarios of
highways- especially considering that the show is based in San
Francisco!)

How "desirable" such an office would be would of course depend on
numerous factors (thickness of walls, their ability to contain noise,
etc.). Of course it should be noted that such proposals often lacked
much in the way of sound deadening (from the little I have heard of
these proposals), thus they probably would have been a locally
signnificent source of noise and vehicular exhaust reverberating among
the high-rise towers of Mid-Manhatten.

John Lansford

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:


>This is historical revisionism.

Of course it is. Colin's banking on those reading his comments
agreeing mindlessly with him rather than thinking for themselves.

> The city had high congestion long
>before the auto came into common use. I've seen photos of the business
>districts, waterfront areas, and residential areas, taken around the
>turn of the century (1900); I've read about it too, and there was
>considerable horse, pedestrian and commercial traffic congestion in many
>parts of the city.

Not to mention pollution. Horse waste was allowed to enter the
stormwater system, which ran into the Hudson River and then out to
sea. Of course, fish were caught and eaten in both the river and
offshore as well.

> Also, there was much less mobility then, and many
>people rarely traveled more than 5 miles from their home; also, the city
>had about half the population that it has today, and very little
>population in what is now the suburbs outside of the current city
>limits. Today's Greater New York City transportation system provides
>far greater mobility to a far greater population.

Indeed. As late as right before WWII people just did not wander far
from their homes during their lives. Trains gave the wealthy a means
to get to their resort homes along the shore, and filled the need for
urban mass transit when there was no other convenient alternative.

John Lansford, PE

The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
> In article <720o17$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

> (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> =The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously
> =expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely
> =complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,
> =building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple
> =two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not
> =comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.
>
> Amazing how the horrendous extra costs of urban infrastructure are
> repeatedly denied until it can be used as an "excuse" for the
> horrendous extra cost of a transit project.

One project does not a pattern make.

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

"Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) writes:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
>> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> >> "Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
>
> Replies are in misc.transport.road
>
> alt.planning.transportation has virtually no activity except for a small
> number of cross-posted articles

This justifies removing it from a discussion?

Colin R. Leech

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

nyc.transit added, since the experts hang out there.

David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
>
> I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
> Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
> also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
> Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
> and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
> existed and why it died?

I'll hazard a guess at it:

In the approximate area that this tunnel might have been built, say from
32nd to 42nd St., there is an awful lot of stuff already underground
including dozens of Penn Station and Grand Central Station tracks, and
half a dozen subway lines on various levels including the major Times
Square and Grand Central complexes. I don't think even Robert Moses could
have found enough money to thread another tunnel through there, nor attempt
to take over some of the existing railroad tunnels for his highway.

Douglas Andrew Willinger

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> nyc.transit added, since the experts hang out there.
>
> David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
> >
> > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
> > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
> > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
> > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
> > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
> > existed and why it died?
>
> I'll hazard a guess at it:
>
> In the approximate area that this tunnel might have been built, say from
> 32nd to 42nd St., there is an awful lot of stuff already underground
> including dozens of Penn Station and Grand Central Station tracks, and
> half a dozen subway lines on various levels including the major Times
> Square and Grand Central complexes.

This is true with some of Manhatten's east-west streets, such as 42nd
Street, with its Times Square shuttle- the rail transit subway already
beneath that street. In fact the 1954 report mentioned at
http://members.tripod.com/%7eande264/mid-manhattan/

cateloged a number of mid-town Manhatten east-west streets, comparing
their reletive feasibility as sites for a pair of cut and cover
expressway tunnels for connecting the Mid-town Mahatten and Lincoln
Tunnels.

> I don't think even Robert Moses could
> have found enough money to thread another tunnel through there,

Moses was primarily interested in far less expensive surface and
elevated freeways (with depressed sections here and there). In fact he
was known to decry roadway tunneling, as during his battle to errect not
a tunnel but a bridge connecting Manhatten's southern tip (the Battery)
to Brooklyn- a controversy that U.S. First Lady (President's wife)
Elenor Roosevelt made her sentiments known in the media through a column
she wrote.

> nor attempt
> to take over some of the existing railroad tunnels for his highway.

*Generally* is probably more sensible to dig a new road tunnel upon a
relevitely clear sub-street right of way than to take out an existing
rail line, unless perhaps part of a plan to replace the rail line with a
new one on a nearby alignment thta would also benit rail service as well
as highway service.

David W. Levine

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In <725pf3$a...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:


>nyc.transit added, since the experts hang out there.

n


>David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
>>
>> I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
>> Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
>> also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
>> Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
>> and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
>> existed and why it died?

>I'll hazard a guess at it:

>In the approximate area that this tunnel might have been built, say from
>32nd to 42nd St., there is an awful lot of stuff already underground
>including dozens of Penn Station and Grand Central Station tracks, and
>half a dozen subway lines on various levels including the major Times

>Square and Grand Central complexes. I don't think even Robert Moses could
>have found enough money to thread another tunnel through there, nor attempt


>to take over some of the existing railroad tunnels for his highway.

>--
>#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
>#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
>#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
>#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown


There was some work done. The real killer was that at reasonable
depths (both the Lincoln and midtwon tunnels are fairly shallow) you'd
have to deal with the fact that the cross streets are narrow and hemmed in
by deep basements and foundatoins, not to mention the existing tunneling.
You'd either end up with a very steep sort of U shape to get below everything,
or very odd routings to dodge all the existing stuff. Try doing that for
3 lanes in eash direction, or 3/3 on top of each other. Non trivial. Add the
need for fire access, emergency egress and ventilation and I suspect
it owuld be just about impossible. One does fantasize about a 8 lane
tunnel that would dive deep under it all, say from the NJ Turnpike straight
to the LIE, just east of the Van Wyck. Shame the chunnel stuff isn't
aimed at rock/broken rock which is what you'd go through a lot of the time,
not to mention the cost of a 20 mile 8 lane road tunnel. (and all you'd
do is end up with traffic jams from Trenton to Yaphank. and back again)

- David


John Lansford

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:

>
>Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
>> In article <720o17$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA


>> (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>
>> =The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously
>> =expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely
>> =complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,
>> =building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple
>> =two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not
>> =comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.
>>
>> Amazing how the horrendous extra costs of urban infrastructure are
>> repeatedly denied until it can be used as an "excuse" for the
>> horrendous extra cost of a transit project.
>
>One project does not a pattern make.

So why did you use the $1 billion/mile figure from "one project",
Colin? I've provided the cost/mile figures for freeways before, yet
you run out and get the most expensive project you can for your posts.

Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black to me.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) writes:
> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> >>
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" (koz...@richmond.infi.net) wrote:
> >> > ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> >> >> "Ralph Herman" (rhe...@primenet.com) writes:
> >
> > Replies are in misc.transport.road
> >
> > alt.planning.transportation has virtually no activity except for a small
> > number of cross-posted articles
>
> This justifies removing it from a discussion?

You're the one who likes to complain about cross-posting. I'm trying to
conserve Internet resources.

David Chui

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
: David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
: >
: > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
: > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
: > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
: > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
: > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
: > existed and why it died?

A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
VIllage. The second was a "Mid-Manhattan Expy" (I-495) to be built at
42nd St, connecting the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels. Rather than
being elevated over the street itself, drawings in the pamphlet suggested
that the roadway would be incorporated into the second or third floors of
the buildings facing 42nd St. I don't remember where the third expressway
was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.

- David

Paul Matus

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

David Chui wrote in message <72746h$v9r$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...

>: David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
>: >
>: > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
>: > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it
were
>: > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
>: > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
>: > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan
ever
>: > existed and why it died?
>
>A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
>cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
>the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
>VIllage.

I wouldn't call that the Village. It is now SOHO. At the time it was called
the "Cast Iron District" and was thought (by planners anyway) to be ugly old
worthless commercial structures, the kind they loved to clear away for
highways.


rsjo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <72746h$v9r$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,

dc...@hcs.harvard.edu (David Chui) wrote:
> : David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
> : > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
> : > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
> : > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
> : > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
> : > existed and why it died?
>
> A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
> cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
> the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
> VIllage. The second was a "Mid-Manhattan Expy" (I-495) to be built at
> 42nd St, connecting the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels. Rather than
> being elevated over the street itself, drawings in the pamphlet suggested
> that the roadway would be incorporated into the second or third floors of
> the buildings facing 42nd St. I don't remember where the third expressway
> was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
> Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.
>

The one "through the Village" was actually planned through SoHo, to connect
the Holland Tunnel and the Manhattan Bridge. Stopped by community
opposition. The eventual takeover of SoHo by artists and, subsequently, by
galleries and then pricey boutiques was made possible by the preservation of
SoHo from this project.

PS - Traffic on Canal street and on other approaches to the Holland tunnel is
regularly a complete nightmare.

Also, I doubt very much it was 42nd Street for the midtown route. Both
Midtown tunnel and Lincoln tunnel are a few blocks south of 42nd.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

David Chui

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <EFG12.14999$i16.41...@news.optonline.net>,

Paul Matus <pma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>I wouldn't call that the Village. It is now SOHO. At the time it was called
>the "Cast Iron District" and was thought (by planners anyway) to be ugly old
>worthless commercial structures, the kind they loved to clear away for
>highways.
>

Sorry, I was just copying the description from a previous post.

In fact, isn't the reason why all those cast iron buildings still exist
because the proposed highway kept developers from replacing them with
newer "better" buildings? An odd way to create a historic district, but
it worked (as a side effect).

- David

Robert Coté

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <725p09$9...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:

=Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
=> In article <720o17$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
=> (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
=>
=> =The 63rd St. subway connector project currently underway is hideously
=> =expensive on a per mile basis because it is short, but has extremely
=> =complex parameters such as working around functioning subway lines,
=> =building track connections (which are much more expensive than a simple
=> =two track straightaway at the best of times), etc. It too is not
=> =comparable to construction of "virgin" lines.
=>
=> Amazing how the horrendous extra costs of urban infrastructure are
=> repeatedly denied until it can be used as an "excuse" for the
=> horrendous extra cost of a transit project.
=
=One project does not a pattern make.

One project does not a pattern make but hundreds of posts that ignore
the evidence does. You have succintly explained why greenfield development
is the prefered pattern of urban growth yet because you don't want to
beleive the evidence or even the examples you yourself post ...

Paul Matus

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

David Chui wrote in message <727ghe$3u8$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...

>In article <EFG12.14999$i16.41...@news.optonline.net>,
>Paul Matus <pma...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
< snip re "SOHO" and Cast Iron District >

>In fact, isn't the reason why all those cast iron buildings still exist
>because the proposed highway kept developers from replacing them with
>newer "better" buildings? An odd way to create a historic district, but
>it worked (as a side effect).


I'd say it was good timing all in all. The threat of the highway (given the
cutsie name "Lomex" by Lindsay's people) certainly discouraged building in
the immediate area (Canal Street and connectors from the Williamsburgh
Birdge). OTOH, it wasn't exactly hot real estate at the time anyway. IOW, I
don't know of any glass office building-type people who were interested.

A lot of older New York still exists because there's just too much of it to
tear down... At least not all at once.


fyou...@usa.net

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <72746h$v9r$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
dc...@hcs.harvard.edu (David Chui) wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
> cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
> the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
> VIllage. The second was a "Mid-Manhattan Expy" (I-495) to be built at
> 42nd St, connecting the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels. Rather than
> being elevated over the street itself, drawings in the pamphlet suggested
> that the roadway would be incorporated into the second or third floors of
> the buildings facing 42nd St. I don't remember where the third expressway
> was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
> Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.
>
Hmm--that last expressway might have had an interesting conflict at
Broadway/125th St with the elevated #1/9 station. Maybe it could've gone
*under* the arch? :)


--
Fred B. Young Jr.
Now coming to you live from Pembroke Pines, Florida!

Steve Anderson

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

More info on the unbuilt trans-Manhattan expressways:
Lower Manhattan Expwy (I-78)
http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/lower-manhattan/
Mid-Manhatttan Expwy (I-495)
http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/mid-manhattan/

-- Steve Anderson
The Roads of Metro New York http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/
The Crossings of Metro New York http://members.xoom.com/ande264/
The Roads of Quebec http://members.xoom.com/ande720/

Alexander Medwedew

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
Snaking another tunnel through would be a costly undertaking. There are a
lot of abandoned and unused tunnels lurking under the streets in the
midtown area. It would be interesting to see if any of these could be
connected together to form some sort of connections. Recycling some of
them might be something to consider. When the World Trade Center was built
a number of the old PATH tunnels were converted into roadways for cars for
access to parking and loading docks.

--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/

Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<725pf3$a...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...

Alexander Medwedew

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
There would have been the Metro North elevated at Park avenue to deal with
as well.

--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/

fyou...@usa.net wrote in article <727m1v$t52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

Steve Anderson

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
David Chui wrote:
>
> : David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
> : > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
> : > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
> : > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
> : > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
> : > existed and why it died?
>
> A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
> cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
> the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
> VIllage. The second was a "Mid-Manhattan Expy" (I-495) to be built at
> 42nd St, connecting the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels. Rather than
> being elevated over the street itself, drawings in the pamphlet suggested
> that the roadway would be incorporated into the second or third floors of
> the buildings facing 42nd St. I don't remember where the third expressway
> was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
> Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.
>
Almost forgot: I have a third trans-Manhattan expressway proposal that
was to connect to an unbuilt 125th Street Hudson River Crossing:
125th St Expwy http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/125st-expwy/

Alexander Medwedew

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
What would be interesting to see is a 3D model of NYC showing how all roads
and transit systems working together. It isn't such a hard thing to do.
There are lots of maps in 2D to work with. The big problem is getting the
elevation data and translating it into useful formats. Anyone out there
interested?

Exile on Market Street

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <3644EC...@richmond.infi.net>, koz...@richmond.infi.net wrote:

I don't have much quarrel with what you said in this post, especially the
bit about the relative attractiveness of the Washington Metro's
barrel-vault subway stations, whether squashed or not (although I still
think there should have been more variation in station design to further
aid orientation). But with this statement:

> Not quite. Extensive ventilation systems are needed in subways, and
> extensive lighting systems are needed in the stations.

I must differ somewhat.

In most cut-and-cover subway tunnels, vent shafts alone (along with
openings at station entrances) provide sufficient ventilation with no
further mechanical assistance aside from that provided by the trains
pushing air ahead of them/pulling it behind them as they pass through the
tunnel. Since no combustion of fuel takes place in the tunnel, there are
no fumes to remove (save for those provided by people illegally smoking
cigarettes).

In a tunnel for motor vehicles, the action of vehicles moving through the
tunnel is not sufficient to remove the fumes generated by same, unless the
tunnel is very short; fans must be installed to help the process along --
and are crucial to maintaining air quality in a tunnel filled with
slow-moving or stopped traffic.

Yes, extensive lighting is needed in subway stations. But in the tunnels
between stations, a minimal level of lighting can be provided. For
safety's sake, station-quality lighting must be installed for the entire
length of a motor-vehicle tunnel. And ceramic tilework, while not
absolutely necessary, further improves the light level inside the tunnel
and is normally installed for the entire length of the tunnel, whereas such
materials are only necessary in stations in a rail subway -- and as
Washington and Stockholm have shown, perhaps not even there.

--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Webmaster Mail webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/

"Think! It ain't illegal yet!"
--------------------------------------------------------------Funkadelic--

T. Mennel

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <36498961...@news.monmouth.com>, mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:

> >:What about the unbuilt trans-New Jersey expressway, I-95?
> it's called the NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE

Not the part that wasn't built, you nitwit.

--
T. Mennel
ed...@mindspring.com

Carter Craft

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
rsjo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

: The one "through the Village" was actually planned through SoHo, to connect


: the Holland Tunnel and the Manhattan Bridge. Stopped by community
: opposition. The eventual takeover of SoHo by artists and, subsequently, by
: galleries and then pricey boutiques was made possible by the preservation of
: SoHo from this project.

actually, I thought Lomex was supposed to connect to the Williamsburg Br
via a tunnel under Broome St. And the Mid-Manh Expwy would have gone
along 29th/30 just south of the ESB.

#cc
--
--
Carter Craft
cr...@panix.com


T. Mennel

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
In article <36498d46...@news.monmouth.com>, mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:

> what part of the New Jersey Turnpike is unbuilt??
>
> if you are going to posted the forged attacks at least try
> to get YOUR facts straight!

Dear Sir,

No part of the NJT is unbuilt; the original post referred to the unbuilt
section of I-95. For many years I-95 was planned to depart from the NJT
with I-287 West and veer south near Somerville, cutting through Somerset
and Mercer counties and joining the existing stub of I-95 in Hopewell
Township, about five miles west of where I-95 North currently turns
(somehwat mysteriously for the unaware northbound driver) into I-295
South.

It was blocked by community opposition in the wealthy precincts it was to
cut through and after many many years of debate was finally dropped. Only
well after this point was the I-95 moniker applied to more of the NJT,
though the careful eye will note that it is not as a rule done so south of
exit 8A. Note as well that if the NJT and I-95 were fully coextensive (as
you wrongly assume), I-95 would then intersect itself in Delaware, causing
no end of perplexity.

Yours in facticity,

--
T. Mennel
ed...@mindspring.com

Hank Eisenstein

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
It does show the roads, also. It was closed a few years ago, so that they
could make it more accurate; it was built in 1964, and Moses wanted it to
represent the future, so they put ALL his proposals on the map.
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k ICQ UIN# 1579309

Marc wrote in message <364888ad...@news.monmouth.com>...
>On 10 Nov 1998 00:05:52 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>:Alexander Medwedew wrote:
>>:>
>>:> What would be interesting to see is a 3D model of NYC showing how all


roads
>>:> and transit systems working together. It isn't such a hard thing to
do.
>>:> There are lots of maps in 2D to work with. The big problem is getting
the
>>:> elevation data and translating it into useful formats. Anyone out
there
>>:> interested?

>>:
>>:There's the model of the city at the Queens Museum, formerly the NYC
>>:Pavilion at the NY World's Fairs.
>
>it only shows buildings, not roads and transit

Brandon M. Gorte

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
Marc (mkortlander@*monmouth*.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:40:56 -0500, ed...@mindspring.com (T.
: Mennel) wrote:

: >:In article <36498961...@news.monmouth.com>, mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
: >:
: >:> >:What about the unbuilt trans-New Jersey expressway, I-95?
: >:> it's called the NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
: >:
: >:Not the part that wasn't built, you nitwit.
:
: what part of the New Jersey Turnpike is unbuilt??

The New Jersey Turnpike is complete, just not I-95.

: if you are going to posted the forged attacks at least try


: to get YOUR facts straight!

I-95 is incomplete between I-287 and Trenton. It was supposed to be on a
separate freeway. However, that freeway was stopped by NIMBYs.

Brandon Gorte
Undergrad in Geological Engineering
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
<http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~bmgorte/interstate.html>


Jeremy M. Posner

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
(David Chui) wrote:

> : David Jensen (dje...@madison.tds.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > I've seen references to the elevated expressway through Greenwich
> : > Village that was stopped by the neighborhood, but it looks as if it were
> : > also the intention to connect the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the Lincoln
> : > Tunnel. An underground connector there would have made a lot of sense
> : > and been less than a mile long. Does anyone have any idea if a plan ever
> : > existed and why it died?
>
> A couple of years ago I came across a pamphlet describing a set of three
> cross-Manhattan expressways (all elevated) that were to be built during
> the Robert Moses era. The first was the elevated expressway through the
> VIllage. The second was a "Mid-Manhattan Expy" (I-495) to be built at
> 42nd St, connecting the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln Tunnels. Rather than
> being elevated over the street itself, drawings in the pamphlet suggested
> that the roadway would be incorporated into the second or third floors of
> the buildings facing 42nd St. I don't remember where the third expressway
> was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
> Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.

Which side of 42nd did the plan have the expressway running? ie: Did Moses
plan on bringing it through the second and third floors of Grand Central,
or the Library? Not that he would have given a second thought to getting
either building out of his way...
-JMP

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeremy M. Posner | "Ooooh! They have the internet on computers now!" |
| jpo...@panix.com | -Homer Simpson |
| (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Schwartz

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
> One route I've never tried that might be fast, not too complicated, and
> involve a short connector might be to take TPNJ to the Penn Tpke (exit 6),
> get off at US1 at Neshaminy, take US1 NORTH several miles to I-95 south,
> directly into Center City. This route is counter-intuitive, since it
> requires you to travel several miles AWAY from your destination, but it's
> probably less roundabout than taking 7A on the Turnpike, then looping north
> of Trenton to get to I-95.

Interesting. Do the ramps at that I-95/US 1 interchange permit that? I
know it is not a full 8-way interchange, but I'm not sure what is and
isn't possible.

The only NY-Philly routes that are fully limited access are the
above-described loop north of Trenton, or taking the PA Tpk to I-476
(Blue Route) south (southwest) to I-76 east (southeast). The
more-or-less direct route that involves the shortest amount of
non-limited-access highway would be to get off the NJTP at exit 4 and
switch to I-295, then continue south to I-76 and across the Walt Whitman
Bridge. For some reason people tend to make the switch at exit 3
instead, even though the turnpike and 295 are further apart there, and
the connecting road is more of a city street.

Dan Schwartz

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
Does anyone know why the Queens-Midtown tunnel was built with a roughly
90-degree turn within the tunnel on the Manhattan side, rather than
going in a straight line between the two portals?

Mark Bozanich

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to

1941 edition Shell Oil Company H. M. Gousha Street Guide and
Metropolitan Maps of New York, Westchester and Vicinity show the Midtown
Manhattan Tunnel "Under Construction" below 37th and 38th Streets from
the Lincoln Tunnel to the Queens Midtown Tunnel.

Mark

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
Alexander Medwedew wrote:
>
> What would be interesting to see is a 3D model of NYC showing how all roads
> and transit systems working together. It isn't such a hard thing to do.
> There are lots of maps in 2D to work with. The big problem is getting the
> elevation data and translating it into useful formats. Anyone out there
> interested?

There's the model of the city at the Queens Museum, formerly the NYC
Pavilion at the NY World's Fairs.

--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
Steve Anderson wrote:

> More info on the unbuilt trans-Manhattan expressways:
> Lower Manhattan Expwy (I-78)
> http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/lower-manhattan/
> Mid-Manhatttan Expwy (I-495)
> http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/mid-manhattan/

What about the unbuilt trans-New Jersey expressway, I-95?

want...@usa.net

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
In article <36476201...@erols.com>,
Steve Anderson <and...@erols.com> wrote:
> David Chui wrote:
> >

> Almost forgot: I have a third trans-Manhattan expressway proposal that
> was to connect to an unbuilt 125th Street Hudson River Crossing:
> 125th St Expwy http://members.tripod.com/~ande264/125st-expwy/
>

I have never heard of any serious proposal for a Hudson River crossing at 125
St.

In 1920 Gustav Lindenthal proposed a super bridge at near 57 street. Its two
levels would have 34 arteries.

Upper level
2 walkways
16 traffic lanes
2 streetcar tracks
2 bus lanes

Lower Level
12 railroad tracks.

That was the sort of project that the Port Authority has FAILED to undertake.

Albert F. Cafiero
Transit Committee of Bergen County
Next meeting Nov 30 in Leonia

If GOD had meant for the West Shore to go to Secaucus HE would have put it
there in the first place.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
Marc wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 19:40:56 -0500, ed...@mindspring.com (T.
> Mennel) wrote:
>
> >:In article <36498961...@news.monmouth.com>, mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
> >:
> >:> >:What about the unbuilt trans-New Jersey expressway, I-95?

> >:> it's called the NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
> >:
> >:Not the part that wasn't built, you nitwit.
>
> what part of the New Jersey Turnpike is unbuilt??
>
> if you are going to posted the forged attacks at least try
> to get YOUR facts straight!

Now, Marcie-Marc (note that I only use that name when you're being
particularly dense -- though I must say even your inanities are
preferable to those of your nemesis "TOMSNJ"), take out a map of New
Jersey.

See that I-95 enters NJ on the GW Bridge and goes down the Turnpike a
ways.

See that I-95 enters NJ a bit north of Philadelphia and passes Trenton.

See that there is no connection between those two parts of I-95.

There is, in fact, *no* efficient way to drive between New York City and
Philadelphia.

Peter Rosa

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Paul Matus <pma...@msn.com> wrote in article
<ilI12.15015$i16.41...@news.optonline.net>...


>
> David Chui wrote in message <727ghe$3u8$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> >In article <EFG12.14999$i16.41...@news.optonline.net>,
> >Paul Matus <pma...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> < snip re "SOHO" and Cast Iron District >
>
> >In fact, isn't the reason why all those cast iron buildings still exist
> >because the proposed highway kept developers from replacing them with
> >newer "better" buildings? An odd way to create a historic district, but
> >it worked (as a side effect).
>
>
> I'd say it was good timing all in all. The threat of the highway (given
the
> cutsie name "Lomex" by Lindsay's people) certainly discouraged building
in
> the immediate area (Canal Street and connectors from the Williamsburgh
> Birdge). OTOH, it wasn't exactly hot real estate at the time anyway. IOW,
I
> don't know of any glass office building-type people who were interested.

Another factor that may have saved Soho from wholesale demolition is that
its buildings generally weren't abandoned for long. While it was a
rundown, unlovely area as recently as the 1960s, most of its loft buildings
were used by various industries. Then starting around 30 years ago, the
area underwent a transition - the factories moved out and the artists moved
in. Today there's a second transition in progress, from artists' studios
and galleries to upscale retail and high-priced residential (though there's
still a lot of art-related use and even some industry). But the important
point about the 1960s transition is that Soho went from one use to another
without an intervening period of abandonment. That deprived developers of
the opportunity to snap up vacant buildings on the cheap; combined with the
expressway threat, Soho remained largely intact.


Peter Rosa

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Alexander Medwedew <comp...@idt.net> wrote in article
<01be0c28$c462b160$126184a9@WINNT40DEV>...


> Snaking another tunnel through would be a costly undertaking. There are
a
> lot of abandoned and unused tunnels lurking under the streets in the
> midtown area. It would be interesting to see if any of these could be
> connected together to form some sort of connections. Recycling some of
> them might be something to consider. When the World Trade Center was
built
> a number of the old PATH tunnels were converted into roadways for cars
for
> access to parking and loading docks.

There are few if any "abandoned or unused tunnels" in Midtown. About all I
can think of are some disused pedestrian passagways (for example 33rd
Street between 6th and 7th Avenues, 6th Avenue between ~36th and 40th
Streets), which hardly could be useful as highway tunnels. There probably
are some disused utility pipes, which would be even less suitable.


Paul Matus

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Hank Eisenstein wrote in message <7284h0$7h2$1...@quartz.quuxuum.org>...

>It does show the roads, also. It was closed a few years ago, so that they
>could make it more accurate; it was built in 1964, and Moses wanted it to
>represent the future, so they put ALL his proposals on the map.
>-Hank
>--

I believe it was originally built for '39 fair.

Paul Matus

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Peter T. Daniels wrote in message <364791...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Marc wrote:
>>

< Marc's stuff and Peter's scolding snipped >

>
>See that I-95 enters NJ on the GW Bridge and goes down the Turnpike a
>ways.
>
>See that I-95 enters NJ a bit north of Philadelphia and passes Trenton.
>
>See that there is no connection between those two parts of I-95.
>
>There is, in fact, *no* efficient way to drive between New York City and
>Philadelphia.
>--


Having frequently driven that route. I can agree. But, a question occurs to
me: What is the least inefficient way to go?

The human mind seeks straight lines and short paths, and I often use US1 as
a connector from Exit 9 TPNJ to I-95 in PA. Lots of lights, but usualy
fairly efficient.

One route I've never tried that might be fast, not too complicated, and
involve a short connector might be to take TPNJ to the Penn Tpke (exit 6),
get off at US1 at Neshaminy, take US1 NORTH several miles to I-95 south,
directly into Center City. This route is counter-intuitive, since it
requires you to travel several miles AWAY from your destination, but it's
probably less roundabout than taking 7A on the Turnpike, then looping north
of Trenton to get to I-95.

Wassa matter, anyway? You want competition for the NY-Phila. Clockers?


The Bakers

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
"T. Mennel" wrote:

...snipped very good description of I-95 situation...

> Yours in facticity,

Never try to confuse Marc with facts. It's like teaching a pig to sing --- the pig
will never learn, and you'll just get yourself upset.

Alexander Medwedew

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
I'm talking about a computer model.

--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<364783...@worldnet.att.net>...

Shalom Septimus

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
On 9 Nov 1998 16:10:57 GMT, dc...@hcs.harvard.edu (David Chui) wrote:

> I don't remember where the third expressway
>was to be located-- my guess is at 125th St coming off the Triborough
>Bridge, to connect to the Henry Hudson Pkwy.

The third one was in fact the only one that ever got built... it
connects the George Washington Bridge to the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

As I said originally .... It reopened a while ago, but the museum was
closed on the Monday I went there.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages