After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
bloomberg.com
After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
1–10 of 149 posts
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#2[deleted]
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#3Now let’s fix the parts in NC and SC where it goes down to two lanes and gets backed up every day.
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#4This article talks about increased mobility as the end goal. Clearly the highway transportation act did not actually increase mobility. Mobility is design in a sense to require less commutes with multi use land use.
This instead forces users to have to commute large lengths regardless in a system that was designed, specifically, to reduce mobility all through the United states.
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#5Now let’s fix the parts in NC and SC where it goes down to two lanes and gets backed up every day.
Wait another 15 years...
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#6This article talks about increased mobility as the end goal. Clearly the highway transportation act did not actually increase mobility. Mobility is design in a sense to require less commutes with multi use land use. This instead forces users to have to commute large lengths regardless in a system that was designed, specifically, to reduce mobility all through the United states.
If you think the article is clearly wrong to use a certain word, consider the possibility that they're using a different definition than you are.
I, for one, would never identify "requiring less commutes" as a key facet of mobility. To me, it means that it is easier to get around – and on a large scale, that's absolutely the (successful) goal of the interstate system.
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#7Glad they finished that. Now if they could just complete I-70 in Breezewood PA...
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#8This article talks about increased mobility as the end goal. Clearly the highway transportation act did not actually increase mobility. Mobility is design in a sense to require less commutes with multi use land use. This instead forces users to have to commute large lengths regardless in a system that was designed, specifically, to reduce mobility all through the United states.
If you think the article is clearly wrong to use a certain word, consider the possibility that they're using a different definition than you are. I, for one, would never identify "requiring less commutes" as a key facet of mobility. To me, it means that it is easier to get around – and on a large scale, that's absolutely the (successful) goal of the interstate system.
The interstate system was responsible for decimating entire down towns, completely reducing any sense of mobility for all parties involved. Uprooting trolly systems that spanned across large parts of the country. It's not a specific issue with the word, it's a issue with what the overall view of highways portrayed by the article, and the reason it was done to begin with.
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#9Stuff like this is why I have exactly zero faith in the US ever building the type of high speed rail systems that other countries have and we clearly need. These projects are simply to expensive for private entities to undertake alone and federal and local governments can't stay aligned long enough to see anything that last longer than an election period through to it's finish.
Unless someone invents teleportation, what we have currently for transportation infrastructure is probably as good as it will get, with possibly hyper local, minimal improvements.
Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete
#10Now let’s fix the parts in NC and SC where it goes down to two lanes and gets backed up every day.
They can’t widen the highways fast enough!
I hear in China they’re building tens of thousands of miles of fast trains. Fast and slow maglev trains, etc.
Wait until there are 500 million Americans. Maybe then we’ll think of better solutions.