Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 149 posts

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#91

Post by jessaustin »

dionidium wrote: post #70
xemdetia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area (which is essentially following the flow of I-95 anyway). Even maximizing the Acela flow would just being eminent domain to the existing private rail lines to allow expansion and enhancement beyond what they have already. Part of the re…

> In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627…

The Chicago-St. Louis route would be almost entirely over extremely flat agricultural land. If routed correctly, the only challenges would be crossing some rural highways and floodplains. In order to really take advantage of HSR, one would hope that politics wouldn't require silly stops in e.g. Springfield or Champaign. Chicago seems to make a lot of sense as a hub for a new rail network of this sort, but one suspects third-city bias will prevent that.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#92

Post by closeparen »

dionidium wrote: post #70
xemdetia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area (which is essentially following the flow of I-95 anyway). Even maximizing the Acela flow would just being eminent domain to the existing private rail lines to allow expansion and enhancement beyond what they have already. Part of the re…

> In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627…

Hiawatha Service (ChicagoMKE) does not seem to have issues with freight traffic. It does occasionally have to yield to Metra but is overall pretty reliable.

The long pole for speed is lower speed limits in some parts of the route for the benefit of neighbors living along the tracks. Those politics are unlikely to be affected by the technical infrastructure.

At ~90 minutes, the journey from Milwaukee is better than the commute from many parts of Chicagoland.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#93

Post by BonesJustice »

T-hawk wrote: post #40
jcranmer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a slight inaccuracy in that diagram. While NJT does (via a short stint on I-295) intersect I-95 in Delaware on the southern end, the northern end has a rather more roundabout connection. I-95 continues up as a beltway around Trenton. But the beltway continues as I-295, which turns south and parallels the NJ Turnpike. If you're trying to go north on I-95, you end up heading south instead for ~7mi and then need…

This is correct; I knew it but didn't try to illustrate it for simplicity.

i.e., highways in Jersey are a quagmire of poor planning.

Actually, that applies to pretty much all roads—not just highways.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#95

Post by jessaustin »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #57
Retric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from it, toll roads reduce congestion on non toll roads so non toll payers also benefit from them. If you want an improvement then paying by weight and mileage would be more fair unlike our current system which discounts trucks which do far more damage than their fuel usage accounts for. But, tolls are on net an even worse system than we already have.

>so non toll payers also benefit from them. That's just a glass half full way of saying that tolls keep poor people from taking trips that would involve those roads so the roads are less busy. $5 or $10 isn't much when your lunch is an overpriced $15 bagel at some trendy authentic restaurant. People who are packing PB&J to the job side avoid the toll road even if it takes longer Road tolls are just another regressive…

This is a good point, but road use tolls don't have to be the same all day long. Charge more during rush hour, and poor drivers will find ways to use the road at other times.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#96

Post by michaelper22 »

jcranmer wrote: post #71
swebs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you go into more detail? I always wondered why public roads would opt for awful toll plaza back-ups over increasing the gas tax.

You don't have to put a toll gate and slow everyone down to 15mph to collect a toll. Open-road tolling, such as in the Chicago region, can easily read a transponder (or a license plate) at 70mph. Some places have gone so far as to move to all-electronic tolling, with no toll booths (e.g., Mass turnpike).

Many more crossings in the NY metro area are now open-tolled for both EZPass and toll-by-mail: Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Tappan Zee

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#97

Post by tuukkah »

bonzini wrote: post #74
jcranmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, true HSR (by which I mean 220mph/350km/h service) is not viable outside of the Northeast (where Acela already exists), California, and maybe Texas. Medium-speed rail, running around 125mph, could probably be viable in a Midwest network centered on Chicago, but the needs of Chicago's commuter rail and freight rail networks likely preclude mixing higher speed intercity trains with generally slower local and…

In Europe most high speed rails use dedicated tracks. For example, tracks for high speed trains are welded together, unlike tracks for slower trains. Instead of leaving a small gaps along the track, high speed tracks deal with thermal expansion by pre-stressing the tracks with hydraulic tensors [1] as they are welded (so high speed trains have no too-toom-too-toom :-)) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressi…

It seems most tracks today are welded for less maintenance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(rail_transport)#Conti...

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#98

Post by RightMillennial »

astine wrote: post #84
RightMillennial wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with tolls, and gas taxes and vehicle registrations for that matter, is that they disproportionally affect the poor. I, and many on HN might not give the marginal cost second thought, but for many it adds up.

Does it? Unless you mean the poor will have a harder time shouldering a similar tax rate, I'm not certain why poorer people would be using the roads more often than richer people. That said, there's no reason a toll system couldn't be given a progressive by setting different rates for different tax tiers or something. Rates could be associated with individual vehicles.

For those who drive, certainly. Road tolls in my experience have been either a flat fee (e.g., the ones around Chicago, IL) or by distance traveled (e.g., the Ohio Turnpike). This is effectively a flat tax rate, not a progressive rate. Thus it will have a greater financial impact on someone with a low paying job who drives.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#99

Post by rootusrootus »

bonzini wrote: post #74
jcranmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, true HSR (by which I mean 220mph/350km/h service) is not viable outside of the Northeast (where Acela already exists), California, and maybe Texas. Medium-speed rail, running around 125mph, could probably be viable in a Midwest network centered on Chicago, but the needs of Chicago's commuter rail and freight rail networks likely preclude mixing higher speed intercity trains with generally slower local and…

In Europe most high speed rails use dedicated tracks. For example, tracks for high speed trains are welded together, unlike tracks for slower trains. Instead of leaving a small gaps along the track, high speed tracks deal with thermal expansion by pre-stressing the tracks with hydraulic tensors [1] as they are welded (so high speed trains have no too-toom-too-toom :-)) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressi…

AFAIK basically all new rail installations, even freight, are continuous rail. At least in the US. Been that way for quite a while now.

Re: After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

#100

Post by throwaway76543 »

nightbrawler wrote: post #47
bovermyer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what?

Some interesting statistics of tax rates: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... - During WWI it peaked at 77% - During WWII it peaked at 94%!!

It didn't really, though. That's the marginal income rate, not capital gains -- it's a tax rate for an empty bracket. It was super effective wartime grandstanding which is still fooling everyone decades later.

Capital gains -- the rate the upper class actually pays -- has never risen above 35% at the federal level. And that's within a few points of 2018 marginal rates when we factor in state level taxes for places like California. The tax moved from federal to state (or to earmarked federal, like NIIT)

Capital gains:

1945: 35% federal + 6% state = 41%

2018: 25% federal + 3.8% NIIT + 13.1% state = 41.9%

Prior to losing SALT, wealthy Californians paid slightly lower marginal rates than in 1945. Trump's changes cause the current marginal tax rate for wealthy Californians to be higher than in 1945 -- the year you're calling out as a peak.

No one really paid 94%.

Post reply on HN