Example of the kind of investment that makes sense: I think money should be found to install the necessary long sidings on Buckinham Branch's main "C&O" line between Gordensville and Clifton Forge, so that the Cardinal can become a daily operation. Amtrak's research indicates that the increase in ridership would be so substantial and the increase in crew and equipment expenses so small that the actual subsidy for this train would be reduced. But at the same time, it would imrpved BB's operational flexibility and permit some CSX eastbound service when necessary, thus improving freight operations at the same time. BB itself cannot afford this expense, and capital needs elsewhere on CSX are more important. Since these sidings would also permit operation of the "Greenbriar Express." perhaps some private funding would also be appropriate.
The economics you preach are correct. But I still believe that the present level of subsidization and investment in long distance passenger trains is appropriate and benefits the USA as a whole, and I won't repeat all the arguments again here. You probably have read them already. But I don't believe the USA needs a coast-to-coast high speed railroad system and the huge investment it would require, and I believe investment in dedicate high speed tracks should be in corridors where it is apparent they will do the most good to relieve highway and airport congestion and thus remove the need for even more expensive land taking and construction. What impovements in tracks and structure that will benefit long distance passenger operations are appropriate? Only those that will also benefit the nation's freight railroad system as well.
{This is somewhat misleading and innaccurate. Railroads were not going out of business, there was plenty to be hauled and plenty being hauled. Traffic patterns were changing as industry moved to the south and southwest, as the Eisenhower Locks onthe St. Lawerence Seaway allowed for ocean going vesssels to enter the Great Lakes, and as the Federal Interstate HIghway system was rolling out on ....}
Ever hear of Penn Central? How about the Milwaukee Road? DLW? The New Haven? Erie? The railroads were folding up and dying faster than congress could figure out what to do. They had **heavy** regulatory problems. They were flushing millions per year down the toilet in passenger service, and wanted rid of it to stay in business.
The ICC said "no.." - and took years to make a decision about eliminating a train, or abandon a line. Patterns were changing, but the railroads could not change. Take 2 very sick railroads (Pennsy and NYC) - throw in one that has terminal cancer (New Haven) -- dump in more, and you don't get a profit, when each of them is flushing money down the tubes. Work rules were very much against profitability. 5 man crews on over the road freights? Without the ICC going away to allw easier abandonments, and Amtrak taking over the passenger business, most of the RR's would be gone. Southern had a semi-profitable..well, break even I guess Crescent. The rest lost money hand over foot.
Passenger service is nice. I enjoy it.. I love having someone else pay for my trip. However, it is expensive. It takes several crews to take a train from New Orleans to Washington DC. An airline would do 3-4 round trips a day. (Far better "use" of the crew)-- the difference being the speed.
For five bucks you get what you pay for...nothing more and often a lot less.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
With the deep night departure on Amtrak, along with higher fares, Megabus may take some Amtrak passengers away. Then again, I'm not aware of a huge group of people doing the Atlanta to Charlotte trip (where you arrive at 2am or whatever...) It's a terrible time to try to find a taxi at the train station, and forget about rental cars at that hour...
A lot of good points. However, regarding the capital versus operating dollars, they are all still fungible. A dollar is a dollar. The only real way to get the big picture is to do a NPV analysis and then divide by the passenger miles. Yes, that number is high for currently operated off-NEC Amtrak, but I would submit that the main problem is an attempt to keep the overall subsidy number down by offering fewer revenue cars per train.
This is the Volpe hypothesis, corridors to support the dimensioned long-distance network, that we have been chasing for 50-years. The problem is that the FHWA did not and the DOT still does not want to acknowledge that interstates get a cross--subsidy. So if they start from that point you have to find another reason that matches the observed reality that long-distance trains make sense in every other market based democracy. I suppose thus the congestion hypothesis was born. Sounds good, I have no idea if Volpe actually believed it fully. Perhaps he did this knowing the political boundaries. I work for a state DOT so I certainly understand what can be done realistically.
Recall that studies done by the FHWA found that the government born accident costs alone were around $0.02/automobile mile. Full economic cost only is around $0.10/VM. Lost of quality of life is non-calculated. So if you are paying less than $0.40/gallon in fuel fees/taxes you are not even reimbursing the government for the statistical cost of accidents that must be budgeted and compensated to the various players.
More or less to provide two engines, train crew, and terminals costs around $25/trainmile. You can haul 6 revenue cars or 12, one obviously has a lower subsidy number per passenger mile. The number is a bit below the 50-year interstate NPV cross-subsidy for capital and government borne accident costs. The 6 revenue car train has a lower overall cross-subsidy.
If you think I am crazy look up TxDOT's Pass Through Toll. You will find quite high figures per VM quoted in the minutes of the commission. Take a look at the archived Asset Value index numbers as well, archived as they are no longer posted. Or maybe ask yourself why the tolls just for rebuilding I-95 in one state are around $0.10/VM for automobiles and $0.25/VM for trucks, this is over and above fuel fees.
I agree with some of the posts, that the intramural battles between different groups advocating for their favorite modes of transportation is counterproductive. Most people just want to get where they are going conveniently, and it could involve more than one mode of travel. I believe in the multi-modal concept. I think the money should have been spent building multi-modal transfer points. When passengers see the advantages of the different modes of transport, and the convenience of transferring between modes, they will themselves advocate for expanding all transportation options.
henry6 But there is also a major difference between what we had as a rural population and agricultural economy to what has become a very urban and industrial/service economy. Add to that the 40 hour work week that became law or at least common by 1950, the $1 an hour wage which followed, the enlargement of suburbia, and TV showing how well you could live if you have the money. Everything changed more drastically between 1946 and 1960 than we realize.
But there is also a major difference between what we had as a rural population and agricultural economy to what has become a very urban and industrial/service economy. Add to that the 40 hour work week that became law or at least common by 1950, the $1 an hour wage which followed, the enlargement of suburbia, and TV showing how well you could live if you have the money. Everything changed more drastically between 1946 and 1960 than we realize.
I would say it had it's roots in the 1920s, but was interrupted by the depression and war.
At the time, everyone thought it was ideal, with good reason.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sir Madog Well, when a city looks like this, the first you think of rebuilding is homes, not highways. The picture shows Cologne in 1945.
Well, when a city looks like this, the first you think of rebuilding is homes, not highways. The picture shows Cologne in 1945.
People don't need highways if they don't have cars. People don't need cars if they don't have a place to live.
In the US, there was a lot of pent up demand and quite a bit of savings from war production jobs. In 1946, industry switched over from armaments to consumer goods and the spending took off. People bought new or replaced old cars at a great rate. That increased the demand for roads. The government responded. Single family homes on 1/4 acre lots sprung up like wheat on the prairie.
And, here we are today....
I agree with Paul's fine post. I think building infrastructure, whether roads, sewers, airports or rail lines, is an investment of capital, not necessarily for a return of profit but for an overall improvement of a segment of the economy from which business and the public derive benefits. And in like with henry6, the subsidies (to cover operating expenses) within Amtrak are not equal: Acela runs at a profit and the NEC breaks even. And keeping in mind sam1's cautionary points, if one tries to claim highway modes are subsidized (through the gov't-built infrastructure) then a fair comparison for Amtrak in the NEC would include the cost of RoW, which it does not. So for a variety of reasons, I believe Paul is correct in his conclusions that the advocacy community needs to retire many of the justifications it puts forth and find and focus on ones that make economic sense.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But let's not confuse Megabus, the Empire Builder, and commuter trains as one. Each is a different entity serving a different purpose and traveler. There is huge pressure on urban areas to move people quickly, efficiently, and enviornmentily safe (air pollution and land use, etc.) during both commuter ends of the day but also to move people around during the day. Megabus is an intercity for a buck ride which is as much a marketing move as it is to attract those who wouldn't already ride a bus or to fill seats on deadhead or light load runds. The Empire Builder...admittedly the extreme example of inter city trains...serves as much a tourist service as it does some practical transportation needs in many communities. And there is a muddy pond of money, people, and services between and amongst these examples.
daveklepper Amnd those that are privately operated, including Megabus amd Bolt, benefit from the Government investment in the facilities they use.
Amnd those that are privately operated, including Megabus amd Bolt, benefit from the Government investment in the facilities they use.
I also heard the remark "Yes, and bus operators are subsidized too" in the local brick-and-morter advocacy community. I am trying to reason that the cause of train advocacy could be advanced if we retire that "talking point."
Whereas anti-train people point to the intercity bus as a reason not to spend public money on a train, the bus is not the enemy, people. In Europe, buses carry the same share of total passenger miles as the train, which is 5 percent of the total for each. Many of the sleek new motorcoach buses you see in the U.S. are of European design. Furthermore, if we can get people taking the bus, we build a constituency for common-carrier passenger transportation that includes trains. Much as there is this snobbery that the bus is a poor substitute for a train, bus service can provide the "branch lines" to flesh out the train network. I have heard favorable comments from train advocacy people of how well Amtrak California integrates train with bus service on one of their train lines.
My other point is that passenger train service doesn't have a needs-government-subsidy problem because yes, all modes of transportation involve some kind of government participation. Passenger trains, however, have a serious problem in the high rates of subsidy required, per passenger mile, and in relation to alternative modes. Many members of the advocacy community are in denial regarding this problem and revert to "other modes get subsidy" or "much more money is spent on highways than on trains" as debating points, avoiding the question of the much higher level of subsidy required per work product.
Other members of the advocacy community try to "game the system" by ascribing high rates of subsidy or cross subsidy to highways. Sometimes this is done by appealing to unquantified and unquantifiable externalities. Sometimes a number is placed on it, such as a recent claim on another thread that the subsidy to Interstate Highways is on the order of 8-10 cents per auto mile. My engineering intuition suggests that those numbers are high, but I will stipulate those numbers, for now, rather than get into a long discussion of a long set of numbers, and maybe a certain person with sharp pencils and a green eye shade could get into the specifics.
But even if the subsidy rate for autos on Interstate Highways is 10 cents per passenger mile, that is still twice the subsidy rate of Amtrak.
There is one more wrinkle to the matter of subsidy, and it came up in public meetings when then Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz was advocating for a Madison streetcar. We had the local passenger train advocacy people out in force (although our president took us aside that "what we are for is intercity trains" and that we were "for the streetcar if it didn't detract from our main mission"). We also had various people throughout the community interested in public-minded things "for the benefit of the community" but not otherwise card-carrying train advocacy people.
One of the public-minded people at the meeting, and this is Madison, Wisconsin so they have all of the correct political credentials with respect to the "proper roll of government investment in promoting the public good", suggested some formula where the capital expenditure for a street car, a light rail, or an intercity train could find broad public support, to the extend possible, if the operating expenses could come out of the fare box, that would help a whole lot in terms of getting broad public support.
Now maybe said public-minded but not-transit-savy person was naive because everything transit, train and bus requires substantial operating subsidy in this day and age, but it was an interesting point, and a valid point -- just like you can get state and Federal money to build roads, yes people, there are various programs and grants that you can get outside money into a county or city to build trains, and the 810 million that a certain Wisconsin Governor sent back is a case in point. The operating money, however, has to come out of local sources.
To this whispering of a suggestion of public-money-for-the-infrastructure, pay-your-own-way for operation, our advocacy group president huffed about how said public-minded-but-not-advocacy-savy person had it all wrong and would have none of that.
Yes, Megabus and Bolt benefit from "Government investment" ("investment" is also a politically laden word in that context, it is government spending, and let us talk plainly about what we are comparing, that is, government spending on highways and government spending on trains rather than trying to sugar coat it). But as far as I can tell, Megabus and Bolt pay their own way from the "concrete-rubber contact patch" on up, and they even contribute through the fuel taxes they pay for the road. If you could do the same thing with a railroad train -- draw some system boundary around it charge major capital expenses to the taxpayer but have the operating expenses paid by the riders, public-minded-but-not-train-advocate at Mayor Dave's streetcar meeting was on to something, we could get a lot more public support for the train.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 Oltmannd: Are the Conrail locomotives shown in the picture that accompanies your posts emerging from the Gallitzin tunnels? Sam1
Oltmannd:
Are the Conrail locomotives shown in the picture that accompanies your posts emerging from the Gallitzin tunnels?
Sam1
Yup. Mid to late 1980s.
And it is important, Dave, to underscore that the bridges, tunnels, highway lanes, and bus terminals are all built and maintained by government entities of some kind. And at least half the buses are, too.
Note that Toronto is one city that vitoed a downtown expressway and voted to improve public transit instead. San Francisco also reversed policy. NY is a mixed bag. It does have the East River Drive and the West Side highway, linking to Brooklyn, the bridge to Staten Island, tunnels to New Jersey, and together, they constitute eight lanes of north-south highway boardering Manhattan. But relatively few commuters use autos to work in Manhattan, Rail, subway and commuter rail together, constitue the main share, with buses, then auto, then walking and biking. Some boats! The main bus entrance is from New Jersey, with about five buses a minture, each with 50 people, pouring into the Lincoln Tunnel bus lane. That is 15,000 people per hour, good statisticis for a light rail or commuter rail line. All into and out of the multi-platform Port Authority bus terminal. Only slightly less bus traffic uses the GE bridge, into the Washington Heights PA Byus Terminal about 10,000 in one hour. To get downtown, nearly all use the subway, with its four tracks and a capacity of over 100,000 in ne direction per hour, so the bus traffic there is not a substantial problem for the subway.
Sir Madog oltmannd: Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money. I don´t think that´s the reason. To build those multi-lane express highways right through downtown, you need an awful lot of real estate, which just is not available in a city with a history of over a thousand years. No city government would also have the guts to tear down an ancient quarter for the sake of having a motorway. Unlike most US cities, European cities retained their transit system and developed them into modern and comfortable networks. Going into downtown Hamburg by car would take me over an hour in the morning (providing there is no traffic jam) and it would cost me $ 300 a month to park my car. Taking the train takes 30 minutes and the ticket is $ 250 a month ... Incidentally, the Paris ring road (the infamous "Peripherique", which is known to make travel time a figure incalculable) was built on the ROW of the old "Ceinture" railroad, which connected the various terminal stations in Paris.
oltmannd: Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money.
Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money.
I don´t think that´s the reason. To build those multi-lane express highways right through downtown, you need an awful lot of real estate, which just is not available in a city with a history of over a thousand years. No city government would also have the guts to tear down an ancient quarter for the sake of having a motorway. Unlike most US cities, European cities retained their transit system and developed them into modern and comfortable networks. Going into downtown Hamburg by car would take me over an hour in the morning (providing there is no traffic jam) and it would cost me $ 300 a month to park my car. Taking the train takes 30 minutes and the ticket is $ 250 a month ...
Incidentally, the Paris ring road (the infamous "Peripherique", which is known to make travel time a figure incalculable) was built on the ROW of the old "Ceinture" railroad, which connected the various terminal stations in Paris.
It would have been easy to do in Hanover, where there there wasn't much of anything ancient left in 1945, and what there was, got relocated. But, it didn't happen. Marshall Plan not withstanding, there had to have been a lot more money in the economy in the US than in most of Europe.
In the US, a lot of the urban interstates were elevated or went through blighted parts of the city.
During a period when people were leaving cities for the suburbs, cities were considered "old" and "undesirable" places to live. Suburbs, highways and shopping malls were "new", "modern" and "progressive". Old was bad. New was good. Everything from buildings to cars to furniture had to be new looking. That attitude has mellowed a lot in the past 50 years as we found out that "new" wasn't always better, just different. And, now, urban living is becoming "the thing" for the 20-somethings.
Perhaps that attitude was much less in place in Europe. I was surprised to find that much of what got ruined in the war was restored to how it was prior.
Perhaps that attitude then had as much to do why things are the way they are now here and there, even as the cultural gap has narrowed over the years.
oltmannd Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money.
henry6 Your noting cultural differences within our country is a factor too many don't realize. It hit me as I gathered a 50th grammar school reunion almost 5 years ago and a 50th high school reunion 4 yeares ago. And I have found it to be a reason for the misunderstandings and misstatements and conclusions bantered around these pages. Geography has made people think much differently than they did growing up in New Jersey a half century ago...many of us who thought the same back then, don't think alike today but some do think alike when we didn't back then. Urban, rural, suburban, large or small city, different climates, different economies, different histories, cause the same problem to have different solutions. Understanding a traffic clogged highway with diesel oil for air is not easy for a person who can see the horizon for miles but not another person. One understands the need for public transportation but can't comprehend empty space measured in thousands of square miles while the other can't imagine not having a place to put even a garden while having but plenty of room for a parking lot.
Your noting cultural differences within our country is a factor too many don't realize. It hit me as I gathered a 50th grammar school reunion almost 5 years ago and a 50th high school reunion 4 yeares ago. And I have found it to be a reason for the misunderstandings and misstatements and conclusions bantered around these pages. Geography has made people think much differently than they did growing up in New Jersey a half century ago...many of us who thought the same back then, don't think alike today but some do think alike when we didn't back then. Urban, rural, suburban, large or small city, different climates, different economies, different histories, cause the same problem to have different solutions. Understanding a traffic clogged highway with diesel oil for air is not easy for a person who can see the horizon for miles but not another person. One understands the need for public transportation but can't comprehend empty space measured in thousands of square miles while the other can't imagine not having a place to put even a garden while having but plenty of room for a parking lot.
Well said!
Whether the railroads were headed for system wide bankruptcy is debatable. Had the downward financial spiral that they were on not been reversed by deregulation, in part, it is likely that the investor owned railroad industry would have been nationalized. Which it was partially with the formation of Amtrak and Conrail.
According to the Association of American Railroads, "between 1970 and 1979, the rail industry’s rate of return on investment never exceeded 2.9 percent and averaged just 2.0 percent. The average rate of return had been falling for decades: it was 4.1 percent in the 1940s, 3.7 percent in the 1950s, and 2.8 percent in the 1960s. Given these rates of return, the investors would have been better served if the properties had been liquidated and the proceeds placed in a passbook savings account.
Railroads lacked the funds to properly maintain their tracks. By 1976, more than 47,000 miles of track had to be operated at reduced speeds because of unsafe conditions. Railroads had billions of dollars in deferred maintenance, and the term “standing derailment” — when railcars that were standing still simply fell off poorly maintained track — was often heard."
This discussion has strayed a bit from the topical headline, bus company shutdowns, but what the heck. Its what makes participating in these forums interesting.
On another note, one does not need to look to other countries for cultural differences. Having lived in seven states of the U.S., plus D.C., I can attest to significant cultural differences between regions of the U.S. Living in New York City for eight years and Connecticut for four years before moving to Texas more than 35 years ago, I can tell you that there are major differences between New Yorkers and Texans with respect to economics, politics, religion, linguistic nuances, etc. But one will not grasp these differences simply by traveling to another state or country for a month or so. You have to live there for a least a year or two.
I lived in Australia from 1999 to 2004. But I had made numerous trips to Australia between 1995 and 1999. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on Melbourne. I didn't! But I did not know until I lived there for a year or so after having moved there in 1999.
Oltmannd: "Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money."
In part. But also because we wanted easier access into center city, to be able to go around and thru as we wished, and we wanted an easier way out of center city too. Gas and the highway lobby ruled our legislatures from Washington to Main St. So it was done.
BUT:
oltmannd Sir Madog: Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s, Not exactly.... RRs in the US in the 50s and 60s were slowly going out of business. There were profits but they were too little - none were earning their cost of capital. They had to do everything and anything to stay afloat. Many sold real estate they held to fund bare-bones capital budgets for track and equipment. That included bailing on passenger service. The RRs did give it a good try. They invested huge sums into new equipment in the late 1940s, only to see ridership plummet. Throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea, especially when you are short of money to begin with.
Sir Madog: Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s,
Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s,
Not exactly.... RRs in the US in the 50s and 60s were slowly going out of business. There were profits but they were too little - none were earning their cost of capital. They had to do everything and anything to stay afloat. Many sold real estate they held to fund bare-bones capital budgets for track and equipment. That included bailing on passenger service.
The RRs did give it a good try. They invested huge sums into new equipment in the late 1940s, only to see ridership plummet. Throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea, especially when you are short of money to begin with.
This is somewhat misleading and innaccurate. Railroads were not going out of business, there was plenty to be hauled and plenty being hauled. Traffic patterns were changing as industry moved to the south and southwest, as the Eisenhower Locks onthe St. Lawerence Seaway allowed for ocean going vesssels to enter the Great Lakes, and as the Federal Interstate HIghway system was rolling out on the landscape, and as the jet plane replaced DC3's at the local airports. It was a matter of railroads figuring out what was happening, where did the industries go, what changes had to be made. People were driving more cars and flying long distance by airplane, so taking off the passenger train was an easy exercise in removing one operational doubt. Yeah, some tried, but there really was no sense to continue beating heads against the bumper block at the time; besides that, the US Post Office had left the rails, so there was no income anyway, no charter service need be performed any longer. The auto industry actually was the main bellweather with auto and parts manufactuting which needed coordination in several segments of the country. Parcel deliverey was being streamlined by UPS so Railway Express and less than carload freight was no longer an investment in space, time, and people that railroads had been doing for over a century. Like many investment industries railroads looked at diversifying; the easiest route for them was real estate but that was soon abandoned. (To its credit, the railroad industry seems to be the only industry or business which realized its value was in its product purpose, providing railroad transportation for good, if not people, and not making pizza or building and leasing space in shopping centers and office buildings. Where they did, they failed. So they no longer did it.). At the time...the late 60's into the 70's and 80's...there was no place for the passenger train in a railroad's business plan in the long range. But times have changed with enviornmental issues, fuel consumptiona and availability and cost, air and highway congestion, population growth, freight traffic changes. Maybe there will be passenger railroads with some freight, or just passenger and just freight railroads. It is just that nothing we've known or know today will look the same over the next 5 to 90 years.
schlimm Other cities should be included, NYC - any 10 lane expressways through Manhattan?; look at Shanghai - loads of expressways and gridlock; the list could go on and on. As far as Atlanta goes, having lived there myself in the past, a lot of folks felt I85, I75 and I20 destroyed much of the urban landscape. how many more lanes can you add to 10 lanes? Still gridlock. Laying more pavement is not the solution for the future.
Other cities should be included, NYC - any 10 lane expressways through Manhattan?; look at Shanghai - loads of expressways and gridlock; the list could go on and on. As far as Atlanta goes, having lived there myself in the past, a lot of folks felt I85, I75 and I20 destroyed much of the urban landscape. how many more lanes can you add to 10 lanes? Still gridlock. Laying more pavement is not the solution for the future.
Yup. But, once you head down that path and sprawl ensues, you wind up with a web of O/D pairs for most trips and few heavy corridors to concentrate transit onto. You can increase artery size, but you still have trips starting and ending in low density, dendritic fashion. And, as you point out, there are limits to how big the arteries can get, too.
If you don't built highways into the heart of the cities, you can keep and grow transit and sprawl occurs less rapidly. And, if have good transit, intercity trains make more sense. Exhibit A: Europe. (I tried to stick to places I've actually been...)
People will vote for transit if it can be shown it fixes existing traffic problems - which, generally, it can't. But, that's the tail wagging the dog. (I am preaching to the choir, I suppose!)
Sir Madog Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s,
Just go to Google maps and look! No detailed analysis is needed. Just look!
Hamburg. There is a highway (7) that passes to the west of the center of town on it's way to the north and one that dead ends on the east side of town (24) and an extension of one (1/265) that stub ends to the south. This is the second largest German city and it has the most North American like sprawl.
Now, look at Philadelphia, I-76 (4 lanes), I-95 (eight lanes) and I-676 (six lanes) right through the center of the city. Plus a belt to the south and a belt to the north and a belt to the east (in NJ). Phila has the least miles of highway per person of any US city in the Northeast.
Now, look at Atlanta, if you dare. In the dead center of the city, I-20 (eight lanes) and I-75/85 (ten lanes) cross. Metro Atlanta is about the same size as Phila.
Now look at London. All the "M" motorways terminate miles outside of the city center. The through routes skirt the city by a wide margin.
Now, look at the early US toll roads in the east (NJ, PA, NY, MA, OH, IN, IL). None of them went through major cites. Some terminated at the outskirts of the cities, but generally there were built far from city centers.
It's just not nearly as practical to drive from the outskirts into the city center in these European cities as it is in just about any US city I can think of (except SF and NYC, perhaps).
We build roads to commute right to work. Door to door. We didn't build the roads because transit went away. Transit went away because we built roads.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.