4 ms·

inter-state travel is aligned with the self-interest of states that want to have robust economic interactions. Kansas won't built a line to Colorado's border o

inter-state travel is aligned with the self-interest of states that want to have robust economic interactions. Kansas won't built a line to Colorado's border on their own, but the two states might jointly connect KC, Wichita, and Denver, and Colorado Springs if they thought those connections would be mutually beneficial. At the city/county level, Denver doesn't have its own mass transit system -- it cooperates with several surrounding counties to make up the "Regional Transportation District" which runs buses and light rail. This sort of regional organization doesn't somehow disappear when you make it multi-state instead of multi-city.

bduerst 10y ago
Right, but Kansas is a good example of how they will use their state-level control to route all inter-state travelers through each of their cities, increasing travel times and decreasing value. The question isn't whether or not interstate travel is beneficial, it's how the states will use their self interest to diminish quality, effectively turning the project into a tragedy of the commons.
- tryitnow 10y ago
  In order for states to use their self-interest to diminish quality we have to ask "diminish relative to what"? If your comparing the actual to some ideal then, of course, your always going to see a diminished quality. But that's just a tautology. We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative. Unfortunately, realistic alternatives almost always require trade offs with special interest groups. Sorry dude, that's just reality. It's a simplistic analysis to compare something to an ideal optimum point and bemoan how far we've fallen from the ideal. But it's not terribly useful.
  - timr 10y ago
    "We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative." You're arguing about the highway system. Not only is it "a realistic alternative" to your state-run theory, it's actually real. In fact, we've had this debate, in the real world, and your side lost: every state has an extensive network of state-funded highways, nearly all of which are slower and less efficient than the interstate system.
    - esbranson 10y ago
      Limited access state highways are the same speed as interstate limited access highways ("freeways"). The feds dont give the states magic pixie dust when the states build and maintain the interstate freeways. In CA, my understanding that the most used parts of interstate freeways are actually state limited access routes (highways) extended to major national cities. This is in addition to the other state routes (expressways, etc.) and other county routes that permeate pretty much everywhere. Together, this state highway system (the county being an administrative instrument of state government) is by far more efficient than e.g. taking an interstate to a major national city (skipping even large regional cities) and then off-roading everywhere else. "Efficiency" is pretty loose term in this respect, no?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Kansas isn't a great example for this. Why was I-70 routed eight miles south of Manhattan? (You'll really wonder why if you need fuel somewhere in the 60 miles between Topeka and Junction City.) Depending on my origin and destination on either side of this state (it has been less common for one of those to have been in Kansas), I have used several other highways to cross it, and I haven't found them to be slower than I-70.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Because the interstate system (I-70) was designed using central planning. Routing north through Manhattan would have made the highway longer, and thus less effective for interstate travel.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Are you really claiming the current route is a good thing? There is literally nothing in the 60 miles between Topeka and Fort Riley. The geography is a gently rolling plain, that favors no particular route over any other. Manhattan is the site of one of the two universities in Kansas of which anyone outside the state has ever heard. Passing through Manhattan would have added about five miles to the road, would have been an added convenience for tens of thousands of drivers every year, and would have saved the later cost of improvements to the various high-traffic roads linking Manhattan to the rest of the highway system. If this is the great work of "central planners", they can keep it.
      - lotharbot 10y ago
        I-80 does the same thing most of the way across Nebraska -- it goes through Omaha and Lincoln, and then it misses everything else by 3-5 miles. It creates this weird dichotomy in places like Lexington, where most of the town is far away, but there's a huge cluster of businesses being built next to the interstate. It's often not even a shorter route; compare I-80 to US-30 in that area. There are a lot of things to love about the Interstate highway system, but it's not always the superior choice.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> inter-state travel is aligned with the self-interest of states that want to have robust economic interactions On the other hand, Chris Christie (https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-tango https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-ta...).
pdeuchler 10y ago
RTD is more or less controlled by Denver and Denver based beuracrats in practice, however

bduerst 10y ago

Right, but Kansas is a good example of how they will use their state-level control to route all inter-state travelers through each of their cities, increasing travel times and decreasing value. The question isn't whether or not interstate travel is beneficial, it's how the states will use their self interest to diminish quality, effectively turning the project into a tragedy of the commons.

tryitnow 10y ago
In order for states to use their self-interest to diminish quality we have to ask "diminish relative to what"? If your comparing the actual to some ideal then, of course, your always going to see a diminished quality. But that's just a tautology. We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative. Unfortunately, realistic alternatives almost always require trade offs with special interest groups. Sorry dude, that's just reality. It's a simplistic analysis to compare something to an ideal optimum point and bemoan how far we've fallen from the ideal. But it's not terribly useful.
- timr 10y ago
  "We have to ask ourselves does a particular plan work better or worse than some other realistic alternative." You're arguing about the highway system. Not only is it "a realistic alternative" to your state-run theory, it's actually real. In fact, we've had this debate, in the real world, and your side lost: every state has an extensive network of state-funded highways, nearly all of which are slower and less efficient than the interstate system.
  - esbranson 10y ago
    Limited access state highways are the same speed as interstate limited access highways ("freeways"). The feds dont give the states magic pixie dust when the states build and maintain the interstate freeways. In CA, my understanding that the most used parts of interstate freeways are actually state limited access routes (highways) extended to major national cities. This is in addition to the other state routes (expressways, etc.) and other county routes that permeate pretty much everywhere. Together, this state highway system (the county being an administrative instrument of state government) is by far more efficient than e.g. taking an interstate to a major national city (skipping even large regional cities) and then off-roading everywhere else. "Efficiency" is pretty loose term in this respect, no?
jessaustin 10y ago
Kansas isn't a great example for this. Why was I-70 routed eight miles south of Manhattan? (You'll really wonder why if you need fuel somewhere in the 60 miles between Topeka and Junction City.) Depending on my origin and destination on either side of this state (it has been less common for one of those to have been in Kansas), I have used several other highways to cross it, and I haven't found them to be slower than I-70.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Because the interstate system (I-70) was designed using central planning. Routing north through Manhattan would have made the highway longer, and thus less effective for interstate travel.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Are you really claiming the current route is a good thing? There is literally nothing in the 60 miles between Topeka and Fort Riley. The geography is a gently rolling plain, that favors no particular route over any other. Manhattan is the site of one of the two universities in Kansas of which anyone outside the state has ever heard. Passing through Manhattan would have added about five miles to the road, would have been an added convenience for tens of thousands of drivers every year, and would have saved the later cost of improvements to the various high-traffic roads linking Manhattan to the rest of the highway system. If this is the great work of "central planners", they can keep it.
    - lotharbot 10y ago
      I-80 does the same thing most of the way across Nebraska -- it goes through Omaha and Lincoln, and then it misses everything else by 3-5 miles. It creates this weird dichotomy in places like Lexington, where most of the town is far away, but there's a huge cluster of businesses being built next to the interstate. It's often not even a shorter route; compare I-80 to US-30 in that area. There are a lot of things to love about the Interstate highway system, but it's not always the superior choice.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

> inter-state travel is aligned with the self-interest of states that want to have robust economic interactions On the other hand, Chris Christie (https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-tango https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-ta...).

pdeuchler 10y ago

RTD is more or less controlled by Denver and Denver based beuracrats in practice, however