Quote:
Originally posted by George Bush
I'll bet that you are absolutely right, the underwater tunnels probably cost an arm and a leg to build, and the bridges were undoubtedly not cheap, either. Is there a point that you wanted to make about that cost, or was that cost the point itself?
|
actually i think that was my point. and i do know a bit about urban planning, which is undoubtably a way more interesting topic than law. of course, as some of the problems with metro show, even urban planning professionals can't get everything right. part of the problem is that transit systems reflect the ideals of the time when they were conceived and for a comprehensive heavy rail system like metro, because of the time and cost of construction, it may well be oboslete by the time of completition.
metro was conceived during the 1950s and 1960s using the assumptions of the time - namely of suburban to city center commuting. the original system was not completed until about 2000 when the green line was finally completed. by that point, the edge city style of development has met that there are now many people who commute suburb to suburb rather than around. of course, the highway system which was also a product of 1950s or earlier planning (not only in washington but throughout the u.s.) is also woefully inadequate for modern needs. throughout the washington area there are abandoned and long gone rail lines that if they still existed could be the basis of a light rail system at a relatively low price (one which could essentially paralell the proposed metro line to dulles airport, another could have gone from rockville, maryland through bethesda to georgetown) because the track and right of way would have already been there. these rail lines are gone forever - they were destroyed in the 1950s and 1960s in an increditably short sighted move.
los angeles is of course the best and most classic example of the planning assumptions of yesterday turning into the urban nightmare of tomorrow. they have spend billions of dollars to not come close to recreating the street car system that they had in 1950 which was abandoned in favor of roads that today are just as obsolete as the street car seemed in 1955.
but there are tons of cities between washington and la who suffer from obsolete urban planning and today are trying to undo the damage that the decision to base almost everything on highways in the 1950s has caused. in fact, even in the cities that have public transit systems, they were mainly products of the 1960s where they were centered on getting people from the suburbs to downtown and do not reflect the modern trend towards decentralization of business offices. in fact, i think the main problem is that urban planning professionals spend the last 50 years trying to complete the plans created in the 1950s rather than coming up with new plans. i think the original interstate highway system just got completed a few years ago as well.
ms. naughty diplomat
