this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024

199 points (95.4% liked)

News

23296 readers

3191 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

199

Study calls US infrastructure spending a "climate time bomb" (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 8 months ago by phreekno@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It’s unfortunate there weren’t more restrictions for sure, but I think replacing bridges and tunnels should be ok, even if they’re for cars.

Widening highways is worst, directly contradicting the climate goals of the bill
Repaving needs to be part of a regular budget - irresponsible use of a one-time funding source
New bridges - ok, needs to be done, is infrastructure, may not be possible in regular budget.
obviously the best use is expanding transit, electrification, or other non-car transportation

So, why weren’t there more restrictions? Were they able to? Was it a condition of passing? Is it just practical that we have way too much infrastructure overdue for repairs or replacement?

[+] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

It should have been a Republican infastructure bill because it was the bare minimum to keep the status quo, but instead the actual Republican infastructure bill was "build nothing and cut taxes for the rich." Doing nothing is what they want, as close to literally as possible.

So on the scale of the real world of one party fighting literally paving roads and shoring up crumbling bridges, it was actually a successful bill to pass.

[+] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Looking at my state:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2021/11/17/infrastructure-bill-massachusetts/

I definitely disagree with using $4B for road improvements although I guess at least it’s less than half?

I suppose you could argue that as one of the worst states for traffic congestion, relieving that a bit will help air pollution, even if it’s helping cars, but I’m not even convincing myself here

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Widening highways does not reduce air pollution, even if it reduced congestion, which it doesn't. The only way to reduce air pollution from cars is to not drive them.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reducing traffic jams certainly does decrease air pollution, assuming traffic remains the same. Given that traffic will nevertheless less remain horrific, Massachusetts has one of the better transit systems in the US, the recent transit zoning law, recent trends toward improving roads by reducing lanes and removing bottlenecks, and there’s at least $2B going to transit/cycling/walkability, there’s every chance traffic won’t increase.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Is there a source that says this?

Like, I'm thinking from my understanding of traffic and physics here. Lower speeds = more car density = more vehicles on a given stretch of highway, but also lower speeds = lower fuel consumption = less emissions/smog.

So if you had 100 cars driving down the highway, and 100 cars idling, the cars not in the traffic jam would emit more smog.

Traffic jams just emit a lot of smog because it's when there's the most amount of cars on the road.

Adding a new traffic lane = more speed and more cars = tons of smog

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In a traffic jam your car may only be idling but you’re making zero mph. Acceleration/braking both hurt efficiency, but that’s all stop and go traffic is.

In MA, one of the projects in the “Bridge” section are the bridges to Cape Cod. They are a bottleneck partly for very narrow lanes. I believe the replacement project is for the same number of lanes plus a bike lane but modern standards will remove the bottleneck. Anyhow, during summer, it’s very common for Friday after work to have 40+ mile traffic jams. Spending extra hours in stop and go traffic to make the same trip clearly hurts efficiency and air pollution of over just getting there.

Before anyone chimes in with it will just increase traffic - this is already constrained by the number of rentals available and limits on development on the Cape. There would be no place for more tourists to go

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 8 months ago

Widening a bridge will increase traffic. 1 car households will turn into 2 or 3 car households as people decide to drive instead of taking the train or walking.

Development limits are meaningless. Traffic is not caused by population, but by car usage. Tokyo is the biggest city in the world, but it has almost no traffic.

Barnstable County has 230k people living in it. It is not physically possible to build a bridge that will move tens of thousands of cars during rush hour. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, peak car traffic will always be constained by the roads, not the population.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So if you had 100 cars driving down the highway, and 100 cars idling, the cars not in the traffic jam would emit more smog.

They emit more, but emit less per mile. Idling means they're emitting a low level all the time just sitting there for zero miles traveled.

It could be even worse if it's not idle, but rather start and stop. Engines emit a lot more when they're accelerating up, and a lot less while cruising.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Emissions per mile still go down. It is always more efficient per mile to drive at 40 mph than 60 mph, even if it takes longer.

Idling is negliable compared to the energy lost to air resistance.

Start-stop is a bit complicated, but it can be eliminated with hybrid vehicles and better trained drivers who understand how to drive in high traffic situations.

Also, people generally limit their trips by time, not by distance. This is related to induced demand, but if you increase the average car speed on a route, then those cars will just drive farther. If you live in a place with traffic and spend 15 minutes to get to the grocery store, then you'll only go to grocery stores nearby. If you don't have traffic, then you might drive the extra 5 miles to get to the cheaper grocery store on the other side of town. So the average engine run time does not go down when you reduce traffic.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Traffic jams don't go 40mph. They go up to 15mph and then back down to close to zero and back up to 15mph. That's absolutely horrible for emissions.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Again, hybrid cars are actually more efficient in that kind of traffic than at 40+ mph, and those sorts of traffic waves are usually caused by bad drivers not knowing how to react to road congestion.

But sure, if people are regularly driving in stop and go traffic in a fully gas car, then I guess the pollution is worse than 40 mph. Adding new lanes would massively increase pollution due to the induced demand. There are more effective and cheaper ways to reduce traffic and pollution than to double the capacity of the road.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

LOL, you ninja edited your post to add that part about start-stop and then acted like it's my fault for not seeing it.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 8 months ago

I dont blame you for anything, sorry about the confusion around expanding my comment.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Good metaphor. I've always likened it to a good cop/bad cop scam, but your way makes the same point more gently.

[–] brick@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

But I want it ALL NOW!!!!!!

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (4 children)

So for years we've been threatened by our crumbling infrastructure, and now we're threatened by fixing our infrastructure?

It looks like a no-win situation.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 25 points 8 months ago

Widening roads is not fixing infrastructure.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 16 points 8 months ago

If it was just fixing bridges, that would be understandable. However, states and localities are also spending it on expanding lanes, and all but ignoring public transportation.

[–] phreekno@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

its almost like the people that end up spending the money don't really want to fix the problem.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Oh you can win.

Start building walkable and cyclable cities. Take a hint from the Netherlands, the entire country is like that and it works. Doing mere cities like that should be no problem for the mighty America

[–] testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

"the largest investment in public transit in American history"

5 times 0 is still 0.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

time bomb

... I don't think I would specify the 'time'-part when describing a bomb that is already mid explosion, feels like an irrelevant detail.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The US doesn't really need more infrastructure. It needs to de-infrastructure. Fewer bridges, and roads. Create large national parks, where development is not allowed.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have some good news: those national parks were created over a century ago.

The US doesn't have a problem with having large tracts of undeveloped space.

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

State of Nevada: “Am I a joke to you?”

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Would it make you feel better that the people running Arizona's infrastructure are the worst shitheads I have ever dealt with in my career?

[–] RedC@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago

L take. Especially in the western states where up to half of the states land is taken up by natl parks they have no governance over. Large tracts of land unable to be developed actually hurts making smaller more walkable neighborhoods, when you have to pack everyone in half the land the state should have.