TNWE wrote:dch526 wrote:I guess I should have prefaced my comment with /s... However, since you decided to make an attempt at the comment I will at least respond a little more seriously. Explain to me how the roadways listed are considered "last mile". "Last mile" is completed on internal streets that are majority funded by the local cities. These roadways provide more access to local commuters far beyond what it does for the "last mile" for miners, farmers, operators and assembly line workers. All of these professions you mentioned can easily still use all of the roadways that cut through DFW and still achieve their goal (it may take longer yes, but it's easily feasible). The roads mentioned connect DFW cities, they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW, therefore, based on HL's premise, these roadway follies should not be funded by the state. They should be completely funded by local government and/or completely tolled to cover all costs associated.
“While the Texas Department of Transportation has a budget of more than $26 billion for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, less than 1 percent of that is earmarked for public transit.” That puts the burden squarely on county and local agencies — including metropolitan planning groups like the Houston-Galveston Area Council — to dig up funding for non-car-catering projects.
If the state isn't helping build out transit in each region then maybe they shouldn't be helping fund roadways that don't connect to other regions. That burden should be left squarely on county and local agencies.
http://swamplot.com/what-txdots-tiny-2-year-public-transit-allowance-adds-up-to/2018-06-27/
You can't claim it was sarcasm, then vigorously defend it
The "last mile" is not the final 5280 feet of a given trip. You asked how shorter spur or loop highways benefit the rest of the state, and I answered that question. If my business is hauling produce from the RGV up I-35 to a store in Richland Hills, I'm not going to pretend 820 or 121 don't exist because they "they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW" (In fact, if I were hauling hazardous cargo, I'm required *by Law* to use 820/Loop 12/635, even if I'm just passing through). They are every bit a part of the state and national highway system, with direct connections and 100% interoperability. My car drives exactly the same regardless of the color/shape of the highway shield. Loop 12/Spur 408 could just as well be re-designated as Alternate I-35E and suddenly be eligible for TxDOT funds under your pedantic vision of which roads should get state funding.
Of course, no DFW-area transit system would clear your "does it connect with another part of the state outside DFW" criteria for TxDOT funds, as DART, the TRE, and DCTA only serve stops in the DFW metroplex. Sure, Amtrak stops at the same stations in Dallas and Fort Worth, but you won't see the Texas Eagle (or any other train car for that matter) headed down the Pacific transit mall towards CityPlace, because DART's system is restricted to their rolling stock, with limited interoperability even if it wasn't. Riding DART means you do so on their vehicles, on their schedule, and at the fare they ask for. Sure, you don't *have* to be a resident of a DART member city in order to ride DART, but anyone who rides with any regularity is paying their share via fares + sales tax in member cities (just as anyone who drives anywhere in the state is paying their share in gas & sales taxes and registration fees)
Yet again, still not catching the sarcasm (to be fair, it is hard to catch online). But let's continue for fun.
Premise: If it does not connect to the rest of the state then it should not be funded by the state.
The roadways I mentioned directly benefit the state because hazardous waste can bypass downtown? Choose a different out of the way state or federally funded highway that go through the region or near the region.
Also, your answer to the question on how it benefits the rest of the state because it's easier to use than other roads that are funded by the state or local governments does not answer the question while also ignoring half of the argument presented, which states, that they should be torn down or funded completely by local or regional government/entities. If they roads stayed in place and funding was now in the hands of the local or regional governments then they stay as is. If these entities cannot properly fund these roads then they have some choices to make, not the state. (Also, thanks for the clarification that your car is not prejudice to the type of road it drives on, in the world today, you can never be too sure, I do question mine from time to time, especially on Fridays
).
In reference to paragraph 2, on why I even created this theoretical argument, which was, if local transit doesn't connect to or benefit the rest of the state then the state should not fund it... I have no desire to defund or eliminate these roadways, I think they are great for the DFW region, however, based on the idea presented by HL, I decided to run down a path on what else shouldn't be funded if we based the transportation system off those beliefs. The whole post was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous comment.