Its unfortunate that both the government(federal and state) and the general population dislikes urban environment. BTW, why you do label people that criticizes suburban areas "liberal"?

That's what people here don't understand. Not everyone wants a $400,000 urban warehouse conversion loft downtown, especially when they can get something for twice the square footage for half the price in a suburb.


Yeah, I've had this discussion more often. The problem is good apartment/condos are very expensive. In NL, they're mostly retirees and upper class people whose kids already left the parents house. I don't think you can get many families in downtown areas.

There's a reason why people left core cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Rochester en-masse.

That doesn't mean there couldn't be any improvements in the suburban layout, such as tightened construction demands for energy-efficiency, pedestrian/cyclist access and somewhat less huge lawns.

I think a rowhouse should be good enough for a family of 4.

I used to live in a rowhouse for most of my life. It's mostly okay, but they're quite expensive, $ 450,000 for 1800 square feet of living space. However, detached homes are even more expensive in NL. I think the main reason why so many people live in detached homes in the U.S. is that it's seen as standard and it's mostly affordable.

That's what people here don't understand. Not everyone wants a $400,000 urban warehouse conversion loft downtown, especially when they can get something for twice the square footage for half the price in a suburb. 90% of people don't give a damn about architecture or what whiny liberals think about "McMansions".

Also, a young man (not unlike all the hipsters that post here) can go and live by himself in the city. With his wife, it becomes a bit more risky when you consider how much crime takes place in the urban areas. The suburbs (many of which are practically crime free) start to look a lot more attractive. You add in some kids, and that small home space, lack of outdoor playing space, and utterly shit American urban public schools (and not to mention their costly private school alternatives), it starts to make almost zero sense to live in the city, unless you're extremely rich and can shield yourself from all the undesirable elements.


First of all the only one coming off as "whiny" is you when you label people you disagree with. And to say that some suburbs are practically crime free is...well...are you trying to be funny? Tell a joke, perhaps? I've not heard anyone say that the entire population of the United States should move into the city but that the suburbs should be more pedestrian friendly with more transit options and things like that. You don't need non-sidewalk supported cul-de-sacs in former farmland or forests with a ring of McMansions surrounding it to put your kid in a decent school.

Near the Pentagon, Virginia:

Isn't this the Springfield interchange? It's by far not the interchange nearest to the Pentagon...

^^ You know, the thought had crossed my mind, but this picture was listed to be near the Pentagon, and they have a lot flyovers there too.

^^ You know, the thought had crossed my mind, but this picture was listed to be near the Pentagon, and they have a lot flyovers there too.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&ie=UTF8&ll=38.787066,-77.177185&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.787168,-77.177139&panoid=gojfxEsau8_92bMAc0zOGQ&cbp=12,374.6172999592196,,0,5

Childish discussion has been deleted.

^^ Thanks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/collections/

Thousands of highway pics in the United States.

Driving south from Orlando to Miami I-95 south and I-195 east to Miami beach

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-3ZSZLQUW-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-Z7TJKXVX-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-NNQCVM4V-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-NJZLAGAJ-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-3HWKR7RL-D.jpg

Driving towards downtown Tampa:

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-C7ABN4U6-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-QHBVPTWA-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-LQZ6LPQE-D.jpg
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto-C8TVUMZF-D.jpg

Florida is known to have some of the worst drivers in the country, and perhaps the western world.

Florida is known to have some of the worst drivers in the country, and perhaps the western world.

Worst as in don't have the skills or worst as in don't follow the law? Or both? :lol:

Florida is known to have some of the worst drivers in the country, and perhaps the western world.

Why? I never had problem driving there.

Why? I never had problem driving there.
He's referring to the extreme concentrations of senior citizen drivers in Florida with their big cars, slow response times, and poor eyesight.

Is there an equivalent to Florida that exists in Europe where a mass concentration of retirees decend?

He's referring to the extreme concentrations of senior citizen drivers in Florida with their big cars, slow response times, and poor eyesight.

Is there an equivalent to Florida that exists in Europe where a mass concentration of retirees decend?

Don't forget the massive amount of tourist drivers, transplants, and immigrants.

Don't forget the massive amount of tourist drivers, transplants, and immigrants.
This is why the panhandle is better.

Give me Destin/Fort Walton Beach, Seaside, and Gulf Breeze anyday.

I just got back from Boston, and the highways there are worse than their reputation (a feat in and of itself)! In the tunnels, exits come without warning and with constant lane changes being necessary; on the Mass Pike, no mention of street names at exits; and then there is Storrow Drive. My nominee for worst highway in the US, it has premature signs with little direction or information, frequent jams, occasional flooding, extremely low clearances, cars parked in the shoulder, and there is always the tourist getting lost. Plus, drivers there are ridiculously aggressive and can easily cause major accidents. I now proclaim: If you don't know how to drive in Boston, DON'T!

Being aggressive doesn't always mean the driver is bad. Passive aggressive drivers or careless drivers are more dangerous.

That's what people here don't understand. Not everyone wants a $400,000 urban warehouse conversion loft downtown, especially when they can get something for twice the square footage for half the price in a suburb. 90% of people don't give a damn about architecture or what whiny liberals think about "McMansions".

Also, a young man (not unlike all the hipsters that post here) can go and live by himself in the city. With his wife, it becomes a bit more risky when you consider how much crime takes place in the urban areas. The suburbs (many of which are practically crime free) start to look a lot more attractive. You add in some kids, and that small home space, lack of outdoor playing space, and utterly shit American urban public schools (and not to mention their costly private school alternatives), it starts to make almost zero sense to live in the city, unless you're extremely rich and can shield yourself from all the undesirable elements.

I know that Chris probably wants to put the thread back on-topic, but I wanted to state that the majority of condo developers don't even advertise their developments to families, nor do cities want them (because more kids means higher property taxes) so your point is pretty much moot. They don't care about that. Hell, where I'm from, lots of subdivision communities are planned for seniors only. Urban development for families isn't popular, for the reasons (bad schools, crime). It's not their target demographic, basically.

Affluent single married couples without children, and empty nesters with $$$ are their main target...not "hipsters". They increasingly are attracted to the city for reasons (convenience to work, because it's pointless to have a big house with the kids gone, etc). Since both demographics are growing much faster than families with children and seniors will actually speed much faster in the future, they have much better long term prospects than the suburbs do. The stereotypical "Average American" family of two parents and kids is already a shrinking sector of the population, and will fall further in the future.

It should also be added that, when dealing with developments in downtown (not gentrification into poorer areas), that most downtowns in US cities tend to be quite safe as well...it's not like they're building these kinds of developments in the middle of the ghetto or something anyway.

Being aggressive doesn't always mean the driver is bad.

It doesn't?
When is being aggressive driver a good thing?
I DO agree with your second comment about careless drivers, but I don't think we should have to pick.

The keyword is defensive driving. Many people don't qualify for that. But some drivers really encourage aggressive driving, I got stuck behind some stupid Fiat Seicento (cubic meter car) which was driving only 15 mph where 30 mph was allowed, and 45 mph would made more sense. (2x2 urban road). She was driving on the left, and overtaking on the right is not allowed, but I did it anyway.

It doesn't?
When is being aggressive driver a good thing?
I DO agree with your second comment about careless drivers, but I don't think we should have to pick.

Many situations require assertive driving, particularly if there's a selfish driving mentality in general. But the problem is in drawing the line between assertive and aggressive driving.

The keyword is defensive driving. Many people don't qualify for that. But some drivers really encourage aggressive driving, I got stuck behind some stupid Fiat Seicento (cubic meter car) which was driving only 15 mph where 30 mph was allowed, and 45 mph would made more sense. (2x2 urban road). She was driving on the left, and overtaking on the right is not allowed, but I did it anyway.

I done that a lot here in MD cause MD drivers are dumb as bricks.

I agree you do have to be assertive at times, no question. But aggressive? There's way too much of that. Things like people riding your tail when you're passing someone and are already above the speed limit- it's the kind of thing that can make someone want to start going a lot slower. Or "power merging"- entering a motorway and immediately heading for the fast lane without any thought to yielding to those who are already on the road. Or, my favorite, speeding up the moment someone signals that he wants to get into your lane, as if the aggressive driver has taken out a deed on the 100 yards in front and behind him.

Passive aggressive drivers

What the f*ck? That's what I call "unlogic logic".:nuts:

I just got back from Boston, and the highways there are worse than their reputation (a feat in and of itself)! In the tunnels, exits come without warning and with constant lane changes being necessary; on the Mass Pike, no mention of street names at exits; and then there is Storrow Drive. My nominee for worst highway in the US, it has premature signs with little direction or information, frequent jams, occasional flooding, extremely low clearances, cars parked in the shoulder, and there is always the tourist getting lost. Plus, drivers there are ridiculously aggressive and can easily cause major accidents. I now proclaim: If you don't know how to drive in Boston, DON'T!

I agree. Fortunately, Boston has a decent enough rail transit system that you can get around for the most part without a car.

What the f*ck? That's what I call "unlogic logic".:nuts:

Do you know what "passive aggressive" means? BTW, I did not came up with the term.

I agree you do have to be assertive at times, no question. But aggressive? There's way too much of that. Things like people riding your tail when you're passing someone and are already above the speed limit- it's the kind of thing that can make someone want to start going a lot slower. Or "power merging"- entering a motorway and immediately heading for the fast lane without any thought to yielding to those who are already on the road. Or, my favorite, speeding up the moment someone signals that he wants to get into your lane, as if the aggressive driver has taken out a deed on the 100 yards in front and behind him.

That's exactly what I'm saying; I'm not condoning aggressive driving at all. But obviously, to combat aggressive driving by others, one must have confidence in one's own judgment. Too often, I see people become flustered and indecisive when confronted with aggressive drivers, and their decision-making suffers.

Eg. In the tailgating example, the overtaking driver can feel "pressured" by the tailgating driver, and make a hasty decision to change back into the slow lane where there isn't sufficient space, cutting off the cars behind and possibly forcing them to brake. And in the third example, drivers may end up "in two minds" as to whether they should change lanes in front of the aggressive driver, or wait for them to pass, leading to late decisions and last-second lane changes.

Of course, if assertive drivers lose sight of the line, they cross it and become what they were trying to combat - aggressive drivers. And so it goes on...

I'm with Chris in calling the preferred way of driving 'defensive', protect yourself from the aggro people, drive firmly but gently all the time.

Oh, I'm not suggesting changing the name. But assertive driving is one part of defensive driving.

Check it out:
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_002c_16a.jpg

"Permanent" construction signage? Very odd.

Or maybe you mean those 4 Toyotas on each lane Chris. :D

Check it out:
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_002c_16a.jpg

SF approaching from Oakland Bay Bridge?

SF approaching from Oakland Bay Bridge?
Yea, it does look to me like it is coming off of the bridge (note the main cables/anchorages on either side of the roadway).

Mike

I just got back from Boston, and the highways there are worse than their reputation (a feat in and of itself)! In the tunnels, exits come without warning and with constant lane changes being necessary; on the Mass Pike, no mention of street names at exits; and then there is Storrow Drive. My nominee for worst highway in the US, it has premature signs with little direction or information, frequent jams, occasional flooding, extremely low clearances, cars parked in the shoulder, and there is always the tourist getting lost. Plus, drivers there are ridiculously aggressive and can easily cause major accidents. I now proclaim: If you don't know how to drive in Boston, DON'T!

A hearty welcome to Boston. Everything you said is so, so true. Still, I couldn't possibly enjoy driving as much in any other American city.

This is Boston now. You never experienced Boston before the Big Dig. Talk about some mad pissed drivers.

Hopefully while you were navigating Storrow you managed to at least get in a few peaks at the Charles River running right beside you? That's the thing about Boston. The roads may be crap, but the cityscape around you makes up for it tenfold.

Basically no interchanges in the state of Massachusetts have entry or exit lanes longer than 50-100 yards. You have to be really, really skilled to do a highway merge without stopping.

Massachusetts is notorious for terrible signage.Since nearly every major 2-lane road is a State Highway, locals usually have no idea what the road's actual name is despite the fact that it might be important to a visitor. Most highway interchanges are for a state route and the actual name of the road is never posted. Besides that, at intersections for the most part only the name of the less important intersecting road is posted. The logic is you know which road the major road is. Problem is visitors usually don't.

Still the state's interstate system is remarkably good. Most roads are in great repair and the system is not grossly overbuilt.

Yea, it does look to me like it is coming off of the bridge (note the main cables/anchorages on either side of the roadway)
It is indeed I-80 coming into SF from Bay Bridge. And the construction has been there for ages (at least for 6 years as I made regular trips there). However, the highrise on the right was completed as of August 2008 which means that the picture is somewhat old.

That pic of I-80 in SF is a pretty nice view of the city! At least if you're stuck in traffic, you can just look at the scenery a bit, provided some big 18-wheeler or something like that. :D

Yeah One Rincon Hill is the high rise. Tallest residential building in SF. One of my favorite pieces of road in the bay area.

Cool video of I-80 in Wyoming by Polish trucker. :)

6B--0LPHegg

(HQ available)

Ah, near Green River. What a scenery :)

That's interesting, at 1:32, the sign on the left has a long "up" arrow- normally you'd see a "down" arrow in America.

What do you guys think of the stimulus package concerning roadways? 30 billion out of 825 billion. I don't know, I mean 30 billion is a LOT of money, but is it really that much for a country of 300 million people? I always compare it to a country where I have most data from (the Netherlands).

U.S. stimulus package 30 billion for 300 million people, hence 100 dollar per capita
NL 2009 road investment: 3.5 billion for 16 million people, hence ~220 dollar per capita

Now, the Netherlands are quite underinvested when it comes to road-infrastructure.

10 billion is used for transit in the U.S. which is, considering the modal split, quite generous compared to the road package, since the ratio is 1:3, while the actual modal split is more likely 1:9, hence transit gets 3 times more on a relative basis. Not that that bothers me, they need it, but shouldn't they invest somewhat more in roads? I mean, if we look at the rehabilitation of road structures alone, the amount of money needed is way more than 30 billion (I've read 1600 billion somewhere).

So should we really be so excited about the road infrastructure stimulus package?

When you consider the size of the two countries compared to the relative investments the stimulus package comes out even smaller compared to 'normal' spending. By the way, the Economist magazine has expressed its fears a couple of times now that these extra-budgetary earmarks will lead to more 'bridges to nowhere'.

By the way, the Economist magazine has expressed its fears a couple of times now that these extra-budgetary earmarks will lead to more 'bridges to nowhere'.

Well, that are politics. If they are smart, they speed up widenings and improvements that were planned, but not feasible due to funding problems. And replace outdated bridges.

10 billion is used for transit in the U.S. which is, considering the modal split, quite generous compared to the road package, since the ratio is 1:3, while the actual modal split is more likely 1:9, hence transit gets 3 times more on a relative basis.
What's the difference between transit and road package?

So should we really be so excited about the road infrastructure stimulus package?
I think USA desperately needs reconstruction and renovation of its old and rusty part of infrastructure. And I'm not talking improving traffic capacity, I'm talking safety. As far as I know most of the bridges, ramps and viaducts were built in the 50's and 60's. The timeline indicates that a lot of those objects and facilities are technically outdated and in severely bad condition, especially those that run over capacity. I think that's where this money should be directed.

When it comes to the stimulous package funds, I don't think it's a lot of money considering the scale of infrastructure in the States. Comparison to the Netherlands proves it fair enough. Also, we have to bear in mind that money that let you build 100 km of freeway 50 years ago, may now be enough for only 20 km (a wild guess). And of course the NIMBY factor. ;)

What's the difference between transit and road package?


Transit is another word for "public transportation".

Oh, ok. I wonder how much of these PT funds are going to be spent for new projects and how much for improvements into existing infrastructure.

I think that investing into PT at this point isn't going to change anything unless Americans totally change their car-oriented lifestyles, which is not going to happen any soon. I mean, who in his sane mind would change his car-commute to a train or bus with current low gas prices and poor PT coverage?

I mean, who in his sane mind would change his car-commute to a train or bus with current low gas prices and poor PT coverage?

Translate that to the Netherlands.

Who in his sane mind would change his car-commute to a train or bus with current high gas prices and extensive PT coverage.

Answer is still: nearly nobody.

What do you guys think of the stimulus package concerning roadways? 30 billion out of 825 billion. I don't know, I mean 30 billion is a LOT of money, but is it really that much for a country of 300 million people? I always compare it to a country where I have most data from (the Netherlands).

* U.S. stimulus package 30 billion for 300 million people, hence 100 dollar per capita

* NL 2009 road investment: 3.5 billion for 16 million people, hence ~220 dollar per capita

Now, the Netherlands are quite underinvested when it comes to road-infrastructure.

First, the figure I have heard is $122 billion for transportation (all modes). The only context in which I have heard a figure as low as $30 billion is in the context of a smaller emergency stimulus package which was being talked about soon after the election and which seems to have gotten folded into this larger package which includes provision for green energy, HVAC upgrades in government buildings, digitization of medical records, etc.

But let us assume that the amount dedicated to roads is really as low as $30 billion, and speak in terms of apples-to-apples comparisons. The US typically reauthorizes federal transportation funding every six years, with the last such legislation (SAFETEA-LU) coming in with a $250 billion pricetag. Most of this funding comes from the federal excise tax on motor fuels, which rakes in something like $35-40 billion annually. The federal government (and most, but not all, states) dedicates motor fuel tax revenues to transportation purposes, with the vast majority of the federal share going into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. (A small proportion of the revenues are diverted to a Mass Transit Account in the HTF, which is used to finance capital improvements to transit networks.)

So a $30 billion stimulus package is actually slightly less than one year's worth of federal spending on highway improvement across all program categories, ranging from bridge replacement to Interstate Maintenance (IM funds) to new capital construction on the National Highway System (NH funds). The really crucial point here is the timeframe in which the $30 billion would have to be spent. There is a lot of emphasis right now on what are called "shovel-ready" projects; there doesn't seem to be an agreed definition at the moment, but I am assuming that term refers to projects for which a state DOT has plans on the shelf, right-of-way already purchased, and environmental approvals already in place, but cannot proceed with advertising because there would be no funds to pay the contractor after the contract was awarded.

The talk right now is that the stimulus package will have a requirement that a certain percentage of the total allocated to transportation (maybe the $30 billion?) go to "shovel-ready" projects for which a contract can be awarded within 120 or 180 days. This would include a mix of resurfacing/rehabilitation/restoration/reconstruction contracts and some new capital construction. The main benefit of $30 billion of stimulus money would be to allow many state DOTs to make up for the "missing year" of 2008, when a large number of contracts were progressed to ready-to-let state but not advertised, removed from lettings soon after advertising, or not awarded, all because of the funding problems state DOTs faced due to falling gasoline tax revenues.

In general, highway transportation in the US is underfunded. This happens because state legislators think it is political suicide to raise their state gas taxes, and Congress assumes that an increase in the federal gas tax will never get past the White House. In the past ten years a large (and increasing) number of state DOTs have tried to deal with the funding shortfalls by using bonds to finance highway improvements, tolls for new roads, design-build procurement methods to save money on shorter project delivery cycles, etc.

But after a few years of heavy construction inflation between 2003 and 2008, it is now generally seen that the limits of those techniques have been reached, and either the gas tax will have to go up (at both federal and state level) or new revenue sources (possibly allocations from general funds?) will have to be found. But there is no consensus on what constitutes an optimum increase. In the past I have advocated a tripling of the gasoline tax at both state and federal level, and last year a blue-ribbon commission on transportation funding sent a report to USDOT with a similar recommendation. But others suggest that the tax would be adequate if it were merely increased by 50%, or doubled.

I am betting on a tax increase eventually, but not in the short term because the current policy focus is pumping enough loose money into the economy (including consumers' pockets) to keep it out of a deflationary tailspin. In my view the current situation is a replay of the late 1940's and early 1950's, when various states tried building turnpikes and eventually realized that it would be necessary to have free Interstates, funded from motor fuel taxation, in order to meet rising traffic demand.

I am not too familiar with the Netherlands, but I am going to bet that its policy on investment in road infrastructure is similar to Britain's. In other words, British and Dutch policymakers are deliberately starving their respective road systems of investment, in order to (1) limit traffic growth, and (2) progress to a situation where active traffic management and road pricing is used to limit traffic to levels which the existing network can accommodate efficiently. In the end I think this is likely to prove just as troublesome and possibly also as environmentally damaging as the American approach of building out of congestion, but at least in Britain policymakers have reached the conclusion that building themselves out of congestion is neither feasible nor likely ever to be politically acceptable, and are proceeding accordingly.

There is a final point. A comparison of road spending in the US and the Netherlands is unlikely to be illuminating on an unadjusted per-head basis, because unit costs for construction materials are likely to be higher in the Netherlands, and there is also the question of whether construction budgets and estimates include VAT.

I am not too familiar with the Netherlands, but I am going to bet that its policy on investment in road infrastructure is similar to Britain's. In other words, British and Dutch policymakers are deliberately starving their respective road systems of investment, in order to (1) limit traffic growth, and (2) progress to a situation where active traffic management and road pricing is used to limit traffic to levels which the existing network can accommodate efficiently. In the end I think this is likely to prove just as troublesome and possibly also as environmentally damaging as the American approach of building out of congestion, but at least in Britain policymakers have reached the conclusion that building themselves out of congestion is neither feasible nor likely ever to be politically acceptable, and are proceeding accordingly.


That sounds about right.

Who in his sane mind would change his car-commute to a train or bus with current high gas prices and extensive PT coverage.

Answer is still: nearly nobody.

That's not exactly true- this past fall, with gas prices rising, transit agencies all across the US witnessed increases in usage. Of course many Americans had no transit options to turn to, but for those who did- many made the switch.

That's not exactly true- this past fall, with gas prices rising, transit agencies all across the US witnessed increases in usage. Of course many Americans had no transit options to turn to, but for those who did- many made the switch.

That is true.

However, the transit vs car ratio is still far from balanced. Remember, 1% of the people choosing transit instead of the car means 10% more transit users.

Besides that, the historic records are also partially explainable due to the fact the U.S. continue to break population records, hence more potential travellers.

WOW thanks a lot, I was still looking for some states :)

Edit: @ Below, mix-up at the servers :nuts:

Traffic counts for states (http://www.crenex.com/trafficcounts)

When you consider the size of the two countries compared to the relative investments the stimulus package comes out even smaller compared to 'normal' spending. By the way, the Economist magazine has expressed its fears a couple of times now that these extra-budgetary earmarks will lead to more 'bridges to nowhere'.

Of course, the Economist was completely fucking silent when it came to the far more wasteful spending that occurs in the Department of Defense. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

God forbid that the government might spend some money to help the country and ordinary people.

Maybe people realize that being stuck in traffic sucks and that building more roads is expensive and not a way to reduce congestion.

Maybe people realize that autocentric development, enabled by highways, causes air pollution, promotes wastefully inefficient development patterns, discourages exercise and social interaction, and destroys the environment.

Maybe THIS is why we should continue to fund mass transit.

Ah, near Green River. What a scenery :)
yeah..was there less than a month ago..actually stopped at the local pizza hut for lunch..

one of the coolest spots on the trans-continental drive.

Maybe people realize that being stuck in traffic sucks and that building more roads is expensive and not a way to reduce congestion.

Maybe people realize that autocentric development, enabled by highways, causes air pollution, promotes wastefully inefficient development patterns, discourages exercise and social interaction, and destroys the environment.

Maybe THIS is why we should continue to fund mass transit.

I don't know, some areas stopped building freeways completely and that didn't hesitate them to grow... places like Los Angeles, Tucson, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas etc. have pretty undersized networks, as in; large areas of their urban area is not covered by freeways.

And besides that, who's gonna pay for all these fancy transit infrastructures? A passenger mile for transit is much more expensive to realize than for roads, look at the excessive spending for transit by the MTA in the greater New York region for instance. The problem is transit travellers don't pay anywhere near the real costs of their travel, and the more transit users, the bigger this problem is.

And besides that, who's gonna pay for all these fancy transit infrastructures? A passenger mile for transit is much more expensive to realize than for roads, look at the excessive spending for transit by the MTA in the greater New York region for instance. The problem is transit travellers don't pay anywhere near the real costs of their travel, and the more transit users, the bigger this problem is.

I feel that places with good, well-used public transit systems should completely fund it through higher taxes, and abolish fares altogether.

I was thinking about Atlanta, and decided to check it out better on Google Earth. The city's urbanized area is just massive. It generally sprawls 30 miles from the city center in all directions, with some areas being as far as 50 miles from downtown (Gainesville).

I was wondering, since the suburbanization of Atlanta didn't really stop at the perimeter (I-285), isn't there a need for a second, much larger beltway? I measured it on Google Earth, and came out with this. Remember, some areas would still be outside this second beltway, especially in the north.
http://i39.************/2yoep0l.jpg

There was once a proposal for such an outer ring around Atlanta, but it was NIMBYed to death years ago.

:no:

Mike

Dear Lord, let us fix our bridges that are about to fall down before we build new highways to connect all the Targets and Home Depots, please :)

^^ I don't think suburbanization in Georgia is gonna wait until the bridges are fixed though...

mumbles something about taxes that should be higher to fix everything...

No, but construction of a 120 mile 985 should.

No, but construction of a 120 mile 985 should.

I don't think so.

If you want to allow a big increase of population, you should invest in infrastructure. If you want to allow suburbs that are car-dependent, you should invest in road infrastructure.

Anyhow,

the 2009 ASCE reportcard is out:
reportcard 2009 (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/)

The Report Card is an assessment by professional engineers of the nation's status in 15 categories of infrastructure. In 2009, all signs point to an infrastructure that is poorly maintained, unable to meet current and future demands, and in some cases, unsafe. Since the last Report Card in 2005, the grades have not improved. ASCE estimates the nation still stands at a D average. Deteriorating conditions and inflation have added hundreds of billions to the total cost of repairs and needed upgrades. ASCE's current estimate is $2.2 trillion, up from $1.6 trillion in 2005.

2200 billion dollars! :eek:

If the choice is between making sure bridges don't fall into rivers while people are driving across them or building a brand new highway to make Johnny SUV's ride a bit easier to his Sam's Club I know what choice I would make. That report card is the reason why. We are no longer in a position (we really haven't been for years) to debate whether we in America should fix the old highways or put up new ones. The choice has been made for us.

I'm just gonna say it... I know many are not gonna like it... But they should increase the fuel tax in the U.S.

The era of cheap construction is over. If we don't invest in urban freeways now, it will be harder and more expensive in the future once the entire area is urbanized. (look at the big dig for instance.)

Anyhow.

I calculated what the U.S. government is collecting in fuel taxes per year.

Please correct me if I used the wrong figures.
Finished Motor Gasoline (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm).

http://i40.************/2iu9a3a.jpg

So, if my figures are correct, the US federal + state government would collect about 76 billion dollars per year in fuel tax revenue.

To meet the 2200 billion dollar investment needed in 5 years, that means there is a gap of 364 billion dollar per year. Hence, there are other sources of income needed.

You'll get no argument from me. It's time Americans were introduced to the TRUE cost of our highway and roads system. We've been doing it on the cheap for far too long. And if we don't start rebuilding (and paying for it properly) soon, we'll be forced to shut down some major highways because they'll be unsafe. Imagine that, a rich country like this willing to spend billions and billions on Iraq but not wanting to fix up the infrastructure at home.

If the choice is between making sure bridges don't fall into rivers while people are driving across them or building a brand new highway to make Johnny SUV's ride a bit easier to his Sam's Club I know what choice I would make. That report card is the reason why. We are no longer in a position (we really haven't been for years) to debate whether we in America should fix the old highways or put up new ones. The choice has been made for us.
With the way stores like Circuit City are dying, and auto companies that made their money on SUVs like GM near death, I think your argument wins.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to confirm if U.S. daily traffic is really as bad as advertised on sources like Wikipedia.. Atlanta was in the top 10 most congested metros. Well, this doesn't look so bad at all. Only some minor congestion along I-285 northside and I-75 southbound.. but only for a couple of miles.
http://i40.************/2z580ug.jpg

There was once a proposal for such an outer ring around Atlanta, but it was NIMBYed to death years ago.

:no:

Mike

And I hay-ulped (old Shake 'n bake commercial).

To my amazement, anti-northern arc sentiments were strong even in heavily Republican suburban areas that weren't directly affected by the road, and ultraconservative Republican officeholders gave us more backup than I ever would've imagined. The thing was to be built with borrowed money at the behest of a Democratic governor, and suburban Atlantans hate taxes even more than they hate traffic.

So, "NIMBYed to death" is a rather gross mischaracterization of what actually happened.

Chris: Traffic here in Atlanta is scarily light since the recession started.

^^ How is that possible? So many people lost their jobs or they transferred to non-existing PT? Or maybe whole neighbourhoods started to carpool? ;)

^^ How is that possible? So many people lost their jobs or they transferred to non-existing PT? Or maybe whole neighbourhoods started to carpool? ;)

People losing their jobs, mainly. In one recent month-- November, IIRC, I read that Georgia lost more jobs than any state but Michigan. Plus, construction has a bigger portion of the economy here than in most places, and it had been hard hit by the real estate downturn, even before the crisis fully hit.

People can drive less, too. I've seen it before when the price of gas spikes, as it did after Katrina. Much of our driving is for nonessential purposes, so people can and will cut back if they think they need to.

According to our MPO, 70% of the cars on the road during PM rush hour are engaged in something other than commuting.

Couple of accidents happened on I-85 near Atlanta.

About 10 miles of traffic jam.

Pleasant Hill Road
http://i41.************/2ykkxhh.jpg

Steve Reynolds Blvd.
http://i40.************/35jay42.jpg

Indian Trail:
http://i39.************/20jjymg.jpg

Jimmy Carter Blvd.
http://i43.************/1zdc8w2.jpg

VMS at Jimmy Carter Blvd.
http://i40.************/ftzq5j.jpg

Seems to be flowing again at the I-285.
http://i44.************/2ag87yw.jpg

This seems to be one of those minor-lane-closures-causes-massive traffic jam situations. 2 lanes closed on the left, traffic can't exit and becomes stationary, blocking all other traffic.

ChrisZwolle... here's the wikipedia page on the Outer Perimeter around Atlanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Perimeter

Interestingly enough, if you look at satellite images, you can see that most of the require right-of-way for the Northern Arc of the ring road still exists. My guess is that the project is not really dead, but that it will have to be built as a toll road, and that while traffic is pretty bad in the northern suburbs and exurbs, the potential toll revenue from traffic isn't high enough to justify building the road yet. My guess on this is from what I know about another US tollway system: The Illinois Tollway.

I can tell you that the only parts of the Illinois Tollway system that make money are the Tri-State Tollway (I-94/294), and part of I-90 between O'Hare Airport and Schaumburg (see map below). The rest of the system is subsidized by the Tri-State, and the reason for that is that the Tri-State sees the bulk of truck traffic, and thus, the bulk of toll revenue. I-90 and I-88 go for another 50 miles west of the map that's shown. The parts of the Tollway that actually make money are those that have a high amount of truck traffic and see an average of at least 150,000 vehicles per day (http://www.dot.il.gov/trafficmaps/ADT_chicago.pdf). The link is to a map of traffic counts in the Chicago area.

http://www.midwestrugby.org/Images/08ILTollway.jpg

The Northern Arc (and indeed the entire outer perimeter) was sold as a way for truckers to bypass Atlanta, but as it turns out, truck traffic wouldn't be high enough to justify building the road on that premise alone. To justify building an Outer Perimeter would require traffic levels that approach 150,000 vehicles per day, and a substantial percentage of them would have to be trucks. I very much doubt that even the Northern Arc, if built today, would generate traffic counts of 100,000 vehicles per day. But with the way Atlanta is sprawling, I think eventually an outer ring road will have to be built.

The Northern Arc (and indeed the entire outer perimeter) was sold as a way for truckers to bypass Atlanta, but as it turns out, truck traffic wouldn't be high enough to justify building the road on that premise alone. To justify building an Outer Perimeter would require traffic levels that approach 150,000 vehicles per day, and a substantial percentage of them would have to be trucks. I very much doubt that even the Northern Arc, if built today, would generate traffic counts of 100,000 vehicles per day. But with the way Atlanta is sprawling, I think eventually an outer ring road will have to be built.For trucks, you'd be looking at tangents further afield - I-14 from Augusta to Meridian bypassing I-20 to the South (and I-85 if you also use I-77 from Charlotte)

I think its time to Invest in Sluggish Cross Bronx Expressway , its a 21 Hour traffic Jam , except on Sundays for 7 hours. Over crowded , not safe, old , short merge lanes , signage peeling off, barley any shoulders, guard rails rusted out, Lights in the small tunnels are turned off during day light hours. Now u could say this about almost even NYC hwy , but this is different, taken by not just Commuters & Truckers , but the Millions of Plus People going to Connecticut or New England, there are Alt routes , but they can be a gamble ,mileage and traffic!

I think its time to Invest in Sluggish Cross Bronx Expressway , its a 21 Hour traffic Jam , except on Sundays for 7 hours. Over crowded , not safe, old , short merge lanes , signage peeling off, barley any shoulders, guard rails rusted out, Lights in the small tunnels are turned off during day light hours. Now u could say this about almost even NYC hwy , but this is different, taken by not just Commuters & Truckers , but the Millions of Plus People going to Connecticut or New England, there are Alt routes , but they can be a gamble ,mileage and traffic!

Thought exercise: If you could transform the Cross Bronx into anything within the range of feasibility, what would you do? That's bearing in mind the constraints of the adjacent highway network.

A major problem in New York seems to be the geometry rather than capacity. 2x3 can handle as much as 160,000 - 180,000 if necessary, and most NY's expressways and parkways don't have such high loads. I think the geometry of interchanges reduces capacity very much. Look at the I-87 north to I-95 west connector for instance.

Gravedig! :ancient: Original post (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=742508&page=13). I started writing this when it was first posted, but I got sidetracked and never finished-- until now.:ohno:

This is one of the most annoying interchange designs I know of. The configuration you see here is c. 1987, but originally the layout was a simple cloverdirectional, with loops in two opposing quadrants and left-off-the-mainline semidirect ramps in the other two, a common layout during the '60's. The abandoned bridge under the southbound roadway of I-285 north of I-20 spanned of of the semidirect ramps. So, why is this so irritating?
http://i43.************/oldnk.jpg

Because... that now-removed ramp carried virtually no traffic! As you can see on a map (http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=33.705491,-84.27269&spn=0.143376,0.282898&z=11), anybody who wanted to go from northbound 285 to westbound 20 would do better to cut across on Ga 155. The ramp was used almost exclusively by police and emergency vehicles, with the occasional non-map-reading motorist (and prolly the occasional roadgeek) thrown in. Meanwhile, loops carried the two heaviest turning movements.

An obvious alternative would have been to simply mirror the layout, as was done at 285 and GA 400:
http://i39.************/2cnjnes.jpg

But topography made that a poor option. IMO, the best solution would've been to build a entering-from-the-left semidirect ramp for eastbound 20 to northbound 285 and put loop ramps where they are now. Doing this initially would have been slightly more expensive, but prolly would have eliminated the need for a configuration change when more capacity was needed, saving much money and reducing construction delays.

Another fun fact about this interchange: The 1987 rebuild moved the southbound 285 mainline adjacent to the existing northbound roadway, leaving the former southbound roadway for use by ramp traffic. For many years, there was no barrier between the ramps-- traffic could move as it might on a collector-distributor road. Which was OK because (a) not many people did it and (b) there were quite a few overturned truck accidents on the southbound 285 to eastbound 20 ramp due to a long downward grade on the former mainline. Truckers who realized they were going too fast could bail out by crossing painted lines to stay on the former mainline, at little risk to other motorists. The overturning truck problem was considered serious enough that plans were drawn to build a new, faster southbound 285 to eastbound 20 ramp at rather enormous expense.

Then... a few years ago, GDOT decided to build a jersey barrier separating the ramps, which I thought was very bad idea-- eliminating an escape option for overspeeding trucks in the interest of--what? However, I see no evidence that the jersey barrier has ever been hit. And i haven't heard anything about that expensive new ramp in a while.

This is an amazing part of the Interstate system.
DC6v80530tc&ap=%2526fmt%3D18
by Freewayjim (http://nl.youtube.com/user/Freewayjim)

^^ Stunning drive and landscape! Interesting crashbarrier. Is it that rusty?

Why is it so narrow in the second half of the video?

The barriers are brown on purpose because it's a parkway through that stretch. I think they've kept it narrow because of the park status- they didn't want a full interstate to run through the area.

The barriers are supposed to give the parkway a rustic feel, sort of like the Garden State Parkway.

Pasadena Freeway in Los Angeles, what a load of crap.
http://i44.************/5lvxj9.jpg

The pavement is 69 years old now.

5 mph exit! :O

http://i43.************/sc5bhh.jpg

This is an amazing part of the Interstate system.
DC6v80530tc&ap=%2526fmt%3D18
by Freewayjim (http://nl.youtube.com/user/Freewayjim)

I drove there two years ago but in fog and drizzle so missed most of the scenery ;)
Even when I stopped at some of the viewpoints couldn't see much. :(

Pasadena Freeway in Los Angeles, what a load of crap.
http://i44.************/5lvxj9.jpg

The pavement is 69 years old now.

Do you think we could get "West Germany" to unify with us? :)

That part of the Pasadena Freeway (CA 110, NOT an interstate) indeed predates WWII, but it also has historic landmark protection of some sort and commercial trucks are prohibited on it (it was originally called the Arroyo Seco Parkway).

OTOH, yes, I also do believe that the time has come for Caltrans to do some reconstructive surgery on it, but in a tasteful manner. It does not connect with any other freeway at its north end, instead feeding only into downtown Pasadena streets and has attributes more like a northeastern USA 'parkway' than a true freeway.

BUT - money is a real issue now with the State of California and we shall see....

Mike

That part of the Pasadena Freeway (CA 110, NOT an interstate) indeed predates WWII, but it also has historic landmark protection of some sort and commercial trucks are prohibited on it (it was originally called the Arroyo Seco Parkway).

Yup. The Engineering Bureau of the City of Los Angeles has the construction plans for it available to download through its online Engineering Vault. (The easiest way to find them is to proceed through this search page (http://engvault.lacity.org/apps/vault/public/project_search.cfm), check "Street," and enter "Arroyo Seco Pkwy" in the "Contains" box.)

OTOH, yes, I also do believe that the time has come for Caltrans to do some reconstructive surgery on it, but in a tasteful manner. It does not connect with any other freeway at its north end, instead feeding only into downtown Pasadena streets and has attributes more like a northeastern USA 'parkway' than a true freeway.

Caltrans has advertised a contract (Caltrans project number 07-2395U4; plans available here (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-2395U4/)) to replace the existing metal beam guardrail with concrete Jersey barriers. So the Arroyo Seco Parkway is receiving some cosmetic improvements, but none of the major alignment upgrades which would be required to bring it to something like Caltrans standards for new-build freeways. It will continue to function as a "museum freeway." Frankly, I am content for it to do that. Because it is essentially a spur off the downtown Los Angeles freeway ring, it is not as if its landmark status is standing in the way of needed upgrades.

BUT - money is a real issue now with the State of California and we shall see....

Caltrans has actually managed to let a surprising number of large ($50 million-$100 million range) contracts over the past year. I don't think California has the debt capacity to sustain a comparable letting volume this year, however.

5 mph exit! :O

http://i43.************/sc5bhh.jpg

Nice deceleration lane. :lol:

Do you think we could get "West Germany" to unify with us? :)

ROFL.

I didn't realise California could ever have highways in such a bad state.

The USA's highways are like an art form usually.

Don't laugh at the 5mph exit. That's one of the oldest expressways in the country. It was built back when you lot were still getting around on cart and donkey.

I kid, I kid.

Don't laugh at the 5mph exit. That's one of the oldest expressways in the country. It was built back when you lot were still getting around on cart and donkey.

lol. there's truth to that.

people can't say anything negative about our country. we did everything back when others didn't even have any clue. lol..

yeah some of our highways our bad...







but that's because they were built more than half a century ago. let that help you put things in perspective.

So? Dutch freeways were also build half a century ago and have very good asphalt pavement. It all comes down to maintenance, and California doesn't seem to know how to implement that word.

^ some sections of freeway are certainly bad. but california has more freeway miles than the netherlands, an aversion to taxes, and money going towards freeway expansion and road widening

some of the freeways in la are very impressive, some are not. ca 110, well, is prob the best example of the worst

They keyword seems to be "tax". Increase fuel tax as a user fee, and switch to more fuel efficient vehicles.

The idea of age being an excuse for the condition of that road is silly. Will it ever get repaired? Or once built is it going to go untouched for a thousand years?:ohno:
Many German motorways are older than American ones yet are in better shape. We've just decided we want a huge country without paying for it. It's a shame really.

The idea of age being an excuse for the condition of that road is silly. Will it ever get repaired? Or once built is it going to go untouched for a thousand years? :ohno:

I have already pointed out that the median barrier is to be replaced. As for the rest of it, it is in reasonably good condition. The asphalt pavement is almost certainly not original (at bare minimum it will have been cold-planed and overlaid several times since 1940, when the road was built), while the concrete pavement is original but in good condition for its age with not too much D-cracking. The clip-clop when going over joints can get annoying, but at the 45 MPH speed limit it is not going to tear your suspension to pieces.

The 5 MPH ramps and the limited provision of clear with both on the mainline and at the interchanges are, IMO, the most problematic aspects of the Arroyo Seco as it now stands. But the alignment is so confined that it is impossible to do anything about them without taking land. I am not sure whether the surrounding area has conservation status, but I can guarantee that any acquisition of new ROW would be fiercely opposed. Plus, as noted, there is little to be gained from making alignment improvements because the Arroyo Seco is a spur with no realistic prospect of being connected to another freeway at its northern end.

Many German motorways are older than American ones yet are in better shape.

Comparisons have to be apples-to-apples. In terms of the functions they serve, I don't see much difference between the Arroyo Seco and the few 1930's Autobahnen I have ridden on. The Autobahnen are likely to be somewhat smoother, but then they have to be, because they carry traffic at almost twice the speed of the Arroyo Seco.

Caltrans built some amazing freeways with outstanding signage back in the 50s.

Then they never bothered to keep up with the times, either with maintenance or standards beyond what the Feds forced upon them.

I never got that.

I still think LA's freeway system is far superior to most other freeway networks of major cities, in term of design, especially when compared to the 1930's standard of most New York Parkways. Ramps and connectors are better designed to handle high volumes at high speeds.

The problem is that it lacks capacity (The LA metro freeway system is very minimal when compared to population), and the pavement quality is low, or even unacceptable to European standards.

Caltrans built some amazing freeways with outstanding signage back in the 50s.

Then they never bothered to keep up with the times, either with maintenance or standards beyond what the Feds forced upon them.

I never got that.

Where guide signing is concerned, the Caltrans philosophy has traditionally been to use materials and hardware which will survive well in any of California's several climates for 50 years or more. This has resulted in what we now realize is a problem of excess durability.

Funding is another consideration. In the early 1960's, Caltrans (or rather its predecessor agency) was flush with cash, and went out of its way to conform to emerging national (AASHO) and federal standards. For instance, in 1958 Caltrans unilaterally changed to green background on all of its freeway guide signs, not just on Interstates (AASHO and the BPR required green background on Interstates beginning in 1958, but FHWA did not require it for other freeways until 1971).

But the standards continued to change while the real purchasing power of the gasoline tax continued to fall. Remember also that Reagan was governor of California in the late 1960's and was already starting to push the familiar hard-right mantras--local control with local funding, no unfunded federal mandates, let's keep government small and taxes low even if it means shuttering universities, etc. In 1971 Caltrans took a long hard look at the costs and technical possibilities involved in complying with emerging federal standards for sign color and Interstate exit numbering, and made a very deliberate decision to step off the treadmill.

This means that Caltrans now has vast quantities of signs and sign hardware on its infrastructure which are still in good repair, but are considered obsolete because they do not provide a service (retroreflectivity for true color at night) which the motoring public now expects. Some types of hardware, such as formed panels in removable sign panel frames, are fundamentally incompatible with new standards like exit numbering. Meanwhile, Caltrans' funding position is no better now than it was in the early 1970's. Therefore Caltrans is now making halfway attempts to conform (retroreflective sheeting on laminated or formed panels, "bitten-out" exit tabs, etc.) instead of clearing out all the old hardware and starting with new standards which can better accommodate retroreflective sheeting, exit numbering, and the driving public's expectation of periodic renewal of sheeting.

I still think LA's freeway system is far superior to most other freeway networks of major cities, in term of design, especially when compared to the 1930's standard of most New York Parkways. Ramps and connectors are better designed to handle high volumes at high speeds.

The Arroyo Seco Parkway was a critical first step in that optimization process. When it opened, both legislators and engineers realized that comprehensive grade separation of all intersecting roads saved lives, but also that it would be possible to build freeways capable of carrying more traffic more safely, at much higher speeds, and with geometry allowing more gradual changes of speed at interchanges, at little cost over and above that of a comparable freeway built to the same specification as the Arroyo Seco.

To an extent the engineers already knew that they were building the Arroyo Seco to scaled-down standards because of its location in parkland (they very consciously chose the New York parkways as a design model), but its overwhelming success--combined with early negative experience of design features such as the absent shoulders, short ramps, etc.--concentrated their minds on the need to provide the very best practicable design features on the other freeways whose corridors had already been identified. (After the war, Caltrans' predecessor agency started building the other "parkways" in Los Angeles, which were called "freeways" instead by the early 1950's--Hollywood Parkway, Harbor Parkway, Ramona Parkway, Santa Ana Parkway, Cahuenga Parkway, etc.)

I have zero issue with California or any other state having limited-access highways that are below motorway standard- but I don't think it's asking too much to have decent surface conditions, signage and road markings. I grow tired at times of looking at highways in "the richest country in the world" (so called) looking worse than what I see in most other advanced nations. Enough....let's fix it.:)

That is a bad surface, but at least it doesn't seem to have potholes.

I still think LA's freeway system is far superior to most other freeway networks of major cities, in term of design, especially when compared to the 1930's standard of most New York Parkways. Ramps and connectors are better designed to handle high volumes at high speeds.

The problem is that it lacks capacity (The LA metro freeway system is very minimal when compared to population), and the pavement quality is low, or even unacceptable to European standards.

LA is not the only city in the US that lacks freeway capacity. New York, Phoenix, Miami, and Chicago are the other major metro areas that lack freeway capacity.

if la lacks freeway 'capacity', that what about san francisco? ;)

what a city lacks in the freeway dept, it can make up with public transportation, at least to a degree. la would have a hard time tearing down homes and businesses to build more freeways, but it could certainly improve its rail transit system.

LA is not the only city in the US that lacks freeway capacity. New York, Phoenix, Miami, and Chicago are the other major metro areas that lack freeway capacity.

You crazy, Phoenix and Miami have many MORE THAN NEEDED!!!

You crazy, Phoenix and Miami have many MORE THAN NEEDED!!!
You are crazy, Miami has a terrible freeway system, along with just about every Florida city.

According to Wiki, the Miami metro(or South Florida as people call it) has only 16 freeways within the area of 15,896 km and 5 million+ people.

Miami's problem is that's it's very long north south. On I-95, you'll hit suburbs for over 90 miles in a row.

I-85/I-285 run next to eachother in SW Atlanta.
http://i44.************/2hx0pkm.jpg

Around here in southwest Virginia, many of the roads aren't quite in that bad shape but they aren't as good as they used to be - and not nearly as bad as they are in SoCal. Interstate 81 in western Virginia is dangerously overcrowded, with 6+ lane traffic on a 4-lane road (5 lanes where there's an extra lane for slower trucks to go up a mountain). Inerstate 581 happens to have a series of cloverleafs along its length, which are notorious for major weaving problems - they really need to be rebuilt...

The U.S. also has some unnecessary standards as well. Interstates are supposed to have a 20 ft median, which is unreasonable. It's technically for drainage and safety, but there are more efficient ways to do that as well.

The U.S. also has some unnecessary standards as well. Interstates are supposed to have a 20 ft median, which is unreasonable. It's technically for drainage and safety, but there are more efficient ways to do that as well.

Agreed imagine how much land is being used inefficiently. Terrible for the environment, as extra concrete destroys a lot of land and does relatively nothing.

Around here in southwest Virginia, many of the roads aren't quite in that bad shape but they aren't as good as they used to be - and not nearly as bad as they are in SoCal. Interstate 81 in western Virginia is dangerously overcrowded, with 6+ lane traffic on a 4-lane road (5 lanes where there's an extra lane for slower trucks to go up a mountain). Inerstate 581 happens to have a series of cloverleafs along its length, which are notorious for major weaving problems - they really need to be rebuilt...

I-81 is an alternate route to the heavily traveled I-95 for truckers and is growing in popularity. Of course, the state doesn't have the money to upgrade the road but it shouldn't anyways. Virginia has and should continue to support moving that trucking freight to railroads (there are a couple that parallel I-81).

I still think LA's freeway system is far superior to most other freeway networks of major cities, in term of design, especially when compared to the 1930's standard of most New York Parkways. Ramps and connectors are better designed to handle high volumes at high speeds.

The problem is that it lacks capacity (The LA metro freeway system is very minimal when compared to population), and the pavement quality is low, or even unacceptable to European standards.

LA has plenty of freeways. It needs expanded commuter rail (no more sharing of track by passenger and freight trains, which means laying more track) and more mass transit- which it is building.

Agreed imagine how much land is being used inefficiently. Terrible for the environment, as extra concrete destroys a lot of land and does relatively nothing.

Put HSR in the medians of freeways.:)

LA has plenty of freeways.

Actually, it has one of the least developed ones in the U.S. for the size of it's population.

And who's gonna buy all those right-of-ways for commuter rail? Every square buildable inch in LA is build.

Freeway lane-miles per capita (US urbanised areas) 1999:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm

Does anyone know of a more recent listing of freeway lane-miles per capita for US metro areas (MSAs, not CSAs)? That would be more meaningful imo.

yeah, we need a newer one for sure. This one's 10 years old now. Although I think we can conclude that in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles the figures are even worse because they gained a lot of people but didn't expand their freeway systems.

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/

click on a city, and you'll get a PDF file with lane miles

I can calculate a list with lane miles/capita, but that's gonna need some time.

Thanks for the link. :)

I'll calculate a list when I get the time.

For instance Los Angeles:

1999: (http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm) 0.419
2005: (http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/los_angeles.pdf) 0.468

Unclear if RIV/SB is included in the first figure though.

Thanks for the link, I'll do some calculations for the 85.

I think those 85 are averages. You need them per city.

I want to make a similar calculation of the Dutch metropolitan area of Randstad, problem is Randstad doesn't have a defined boundary.

^^

I'll have a look through it and do the calculations when I get some time.

West Coast:
http://i43.************/2jcd00g.jpg

I found it a good way to spend my lunchtime :D

Lowest 35:
http://i39.************/2m6wriq.jpg

Highest 35:
http://i43.************/2a6t9hh.jpg

..

Does this include all dual carriageway roads?

No, freeway-grade roads.

Urban areas are defined as areas with a population density of over 1000 inhabitants per square mile, hence it deviates from the MSA definitions.

In that case it seems that Anchorage has quite a lot of freeway miles. Weird.

Fantastic, thank you Chris!

(You beat me to it... I had just started when I saw your post.)

I have the whole list in PDF, but I don't have a website to upload it to...

To put things in perspective. I've just calculated the Dutch Randstad (7.1 million in metro). It would rank between 1 and 2 worst, at 0,260 miles per 1000 inhabitants. This would make the Randstad almost twice as bad as Los Angeles.

I don't trust the "highest 35" list since Wichita isn't in it.

Population: 361,420

Land area: 138 square miles

Mean population density: 2618 persons/square mile

Freeways: I-235 (64 lane miles), I-135 (66 lane miles), US 54-400 (72 lane miles), K-96 (40 lane miles), I-35 Kansas Turnpike (44 lane miles) = 286 lane miles

Freeway lane miles are measured within the city limits (i.e., many will have substantial lane mileage outside the city limits but only lane mileage within Wichita is counted).

Wichita should be right in the middle of the "highest 35" list (0.79 lane miles per 1000 head of population), but is nowhere to be found. (BTW, it has much less traffic congestion than other cities which place higher in terms of lane miles per 1000 head of population, because it has a lower population overall, is geographically more compact, and the freeways are laid out efficiently in a grid.)

No data for Wichita (http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/central_map.stm). Odd indeed, since places like Laredo and Pensacola are present. I also miss Des Moines and Knoxville

In that case it seems that Anchorage has quite a lot of freeway miles. Weird.

Not too weird when you consider Anchorage's settlement pattern. It is very sprawled out, with dozens of subdivisions over many square miles having very low lot occupancy rates. There are mountains within the city limits, including one which is a popular hiking park (I tried to scale it in flat-soled shoes and almost broke my head open). As a result of its lack of geographical compactness, Anchorage has a very large land area with a very low population, and has long lengths of the New Seward Highway and the Glenn Highway within its city limits.

Meanwhile, Anchorage suffers greatly from congestion because its arterial system is rudimentary (mostly two-lane when cities of its size in the lower 48 will have four-lane or better), the concentration of businesses in the downtown area results in a traditional in-out commuting pattern with long journeys handled on low-capacity infrastructure, and none of the three freeways interchanges directly with any of the others. (The third freeway is O'Malley Avenue/Minnesota Drive, which functions as an airport connector and interchanges with the New Seward Highway at a signalized diamond.)

This is why the locals cynically call the town "Los Anchorage."

No data for Wichita (http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/central_map.stm). Odd indeed, since places like Laredo and Pensacola are present. I also miss Des Moines and Knoxville

I wonder if the choice of cities for data-gathering purposes is based on estimates of congestion. For example, Kansas City might be chosen while Wichita and Des Moines were ignored, because KC has much worse congestion than both. (I last passed through Knoxville in 1995 and so have no recent information, but at that time it had no congestion to speak of, while Nashville was fast approaching gridlock.)

The U.S. also has some unnecessary standards as well. Interstates are supposed to have a 20 ft median, which is unreasonable. It's technically for drainage and safety, but there are more efficient ways to do that as well.


I think wide medians on freeways are great. I don't want all those headlights right in my face. Plus the U.S. has so much land it doesn't matter how wide the median is.

Edit:

http://i43.************/33emwb5.jpg

Look at that beautiful wide-open space. :)

^^ That's true, if the next parallel Interstate is like 200 miles to the north, it doesn't matter much if the median is 9 feet or 900 feet wide.

^^

True. Plus I think wide medians are great because you can always expand the freeway by filling in part of the median. If there is a narrow median freeway expansion will take a lot more work because exits and overpasses have to be reconfigured.

Aside from that wide medians are just great. I'm surprised to see most of the rest of the world using narrow medians even on new highways.

Another picture:

http://i39.************/ve3omx.jpg

I consider this a narrow median.

I think wide medians on freeways are great. I don't want all those headlights right in my face.

Many motorways around the world have center barriers that are tall enough to prevent headlight glare.

You can read some more about the freeway lane mileage list on my blog (in English);

http://dutchroadgeek.blogspot.com/2009/02/freeway-lane-mileagepopulation-ratio.html

Many motorways around the world have center barriers that are tall enough to prevent headlight glare.

Sometimes with those tall walls they become annoying because it blocks the view of the landscape on the other side of the highway.

I suppose that could be the case- but I don't think that's all that important when measured against safety standards. If one wants a nice Sunday drive they can exit and take local roads.

Aside from that wide medians are just great. I'm surprised to see most of the rest of the world using narrow medians even on new highways.

Most of the rest of the world would use wide medians if it could afford them. The first few US freeways were not built with wide medians but those were incorporated in later construction because they offered better protection from nighttime dazzle and crossover accidents without the need to provide central barriers, safety fencing, anti-dazzle plantings or bollards, etc. Wide medians also make it easy to put each carriageway on its own alignment (very useful in hilly or mountainous terrain) and also simplify land acquisition by making it easy to purchase uneconomic remainders.

In Britain, provision of wide medians on the motorway network was studied in the early 1960's. It was determined that the added land cost required to provide medians which would reduce losses from crossover accidents, etc. to the level that could be expected with center barriers would be equal to the cost of constructing an added lane in each direction. Even in the US, wide medians are not used in urban or suburban areas where land is expensive.

You can read some more about the freeway lane mileage list on my blog (in English);

http://dutchroadgeek.blogspot.com/2009/02/freeway-lane-mileagepopulation-ratio.html

One other observation. As a generalization, I would expect to see more congestion in a city with a large population than in a city with a small population, even if both cities had the same number of freeway lane miles per capita, equal densities, equally compact development in level terrain free of natural obstacles, and equal intensities of transport usage on a per capita basis.

In the 1970's, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (in Britain) did a tabletop study to try to assign an upper bound to the amount of road infrastructure that needed to be provided in a city to maintain mobility across the urbanized area, given some basic assumptions about density of housing and employment, mode choice, trip generation, etc. The central finding was that the amount of road capacity required to keep traffic moving at a given level of service increased much faster than population and developed land area.

I think it also depends on the urban layout... with multiple job centers, traffic flows would mix better, instead of massive tidal flows to one or two centers. You have the same amount of traffic and capacity, yet fewer traffic jams.

^^ Yup. This is essentially how large cities are able to continue to function. But the stylized fact is that the percentage of uncongested cities you can find in a given size bracket drops with increasing size. There are plenty of uncongested cities in the 100,000-400,000 population range, but far fewer (proportionately) in the 1 million-4 million range.

I suspect the reasons for this are largely economic. Cities do not reach significant size without periods of sustained growth. Growth works by taking the existing infrastructure and sets of transport relations and adding to the burdens on them. This in turn makes it advantageous for existing residents of the city either to accept a lower quality of service or to look for ways for new arrivals to pay proportionately more than they do (cf. California and Proposition 13). By the time a longer-term response to growth arrives in the form of edge cities and dispersed employment, densities have developed to the point where it is not economically feasible to improve the infrastructure to restore the mobility that existed when the city is small. Thus, the city's residents (both old-timers and new arrivals) accustom themselves to trading off congestion for the enhanced job and business opportunities that arise from agglomeration.

I think wide medians on freeways are great. I don't want all those headlights right in my face. Plus the U.S. has so much land it doesn't matter how wide the median is.

Edit:

http://i43.************/33emwb5.jpg

Look at that beautiful wide-open space. :)

Funny you should post that particular picture. I-20 is gradually being widened to 6 lanes from Birmingham east to Anniston (and maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the Georgia state line). That median will be gone soon, if it isn't already.

Funny you should post that particular picture. I-20 is gradually being widened to 6 lanes from Birmingham east to Anniston (and maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the Georgia state line). That median will be gone soon, if it isn't already.

ALDOT needs to hurry up with that and replace the washboard 1960's concrete that was such a plague on that stretch of road.

Does anyone know what the "Northern" limit of those raised reflective pavement markings (RPMs) is?

I'm referring to these:

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTt5xf_o8s6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--

I already know that they have the snowplowable ones for the Northern states and provinces, like so:

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTt5xTam8s6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--

Actually, it has one of the least developed ones in the U.S. for the size of it's population.

And who's gonna buy all those right-of-ways for commuter rail? Every square buildable inch in LA is build.

The government used eminent domain to build the freeways- it can use eminent domain to lay some extra track, which will require FAR less space than a freeway.

Agree with FM 2258. Sometime when I have the time I'll make a video of the South Western Freeway in Sydney; parts of it have an extremely wide median, it makes for a really great drive.

The government used eminent domain to build the freeways- it can use eminent domain to lay some extra track, which will require FAR less space than a freeway.

That's true on a one-corridor basis, but the problem is you'll need a whole new network of commuter rail, while there are less freeway corridors/widenings necessary, so on the grand total, commuter rail will need more ROW, and you don't even know how efficient it eventually will be.

In NL, a passenger mile by train takes more space than a passenger mile by freeway, yet our system is far busier than in Los Angeles. So I tend not to be so enthusiast about the claims that rail takes less space for travel demand.

Los Angeles should rather build some subway networks, and maybe some rail corridors above those canals, so you don't need a new ROW through neighborhoods.

The problem is
1) There's no money
2) Transit travellers do not want to pay the actual cost of their modal choice.
3) Hence fare revenue is too low to cover the infrastructure and operational costs.

Does anyone know what the "Northern" limit of those raised reflective pavement markings (RPMs) is?

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that many places also use reflecters that are "dug into" the pavement as well, which obviously won't get ripped out by a plow. Of course that option also prevents the dual use of making a noise when you run over them.

^^ Yeah that's true. They have a few of those in some areas of Ontario as well. One area that comes to mind is on Highway 403 heading up the Hamilton "mountain".

You can't really see them, but they're around here I believe:

http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_402-403_images/403_cl_H6-3_east.jpg

Disclaimer: Photo is not mine, comes from onthighways.com

Funny you should post that particular picture. I-20 is gradually being widened to 6 lanes from Birmingham east to Anniston (and maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the Georgia state line). That median will be gone soon, if it isn't already.

That sure does look like a crowded rural freeway kinda like rural Interstate 35 here in Texas between San Antonio and Hillsboro (before the 35E/35W split).

I see no downside to wide medians. Here in central Texas when the y built the new tollway system they incorporated wide medians for future expansion.
http://i39.************/huobnp.jpg

The downside is that it takes up and wastes and enormous amount of space, especially since a lot of these expressways run through urbanized areas.

In Texas there is unlimited space :D

See what happened to the suburbs in Texas, they reach very far, but there is a lot of undeveloped land in between. Still Texas is not the biggest state of the US :D

^^ That's only true for Houston. Every space in DFW is pretty much used.

edit

The problem is
1) There's no money
2) Transit travellers do not want to pay the actual cost of their modal choice.
3) Hence fare revenue is too low to cover the infrastructure and operational costs.

LA has the ROW already in place to expand its commuter rail network. There are plenty of rail lines that run through SoCal. The Metrolink system runs on freight track.

I am talking about adding additional track along existing Metrolink routes.

And highways do not pay for themselves either. They require large amounts of subsidies to maintain. So why is this fact seen as OK for roads but not for railroads?

^^ That's only true for Houston. Every space in DFW is pretty much used.
You are wrong, there is plenty of space in the DFW area.

And highways do not pay for themselves either. They require large amounts of subsidies to maintain. So why is this fact seen as OK for roads but not for railroads?

Subsidies brought in by tax derived from automobility! This is a big difference with rail, where used tax are from general sources.

DFW has even more sprawl than Houston. There's wide open spaces in downtown Dallas.

Well, DFW is larger... 6.1 million vs 5.6 in Houston. 500.000 people, 3 per house = 166.00 more homes. That's quite an area.

Another "high quality" bridge, on I-20 just west of Shreveport, LA
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/3121087467_52eb3245e2_o.jpg

By OKroads on Flickr.

DFW has even more sprawl than Houston. There's wide open spaces in downtown Dallas.

Much of that is either parkland (think Dealey Plaza) or in the Trinity River floodplain. My own impression is that pretty much everything in Dallas that isn't either a city park or liable to flood has been built on, though obviously this isn't true for peripheral suburbs, which still have plenty of opportunities for infill development.

Louisiana is often the reason Pennsylvania doesn't have the worst roads in America.

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/02/highway-bridge-stimulus-money.html

A state-by-state breakdown of the Stimulus money for roads&bridges.

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/02/highway-bridge-stimulus-money.html

A state-by-state breakdown of the Stimulus money for roads&bridges.

Alright who in the right mind decided to give Tenessee more money than Washington?!

Alright who in the right mind decided to give Tenessee more money than Washington?!
Remember, I-69 needs to be built in Western Tennessee(US 51 from Union City to Memphis is not Interstate quality yet).

Also, TN 840 needs to be finshed as a half-beltway around Nashville.

Don't forget about I-475 to act as a reliever route for traffic to bypass Knoxville. You ever been to Knoxville? Right now, I-40 through downtown is fully shutdown while the Interstate is being completely rebuilt. Locals like to both groan and chuckle at the amount of perpetual construction on Knoxville interstates. It's been that way for the past 30 years, at least. See? www.tdot.state.tn.us/smartfix/jwp/

Chattanooga's gotta get their fair share of upgrades too. It's been over 10 years since I-24 got a good rehabilitation, and I-75 hasn't completely been reconstructed since 1990. Semi trucks ain't getting any smaller.

What I would like to see is a High Speed Rail that goes from Memphis to Nashville to Knoxville to Bristol, with spurs from Nashville and Knoxville to Chattanooga to connect with the proposed High Speed Rail to Atlanta.

Also, how about a rail line from Knoxville to Asheville, NC to connect with the NC expansion of their rail line?

Does anyone know what the "Northern" limit of those raised reflective pavement markings (RPMs) is?

I'm referring to these:

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTt5xf_o8s6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--

I already know that they have the snowplowable ones for the Northern states and provinces, like so:

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTt5xTam8s6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--

I don't know about NC or TN, or parts of the state east or south of Lynchburg, but in southwest VA and northern VA we use the ones that are a bit more flush with the pavement to allow for snowplows - they are placed in every other gap between dashed lines, and about one every 15ish feet near exit ramps. I guess the VA border is the southern limit as far as i know...?

I'm not entirely sure why we have snowplowable reflectors here - for all I know, snow is probably a myth - I haven't seen it in significant amounts since 2003 when i was in 5th grade. (Yes we've had "snow" since then but just two or three "storms" a year)

^^The reflectors used in Washington are not snow plowable at all. In August, reflectors were laid down, and in December they were all gone due to the snow. I picked up a few of them from the side of the road :P.

It's quite stupid that in a state with a lot of snow in winter, like Washington, they forget to think about the consequences of plowing snow :lol:

Remember, I-69 needs to be built in Western Tennessee(US 51 from Union City to Memphis is not Interstate quality yet).

Also, TN 840 needs to be finshed as a half-beltway around Nashville.

Don't forget about I-475 to act as a reliever route for traffic to bypass Knoxville. You ever been to Knoxville? Right now, I-40 through downtown is fully shutdown while the Interstate is being completely rebuilt. Locals like to both groan and chuckle at the amount of perpetual construction on Knoxville interstates. It's been that way for the past 30 years, at least. See? www.tdot.state.tn.us/smartfix/jwp/

Chattanooga's gotta get their fair share of upgrades too. It's been over 10 years since I-24 got a good rehabilitation, and I-75 hasn't completely been reconstructed since 1990. Semi trucks ain't getting any smaller.

What I would like to see is a High Speed Rail that goes from Memphis to Nashville to Knoxville to Bristol, with spurs from Nashville and Knoxville to Chattanooga to connect with the proposed High Speed Rail to Atlanta.

Also, how about a rail line from Knoxville to Asheville, NC to connect with the NC expansion of their rail line?

But most of your argument can be made by other states: "Oh, city X needs to build this and city Y needs that." When dealing with transportation aspects of this federal stimulus bill, solid arguments can really only be made for projects of national significance, and I-69 is probably the only one that you mentioned that can be classified as such. That's the real discrepancy in state funding here.

I-95 through Philadelphia by Freewayjim.
m2q9JJccV9k

choose High Quality! :)

It's nice to see Indiana get $657 million for highway funds. Our roads SUCK. Spend it quickly, Indiana, there are tons of shovel ready projects that can get started with this money.

I-95 through Philadelphia by Freewayjim.
m2q9JJccV9k

choose High Quality! :)

At the 3:30 mark he was here:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/922072600_87993dbd0b_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1202/922072464_9348326d45_b.jpg

Nice looking freeway! :)

Wasn't part of the Delaware Expressway (I-95) between the Ben Franklin and Betsy Ross Bridges shut down because large cracks were found in some columns holding up the freeway?

Yeah I believe so... apparantly they fixed it...

It was fixed after a couple of days- I had posted some pictures of it at the time, but I think they're likely somewhere in Interstate thread II :)

It's not very impressive but the other side of Center City is the Shuykill Expressway which has one of the coolest skyline approaches I've seen. Youre drive through a forest along the river and then boom theres Philly. Its like a parkway more like.

Here's a few pictures from flickr of the Des Moines, Iowa network of interstates. It has interstates 80, 35 and 235. It also has a southern bypass, but it's a state highway number, not an interstate.

They just finished a huge upgrade of the system to be around 8 lanes wide in most areas.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/1175473243_2c188630be.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/1499840475_6a66d2609c.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/188562609_5e4c3e1edf.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/229741193_004c837ef8.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/2419553743_36d914ab42.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/2588352439_6e74e667c4.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/2589195910_888d0ea6ea.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/mmmm/3161682345_2a7930d2bd.jpg

Great shots Chicagoago ! :)

My first good Panoramic Shot of Cityscape of the City of Paterson,New Jersey & giant slice of Interstate 80 on the bottom! Direction Northeasterly

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3321058805_205f68648a_b.jpg

Heading on I-287 today

Mileage Sign on I-287
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3321094217_5ed5da5b17_b.jpg

Ramapo, New Jersey

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3629/3321925162_4882312235_b.jpg

A 65 speed limit is a bit low, for that road.

It seems to be quite a curvy section; 65 mph is probably not that bad.

The maximum speed limit in New Jersey is 65, and that stretch of 287 is not too rural. There are plenty of communities hidden behind the trees.

The problem with the speed limits in the US of A is that each state sets its own maximum limit. It has nothing to do with engineering surveys or scientific data collection. Since the national speed limit of 90 km/h was repelled a while ago, some states did not raise their speed limits to a reasonable level sticking to the "safe" 105 km/h as in case with Oregon and a bunch of eastern states.

I read that NJ cops don't go after speeders unless you are doing above 80mph.

Yeah in California the speed limit is ALMOST irrelevant as long as youre going with the flow of the traffic. Most situations everybody is going at least 80 mph (~130 km/h). If youre one of the few cars on the road then they'll get you. Sometimes they will take a row of people going to fast I've seen that. Many rural areas the speed limit is raised to 70 or 75 mph but it has to have long straight parts and basically no exits. The desert is a great example of that.

LtBk : Depends on the Location , in rural areas yes in more Suburban / Urban areas they don't hesitate to pull you over , but they been recently going after truckers as they gotten alot complaints about there reckless driving, like using the fast lane to chat along side a follow rig. :ohno:


Heres more from my Mini Trip on Sunday!

Sheraton Crossroads is placed in a great Location @ the Interchanges of Interstate @ 287 , 87 ,NJ SR 17 , US Highway 202 , NY SR 59 and the near by Port Jervis - Ridgewood Train Route! Canon World or some HQ is next door as well!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3322932671_38b3d27514_b.jpg

Half mile away is the New York State Border
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3612/3323727490_64e296a8a9_b.jpg

Route I-287 / 87 Eastbound / Southbound Ramp

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3323727634_1e98588471_b.jpg

City of Suffern Is Below the Massive Interchange Complex

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3322891301_69427318cd_b.jpg

A skipped a bunch of Photos in between the Interchange Complex in
Suffern, New York & this next photo in West Nyack / Nyack , New York

Last Exit before Tappan Zee Bridge And Toll!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3629/3323728150_85c0f47519_b.jpg

On The Bridge , noticed the uneven Pavement and redone railing on lights :) it makes me feel safer now !

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/3322891665_3ea382c3c0_b.jpg

Approaching the Tarrytown Side of the Bridge. :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3644/3323728734_74abe6350a.jpg

A view south towards NYC , unfortunately it was very cloudy , so u couldn't see it :ohno:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3323728480_ce458cefa9.jpg

The View from the Restaurant Parking lot of the Tappan Zee Bridge ,Shame i didn't take it in to show the Portuguese Fried Shrimp i had :cheers:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3323728892_0bf5c62bf7_b.jpg

Closer View

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3323729046_817b4eb920.jpg

Hope u enjoyed my little update! ^^:)

~Corey Best

Many rural areas the speed limit is raised to 70 or 75 mph but it has to have long straight parts and basically no exits. The desert is a great example of that.
Did they raise the speed limit in California recently? I have yet to see "75 mph" on Californian motorways.

Thanks for the pictures Nexis, good to see some familiar places. I used to work in Suffern last summer, right next to the Interstate crossing so I drove those roads numerous times, especially the Thruway. :cheers:

If I ever moved back to the New York City area I'd love to in Rockland County. :cheers:

I heard on the radio that Arizona shall be using some of its stimulus money to resign Interstate 19. The metric signs will be replaced with signs in American units.

I heard on the radio that Arizona shall be using some of its stimulus money to resign Interstate 19. The metric signs will be replaced with signs in American units.

Noo! The gov should step in to stop them.

I heard on the radio that Arizona shall be using some of its stimulus money to resign Interstate 19. The metric signs will be replaced with signs in American units.

Why? That makes no sense; it's like trading in a Ferrari for a Model T Ford. :bash:

I heard on the radio that Arizona shall be using some of its stimulus money to resign Interstate 19. The metric signs will be replaced with signs in American units.
That will stimulate the economy, no doubt :|

They better build a loop around Tucson...

This whole stimulus package is no more than a lot of people's personal agendas, rather than really a stimulus to the economy. Repaving a road does not stimulate economy, only in the short term for the company who repaves it. If you want to stimulate the economy, build new roads and bridges, which are also useful in the long term, after construction completed...

They better build a loop around Tucson...

The TATS proposed one in 1965, but it is highly contentious, and is most definitely not something that could be built within a short timeframe.

This whole stimulus package is no more than a lot of people's personal agendas, rather than really a stimulus to the economy. Repaving a road does not stimulate economy, only in the short term for the company who repaves it. If you want to stimulate the economy, build new roads and bridges, which are also useful in the long term, after construction completed...

There is a distinction between short-term economic stimulus and social savings. Short-term economic stimulus is what we need right now in order to oppose the present cycle of contracting production and rising unemployment. In terms of the multiplier effects which are felt immediately, there is not much difference between large projects (which have substantial social savings but require long lead times to plan) and small resurfacing projects (which are actually a form of consumption rather than investment because the resurfacing work never lasts very long, but are relatively easy to design, bid, and build quickly).

The real objection to Obama's stimulus bill, which is starting to be discovered only now that it has been signed into law, is that it is really two things. It contains a very small component dedicated directly to economic stimulus, with the majority of the spending being dedicated to pursuing social savings through investments which won't be made until after 2010. If there is an economic recovery in late 2009/early 2010 as some optimists predict, this additional spending could actually create undesired short-run "crowding out" effects (though the investments would still be worth making for the long-term payoffs).

In my view, the stimulus bill would probably do more to revive the economy if it were approximately the same size, but dedicated more purely to economic stimulus instead of long-run investment. But very few state DOTs are in the fortunate position of having large projects sitting on the shelf, ready to go, so what we have right now is the current orgy of resurfacing contracts instead of the possibility of hitting two birds with one stone by building large capacity-increasing projects right now.

P.S. I don't support metrication of traffic signs in the US in general, but I am sorry to see I-19 go back to customary units. The local media (1 (http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=9990572&nav=menu86_1_3), 2 (http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2009/03/06/breaking_news/00mileposts0308.txt)) has carried stories on the issue, with an I-19 sign rehabilitation contract likely to go to bid in July.

It is a bit sad and counter-intuitive to see de-metrication being done using stimulus money. I thought stimulus bill should promote progressive solutions and innovations but not finance steps backward in time :ohno:

On a side note, I see more and more 1-litre bottles on the shelves of American supermarkets, not to mention almost all smaller quantities are sold in 0,5 litres and not 20 US fl. oz. as before :banana: So many Americans drink from these 0,5-litre bottles everyday and yet complain that they have no idea how much a half-litre is. "Hi, I would like to buy that 16,9 oz bottle, please" :nuts:

It is a bit sad and counter-intuitive to see de-metrication being done using stimulus money. I thought stimulus bill should promote progressive solutions and innovations but not finance steps backward in time :ohno:

On a side note, I see more and more 1-litre bottles on the shelves of American supermarkets, not to mention almost all smaller quantities are sold in 0,5 litres and not 20 US fl. oz. as before :banana: So many Americans drink from these 0,5-litre bottles everyday and yet complain that they have no idea how much a half-litre is. "Hi, I would like to buy that 16,9 oz bottle, please" :nuts:
Frankly(and I know it's as much of a pipe dream as you guys think in the USA going metric), but I want to see the day when the EU, Africa, and much of Asia says good bye to the metric system and comes back to the Imperial system.

Metric makes too much sense. It's boring because it's 1 size fits all in the prefixes. With Imperial, you actually have to learn and have a comprehension across multiple sensories to understand it. Nothing boring about that.

It's probably not boring, but it's more difficult and there are much more countries that use the metric system, so IMO it's not a good idea.

Frankly(and I know it's as much of a pipe dream as you guys think in the USA going metric), but I want to see the day when the EU, Africa, and much of Asia says good bye to the metric system and comes back to the Imperial system.

Metric makes too much sense. It's boring because it's 1 size fits all in the prefixes. With Imperial, you actually have to learn and have a comprehension across multiple sensories to understand it. Nothing boring about that.

I love this guy being ironic :D

I want to see the day when the EU, Africa, and much of Asia says good bye to the metric system and comes back to the Imperial system.
I apologise for being dull, but this is a common misconception among Americans that the entire world was using the Imperial system before they switched to metric system :) If every country switched back to their respective system of measurements, then it would indeed break this boredom, hands down.

This whole stimulus package is no more than a lot of people's personal agendas, rather than really a stimulus to the economy.

Your lack of understanding of American politics and current events comes through again. Money for transportation is distributed to the states, who then figure out how they will spend it. So the stimulus money is allocated into certain areas, but the exact projects it will go to is determined by state, city, and county governments.

There are no "personal" agendas in the stimulus.

Your lack of understanding of American politics and current events comes through again. Money for transportation is distributed to the states, who then figure out how they will spend it. So the stimulus money is allocated into certain areas, but the exact projects it will go to is determined by state, city, and county governments.

There are no "personal" agendas in the stimulus.

True. Its all the control of the MPO's and what they want. Thats American decentralized government for you.

MODOT wants to make a Diverging Diamond Intersection along I-44.

http://www.modot.org/springfield/major_projects/Greene/images/DDI-Logo.gif

http://www.modot.org/springfield/major_projects/Greene/images/DDI-Still-1.gif

http://www.modot.org/springfield/major_projects/Greene/images/DDI-Still-2.gif

http://www.modot.org/springfield/major_projects/Greene/images/DDI-Still-3.gif

http://www.modot.org/springfield/major_projects/Greene/images/DDI-Still-5.gif

and why is that any better?

Less traffic lights; less waiting times. But the idea is a bit too unorthodox in my opinion.

Is that the same as a SPUI?

EDIT: No I guess it's not. It has traffic crossing over to the other side of the road. Something like that was proposed one place here in Ohio, but rejected overwhelmingly by the public.

as i see it, either build a proper highway interchange with no interruptions or use the classic types

For the past several years, WisDOT (State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation) policy has been to consider roundabouts at all intersections on state highways where signals or four-way STOP signs are otherwise warranted that are planned to be built, substantially rebuilt or upgraded, including at freeway interchange ramp intersections.

They are appearing all over the state en-masse as a result.

If I were at MoDOT, I'd do the same at that one - that proposal looks like a dis-orienting mess in the making.

Mike

For the past several years, WisDOT (State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation) policy has been to consider roundabouts at all intersections on state highways where signals or four-way STOP signs are otherwise warranted that are planned to be built, substantially rebuilt or upgraded, including at freeway interchange ramp intersections.

They are appearing all over the state en-masse as a result.

If I were at MoDOT, I'd do the same at that one - that proposal looks like a dis-orienting mess in the making.

Mike

At first it does, but the more I look at it the more sense that intersection makes. I'd like to see one in action.

What round-about highway ramp ends are we talking about? I've only seen 1 or 2, both just North of Sheboygan off of I-43.

and why is that any better?

Traffic coming off the freeway doesn't cross the road at any point, it simply merges with traffic without stopping. That means traffic simply crossing the freeway doesn't have to wait at the lights for any protected turns, keeping wait times short and not letting traffic build up.

It's pretty ingenious actually.

Your lack of understanding of American politics and current events comes through again. Money for transportation is distributed to the states, who then figure out how they will spend it. So the stimulus money is allocated into certain areas, but the exact projects it will go to is determined by state, city, and county governments.

There are no "personal" agendas in the stimulus.

Stimulus money is allocated all over not just for transportation projects. There are personal agendas you better believe it. For example a senator X from Indiana can easily include a proposal to benefit a certain industry which happens to be heavily based in his native state. It has less to do with efficient and effective spending to boost the economy but more to do with securing his re-election.

The stimulus package is full of pork barrel spending and even Indiana is getting in on the action :)

MODOT wants to make a Diverging Diamond Intersection along I-44.

It is not just "wants." Bids were opened on the relevant contract more than a month ago (it was call number 801 in the letting of February 20, 2009) and at this point, I think the contract may already have been awarded.

For the past several years, WisDOT (State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation) policy has been to consider roundabouts at all intersections on state highways where signals or four-way STOP signs are otherwise warranted that are planned to be built, substantially rebuilt or upgraded, including at freeway interchange ramp intersections.

They are appearing all over the state en-masse as a result.

If I were at MoDOT, I'd do the same at that one - that proposal looks like a dis-orienting mess in the making.

Roundabouts work only if the opposing flows are reasonably well balanced, which is not the case at this interchange. MoDOT considered a SPUI conversion but this would have entailed replacing the bridge (not just widening it) and the construction period would have been much longer, with more disruption to traffic. The DDI is, on paper at least, a better fit with MoDOT's current philosophy of "Practical Design": meeting the requirements at least cost and with least disruption to traffic.

MoDOT has at least one other DDI in the works, as part of a much larger project to build a flyover DC at what is currently the cloverleaf interchange between I-270 and SR 364 in metropolitan St. Louis. Preliminary plans are already available for this contract and bids will be opened probably in May or June.

Construction plans for both the Springfield and St. Louis DDIs are available for public viewing. Go to MoDOT's E-planroom (http://modot.indoxservices.com/), choose "Enter public planroom," and navigate to the relevant contracts--the I-270/SR 364 job is at the top of the first page ("N/A" given as call number) while the Springfield DDI is on the tenth page (call 801). (Copies can be downloaded, for free, but to do this you need to have a vendor account with both MoDOT and the Indoxservices planroom.)

Why are there so many cars in LA's backyards? Don't they go to the junkyard? I sometimes think that the number of cars per capita is so high because of all these unused cars.
http://i43.************/309rkae.jpg

http://i39.************/wjt84o.jpg

About that interchange, why don't they build roundabouts???

I need to correct my last post. The I-44/SR 13 DDI in Springfield was actually call number 801 in MoDOT's November 21, 2008 letting. (The other contract I identified in my last post is actually for the US 60/US 65 interchange in Springfield.) Unfortunately, construction plans for the Springfield DDI are no longer available online.

I checked the bridge plans and it turns out that the bridge which carries SR 13 over I-44 is not even being widened. In fact, it is being left as is except for replacement of the median (including installation of concrete barriers and a glare screen), a 2 1/4" low-slump concrete deck overlay, and concrete repairs to the superstructure, which is a voided slab. The bridge was originally built in 1960.

At first it does, but the more I look at it the more sense that intersection makes. I'd like to see one in action.

What round-about highway ramp ends are we talking about? I've only seen 1 or 2, both just North of Sheboygan off of I-43.
WisDOT is planning roundabouts at EVERY side street interchange along US 41 and WI 29 in the Green Bay-De Pere area (24 roundabouts in total), most US 41 interchanges in the Oshkosh area (including 4 of them at US 41/Breezewood-Bell in Neenah) - work to begin this year, several with the planned WI 26 bypass freeway at Watertown, etc. They are going in all over the state.

Mike

MODOT wants to make a Diverging Diamond Intersection along I-44.


Looks fascinating!

Stimulus money is allocated all over not just for transportation projects. There are personal agendas you better believe it. For example a senator X from Indiana can easily include a proposal to benefit a certain industry which happens to be heavily based in his native state. It has less to do with efficient and effective spending to boost the economy but more to do with securing his re-election.

The stimulus package is full of pork barrel spending and even Indiana is getting in on the action :)

Wrong on all counts. Conservative republicans like to bitch about pork barrel spending but can't provide any examples of it. And pork is such a subjective label- in many cases spending that is labeled as pork is actually quite a useful spending of funds if one cares to actually do research and learn about where the money is going.

And your evidence for pork is a fucking HYPOTHETICAL!!! Either provide evidence that Senator so-and-so from Indiana inserted a provision for a special project benefiting their home state or shut up. And god forbid a politician do something to curry favor among their voters. After all, they are elected to serve the interests of their constituents.

If there is any "pork" for Indiana- I have yet to see it, and I follow state news very carefully.

Why are there so many cars in LA's backyards? Don't they go to the junkyard? I sometimes think that the number of cars per capita is so high because of all these unused cars.


It looks like they're parked to me.

Why are there so many cars in LA's backyards? Don't they go to the junkyard? I sometimes think that the number of cars per capita is so high because of all these unused cars.

I'm not so sure that they're unused. You have to remember that LA is extremely overcrowded because of stupid zoning laws. Those are probably the cars of the many people that live in those homes.

We need to get rid of these zoning laws to get some much needed development in those areas. Will it increase traffic? Of course.

What would you recommend for LA, Chris?

What would you recommend for LA, Chris?

I've looked at LA extensively. It has a truly large freeway network, yet it ranks among the bottom of American cities concerning freeway lane mileage per 1,000 inhabitants, the main reason why there is so much congestion. For population density, freeways are spaced rather far apart. There is no such thing as a freeway-heaven in Los Angeles, it's mostly a stereotype brought by the media. In fact, I don't think LA is much different than other metropolises in the United States.

In my opinion, doubledecking is too expensive for most parts of LA, public transportation has a limited potential and new freeway alignments are out of the question due to the lack of right-of-ways.

I think LA should build more local/express lanes, a setup of 4 through and 2 -3 local lanes per direction would be better, traffic jams at exits will not hit the other traffic as much as happens now. People now slow down if there's a line of waiting cars on the exit or right lane, slowing up all the other lanes unnecessary. When you divide the exiting traffic with through traffic, it would at least improve the flow of the express lanes.

There is no such thing as a cheap solution to LA's mobility problems.

^^I like the idea of express lanes, but what would you think of an idea of the city allowing more density thereby enticing private companies to increase transportation capacity via a variety of methods? No government waste, increased density, and a healthier city.

With the way taxes are in California and LA, I don't know if this city can survive with more spending and higher taxes. I don't want it to become Cincinnati.

And your evidence for pork is a fucking HYPOTHETICAL!!! Either provide evidence that Senator so-and-so from Indiana inserted a provision for a special project benefiting their home state or shut up. And god forbid a politician do something to curry favor among their voters. After all, they are elected to serve the interests of their constituents.

If there is any "pork" for Indiana- I have yet to see it, and I follow state news very carefully.

:lol: Took me 2 seconds...

Obama vows close scrutiny of stimulus spending but president declines to comment on $2.5M proposed for Carmel water park.

In a news conference with 16 reporters from across the country, including The Indianapolis Star, the president declined to comment specifically about a proposed $2.5 million water slide and wave pool that the mayor of Carmel, Ind., has included on his wish list of ready-to-go projects.
.......................................

No food on the table, laid off or working 2 jobs but hey - at least clipping coupons in Indiana can save you enough in a month to take a ride on a water slide. I'm sure former employees of Delco or other parts suppliers are simply thrilled. :bash:

I like the idea of express lanes, but what would you think of an idea of the city allowing more density thereby enticing private companies to increase transportation capacity via a variety of methods? No government waste, increased density, and a healthier city.

The general rule of thumb is that no charging regime will capture all the benefits associated with transport networks and therefore transport services will be underprovided if left entirely to private companies.

In California, transport has always been underprovided, whether left to private or public initiative. The railroads (all privately owned) failed to build a dense network--indeed, their market abuses spurred the Progressive movement in the early twentieth century. California started planning freeways early and by 1950 had more mileage of freeway than any of the Northeastern states, but freeways have never been planned to the densities and capacities required to accommodate a doubling of population every 20 years.

With the way taxes are in California and LA, I don't know if this city can survive with more spending and higher taxes. I don't want it to become Cincinnati.

What's wrong with Cincinnati?

Taxes in Los Angeles and in California generally are actually quite low, if you moved to California before 1950 and have managed to escape the clutches of Mello-Roos. Proposition 13 entrenched welcome-stranger taxation.

If you want to live in a place which has low taxes and good public services, move to Kansas.

The general rule of thumb is that no charging regime will capture all the benefits associated with transport networks and therefore transport services will be underprovided if left entirely to private companies.

That's in the eye of the beholder. A lower capacity means that people will be forced to live closer to work, unless of course density is capped and then people will be forced to either suffer with long commute times or to find another job.

In California, transport has always been underprovided, whether left to private or public initiative. The railroads (all privately owned) failed to build a dense network--indeed, their market abuses spurred the Progressive movement in the early twentieth century. California started planning freeways early and by 1950 had more mileage of freeway than any of the Northeastern states, but freeways have never been planned to the densities and capacities required to accommodate a doubling of population every 20 years.

The railroad system worked great until the freeway network began to take shape. What was wrong with it?

What's wrong with Cincinnati?

Let's just say that it's not a city on the rise.

Taxes in Los Angeles and in California generally are actually quite low, if you moved to California before 1950 and have managed to escape the clutches of Mello-Roos. Proposition 13 entrenched welcome-stranger taxation.

Taxes aren't that great for corporations, people who are new to the state, etc. And we are consistently strangled with a budget mess: the state spends far too much.

If you want to live in a place which has low taxes and good public services, move to Kansas.

I'd rather fix my city.

LA's future lies in the Inland Empire or north of the San Gabriel Mountains, everything else is just completely urbanized already at a pretty decent density for a suburban environment. The Inland Empire already proves that the solution of building a way out of housing unaffordability is not really good for mobility, high-ed jobs remain in the OC or LA County, hence everybody has to commute ridiculous distances. The problem is Greater Los Angeles grows just so fast, no infrastructure can reach the same pace. 20 years ago, nobody would've heard of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga or Moreno Valley, but they're now among the largest cities in the metropolitan area. But no jobs...

LA's future lies in the Inland Empire or north of the San Gabriel Mountains, everything else is just completely urbanized already at a pretty decent density for a suburban environment. The Inland Empire already proves that the solution of building a way out of housing unaffordability is not really good for mobility, high-ed jobs remain in the OC or LA County, hence everybody has to commute ridiculous distances. The problem is Greater Los Angeles grows just so fast, no infrastructure can reach the same pace. 20 years ago, nobody would've heard of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga or Moreno Valley, but they're now among the largest cities in the metropolitan area. But no jobs...

There has been development, but the major problem has been affordable housing requirements which just make housing more expensive, zoning laws, and minimum parking requirements. If you remove those 3 impediments I think you would see LA turn into more of a city in the classical sense.

If you do that, transportation capacity will be improved because there will be a huge incentive for private investment.

I don't think making LA more denser is gonna improve transportation.

Let's make a fictional story; right now, you have a neighborhood that has 5000 inhabitants per square mile, and all land area has been build. There is no room for infrastructural expansion. Then, you replace that 5000 inh/sq. mi. neighborhood with a 8000 inh/sq. mile neighborhood. However, the density increases, but there's still no room for additional infrastructural improvement. Say that you build a subway to that densified neighborhood. Really nice, but it never serves all the transportation need of that new neighborhood. Hence, you are gonna have a higher personal transportation demand than before, exacerbating the existing problems, especially on a large scale.

Denser neighborhoods are nice for a urbanist point of view, you know, a better social and urbanism cohesion, but I don't think it's a solution to traffic problems.

Denser neighborhoods are nice for a urbanist point of view, you know, a better social and urbanism cohesion, but I don't think it's a solution to traffic problems.

Well what is the main issue with traffic? It worsens travel times. I'm sure you know that the average travel time is 30 minutes. That should always be our goal with transportation: making sure that people do not have to exceed that travel time. Right now, because of artificially low density, people have excessively long travel times. This pushes people far away from their jobs and limits them to only one mode of transportation: driving. Driving is fast, but it's not exactly the greatest form of transportation in terms of capacity. Walking would be the best, followed by biking. With higher density, you can have more people using these methods to get to work (if they so choose).

Even if everyone kept the same patterns they have now, traffic will still be decreased along with travel times as people don't have to travel as far.

But right now, people don't even have the option. I'm not for greenbelts or things like that which force people to live somewhere they don't want to. We need people to have the choice to live how they want. Zoning laws and greenbelts are just two extremes of the same problem.

That's in the eye of the beholder. A lower capacity means that people will be forced to live closer to work, unless of course density is capped and then people will be forced to either suffer with long commute times or to find another job.

It is not in the eye of the beholder: it is simple economics. The problem of how to allocate consumer's surplus has been a key issue in transport economics since the 1840's at least. The key issue here is that a transport improvement may provide net utility to its users (i.e., consumer's surplus) but not in a way which allows a private transport provider to make a profit or even to cover its costs. In such cases the improvement or undertaking has to be operated at a loss, typically within the public sector. While is is true that some transport undertakings are profitable, the simple fact is that total reliance on private provision will result in some forms of transport, which provide social utility, not being provided at all.

Lower transport capacity does not necessarily mean people have to live closer to work. They can choose to commute for longer distances, longer periods of time, over less direct routes, etc., or their employers may decide it is more efficient to go out to where their employees live. Large employers often achieve this by dispersing their job sites.

The railroad system worked great until the freeway network began to take shape. What was wrong with it?

Lack of network density, extortionate fares, streetcar sprawl, less-than-carload lots. And this was before the coming of the automobile, which brought mode transfer issues to the fore.

Let's just say that it's not a city on the rise.

If you don't like Cincinnati, fine; I'm not going to argue the toss with you. However, it has a much better handle on its traffic problems than Los Angeles, simply because it does not need to accommodate rapid population growth.

Taxes aren't that great for corporations, people who are new to the state, etc. And we are consistently strangled with a budget mess: the state spends far too much.

Yes, this is why I mentioned welcome-stranger taxation and Mello-Roos. The real source of California's budgetary difficulties is its failure to live within its means. If taxes rose to the extent required to cover general government spending and the capital improvements needed for basic livability, this might put a brake on population growth, since Californians would then be much closer to paying the true costs of the California lifestyle. A stop to runaway population growth would also favor the political conditions required to equalize taxes between newcomers and longtime residents.

I'd rather fix my city.

And if it turns out to be unfixable?

405 is probably the most congested freeway in LA. What I would suggest for LA would be a different traffic management system. Instead of wasting 2 lanes on carpool why not divide traffic into local and express like they do in Canada ? Let cars and trucks traveling north and south across the state use the express lanes and locals commuting to/from work use local lanes. Imagine the flow of intra and interstate traffic without any bottlenecks (cars constantly merging from every freeway access point and exiting at every exit).

Example

Green - express / blue - local (take a look at the amount of 18 wheelers on both and spot the difference)

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/2018/express4014pq.jpg

It is not in the eye of the beholder: it is simple economics. The problem of how to allocate consumer's surplus has been a key issue in transport economics since the 1840's at least. The key issue here is that a transport improvement may provide net utility to its users (i.e., consumer's surplus) but not in a way which allows a private transport provider to make a profit or even to cover its costs. In such cases the improvement or undertaking has to be operated at a loss, typically within the public sector. While is is true that some transport undertakings are profitable, the simple fact is that total reliance on private provision will result in some forms of transport, which provide social utility, not being provided at all.

That line of thinking ignores the cost that you put into a system. It's like saying that I can build a road in Idyllwild (an exurb of Los Angeles). It can cost $100 million and may cut down on commute times. From your analysis, it is a good thing because look at that benefit. However, we must remember that that money means we are missing out on something else that we could have gotten with that money, possibly something more valuable. That's why profit is used to measure if something is worthwhile.

Lower transport capacity does not necessarily mean people have to live closer to work. They can choose to commute for longer distances, longer periods of time, over less direct routes, etc., or their employers may decide it is more efficient to go out to where their employees live. Large employers often achieve this by dispersing their job sites.

I'm not arguing for lower transport capacity. I'm arguing for higher density and letting private companies take over any new transportation systems. And I really don't think that you'll find people who will commute 3 hours each way to work. Sure, you'll find a few, but you can't depend on most people doing it. Make the city more affordable and I guarantee that you will see many people move there. This can only be achieved through higher density.

Lack of network density, extortionate fares, streetcar sprawl, less-than-carload lots. And this was before the coming of the automobile, which brought mode transfer issues to the fore.

Extortionate fares? Maybe that was the real cost of transportation. Living far away is expensive and we don't realize the cost. You're caught up in the fantasy that government has provided us that living far away cheaply is a right. It's not, it's expensive, and we don't realize it with the government subsidies on roads.

If you don't like Cincinnati, fine; I'm not going to argue the toss with you. However, it has a much better handle on its traffic problems than Los Angeles, simply because it does not need to accommodate rapid population growth.

Which means that Los Angeles is a healthier city. Little traffic, that's great, but the city is dying. Which is more important?

Yes, this is why I mentioned welcome-stranger taxation and Mello-Roos. The real source of California's budgetary difficulties is its failure to live within its means. If taxes rose to the extent required to cover general government spending and the capital improvements needed for basic livability, this might put a brake on population growth, since Californians would then be much closer to paying the true costs of the California lifestyle. A stop to runaway population growth would also favor the political conditions required to equalize taxes between newcomers and longtime residents.

Why not just cut taxes and let people decide how they want to live?

And if it turns out to be unfixable?

Los Angeles has a large population. It's not going to die anytime soon.

405 is probably the most congested freeway in LA. What I would suggest for LA would be a different traffic management system. Instead of wasting 2 lanes on carpool why not divide traffic into local and express like they do in Canada ? Let cars and trucks traveling north and south across the state use the express lanes and locals commuting to/from work use local lanes. Imagine the flow of intra and interstate traffic without any bottlenecks (cars constantly merging from every freeway access point and exiting at every exit).

This would work a lot better for the freeway, but the freeway now is fully extended so anything like that would have to take away from capacity (unless you shrink the lanes again which is why the 405 was so prone to accidents).

That line of thinking ignores the cost that you put into a system. It's like saying that I can build a road in Idyllwild (an exurb of Los Angeles). It can cost $100 million and may cut down on commute times. From your analysis, it is a good thing because look at that benefit. However, we must remember that that money means we are missing out on something else that we could have gotten with that money, possibly something more valuable. That's why profit is used to measure if something is worthwhile.

Uh, no. Cost-benefit is a more or less explicit rentability calculation. Profit is just a special kind of surplus which accumulates in private hands, and is not necessarily a reliable measure of whether something is worth doing.

I'm not arguing for lower transport capacity. I'm arguing for higher density and letting private companies take over any new transportation systems. And I really don't think that you'll find people who will commute 3 hours each way to work. Sure, you'll find a few, but you can't depend on most people doing it. Make the city more affordable and I guarantee that you will see many people move there. This can only be achieved through higher density.

You are pushing private provision as a solution to quality-of-service problems with the existing infrastructure. But what incentive is there for the private companies to solve the quality-of-service problems? The current usage patterns tell them that their potential customer base is willing to accept a great deal of misery.

Extortionate fares? Maybe that was the real cost of transportation. Living far away is expensive and we don't realize the cost. You're caught up in the fantasy that government has provided us that living far away cheaply is a right. It's not, it's expensive, and we don't realize it with the government subsidies on roads.

This paragraph is wrong on so many levels. The fares reflected exploitation of a route monopoly rather than the true cost of operation. The railroads were private companies operating under their own charters, and so could not have been part of an anachronistic government fantasy that living far away was some kind of right. Roads are not subsidized--in the US they are at least 90% paid for by their users (much of the remainder coming from property taxes, which support local roads used for neighborhood access).

Why not just cut taxes and let people decide how they want to live?

What do you do when slums develop?

California is extraordinarily tatty compared to other states which have experienced a slow, steady increase in population and wealth. Even if I bought your contention that taxes are too high in California--which I do not--the general dilapidation of public facilities and public services would by itself suggest that the taxes (and subventions from private sources) are not anywhere near what is required to cover the investment needs.

Los Angeles has a large population. It's not going to die anytime soon.

Los Angeles and Cincinnati are actually very close together in terms of per capita income. LA ranks 30th among US metropolitan areas, Cincinnati ranks 35th, and the income amounts are within $1000 of each other (LA $37,306, Cinncinnati $36,530).

ON 401 has that local/express setup because THERE is essentially where the Ontario Transport Ministry decided to build the paralleling Eglinton Avenue freeway. Had the Eglinton been built as it was planned, ON 401 would only have had to have been 8 lanes wide.

I have railed against the local zoning laws, as they are now constituted, in many forvms - laws that pretty much make non-sprawl style development *ILLEGAL* in most of the USA. You cannot legally build more dense in most of the Los Angeles 'basin', yet people keep moving in (the city is a *HUGE* immigrant magnet, much like in the classic late 19th/early 20th century Manhattan). The only logical result, and we are seeing it in Los Angeles and elsewhere, is the black market - many of those single-family houses in Los Angeles (the numbered streets part of the city, especially) are being *ILLEGALLY* shared by as many as four or five families. Sooner or later, something will have to give and my bet is that zoning will eventually be relaxed to allow for higher legal unit density, if it is not to break down completely.

I do like one aspect of Ontario provincial law, though - municipalities cannot regulate unit density in their residential zones. And yes, the newer developing parts of the province's cities, even the single-family subdivisions, are very dense and very compact (check them out on Google-Earth) as there is no need for developers there to sprawl out in order to create the number of units that the local markets are demanding.

Mike

Uh, no. Cost-benefit is a more or less explicit rentability calculation. Profit is just a special kind of surplus which accumulates in private hands, and is not necessarily a reliable measure of whether something is worth doing.

If it's really worth doing, then a private company will want to do it because people will pay for it.

If there isn't a profit, then the negatives outweigh the positives. Sure, travel times will decrease, but people will spread further out and use more energy.

You are pushing private provision as a solution to quality-of-service problems with the existing infrastructure. But what incentive is there for the private companies to solve the quality-of-service problems? The current usage patterns tell them that their potential customer base is willing to accept a great deal of misery.

We have an underlying problem that people are living above their means in terms of transportation because of the subsidy. That is a drain on an economy.

This paragraph is wrong on so many levels. The fares reflected exploitation of a route monopoly rather than the true cost of operation. The railroads were private companies operating under their own charters, and so could not have been part of an anachronistic government fantasy that living far away was some kind of right. Roads are not subsidized--in the US they are at least 90% paid for by their users (much of the remainder coming from property taxes, which support local roads used for neighborhood access).

90% still means subsides, and it also excludes parking.

What do you do when slums develop?

California is extraordinarily tatty compared to other states which have experienced a slow, steady increase in population and wealth. Even if I bought your contention that taxes are too high in California--which I do not--the general dilapidation of public facilities and public services would by itself suggest that the taxes (and subventions from private sources) are not anywhere near what is required to cover the investment needs.

Or maybe we're just spending too much. Why do you exclude that possibility?

Los Angeles and Cincinnati are actually very close together in terms of per capita income. LA ranks 30th among US metropolitan areas, Cincinnati ranks 35th, and the income amounts are within $1000 of each other (LA $37,306, Cinncinnati $36,530).

Yet Los Angeles is growing. Per capita income is not enough to tell you the health of a city.