http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=10326

Roads In America - The Worst And The Best
Edward Lewis
May 30, 2006

For the second consecutive year and the fifth time in a decade, truckers say Pennsylvania has the worst roads in the country, according to the annual Highway Report Card survey conducted by Overdrive magazine. Overdrive is the nation's leading magazine for owner-operators.

Among the chief complaints: the conditions of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I-78 and I-80, and poor signage. Owner-operator Bernard Linkhauer says Keystone State highways "will beat and bang you around." The Pittsburgh-area resident says repairs along the turnpike amount to a Band-Aid. "It looks good, and it lasts a little while, but then it's back to square one."

For the second year in a row, the Lone Star State shines with the best roads. Not all truckers agree, though. Texan Judy Selzer disputes Overdrive readers' high praise of Texas highways. "Any time I get on 1-35 to go to San Antonio, [the road is] rough, and it will tear your equipment up," she says.

The Overdrive survey not only ranked roads, but also the drivers who traverse them. Roughly two-thirds of respondents say road rage increased during the past year, with 36 percent calling the jump significant. The worst automobile drivers are in California, followed by Illinois and New York.

Trucker Allen Pickard of the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora agrees with these findings. He blames congestion and the pressure of driving in southern California, where commutes can take hours. "I can imagine how they can get pretty upset," he says.

New Jersey owner-operator Kevin Sweeney says New York and Connecticut drivers are the worst. Stuck in lower New England congestion, they fast become frustrated. "You don't get road rage out in the country," he adds.

When it comes to safety, survey participants reasserted findings from years past - California has the nation's toughest truck inspections, while Alabama has the most lax. California is well-known for its laws regarding trucking, including tough anti-idling penalties. More than 37 percent of respondents placed California tops on inspections; Ohio came in second with 8 percent of participants calling it the toughest state. Alabama, on the other hand, has experienced a shortage of state troopers for several years.

About Overdrive's Highway Report Card More than 300 Overdrive readers responded to the Highway Report Card survey in fall 2005. About 27 percent of respondents deliver in all 48 states, and 57 percent report 21 years or more in the industry. The complete report appears in Overdrive's December issue.

HIGHWAY REPORT CARD 2005

WORST ROADS

1) Pennsylvania
2) Missouri
3) Louisiana
4) Michigan
5) California

BEST ROADS

1) Texas
2) Florida
3) Tennessee
4) Georgia, Ohio (tie)
5) Nevada, Virginia (tie)

WORST HIGHWAY

1) I-10 Louisiana
2) I-44 Missouri
3) I-95 New York

BEST HIGHWAY

1) I-75 Florida
2) I-40 Tennessee
3) I-10 Texas

MOST IMPROVED HIGHWAY

1) I-40 Arkansas
2) I-80 Pennsylvania
3) I-30 Arkansas

WORST AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS

1) California
2) Illinois
3) New York

were not the worst drivers just the most animated

-the 4x4 behemoths... those things are flipped around here like bottle caps

So I'm fine with this idea as long as they don't take an existing free highway and slap toll plazas across all lanes of traffic.


Why not? Why not make all users pay? With modern photo technology there is no need to stop traffic to collects tolls, billings can be mailed out monthly. If all users pay, there is no problem getting the revenue for the improvements you want.

I think this is the greatest idea I've ever heard of. Normally I whip through the HOV lane without a passenger always looking for cops. If I could pay and do it legally?! omgsh! :dance2:

Looks like the Interstates don't whoop ass. :D

Sorry, just had to bring it out of the basement. :D

Any more pix? :)

Oh lol, only now I noticed how ugly the first part of the first page is! :puke:

Can someone remove this shit? :)

WTF is on the first page?! :puke:

The 1st page is Nasty!!!!!!! :runaway:
Its burns my eyes!! aaaaaahhhhhh :badnews:

I <3 it when SSC sucks up my bandwidth!!!

Doesn't look good there, I hope that bridge won't fall apart too soon before they begin construction on the new bridge in 2009, which is a little too long. More than 100,000 vehicles cross the 4 lane freeway on the average weekday

Transportation Officials Say 520 Bridge In Jeopardy

June 18, 2006

MEDINA - The aging Evergreen Point floating bridge across Lake Washington needs to be replaced soon, officials said after a weekend inspection of the span.

"This bridge is in jeopardy. This bridge is aging. This bridge needs to be replaced," said Dave Dye, urban corridors administrator with the Washington state Department of Transportation, in a tour with politicians, media and community members.

More than 6,000 feet of cracks in the walls of the bridge were the most obvious signs that the structure, now in its fifth decade, is reaching the end of its useful life.

This past winter, the bridge was closed briefly after being damaged during a windstorm. The bridge was closed again this past weekend for yearly maintenance work. With the span shut down, traffic was snarled on alternative ways to travel between Seattle and its eastern suburbs.

A four-lane and a six-lane replacement bridges are being considered. Current projections estimate the four-lane project would cost between $1.7 billion and $2 billion. The six-lane design would cost between $2.3 billion and $3.1 billion.

The new bridge will be designed to accommodate light rail in the future.

About $1.25 billion has been found to pay for the new bridge. The rest likely will come from a regional tax and toll revenues.

Officials said construction on a new bridge could begin in 2009, with completion predicted by 2015. The new bridge would be built to the north of the current span.

Is there a technical reason why they do not build a normal bridge there?

The reason why they do not build a normal bridge is because Lake Washington is about 900+ feet deep at the deepest point which makes it nearly impossible to put in piers and stuff like that in theory.

That pic of I-80 at the Bay Bridge toll booth is amazing. That freeway is huge out there. I think they are constructing 1-10 out here in Houston that size or so. As dense as SF is, its hard to believe that they are beat by San Diego(population wise).


http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_002_01.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_002_02.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_008a_06.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_009_02.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_010_01.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_013a_03.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_004_01.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_004_05.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_002c_12.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_wb_exit_002c_15.jpg

Why many interstates have not fence at middle in rural area ?

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images051/ca-073_sb_exit_003_04.jpg

Does it even matter by such width...

I Think from the point of being an engineer is that the U.S interstate system is not only the largest and most complete system on earth but is also the best.

It is true there are some rundown areas but the system is so extensive that the good over takes the bad.

In regards to autobahn i think is great but it suffers what mainly allot of highways, streets, avenues in Europe suffer there not wide enough! In America Interstate, avenues, streets,boulevards are more impressive than small curvy european routes. That is why American trucks are more bulky and bigger.

when the 1996 olympics in Atlanta allot of Europeans went to my school georgia tech for the aquatic sports and they were all really impress by the georgia road system some germans admitted to me that they were superior in wide lanes to autobahn.

Sorry doublepost. :)

I Think from the point of being an engineer is that the U.S interstate system is not only the largest and most complete system on earth but is also the best.

It is true there are some rundown areas but the system is so extensive that the good over takes the bad.

The US Interstate system, besides being the largest system by its size, is however not the densest one (the Autobahn system in Germany and Switzerland is much much denser). And Interstate is definitely not the best:

http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/roadconditiondecoder.pdf

Half of the nation’s roadways, and nearly 70 percent of urban roadways, are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition as of 2001, the most recent year for which data is available.
The state of Hawaii, with 89.7 percent of its roads in less than good condition, has the worst roads in the nation as of 2001. Missouri, where 87.5 percent of all roads are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, is a close second. In Michigan, nearly 90 percent of urban roads are classified as in less than good condition. And in Massachusetts, more than 88 percent of the state’s rural roads were found to be in poor, mediocre, or fair condition.

Despite a fairly dismal starting point, road conditions in a handful of states actually worsened from 1994 to 2001. In the state of Utah, for example, the portion of road miles in poor, mediocre, or fair condition grew by almost 121 percent. In that 8-year period from 1994 to 2001, Californians saw a 25 percent rise in the portion of roadway miles in less than good condition.

Virginia, for example, spent only 13.4 percent of it’s federal highway funds (excluding planning and engineering) on road repair and rehabilitation during the ten year period since 1992. This low spending is reflected in the condition of the state’s roads. As of 2001, nearly two-thirds of Virginia’s roadway miles were found to be in poor, mediocre, or fair condition. Yet despite the obvious need to repair existing roads, the Virginia Department of Transportation instead dedicated almost 41 percent of the state’s available federal funding to the construction of new roadway capacity.

(Also have a look at the table over there. Such proportions are rather unusual in Europe).

In regards to autobahn i think is great but it suffers what mainly allot of highways, streets, avenues in Europe suffer there not wide enough! In America Interstate, avenues, streets,boulevards are more impressive than small curvy european routes. That is why American trucks are more bulky and bigger.

when the 1996 olympics in Atlanta allot of Europeans went to my school georgia tech for the aquatic sports and they were all really impress by the georgia road system some germans admitted to me that they were superior in wide lanes to autobahn.

When one mentioned the mediocrity of US rail you justified that by pointing the difference in transport paradigm between the 2 continents ("the US is an automobile society"). Now you just seem to overlook the difference and superimpose the US model, saying that Europe's roads "suffer" from being not as wide as those in the US.

Looks like you never cease to interchange viewpoints whenever necessary. Also, how "some" Europeans marvel at the United States seems pretty much exciting, huh ? Some Germans admit Georgia's roads are "superior" to Autobahn. Some European pilots have never seen such traffic as at O'Hare and Hartsfield. Some this, some that... :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: That said, Georgia has, according to the aforementioned source, some of the finest roads (if not the best) of the entire US (only 2.8% are not in good condition). You probably didn't show those Germans Kansas City or Saint-Louis, I suppose ? This again illustrates how selective, one-sided your information always is.

U.S interstates are the opposite of French autoroute

France autoroute are good in rural area and bad in big urban area (especially inParis and Lyon)
U.S interstates are good in urban area ( L.A Houston..) but bad in rural area

German autobahn or french autoroute is a smaller network than US interstates
German autobahn over 12,000 km
French autoroute over 12,000 km
US interstates over 90,000 km

it is normal that the motorways in France or in Germany are in better condition than US interstates

In regards to autobahn i think is great but it suffers what mainly allot of highways, streets, avenues in Europe suffer there not wide enough! In America Interstate, avenues, streets,boulevards are more impressive than small curvy european routes. That is why American trucks are more bulky and bigger.
As far as I know the reason for your trucks being longer is the fact that u don't have a length limit as Europe does.

And for the freeways: this Autobahn really looks like some vow wow. It's just because they are free of charge and without speed limit. Big deal. Like there's a lot of police presence on freeways. At least in Europe it isn't. Beside that they are overcrowded since there are few big rural areas in Germany, I mean I don't probably have to tell u the density of people in Germany and the US. Btw, try the freeway Salzburg (Austria, but close to Germany) - Rosenheim (50 km before Munich) and u'll be 'amazed'.

U.S interstates are the opposite of French autoroute

France autoroute are good in rural area and bad in big urban area (especially inParis and Lyon)
U.S interstates are good in urban area ( L.A Houston..) but bad in rural area

German autobahn or french autoroute is a smaller network than US interstates
German autobahn over 12,000 km
French autoroute over 12,000 km
US interstates over 90,000 km

it is normal that the motorways in France or in Germany are in better condition than US interstates

It is wrong to say that the US Interstate is better in urban area than in rural ones. It is the reverse that is true. The following source (the same as the one I gave above):

http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/roadconditiondecoder.pdf

will confirm that.

Your data for the German Autobahn and the French autoroute are quite correct, but you largely overestimated the US Interstates. As of 2002, the Interstate totalizes 75,198 km (and not over 90,000 km).

Besides, there is nothing "normal" about the US Interstates being in worse conditions than the German Autobahn or the French Autoroute. How about comparing the autoroutes and Autobahn with road network in separate US state ?

It is wrong to say that the US Interstate is better in urban area than in rural ones. It is the reverse that is true. The following source (the same as the one I gave above):

http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/roadconditiondecoder.pdf

will confirm that.

Your data for the German Autobahn and the French autoroute are quite correct, but you largely overestimated the US Interstates. As of 2002, the Interstate totalizes 75,198 km (and not over 90,000 km).

Besides, there is nothing "normal" about the US Interstates being in worse conditions than the German Autobahn or the French Autoroute. How about comparing the autoroutes and Autobahn with road network in separate US state ?

Ah interstates are financed by state
indeed by state is not normal

I overestimated U.S interstates sorry (japanese traduction in bottom ) :)

Taken into account the US is about 18 times larger than France, and even more comparing to Germany, the 90000km figure, although impressive, is not that amazing...

The US Interstate system, besides being the largest system by its size, is however not the densest one (the Autobahn system in Germany and Switzerland is much much denser). And Interstate is definitely not the best:

http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/roadconditiondecoder.pdf

Half of the nation’s roadways, and nearly 70 percent of urban roadways, are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition as of 2001, the most recent year for which data is available.
The state of Hawaii, with 89.7 percent of its roads in less than good condition, has the worst roads in the nation as of 2001. Missouri, where 87.5 percent of all roads are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, is a close second. In Michigan, nearly 90 percent of urban roads are classified as in less than good condition. And in Massachusetts, more than 88 percent of the state’s rural roads were found to be in poor, mediocre, or fair condition.

Despite a fairly dismal starting point, road conditions in a handful of states actually worsened from 1994 to 2001. In the state of Utah, for example, the portion of road miles in poor, mediocre, or fair condition grew by almost 121 percent. In that 8-year period from 1994 to 2001, Californians saw a 25 percent rise in the portion of roadway miles in less than good condition.

Virginia, for example, spent only 13.4 percent of it’s federal highway funds (excluding planning and engineering) on road repair and rehabilitation during the ten year period since 1992. This low spending is reflected in the condition of the state’s roads. As of 2001, nearly two-thirds of Virginia’s roadway miles were found to be in poor, mediocre, or fair condition. Yet despite the obvious need to repair existing roads, the Virginia Department of Transportation instead dedicated almost 41 percent of the state’s available federal funding to the construction of new roadway capacity.

(Also have a look at the table over there. Such proportions are rather unusual in Europe).



When one mentioned the mediocrity of US rail you justified that by pointing the difference in transport paradigm between the 2 continents ("the US is an automobile society"). Now you just seem to overlook the difference and superimpose the US model, saying that Europe's roads "suffer" from being not as wide as those in the US.

Looks like you never cease to interchange viewpoints whenever necessary. Also, how "some" Europeans marvel at the United States seems pretty much exciting, huh ? Some Germans admit Georgia's roads are "superior" to Autobahn. Some European pilots have never seen such traffic as at O'Hare and Hartsfield. Some this, some that... :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: That said, Georgia has, according to the aforementioned source, some of the finest roads (if not the best) of the entire US (only 2.8% are not in good condition). You probably didn't show those Germans Kansas City or Saint-Louis, I suppose ? This again illustrates how selective, one-sided your information always is.


I am not talking about density! At All

You confused personal experiences with your that is why thery are called personal experience.

Let me tell you you butt in into every single argument that i made trolling around all forums looking for me!

You are always looking and talking about something else.

I am an engineer and you are not!

If we are going to talk about poor roads lets talk about POrtugals, Italy,s
Poland , Romania,Slovakia, Czheckrepublic, even some parts in cologne, dresden, lets not even talk about Great britain there are worst that some that you are indicating.

When it comes to the U.S system it is very selective that the angry asian which is not even an Engineer picks a internal study of 2003 to only proof that in some parts of the U.S system of roads they are underfunded. And that roads are not to U.S Standards which are their own. I am pretty sure that Germany, France, Italy local goverment and departments of transportation also think they are under budget.

The U.S system is devided into varios entities

Federal goverment fully funds! and Administer
U,S interstate
U.S routes
And other routes and roads under dept. of interior

State goverments They run and fund!

Turnpikes, State roads, Highway, freeway expressway

County and Cities form Expressway authorities or road and highway authorities. they are local funded for maintanace but they get state money to build City and County expressway, streets, roads, streets, boulevards etc..

Municipalities they mainly get there money form counties and State but the Municiaplity must mantain it.

Municipal roads, service roads, streets, avenues


The U.S system is to vast even to compare with germany or which ever country!

I have travelled in Europes Highways like the Autobahn it is the best in Europe but not the best in the world by far. And many countries like Portugal, Italy, greece, hungy, Poland check republic road are still not roads that belong to industrilize countries.

For Exa,ple i think that South Afica, Australia, and Japan have better roads than Europe.

I am not talking about density! At All

which means I do not have the right to mention it, either ???????? Given the fact that you claimed the US to be "BEST", and given the fact that a good system might be of considerable density.

You confused personal experiences with your that is why thery are called personal experience.

Let me tell you you butt in into every single argument that i made trolling around all forums looking for me!

You are always looking and talking about something else.

I am an engineer and you are not!

I'm not talking about "something else". Sorry buddy, I'm talking about how the US Interstate might be the "best" system in the world, which is a subject YOU initiated. I'd like to learn more about how your "personal experiences" being an "engineer" have taught you that the US Interstate is superior to any other highway network, a point you have not yet proven and which is very interesting indeed.

If we are going to talk about poor roads lets talk about POrtugals, Italy,Poland , Romania,Slovakia, Czheckrepublic, even some parts in cologne, dresden, lets not even talk about Great britain there are worst that some that you are indicating.

I don't care about poor roads (if any) in Portugal, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic or in some parts around Cologne, Dresden, or Great Britain. What I do care about, on the contrary, is if the following statement can be considered acceptable:

The US Interstate is the best system in the world.

When it comes to the U.S system it is very selective that the angry asian which is not even an Engineer picks a internal study of 2003 to only proof that in some parts of the U.S system of roads they are underfunded. And that roads are not to U.S Standards which are their own. I am pretty sure that Germany, France, Italy local goverment and departments of transportation also think they are under budget.

For the n time boricuba has failed to prove he has the competency to read and understand simple English. The 2003 Study does not vaguely point to "some parts of the US system that are underfunded." Indeed, the study says: a very considerable portion of US road system is not in good condition.

Also, you stated that the US standard for highway is higher than the one used in other parts of the world. I am so sorry to tell you: this is simply ridiculous ! Standards may vary, but what is the silly Department of Transport to set them so high that practically HALF a nation's network is deemed unsatisfactory ??????? Sorry buddy, such high proportions can mean only one thing: that US highways are seriously problematic. And the common perception that Interstate sucks is not exactly unfounded, either !!!!

When I pointed out a study suggesting Boeing violating WTO subsidy laws, you said the study goes back to the Arms Race period and is therefore unreliable. You did not further justify. Now once again boricuba is finding a pretext to disqualify a study, this for the X time shows how skewd you are.

The U.S system is devided into varios entities

Federal goverment fully funds! and Administer
U,S interstate
U.S routes
And other routes and roads under dept. of interior

State goverments They run and fund!

Turnpikes, State roads, Highway, freeway expressway

County and Cities form Expressway authorities or road and highway authorities. they are local funded for maintanace but they get state money to build City and County expressway, streets, roads, streets, boulevards etc..

Municipalities they mainly get there money form counties and State but the Municiaplity must mantain it.

Municipal roads, service roads, streets, avenues


The U.S system is to vast even to compare with germany or which ever country!

I have travelled in Europes Highways like the Autobahn it is the best in Europe but not the best in the world by far. And many countries like Portugal, Italy, greece, hungy, Poland check republic road are still not roads that belong to industrilize countries.

For Exa,ple i think that South Afica, Australia, and Japan have better roads than Europe.

Juggling with tons of "facts" in a last desperate attempt to mess up everything again, I see... You seem so quiet about the unseeming coincidence of Germans admiring Georgia - and not any other state's - 's highway ??????????? :) :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

I have travelled in Europes Highways like the Autobahn it is the best in Europe but not the best in the world by far. And many countries like Portugal, Italy, greece, hungy, Poland check republic road are still not roads that belong to industrilize countries.

By the way, do you really know anything about Portuguese roads? Some 10 or 20 years ago they were bad, that's true, but nowadays we have fine motorways. And believe me, I wouldn't trade Portuguese motorways condition by american interstates ever!
We have a network (which can and is being improved in terms of extension) of modern motorways in excelent condicions. Much better than the conditions of the average interstate I'm sure.


For Exa,ple i think that South Afica, Australia, and Japan have better roads than Europe.

But what you think shouldn't be taken very seriously, right? ;)

The US Interstate system, besides being the largest system by its size, is however not the densest one (the Autobahn system in Germany and Switzerland is much much denser). And Interstate is definitely not the best:

http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/roadconditiondecoder.pdf

Half of the nation’s roadways, and nearly 70 percent of urban roadways, are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition as of 2001, the most recent year for which data is available.
Thats as of 2001 now its totally different many cities and states are having highways repaved or widened or have already done so at the turn of the century we realized our roads have fallen behind with quality and we are doing something about it. Go drive on a freshly paved or repaved highway in america its an extremely smooth ride.

U.S interstates are the opposite of French autoroute

France autoroute are good in rural area and bad in big urban area (especially inParis and Lyon)
U.S interstates are good in urban area ( L.A Houston..) but bad in rural area

German autobahn or french autoroute is a smaller network than US interstates
German autobahn over 12,000 km
French autoroute over 12,000 km
US interstates over 90,000 km

it is normal that the motorways in France or in Germany are in better condition than US interstates



Go to the Chicago, Kansas City, or New Orleans urban areas and see how good the interstates are...

Thats as of 2001 now its totally different many cities and states are having highways repaved or widened or have already done so at the turn of the century we realized our roads have fallen behind with quality and we are doing something about it. Go drive on a freshly paved or repaved highway in america its an extremely smooth ride.


It does not matter what you sy PHZ2 he hates america and what he does is find a article or study that nobody cares that is not actually factual and say that roads are underfunded and the U.S roads are terrible. The U.s System by number of expressways, payed roads is bigger than E.U. In countries that are not germany roads are like 3rd world countries i have seen them!

And dont tell them that we have improved them! the roads in general have always been better in general to europe. Go to Florida, Nevada, Georgia brand new highways build by the states like turnpikes and expressway! dont give them explanation i have the data and studies that are international comparing E.U road systems to U.S.

PHZ2

Remember U.S standards in almost everything are higher than E.U!

You get informationfrom a nonprofit organization which pretty much gets its information from word of mouth they work for the lobbyst to ask for more money. the federal goverment in which they really outspends E.U and germany by allot.

Please see sides like AAA which clearly points out the status of roads!

All I have to say, is that Connecticut has fallen behind in Interstate quality...

Better than New York, though...

It does not matter what you sy PHZ2 he hates america and what he does is find a article or study that nobody cares that is not actually factual and say that roads are underfunded and the U.S roads are terrible. The U.s System by number of expressways, payed roads is bigger than E.U. In countries that are not germany roads are like 3rd world countries i have seen them!

And dont tell them that we have improved them! the roads in general have always been better in general to europe. Go to Florida, Nevada, Georgia brand new highways build by the states like turnpikes and expressway! dont give them explanation i have the data and studies that are international comparing E.U road systems to U.S.

I like U.S interstates
You make a mistake.
Germany has not the better road in EU.

http://autorout.free.fr/4_photos/04%20A%20METTRE%20EN%20LIGNE%20(envoy%E9)/5_Provence/A%2050/A50-006-EchA52-Aubagne-B-2004822.JPG
http://autorout.free.fr/4_photos/04%20A%20METTRE%20EN%20LIGNE%20(envoy%E9)/5_Provence/A%2050/A50-011-Avant_Ech8-Cassis-B-2004822.JPG

I prefer the European Autobahn system.

There is no point in preferences. You can't drive on European roads in the US. I always prefer the roads that get me where I want. ;)

It depends on what state you're in. Some states like NC don't do a very job of keeping up the interstates, while states like Georgia do.

I-77 in Charlotte, NC

http://www.wrx900.com/Trip%20to%20St.%20Augustine%20064.jpg


I-85 in Atlanta, GA

http://www.truckweb.ca/images/Visiteurs/ChristianCantin/0151%20I-85%20atlanta%205%20avril%202005%20(2).JPG

It does not matter what you sy PHZ2 he hates america and what he does is find a article or study that nobody cares that is not actually factual and say that roads are underfunded and the U.S roads are terrible. The U.s System by number of expressways, payed roads is bigger than E.U. In countries that are not germany roads are like 3rd world countries i have seen them!

Once again "engineer" boricuba has failed to prove he has the capacity to discern between basic concepts. My study is qualitative, buddy, it is not quantitative. It is therefore pointless to point out that the US outnumbers the EU in terms of absolute length. You are continuously off-track, and this clearly shows how much of "experiences" how have acquired during your career. You just never fail to fail other forumers.

In addition, you affirm my study is not factually correct, a point I heartily invite you to demonstrate eventhough I for sure know you won't.

And dont tell them that we have improved them! the roads in general have always been better in general to europe. Go to Florida, Nevada, Georgia brand new highways build by the states like turnpikes and expressway! dont give them explanation i have the data and studies that are international comparing E.U road systems to U.S.

You just don't have any (reliable) data. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

PHZ2

Remember U.S standards in almost everything are higher than E.U!

You get informationfrom a nonprofit organization which pretty much gets its information from word of mouth they work for the lobbyst to ask for more money. the federal goverment in which they really outspends E.U and germany by allot.

Please see sides like AAA which clearly points out the status of roads!

You are free to furret into aaa.com and fetch a study that "clearly points out" the (real ?) status of roads. Also, AAA is a nonprofit lobby group, I hope their studies are not just "words of mouth" either.

Can you show me how US Standards "in almost everything" outperform EU ones, please ????? :) A last remark: watch your spelling and punctuation. I know it's your trick to always make everything foggy but at some point it becomes less funny.

You are free to furret into aaa.com and fetch a study that "clearly points out" the (real ?) status of roads. Also, AAA is a nonprofit lobby group, I hope their studies are not just "words of mouth" either.

Can you show me how US Standards "in almost everything" outperform EU ones, please ????? :) A last remark: watch your spelling and punctuation. I know it's your trick to always make everything foggy but at some point it becomes less funny.


I am sending message to moderator you are always looking for me in the forums. You hate america and that clouds your Judgement! When i have accepted that E.U have somethings better than U.S for Example Raislsystems i have not seen from you once in this forum something positive about the U.S. Clearly you seem to think that i care about your desperation to make the U.S.A look bad which it clearly leads by numbers last time i put allot of links and list other forumers did backed the information. But you always pick on the Railsystems because that is the only thing you could find that E.U has better than U.S. Clearly you have not been to Florida, Gerogia, Texas, Nevada all brand new roads and believe me if i wanted i could get your precious studies and factual data but clearly the U.S has a major system of roads and cannot be compare to a system like germany that is no bigger than a state. The U.S has more roads and Expressways than Europe check any site. I have been to Europe and Next month i will be in Spain were my grandparents live. Hopefullyi will rent a cart and take E.U roads in Spain and France and compared them to the U.S.A please i travel and i know what i see! In regards to my mispuntuation is that i live and i think and i talk in Spanish is my first and main language i never said i had perfect english!

You should get out of the U.S.A you clearly dont appreciated and you are a demagogue that hates the U.S for what it did to your country Vietnam that now kises the U.S ass! to due Buisness. Yesterday the president of European comission Wolfgang said that if it wasn't for the U.S aid Europe received after the war to rebuild itself,Europe will not be as half of what it is today. I
am not goint to talk any further with an Angry asian!

I am sending message to moderator you are always looking for me in the forums. You hate america and that clouds your Judgement! When i have accepted that E.U have somethings better than U.S for Example Raislsystems i have not seen from you once in this forum something positive about the U.S.

I am extremely concerned about what you say and its accuracy. Everything else just happens to be out of my interest. :) :) :) I don't personally feel obliged to praise the US, not that I hate it, but simply I don't feel like !!!!!! And the fact that this hurts your American pride is a good indicator of your inferiority complex. :scouserd:

Clearly you seem to think that i care about your desperation to make the U.S.A look bad which it clearly leads by numbers last time i put allot of links and list other forumers did backed the information. But you always pick on the Railsystems because that is the only thing you could find that E.U has better than U.S. Clearly you have not been to Florida, Gerogia, Texas, Nevada all brand new roads and believe me if i wanted i could get your precious studies and factual data but clearly the U.S has a major system of roads and cannot be compare to a system like germany that is no bigger than a state. The U.S has more roads and Expressways than Europe check any site. I have been to Europe and Next month i will be in Spain were my grandparents live. Hopefullyi will rent a cart and take E.U roads in Spain and France and compared them to the U.S.A please i travel and i know what i see! In regards to my mispuntuation is that i live and i think and i talk in Spanish is my first and main language i never said i had perfect english!

Again, my only and unique concern is the accuracy of what you say. I am not into learning if you have grandparents in Spain, or if you have driven Georgian or Floridan highways. :) :) :) My unique and only concern is whether Boeing is such an integer corporation, whether the US Interstate are really the "best", whether US Standards are almost higher than EU ones in "everything", etc etc etc. Sadly you have left my questions unanswered. :-( preferring to cling to "facts" that are of limited interest in the discussion.

You should get out of the U.S.A you clearly dont appreciated and you are a demagogue that hates the U.S for what it did to your country Vietnam that now kises the U.S ass! to due Buisness. Yesterday the president of European comission Wolfgang said that if it wasn't for the U.S aid Europe received after the war to rebuild itself,Europe will not be as half of what it is today. I
am not goint to talk any further with an Angry asian!

Do you personally take it seriously when politicians make speech ????? When Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, did you believe him ?????? Besides, the president of the European Commission is not named Wolfgang. And whether somebody really said such thing in Vienna is kind of dubious.

COULD YOU STOP WITH THESE ENDLESS AND POINTLESS ARGUMENTS AND JUST SHOW US PICTURES?!?!?!

THANKS!

I-5 (Seattle) showing the Washington State Convention Center over the Interstate.
http://www.phenry.org/wsh/photos/i5convctr.jpg

Evergreen Point Floating Bridge - Gov. Albert D. Rosellini Bridge

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council/images/sr520.jpg

1963 view

http://www.historylink.org/db_images/520.JPG

Rush Hour(s) traffic

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/sea-hwy-520-bridge.jpg

Shame its gonna be gone i mean there arent many floating bridges is the new span going to be a normal bridge?

For Exa,ple i think that South Afica, Australia, and Japan have better roads than Europe.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!!! AHAHAHAHA!!!

San Francisco International Airport

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4149/untitled13zq.gif

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!!! AHAHAHAHA!!!
Whats so funny? I dont know about South Africa but Australia and Japan have excellent roads at the same level or even better than europe.

Whats so funny? I dont know about South Africa but Australia and Japan have excellent roads at the same level or even better than europe.

?!
Give me a break!!!
Australia?!?!? :rofl: :rofl:

Get real mate. ;)

Not that Australia has bad roads.... they just don't have the density or the population to need a road network than could compare in any way with europe.

Also, Japan?... Sure they have great infrastructures, but motorways are not Japans speciality... They might have good urban roads, but apart from that...

Too long, too deep. (for anything else)

:dj: Happy 50th Birthday Interstates!!!!!!! :dance:

^^ yah lets hope you look a little prettier and drive a little smoother!!!

New York City area:

http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20060614/exit4-14ave.jpg

http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20030820/gwb.jpg

Interstate 5-San Diego, CA
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/Jaygergon/downtown-flickr/1806183_cfdf0e0bc7.jpg
http://img225.echo.cx/img225/5521/sandiego7cx.jpg

lol, I didn't start this thread but it has me listed as the thread starter and first poster. I guess this and some other thread were merged???

^^ No, they deleted the 1st posts with some pornographic photos.

Here is some pictures of Interstate 15 in Salt Lake County, Utah. (Courtesy of AARoads.com)

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_300_02.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_303_01.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_303_04.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_304_02.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_305a_01.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_exit_305a_03.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_080_wb_exit_305b_01.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_080_wb_exit_305c_07.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_080_wb_exit_306_05.jpg
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/utah001/i-015_nb_080_wb_exit_308_03.jpg

^^ No, they deleted the 1st posts with some pornographic photos.
Heh, that was some ugly porn...

Interstate 5- San DIego, CA
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_001a_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_001a_02.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_001b_02.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_003_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_003_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_003_04.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_004_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_005b_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_008b_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_009_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_010_02.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_014a_02.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_014a_04.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_014b_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_015a_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_015b_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_016a_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_016b_03.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_017_01.jpg
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_019_02.jpg

What do you know about the new Tran Texas toll road? any offical thread?

Thanks to J Church at SSP
*The Black(and red) Circles denote the number of lanes in that particular spot(both directions)
*The white ovals denote the highway number
We dont have "superwides" I guess-but the network covers a huge area that transports 6 Million cars daily
http://sfcityscape.com/forum/freeway_maps/bay_area/bay_area.jpg

Incredible! I especially like the sections that cross the bay. The SF-Oak bayBridge contains about the most impressive section of freeway (and most scenic) u'll find anywhere.

Freeway revolt!!!

:dance:

Cool map. It's similar to Vancouver, not that many in the CBD. Maybe we can do a series of maps like this of other cities?

like i said in the other thread 31 lanes on the bay bridge!! :eek2:

The bridge itself is 10 lanes(5 eastbound(lower deck) and 5 westbound(upper deck))
http://static.flickr.com/20/73745859_befdc79242.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/49/120892017_44cc7ef6a2_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/41/86689647_5d31fd9794_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/51/113626201_4786ebd2ef_o.jpg

The Toll Plaza is a monster, traffic can back up for miles on 3-4 different freeways leading to this spot
http://static.flickr.com/22/24990082_d955953dd6_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/77/169031701_ddc08fe8ec_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/55/152694678_e4119e01c6_o.jpg

Why is the traffic that bad on the toll plaza? Don't they have electronic tags?

The Bay Bridge is one of the worst congested bottlenecks in the US. So many cars going through something like 20 toll booths trying to get on a bridge with only five lanes. One car stall at the toll plaza at rush hour and that causes a traffic backup for miles. SF is notoriously freeway unfriendly. Only two freeways cut through the south-south-east of the city. The rest of the city is all street travel.

The worst day to travel by car in or out of San Francisco is the day before Thanksgiving. One time I was in SF trying to get home. It took me 4 hours to get home 25 miles away.

I remember, it was in the middle of March and the we waited two hours at that toll booth! And it was snowing! The people actually got out of their cars to touch the snow!

Wow. Must be a candidate for world's busiest bridge?

Wow. Must be a candidate for world's busiest bridge?

World's worst green-house disaster bridge?

First, I find it appalling that the major media outlets hardly if ever cover this story. When is the last time the Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, No Spin Zone, etc had a segment on the NAFTA Superhighway or anything else related to North American integration. Lou Dobbs gives some effort on it, but thats about it.

Secondly, the politicians in Congress and the White House and bureucrats seem to ignore it or downplay the whole thing.

These NAFTA Superhighway(s) in their current proposed formations/routes are somewhat excessive and extreme and unnecessary I think. Even if cross border trade and population growth expands, which it will, I don't agree that it necessitates building a brand spanking new 400 yard wide (4 football fields wide) NAFTA Superhighway/toll road (proposed TTC-Texas Transit Corridor-I-35) from Laredo, Texas to Kansas City to Duluth, Minnesota. This TTC-35 would parallel the already existing Interstate 35. In addition, TTC-69 (I-69) would begin in Southeast Texas to Indianapolis to Michigan to Toronto. The Texas Transit Corridor (TTC) is a statewide version of the NAFTA Superhighway projects in that it involves building 4,000 more miles of road in Texas alone! .......definitely wasteful overkill. I thought we had pretty much completed our highway system in United States.

I'm not against connecting North American cities and beyond with efficient transportation access, although I understand that there are many quandaries and issues that arise from this concept. My concern is that many of these routes are unecessary and overdone. For instance, the proposed I-69 route (S.E. Texas to Toronto), has sections of it that are truly over the top. For example, the proposed southwesternly link from Indianapolis to Memphis, TN entails bulldozing through agricultural and rural areas of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesse with a brand new interstate. Whereas a just as efficent route using I-70 from Indianapolis west towards St. Louis, and then south on I-57 which merges into I-55 south will just as easily get you to Memphis Tennesse. Thus, I-69 could overlap I-70, I-57, and I-55 on these routes. Similarly, from Memphis, TN, I-69 could follow I-40 west to Little Rock, AR, then follow I-30 west towards Texarkana,TX, then go south on a proposed I-49 to Shreveport, LA then I-69 could be constructed towads the southwest to Houston and Mexico. Thus, again I-69 could overlap I-40, I-30, and proposed I-49, on mostly already existing interstates. Expanding lanes would be more efficent, cost saving, and more environmentally sensible, than rampaging through the countryside.
I understand that links have to be built, but the more they correlate with existing highways, the better.

Thats just the beginning, other links are being proposed as wellnew (i.e unnecessary highways). Across the United States.

If we are going to facilitate new trade and population growth, why are we not just expanding existing highways/interstates and increasing high speed passenger and freight rail, instead of wasting money, destroying farmland, forests/wetlands for new asphalt. The only thing a many of these NAFTA Superhighway(s) (TTC-35) for instance would facilitate is more sprawl. All this talk about ethanol, which I''m leery of anyway, involves subjecting millions of acres of cropland to producing corn. Now we want to run a 400 yard (4 football field wide) interstate through the breadbasket of this country?

Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say that it is necessary to build it because we can get around cities that are already choked with traffic. So instead of adding lanes (3 or 4 each side of say I-35 that goes through San Antonio and Austin, Texas), it is necessary to spend 10s of billions of dollars on a brand new interstate?? I would actually advocate for building intersate tunnels underneath existing interstates when they reach major metropolitan areas. It sounds far-fetch, but in California for instance they are discussing plans to build a Pasadena interstate tunnel underneath a historic part of the city. Thus, if that same ingenuity and desire and conscientiousness for concentrated development (smart growth, sustainable development) would emerge in Texas, there would be great benefits to behold. Texas would save 100,000s of acres of land, still promote economic growth, and still be able to charge a toll if necessary to help pay for such an enormous infrastructure project.

Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say we need to build a Customs facility in Kansas City along the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway, and we want to introduce new security measures and technology. I find this reasoning a joke. Number one, the border crossings already exist to check trucks before they enter and leave the U.S. Again, what is the problem with expanding the lanes and employees at the border crossing. Plus, new security measures and technology can be alpha and beta tested at existing border entrys. Secondly, its obvious that an open border paradigm is going to happen before 2050, so the need for a Customs Facility with improved security technology in the middle of the country is a lame lame lame excuse and reason to build a NAFTA Superhighway(s) in th current proposed form.

Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we are going to build passenger/freight rail lines, broadband cable, and oil and gas pipelines as well. Why would you build passenger lines that are not connected to cities? There could be an argument for taking freight rail around cities, but even then it shouldn't necessarily have to be 100s of miles away from the nearest metro. Broadband cable should connect cities. Oil and gas, not fond of either, could arguably bypass cities but in some instances could be connected to cities. I think we should be bringing as much capacity as possible to or near our cities, whether its road or rail.

Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we need to help Mexico expand its highway infrastructure. I agree with that, Mexico probably does need to expand its road and rail infrastructure to major cities and American cities as well. However, why not just link Mexican highways with already existing American interstates and highways?

Human population is growing in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and that must be faciliated, but smart growth and sustainable techniques should take precedent in all 3 countries. Building a massive superhighway project in the all these countries will only facilitate more sprawl, which only means more cars on more crowded highways and more pollution in the air for global warming to feed on. We've already been down that "road", and are currently still reeling from the effects of highway induced sprawl. Its seems like this whole NAFTA Superhighway(s) situation in its current would only induce an expansive backward looking Highway Industrial Complex, with certain corporations........the usual suspects......... benefitting the most. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on transportation here, in Mexico and Canada then put that money to local urban rail and highspeed passenger and freight rail. If we absolutely have to expand highway capacity then do it on existing highways and facilitate interstate tunnel development near large cities

You know, I had heard about this about a year or so ago. But I thought they gave up on that idea, I didn't know it was still out there.

I had never heard about this project before! You're right, there's gotta be a better way of connecting North America... In Mexico there's a proposal for a high-speed railway.

I put this on par with Dade County's dream of building an elevated 2-lane truck road from the airport to an industrial park ~2 miles west. There are lots of trucks, but IMHO spending hundreds of millions of dollars building a brand new elevated road just for them is stupid, because *maybe* half the trucks driving along the existing road in question would actually benefit from it. And that number will diminish over time, as more and more new industrial parks get built in the area (but NOT in the specific area served by the proposed truck road). I'd rather see them culvert over the useless canal/ditch next to the existing road (NW 25th Street) and widen the whole road to 8 lanes (from 6), with flyovers at the two biggest intersections for east-west traffic. The total cost would be almost the same, but at least then EVERYONE would directly benefit from the improvements... not just the politically well-connected owners of the specific industrial park that would be served by the new road...

As for the NAFTA road/Texas Corridor idea, the main thing everyone forgets when thinking it's cheaper to build a new road out in BFE is the fact that expensive urban areas account for MAYBE 2% of the north-south distance along existing interstates. Acquiring a hundred feet of expensive ROW through that 2%, plus a hundred feet through the cheap 98%, is probably going to cost about as much as trying to acquire a mammoth brand new 300-500 foot swath through even the cheapest rural areas...

Locals should know the project well. Highway 99, the second main north-south route through the city after Interstate 5, becomes a double decker elevated structure along the waterfront of downtown.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E8DE85CC-EB79-48E3-81C1-B464884C8D78/0/SCENIC_SODO_AWV.jpg

The original structure was built 50 years ago, and is in bad need of an update. The expressway is only 2 lanes wide at some points, has no breakdown lanes, and engineers say it was critically damaged in the 2001 Nisquilly Earthquake.

There has been a very heated political debate about what to do with this project. Both sides have put their might behind two main proposals that would build an earthquake sound structure capable of handling the traffic flow through downtown.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/298691_viaduct06.html
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/animations.htm

The first main proposal, which is supported by the mayor of Seattle and much of the city council is to replace the elevated highway with a cut and cover tunnel. The pros of the tunnel are that it re-opens downtown to the waterfront, and kills two birds with one stone by replacing the Elliott Bay Sea Wall. The cons being that it is projected to cost twice as much as the 2.4 Billion earmarked for the project, and that it would close of numerous surface streets for up to 3-1/2 years until the project is completed.

The second main proposal, which is supported by the governor (in a manner of speaking) and much of the state legislature is to essentially to replace the viaduct with an updated viaduct. The structure would be wider to handle more lanes of traffic and have larger support columns to meet earthquake code. The pros being that its cost is much closer to the $2.4 billion, and wouldn't require as drastic a road closure. The cons being an even bigger barrier between down town and the waterfront.

There have been numerous other proposals such as a suspension bridge, demolishing the viaduct all together and re-routing traffic onto surface roads, and simply just repairing the old viaduct. The new tunnel and viaduct are the only ones being seriously considered by WSDOT.

SO what do people think about this project? Let's hear some Seattleites opinions on the political mess, and some outside opinions on the project itself.

I like the tunnel idea. It opens up so much space for the waterfront.

From Seattle here, I also like the tunnel idea.

I used to live in San Diego and i guess that the Tunnel Idea would be best too, espeically from an economic standpoint. But it also gets rid of the barrier that the viaduct provides against the elements.

Anyone have any info on the other proposals besides the new viaduct and alaskan way tunnel? I saw news bits on a western ave tunnel, I heard talk of a bridge over elliott bay, I heard talk of doing "a thousand little things" and just tearing the viaduct down and not rebuilding, etc. What else has been proposed?

edit: oops i was gonna start a new thread sorry if i put it in here

does anyone know what the plan is for it?

I have driven through that area a couple times the last few months and it seems like some major reworking is going on - the over passes that seem to be no more etc.

are they widening it? adding new exits etc?

its a pain when you want to pass thtough and you get caught in the rush hour traffic

one time it took us 3 hours from Marysville to Tacoma - on the way back the same thing took us like 30 minutes

A new third proposal, being referred to as "tunnel light" is gaining support in the city council. It involves a 4 lane, side by side tunnel, with two 14' breakdown lanes that could be used for traffic during rush hour. The shallower tunnel is said to reduce cost to the point that the city might be able to afford it without a city wide tax increase. Next step is winning support from the govenor.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003528295_viaduct17m0.html

They have been talking about this for so long

i know with projects such as these there are huge issues involving funding

but what i dont understand is this:

obviously there is a HUGE price tag...

but the benefits seem to out weigh the cost...

burying the highway would give access to the entire waterfront area along downtown, this would open it up for developments parks, new condo's some new highrises etc.....

wouldnt the LONG term effects of the more expensive option be better for the city instead of just rebuilding the viaduct which is the exact thing they are trying to remove from the area?

Well, it sounds like its a moot point anyways:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003529552_webtunnel17.html

Well, when the viaduct's closed for SIX years during construction....the city will obviously adjust its commute patterns to accommodate the change, right? After six years, people will get used to it. Traffic will have gotten normal maybe after a few months. And then the newer, bigger, uglier viaduct will open back up and traffic will get worse again. Ugh. Am I the only one who seems to think this way?!

So my opinion is to not build anything! Maybe a surface street if it comes to that---but that's what Alaskan Way is for??

I was optimistic about the 4-lane tunnel....but why build a 4-lane tunnel when you can build a 4-lane boulevard for less?!!

I liked the idea of "a thousand little things" as well, but the big fear is that the city loses north-south capacity for freight and commuters. Maybe the better strategy would be to let them go ahead with the 520 replacement, and just tear down the viaduct.

Discussion started over in "subways and urban rail" just trying to consolidate:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=394270

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003532645_webviaduct19.html

Voters to get say on elevated highway and four-lane tunnel
By Susan Gilmore and Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporters

Seattle voters will weigh in March 13 on whether to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway or a four-lane tunnel.

The Seattle City Council voted 6-3 this afternoon to put two alternatives on the advisory ballot. Council members seemed unsure what would happen if both measures pass or fail. One will be an up-or-down vote on the elevated viaduct and the other, also an up-or-down measure, will ask if voters favor a four-lane tunnel.

The council has not yet finalized the ballot wording, but members did agree to list $3.41 billion as the cost for the four-lane tunnel, a trimmed-down tunnel alternative that Mayor Greg Nickels began promoting this week. The measure asking voters if they support a new elevated structure will indicate that most of the funding for its $2.8 billion cost has been secured.

The city is asking King County to have an all-mail election. The cost has been estimated at $1 million. Replacement of the viaduct would be the only issue on the special-election ballot.

The March 13 vote represents a last-ditch effort by the city to gather support for a tunnel, which, big or small, would be pricier than a new elevated structure.

The council action also caps a tumultuous week over how replace the 1953 viaduct.

Nickels on Tuesday began championing the four-lane tunnel as a good alternative to the $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel he had wanted for so long. The four-lane tunnel would carry just as many cars as a six-lane tunnel, he said, and cut $1.2 billion from the price.

The next day, Gov. Christine Gregoire and legislative leaders said the four-lane tunnel was not an option, and the state will either replace the viaduct with an elevated highway or shift more than $2 billion from the viaduct to the Highway 520 floating bridge.

In December, Gregoire had been expected to announce whether a six-lane tunnel or an elevated highway would be built along the Seattle waterfront. Instead, she called on Seattle voters to decide the issue, saying it was the only way to break a political stalemate over the two options. She was criticized for punting, but this week took a harder stand after hearing that Seattle might not hold a vote until after the Legislature adjourned -- if it held a vote at all.

Her announcement prompted Nickels and council members to work toward the March advisory vote.

"We've been coerced" by the state to hold the election, said council member Peter Steinbrueck, who voted no with David Della and council President Nick Licata. "I see this as political tyranny, the choices have been rigged for us."

The four-lane tunnel idea, called the "hybrid tunnel" by the city, has been intensively studied only since Jan. 5 — at the city's request — by the state Department of Transportation, project consultants, and an expert review panel appointed last year to look at the viaduct and Highway 520 bridge. The panel said the smaller tunnel "showed promise" and could save hundreds of millions of dollars.

But DOT officials ceased work on the issue Jan. 11 and said the state would not fund further viaduct study by the panel.

State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said today he couldn't comment on whether the city's $3.41 billion figure is credible.

"We are not going to say anything about a number that we haven't had a chance to examine," he said.

Councilwoman Jan Drago, head of the council's transportation committee, said after today's vote that if the DOT didn't study the new tunnel costs, the city would hire an independent firm the council hopes will validate the numbers.

Drago, who supports the four-lane tunnel, said a vote was the only way to avoid having an elevated highway forced on the city.

"We don't need Olympia dictating to Seattle," she said. "We can speak for ourselves.

Susan Gilmore: sgilmore@seattletimes.com or 206-464-2054. Mike Lindblom: mlindblom@seattletimes.com or 206-515-5631.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/01/19/2003532148.gif

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003531672_tunnelcapacity19m.html

Q&A | Can a four-lane tunnel do the work of six lanes?
By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporter

At first, the pitch sounds like snake oil: a four-lane waterfront tunnel that can carry as many cars as a tunnel with six lanes and save $1.2 billion.

But just a few days ago, a panel of experts said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' last-ditch proposal for a narrower tunnel deserved a closer look by the state.

Gov. Christine Gregoire, however, said enough was enough. She ordered an end to the discussion. Either the state will build a cheaper elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, or more than $2 billion in state aid would be shifted to the equally needy Highway 520 floating bridge.

Nickels and other pro-tunnel city leaders aren't ready to take no for an answer.

They hope a city advisory election would give the tunnel another chance.

Even assuming Olympia cares, the city first has to convince voters that the plan Nickels is now promoting is credible.

Q. How can four lanes carry as many cars as six?

A. During rush hours, the safety shoulders would become exit-only lanes, effectively widening the roadway from four lanes to six. In the morning commute northbound, the right shoulder would become an exit-only lane to Western Avenue. The speed limit would be reduced at peak times.

In off-peak times, the shoulders would serve as break-down lanes, and cars would exit the highway from the usual right lane, leaving two through-lanes in each direction. "The best engineering judgment tells you it would work, but you have to go back and do the analysis," said panel member Don Forbes, a former Oregon state transportation director. The panel was appointed by Gregoire and legislative leaders.

Q. Would traffic become clogged if a car stalls at rush hour?

A. Quite likely.

The city would need to station tow trucks nearby, to clear fender-benders and breakdowns, said Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. Stalls are rare enough that the occasional tie-up seems a reasonable tradeoff for a possible billion-dollar savings, Forbes said.

At off-peak times, when traffic is moving fastest, there would be a full-sized shoulder, where stalled cars could pull over.

Q. Would a narrower tunnel save money?

A. The city, after seeking data from the state Department of Transportation and engineering consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff and other members of the viaduct design team, produced a cost figure of $3.4 billion. The DOT would not discuss the figure this week.

A four-lane tunnel, with lanes built side by side, would require a shallower trench than the stacked six-lane tunnel. A smaller tunnel would use less concrete. Construction could be finished by July 2013, or 1 ½ years sooner than the big tunnel, the city says.

Q. If this tunnel is so great, why didn't the city propose it sooner?

A. City staffers say they looked at a leaner structure after a price shock Sept. 20, when DOT estimates for the six-lane tunnel increased $1 billion.

Until that point, the city thought a six-lane tunnel was affordable. "Until September 20, we were dealing with a $3.6 billion project," said mayoral spokeswoman Marianne Bichsel.

On Oct. 30, Nickels told KUOW radio a four-lane tunnel might save money.

In mid-December, Gregoire issued a finding that the mayor's funding plan on the original $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel fell short. She called for Seattle voters to choose between an elevated or tunneled highway — and bear the extra cost of a tunnel.

The city says it recently devised a cheaper four-lane version that connects at Western Avenue — solving an earlier problem that doomed an earlier four-lane alternative.

Q. Did Gregoire act in haste ?

A. The city says it briefed DOT on the four-lane tunnel Jan. 5, kicking off a week of study that included a day of reports to the panel.

But DOT told the panel six days later to halt its review.

"I've been working in infrastructure over 30 years, and I've never seen data on a good idea suppressed in this way," complained a city consultant, Doug Hurley.

In a letter to Ceis and Gregoire this week, the panel says the latest four-lane concept "shows promise."

The panel suggests an independent cost review, before any citywide vote on the future of the highway.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Seattle is making a big mistake with replacing this thing. Just get rid of it, replace it with a normal street at a much lower cost. Car drivers can suck it up or choose to use other alternatives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003536907_viaduct23m.html

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - Page updated at 11:17 AM

Gregoire says viaduct vote still matters
By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

OLYMPIA — Gov. Christine Gregoire, who seemingly dismissed the idea of replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel last week, now says she wants to hear what Seattle voters have to say on March 13.

"I will never, ever say that a vote of the people is a waste," the governor said in a news conference Monday, later adding, "That's just fundamentally wrong. I, as an elected official, do not believe that."

Yet the governor wouldn't say what she would do if voters opt for a four-lane tunnel that Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and a majority of the Seattle City Council say would be much cheaper than the six-lane version the state has proposed.

"I can't answer," she said, noting there are too many unknowns.

Gregoire said there are serious, unanswered questions about the narrower tunnel, such as how much would it cost, how much traffic it would carry and "who is going to pay for the shutdown of the waterfront to those businesses that will probably be out of business for 27 months?"

"I refuse to end up with a Big Dig, to end with a project that starts out at $2 billion and ends up at $14 billion," she said, referring to Boston's $14.6 billion tunnel project plagued by massive cost overruns and faulty construction.

Gregoire said it is the responsibility of the city, the Legislature and herself to address as many of those questions as possible before the Seattle vote.

Marianne Bichsel, a spokeswoman for Nickels, said "we're pleased that the governor appears to be willing to listen to what the voters of Seattle say about this."

Nickels sent a letter to Gregoire on Monday asking her to authorize the state Department of Transportation and an expert review panel to study the new tunnel proposal.

The governor's office said Gregoire had not made a decision about the request.

Seattle City Council president Nick Licata said the governor's statement "left not only the door open for the tunnel, but a very wide door."

However, Licata, a tunnel opponent, said Gregoire "made the statement before she saw the ballot title, which as I feared came back without any cost figures."

The governor and legislative leaders have said the proposal going to voters in March should contain cost estimates for both replacing the viaduct with a tunnel and building a new elevated highway.

That isn't going to happen.

"We're left with a simple design choice; that really puts the debate in a situation ... where we will see a pro-tunnel vote," Licata said.

City attorney Tom Carr said he dropped the cost estimates from the ballot title because, with a 75-word limit, there wasn't room to explain where the numbers came from. He added that cost estimates will be part of the election campaign.

Gregoire's comments Monday represent the latest twist in an ongoing squabble over replacement of the aging viaduct, which carries Highway 99 along the downtown waterfront.

State House leaders want to build another overhead highway, while city officials want a tunnel that would open the downtown waterfront to redevelopment.

Last month, Gregoire issued her findings on the viaduct options, saying the state could afford a $2.8 billion elevated highway but that the finance plan for a $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel didn't pencil out.

Acknowledging the political stalemate, she called on city leaders to put the options on the ballot before the legislative session ends April 22 — or else the state would move ahead with the elevated structure.

Instead, Nickels came back with a new, smaller tunnel proposal that he said would cost $3.4 billion — $1.2 billion less than the larger one.

He met with the governor and Democratic legislative leaders to pitch the idea. They didn't like it and said the state would either build an elevated highway or spend the billions set aside for the project on a new Highway 520 bridge.

The Seattle City Council decided to put the new tunnel on the ballot anyway, along with a measure asking voters if they want to replace the viaduct with an elevated highway.

Although Gregoire's comments left the tunnel option open for now, the project still appears to be at a political standstill.

Democratic leaders in the state House on Monday said nothing has changed for them. They plan to move ahead with an elevated highway, no matter what the outcome of the advisory vote in Seattle, said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam.

Nickels and a majority of City Council still seem intent on building the tunnel.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said she supports the governor's position.

"We have two very passionate views on what should be done here," Gregoire said. "You have a situation where the Legislature could choose not to appropriate the funds. The city could say we're not going to give you any permits so you're not going to build an elevated structure.

"It is time for us to come together with a common vision. I hope the city of Seattle is able to do that, and I hope they are able to bring the legislative leadership along with whatever it is they want by way of an outcome. The impasse is real, and it's difficult."

Staff reporters Susan Gilmore and Mike Lindblom contributed to this report.

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

A good way to get the latest news on the viaduct and other Seattle issues is by going to www.seattlechannel.org.

The language for the ballot that will decide the fate of the Alaskan way Viaduct (well... not really decide, it will show the governor what "Seattleites think of the project" as she put it) has been settled. The ballot will list a yes/no choice for the viaduct, and a yes/no choice for the "tunnel lite" proposal. So in other words, the city could vote that it doesn't want either of the two choices.... After some pressure from governor, the ballot questions will also mention the projected cost of each choice.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003540259_viaduct25m0.html

Another minor development; due to the rise of the "tunnel lite" proposal, a few officials have begun to ask why there is no "viaduct lite" proposal. But doesn't sound like anyones paying much attention to that idea (probably a good thing).


It's just my feeling that this whole process is getting a little embarrassing for the city and state in general. Instead of spending the money to get a group of transportation engineers together with Seattle city planners to properly study all the possible solutions to this problem, they're spending the money on votes that might not matter and lawsuits that might not get filed. Instead of trying to get a smart well thought out decision by people who know what they're doing, they're letting a single city decide what to do with state money, and only letting them pick between two alternatives that obviously (despite all the posturing) don't address all concerns. This is what frustrates me about this country nowadays. Every important but complicated decision turns into a political/PR bitchfest.

A few of the (gag) special interest groups that have popped up in the wake of the vote announcement:

Not another elevated Viaduct:
http://www.noelevated.org/index.html

Friends for a better waterfront
(couldn't find a website for these guys)

No Tunnel Alliance:
http://www.notunnelalliance.com/

Peoples waterfront Coalition:
http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/

From the People's waterfront Coalition (made me chuckle):

For the cost of a tunnel we could:

* Purchase 10,000 helicopters, one for every dozen Viaduct commuters and fly them downtown instead
* Build six more pairs of stadiums
* Write every Viaduct commuter a check for $50,000

A few of the (gag) special interest groups that have popped up in the wake of the vote announcement:



How are these "special interest" groups? What financial benefit do these people stand to gain by defeating the proposal?

This has been a hot topic at UW lately, especially in the Urban Studies/Planning classes. The general feeling is that the tunnel would not be so positive for traffic flow but good for the city, especially as we are trying to move away from car culture. Most of the reasoning is based on the "open spaces" theory popularized in the 1980's. I think it should be built (or dug), it is a good project. The Governor and the Mayor should show some backbone on this. It will make the city a better place.

How are these "special interest" groups? What financial benefit do these people stand to gain by defeating the proposal?
Is it not obvious? They want their $50,000 check and a helicopter! :yes:

If this is a major shipping route, then trucks can't just suck it up. Has to be done in some way shape or form. Long term investment would win out in the tunnel option. Rebuild the viaduct and you're gonna still be wishing for what you could be doing now.

If this is a major shipping route, then trucks can't just suck it up. Has to be done in some way shape or form. Long term investment would win out in the tunnel option. Rebuild the viaduct and you're gonna still be wishing for what you could be doing now.

According to the No Build people (so take it for what its worth) the "frieght" that goes on the Viaduct is just stuff destined for downtown, and makes up only about 4% of the traffic on the viaduct. Most of the container cargo from the port of Seattle goes to either I-5 or I-90.

Noticed 2 articles on the subject today in the Seattle Times. One talking about how both Chopp and Nickels say they would take the surface street option as their second choice (agreement, yay!). And another about a local structural engineer proposing a "much cheaper" (ONLY $1.2 Billion) retrofit of the existing viaduct that would make it earthquake sound. Meanwhile the state is studying the 4 lane tunnel and now a 4 lane elevated highway.


Surface Street Agreement:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562086_viaduct08.html

Existing Viaduct Retrofit:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003563083_webviaduct08m.html

I'm hoping the agreement between chopp and nickels persuades the governor to look at the surface street option and they bag the whole vote thing. It worked in San Francisco and Portland, it can work here.

Have you ever wondered why in Europe motorway signs use metres to indicate the distance to a local exit while in Canada and Australia they exclusively use kilometres if it is 1km or more.

For instance, this is a pic from Australia posted by a forum member:

http://img438.imageshack.us/img438/1861/m1avalon1nh.jpg

And this pic I stole from www.ceskedalnice.cz (Czech Republic):

http://mikul.net/images/motorways/dalnice.jpg

As you see, the same distance is written diffrerently. What do you think could be the reason for this?

My hypothesis is simple. Before Canada and Australia converted to metric system, the distances were indicated in miles. Since miles are not conveniently related to shorter units (feet or yards), even local distances are written in miles - ¼ miles, ¾ miles, 1½ miles, etc. I believe after conversion those countries chose to stay with a single unit - km. Europe, on the other hand, converted a very long time ago, so Europeans know how to convert between metres and kilometres quite well :)

I personally like the European signage in metres better because it gives me the sense of precision (which might or might not be the case).

why is exit written in english? :dunno:

Maybe because English is an international language? For an official explanation you have to contact the Czech Ministry of Transport.

But let's not go off topic please.

meters give you a somewhat better sense of distances <2km, although it is the same.
I prefer meters up to 2000m, and higher, kilometers.

why is exit written in english?
possible because the word východ doesn't make too much sense to foreigners ;)

meters give you a somewhat better sense of distances <2km, although it is the same.
I prefer meters up to 2000m, and higher, kilometers.


possible because the word východ doesn't make too much sense to foreigners ;)Well, the same is true for uscita, ausgang or sortie but while driving in those countries it's never been a problem to adapt... Especially that in general there is an arrow pointing to the exterior leaving no doubt about it !

And by the way, I don't understand why it has to be to local Czech people to adapt rather than to foreign visitors.

^ Instead of the word "exit" I'd prefer some illustration, which would represent exit, like in Germany and elsewhere...

Damn it, I should have thought about picking a different example! :bash:

I think in case of Czech republic(EU) is mean that EXIT 2000 m is very close and
using KM mean that is far away from your position

Prague 60 km/ Prague part Bohnice 2000 m
so is using as safety for drivers that they have slow down and start to be carefull

I guess it's because the 2000 m doesn't stand by itself, it's probably part of a sequence of sings.
The other distances might be like 1500 m, 1000 m, 600 m, 250 m, whatever. Then there are three options:

2 km, 1.5 km, 1 km, 0.6 km, 0.25 km
2 km, 1500 m, 1 km, 600 m, 250 m
2000 m, 1500 m, 1000, 600, 250 m

You see the point? It's probably better to use only meters OR kilometers, since mixing might be confusing. And then choosing meters is probably better then just kilometers, because kms would lead to ugly things like '0.25 km'.
So: they choose to use '2000 m'.

2 km, 1.5 km, 1 km, 600 m, 250 m

Only meters OR kilometres? The possibility of using km until you reach a single kilometre and then reverting to metres really isn't THAT confusing. Especially if there's a larger gap between distance demarcations (ie. 2 km, 500m or 1 km, 200 m). If anything, I find it to be the most simple method as you avoid both decimals and extravagant digits. Suppose simplest is largely just what you're used to.

I don't see the problem of mixing meters and kilometers. A distance on meters can mean the thing is near, on kilometers more far.

just a btw

I believe after conversion those countries chose to stay with a single unit - km.
Canada doesn't abide by a single unit. Smaller measurements / nearer places use metres (like 200m) but I think you know that ("if it is 1km or more") so... meh :p

Have you ever wondered why in Europe motorway signs use metres to indicate the distance to a local exit while in Canada and Australia they exclusively use kilometres if it is 1km or more.

As you see, the same distance is written diffrerently. What do you think could be the reason for this?

My hypothesis is simple. Before Canada and Australia converted to metric system, the distances were indicated in miles. Since miles are not conveniently related to shorter units (feet or yards), even local distances are written in miles - ¼ miles, ¾ miles, 1½ miles, etc. I believe after conversion those countries chose to stay with a single unit - km. Europe, on the other hand, converted a very long time ago, so Europeans know how to convert between metres and kilometres quite well :)

I personally like the European signage in metres better because it gives me the sense of precision (which might or might not be the case).

You've got half the answer right believing that it had something to do with Australia and Canada's metric conversion. The previous unit abbreviation for mile (mi) and the metric abbreviation for metre (m) would have caused some confusion during the changeover, so using km rather than m seemed more logical.

WSDOT has declared the tunnel suffers from several fatal safety flaws and have declared the tunnel option dead. But apparently ballots for the advisory vote on the two options is still going through? Here's hoping the city starts promoting the no build option.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003570046_webviaduct13.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_XGR_Seattle_Viaduct.html

On Sunday I had to make a short trip across the Sierras to Reno, Nevada, so I decided to take some pictures on the way. For those who are not familiar with this region, I-80 is a major artery connecting San Francisco with eastern regions of the country. It runs all the way from New York to San Francisco.

I started off in Aburn and headed East. The interstate there has 3 lanes (down from 4 in the greater Sacramento area) and exceptional asphalt pavement.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bowman.jpg

http://mikul.net/images/i80/colfax.jpg

The pavement is very good for the first 30 or so kilometres (pics above), and then it becomes concrete and the quality decreases dramatically.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/concrete1.jpg

http://mikul.net/images/i80/concrete2.jpg

This stretch of the interstate is usually under harsh winter conditions with the temperature jumping from -10 to +10 every day, plus you add a constant lory traffic and voila - the poor road condition. As you can see, the cracks and gaps are filled with tar, so it is still more or less bearable.

On the picture below, you can clearly see that the right concrete lane is in much worse shape than the left concrete lane. That's because all the lory traffic should stick to the right.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/concrete_goodvsbad.jpg


When the quality becomes exceptionally bad, they "repair" it by putting an asphalt over the old concrete. Right lane only.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/concrete_asphalt.jpg


And then, the beautiful Sierra Nevada. The road is still in poor shape. Until recently, California was one of the few states that still didn't number motorway exits. They started doing it soon after I moved in. However, California still doesn't use the mile stickers (that are posted every mile), and I think it's a great disadvantage.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/mnt_concrete1.jpg

http://mikul.net/images/i80/mnt_concrete2.jpg


What I like about American road service is that they remove the snow quite quickly early in the morning. When there is a heavy snowfall, passenger cars and 2wd SUVs are required to use chains. This time, it was dry.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/snow.jpg


Finally, I reached O'Donner Summit (2203 metres above the sea level). They built a rest area exactly at the summit. By the way, check this out Donner Party (Cannibalism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_party)

http://mikul.net/images/i80/summit.jpg


Here is something that is quite amazing - a motorway underpass that uses two roundabouts instead of STOP signs or traffic lights. As far as I know, it is one of the kind in California.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/roundabout.jpg


And here is my answer to one of the previous topics " Why European Highways are much better than American ones??". Here is why:

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad1.jpg

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad2.jpg

Nowhere, did I see a motorway like this. Nowhere. Even in Russia, motorways are better maintained. In this case, they didn't even care to fill it with tar. Common, is it a third-world country? And it is not a construction area. I travelled extensively througout Europe (both Eastern and Western), but I have never seen these huge cracks on the motorways (local roads - yes, but not motorways).

A couple of words about the concrete divider vs rail. Virtually all motorways in California are equipped with the concrete divider. I have seen several crashes involving the divider, and I should say that they handle collisions very good. On the other hand, I saw a collision involving a rail divider in Eastern Europe, and man, that was a mess. The rail actually went through the driver side of the car and badly injured the driver.

I would also like to mention that American drivers are indeed worse than Europeans in general. Only 40% of drivers care about lane discipline. On this trip alone I saw more left-lane hogs than in all of my European trips combined. I don't know what might be the reason: either people simply don't know that this rule exists or they intentionally block the fast lane. Well, the US driving exam is a joke, and it doesn't seem to get tougher anytime soon.

great report

Great photos, Alex! Thanks for posting them. :)

Is there anything they can do to make the pavement better able to withstand the harsh conditions, or can they only do patch-up jobs, as shown in some of your photos, or else complete reconstruction?

I have my theories about the state of motorways in the US- and of course, it differs by state, as that's how roads are dealt with in America. Not to get too political, but we spend a lot of money militarily overseas that could and should, in my opinion, stay home and on our roads. We also have a populace that seems to put up with the Interstates in the condition they are. If more North Americans were to travel and drive the motorways of Europe I think they'd be shocked at the poor state of those roads back home. I think it'd be a real wakeup call for many.

^^ u think that Americans don´t have clue that they have so bad roads?

^^ u think that Americans don´t have clue that they have so bad roads?

I don't think many understand how bad they are compared with the rest of the developed world. I think the average American assumes you just have to put up with X percent of your highway system being cracked or pot hole-ridden.
Put another way; if you were with a random American in a car through that stretch of I-80 shown above and asked what he thought about it, he'd likely say it's seen better days and should be fixed. But he would probably be very surprised to find out that in Germany, as an example, there's nothing even CLOSE to that type of pavement breakup anywhere on the motorway system over there.

I would also like to mention that American drivers are indeed worse than Europeans in general. Only 40% of drivers care about lane discipline. On this trip alone I saw more left-lane hogs than in all of my European trips combined. I don't know what might be the reason: either people simply don't know that this rule exists or they intentionally block the fast lane. Well, the US driving exam is a joke, and it doesn't seem to get tougher anytime soon.

40%? You're being optimistic. I would say only maybe about 25% of the drivers have a good sense of how to drive (I really think it's mostly common sense). I get so pissed off when I try to get from San Francisco to Davis. I-80 there is a 3-4 lane freeway, but on most days, everyone is constantly and consistently going ~70mph, hogging the left lane up. Americans always fill up the entire road. So many people also simply should not be driving, do not signal, or simply lack the ability to drive properly...

great report! any tunnels on that road?

nice pics , i like Interstate 80 in New Jersey

On the picture below, you can clearly see that the right concrete lane is in much worse shape than the left concrete lane. That's because all the lory traffic should stick to the right.

Does the keep your lane system also apply on 2x2 lane interstates? Or you just have to keep right unless overtaking, like in Europe?

Does the keep your lane system also apply on 2x2 lane interstates? Or you just have to keep right unless overtaking, like in Europe?
The California law states that if there are 2 or more lanes going in the same direction, all drivers should stay in the right lane unless they pass someone. And this applies to all dual carriageways as well, not only autobahnen. However, the majority of drivers simply disregard this rule. For some reason, they think they should evenly fill the entire road.

That's one thing I don't understand about America. Generally, people follow the rules and regulations, but not when it comes to cooperating with other drivers. In Europe, for instance, other drivers will never block your way and will yield to you even if they need to drive on the shoulder. It is virtually impossible in the USA. It only happened a couple of times in rural areas (both in Texas and California). On the other hand, Americans will always let you pull out of the driveway in front of them (not so in Europe). And yet, I would prefer better if instead of courtesy, Americans followed the law to the letter. Everyone would be better off.

Is there anything they can do to make the pavement better able to withstand the harsh conditions, or can they only do patch-up jobs, as shown in some of your photos, or else complete reconstruction?
I am not a civil engineer, so I can't answer your question. I know that if an asphalt pavement becomes old on usual streets, they just put a new layer of asphalt right over it. Simple as that. However, I don't know how long the new pavement will hold.

great report! any tunnels on that road?
Not in California. I know they dig tunnels through Rockies, but in Sierra Nevada you will not find many (if any at all).

So one stretch of rural highway in a sparsely populated part of America that gets some of the most severe weather of the entire continent has a few cracks in the road, and this singlehandedly proves the "superiority" of the German road.

What's the deal with Germans and trying to prove their alleged superiority all the time anyway? :ohno:

I can't believe you were surrounded by all that spectacular scenery, and all that you focus on were a few potholes in the road to assure yourself of the "superiority" of Germany. That's pathetic. :bash:

So one stretch of rural highway in a sparsely populated part of America that gets some of the most severe weather of the entire continent has a few cracks in the road, and this singlehandedly proves the "superiority" of the German road.

What's the deal with Germans and trying to prove their alleged superiority all the time anyway? :ohno:

I can't believe you were surrounded by all that spectacular scenery, and all that you focus on were a few potholes in the road to assure yourself of the "superiority" of Germany. That's pathetic. :bash:


Well, I'm American and I'm the one who brought up the German comparison, so you can bash me as well. And this is a sub forum for motorways, so you might want to go to the mountain/scenary forum for talk of natuaral beauty.

And finally, those "few cracks in the road" are not acceptable to me in a country as rich as ours--- in fact, you've proven my point that the average American is very accepting of this kind of infrastructure dificiency.

The California law states that if there are 2 or more lanes going in the same direction, all drivers should stay in the right lane unless they pass someone. And this applies to all dual carriageways as well, not only autobahnen. However, the majority of drivers simply disregard this rule. For some reason, they think they should evenly fill the entire road.

That's one thing I don't understand about America. Generally, people follow the rules and regulations, but not when it comes to cooperating with other drivers. In Europe, for instance, other drivers will never block your way and will yield to you even if they need to drive on the shoulder. It is virtually impossible in the USA. It only happened a couple of times in rural areas (both in Texas and California). On the other hand, Americans will always let you pull out of the driveway in front of them (not so in Europe). And yet, I would prefer better if instead of courtesy, Americans followed the law to the letter. Everyone would be better off.

Slow people moving over to the right should be common courtesy too. I think most Americans are too selfish with their cars.

So one stretch of rural highway in a sparsely populated part of America that gets some of the most severe weather of the entire continent has a few cracks in the road, and this singlehandedly proves the "superiority" of the German road.

What's the deal with Germans and trying to prove their alleged superiority all the time anyway? :ohno:
Have you heard of the Straw Man Fallacy? That is what you are using now. In my narrative I haven't used word "German" a single time. Furthermore, I personally consider Italian autostradas to be of better quality than German autobahnen. But that would be another discussion.

I indeed compared my experience with American and European motorways by saying that none of the latter were in such a sorry shape as I-80, but such comparison is based on the objective reality. Something that I saw with my own eyes.

What you call "a few cracks" is actually a 60-km (underestimation) stretch of a major interstate connecting Northern California with the rest of the country. This route is vital to the region's economy, and it is a shame that California government cannot keep it in a good shape.

I can't believe you were surrounded by all that spectacular scenery, and all that you focus on were a few potholes in the road to assure yourself of the "superiority" of Germany. That's pathetic. :bash:
Again Germany? :lol: Stop beating the dead horse already.

For your information, I live here. For seven years I have been using this interstate, and I think I have a better understanding of what is going on with I-80. The road has been in this unsatisfactory state for at least 7 years, and there are no talks about making a major restoration yet.

And now my main point. This time I had to use the I-80 to go on a business trip to Reno. This means minimum attention to scenery and maximum effort to get from point A to point B as smoothly and as quickly as possible. I think it would be fair to mention that the majority of other drivers also don't drive there to enjoy the scenery because they have seen it numerous times. What they want now is the smooth road and the quick ride. Frankly, my ride was anything but smooth.

Seattle Newspaper Endorsements

Seattle Times
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: Yes
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003586359_elevated25.html

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: No
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/304790_viaducted.html

The Stranger
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: Hell No
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=161447

Seattle Weekly
Cancel the election.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-02-21/news/1-million-on-a-viaduct-vote-why-not-just-take-a-poll.php

That sucks about the tunnel :( i was hoping it wouldn't die just from funding.

We can spend $400,000,000,000 on a war, but we can't shell out 1% of that on an amazing proposal to open up the waterfront of benefit one of our premier cities...

I'll never understand WHY we can't fund more transportation/mass transit options in the country that seem to cost VASTLY less than what we spend on other issues that get NO opposition or delays...

It's our country!!! We're slowly rotting from the inside to propel ourselves farther on the outside.

Hello? Roman Empire?

Slow people moving over to the right should be common courtesy too. I think most Americans are too selfish with their cars.

I wouldn't sell us all off that quickly. I believe part of this is because you are connecting a major urban area with a resort area. Urban areas for the most part do NOT obey the lane rules used on the other 90% of US interstates that are rural.

In urban areas there are so many lanes and a high level of traffic - this doesn't let the efficiency of US rules come to play.

Growing up in the midwest and on rural streches of US interstates almost EVERYONE obeys the rules of passing on the left and driving on the right. Growing up in a rural state, this was as much common sense as stopping at a red light. Everyone knew it without thinking. I think people from large urban areas don't understand the rules of the open road as much as people who grew up in this environment. This strech of road is beautiful, but not the symbolism of how people drive long distances in the United States. We're not all selfish :)

As far as the roads, YES, American roads are much lower quality than European roads. They're still drivable though, you would rarely be disturbed or visibly upset by low quality roads. It might not be perfectly smooth, but we're not driving on crumbled concrete and gravel. The weather conditions in many areas of the country are extremely harsh as well - which is a quick death to many roads. Growing up it went from -25C to almost 40C every year.

I envy European roads, and have been on dozens of them, but just giving my 2 cents on ours...

All this business about how much better European roads are than American roads is silly, really. Americans pay significantly less in gasoline taxes, and the roads are not as good. Guess what? No one has a problem with that. The roads are maybe not the highest quality, but they get the job done. Also, note that the German autobahn system has 12,200 km for 83 million people, while the interstate has 75,376 km for 300 million people. That means in Germany, 6,300 people are paying for every kilometer, as opposed to the US, where about 4,000 people pay for every kilometer. Of course, the quality isn't going to be as good.

One interesting thing I would like to mention. I noticed that if we aligned drivers according to their driving skills, it would look like this:
Rural drivers
City drivers (like SF, Chicago, Seattle)
Suburban drivers
Suburban folks are the worst drivers while they are more friendly in person than city people.

It's part of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Most of it has to do with widening the access to the new bridge.

Sorry for the delayed response.:)

That's true, rural drivers in America see the act of driving along interstates/distances as much more of a "thing" than urban drivers do. There's an act to rural driving that's completely lost among urban drivers - and honestly just adds to the gridlock and delays in our cities. People in cities are so clogged in traffic and stuffed up with other cars everywhere that they just do whatever they can. The lack of traffic and urgency of getting somewhere "NOW' in rural areas lets the true art of interstate driving come through.

That sucks about the tunnel :( i was hoping it wouldn't die just from funding.

We can spend $400,000,000,000 on a war, but we can't shell out 1% of that on an amazing proposal to open up the waterfront of benefit one of our premier cities...


The tunnel would have been more trouble than it was worth. Even with the open space above it, thats all it would ever be is open space. Because of weight restrictions on the roof of the tunnel, they would even have to weigh any trees that would be planted above it. I think the surface boulevard is a much more versatile, simple, elegant solution to the problem.

From the Stranger article. First artist's conception I've seen of the surface boulevard:
http://www.thestranger.com/docs/viaduct_options.pdf

the roads are not as good. Guess what? No one has a problem with that.

Speak for yourself please....I have a BIG problem with the condition of some of our roads here.

One interesting thing I would like to mention. I noticed that if we aligned drivers according to their driving skills, it would look like this:
Rural drivers
City drivers (like SF, Chicago, Seattle)
Suburban drivers
Suburban folks are the worst drivers while they are more friendly in person than city people.

With regards to driving skills, or obeying the rules of the road? I believe that rural driving and urban driving is a completely different way of driving, and each have their own set of skills. I have to agree, though, that suburban drivers are the worst (though I'm one myself) I get very frustrated when some people dont follow something as simple as the right of way at stop signs. As far as the moving to right thing is concerned, that rule is certainly more often observed, and more easily so in rural roads than urban roads, and I don't blame people for not moving to the right in the dense traffic in a city. I get frustrated, however, when people ignore it in the suburban sections of the freeways, often times there will be sections of 20-30 cars that are being held up because 4 cars are all traveling at more or less the same speed and occupying all 4 lanes, making it impossible to pass, and leaving a gap half a mile long between its nearest car in front.

^ that's true. On I-290 in the city of Chicago, there is still the noticable "pass left, drive right" when it's not crowded or at night (to a degree, some people just don't realize this rule if they're always driving in a city), but most of the time there's a lot of traffic - and then you can throw that whole logic out the window.

When I get out to I-88 in the outter suburbs though, the "pass left, drive right" really starts to be shown, and when I get to the 2X2 section of road outside the burbs, it's the norm.

Speak for yourself please....I have a BIG problem with the condition of some of our roads here.

Yeah, but you're in PA, which is notorious for third-world roads;) . The rest of the country isn't as bad.

That sure is a beautiful stretch of highway.

Yeah, but you're in PA, which is notorious for third-world roads;) . The rest of the country isn't as bad.

Pennsylvania's roads, generally, are not the best in the country- but on the other hand American roads in general are much worse off than those of Europe.

Pennsylvania's roads, generally, are not the best in the country- but on the other hand American roads in general are much worse off than those of Europe.

And they're not going to be better than Europe unless we were to raise gas taxes to way beyond even that of European nations; fewer people pay per mile of American highway than European highway. It's just the nature of the beast, as the US is so much less dense than Europe. It's not just simply that we don't WANT better roads, it's a feasibility issue.

Here is something that is quite amazing - a motorway underpass that uses two roundabouts instead of STOP signs or traffic lights. As far as I know, it is one of the kind in California.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/roundabout.jpg

Ooh, we have a few of those along I-70 in Colorado. I love these things so much better than the usual stoplight/stop sign. Glad to know California is using them too. :okay:

And they're not going to be better than Europe unless we were to raise gas taxes to way beyond even that of European nations; fewer people pay per mile of American highway than European highway. It's just the nature of the beast, as the US is so much less dense than Europe. It's not just simply that we don't WANT better roads, it's a feasibility issue.


It's too bad we can't be told the truth about the expense of maintaining a good road-system, instead it's always a financial emergency. We just keep ahead of the problems. One of these days, a bridge is going to collapse...wait a minute- that's already happened.

It's too bad we can't be told the truth about the expense of maintaining a good road-system, instead it's always a financial emergency.

I wouldn't trust the government too much on that. In NL, the car-owners pays € 20 billion (26 billion USD) every year, but the government only invests like € 2,5 billion (3,3 billion USD) each year, saying there isn't enough money...:ohno:

I wouldn't trust the government too much on that. In NL, the car-owners pays € 20 billion (26 billion USD) every year, but the government only invests like € 2,5 billion (3,3 billion USD) each year, saying there isn't enough money...:ohno:

For this reason alone, I would only be for higher gas taxes here if the money made were specifically targeted toward the transportation department, and not added to the general fund (which is what pretty much always happens):ohno:

Ooh, we have a few of those [roundabouts] along I-70 in Colorado. I love these things so much better than the usual stoplight/stop sign. Glad to know California is using them too. :okay:
I know that Colorado is the only state that uses quite a few of them for underpasses and general intersections. I know of five true (aka "modern") roundabouts in Sacramento, and the city officials are planning to build more. The reason is simple: they reduce the accident risk and the risk of serious injuries once it already happened. They improve the traffic flow and help save the environment by eliminating the neccessity to make a full stop and thus reducing the gas emission. Roundabout is always superior to a typical 4-way stop intersection by all means, and the statistique easily confirms that.

Unfortunately, American traffic bureaus are reluctant to install more roundabouts because there is a common belief that an average American driver won't be able to navigate them. Common sense vs. social conservatism. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", social conservatists would say. But what if it could work much better? It appears that Colorado has more common sense than the rest of the country at least in this field :)

In The Netherlands, there are tons of them. i have to cross 6 roundabouts getting to work.

In The Netherlands, there are tons of them. i have to cross 6 roundabouts getting to work.
Ha, UK has more roundabouts than any European country. They build them so often that sometimes I think it looks more like an abuse :nuts:

Thanks for the great report, Alex! The scenery is truly spectacular!! But what I don't understand is why there are so short tunnels in the US; the longest is only 4.2 km-long! :S By such a vast country and high peaks as in the Rocky Mountains, I'm really surprised. Do Americans blow up whole mountains?? :D

^The main area for tunnels would be the Rocky Mountains (there are some near the east coast as well, but that's a very old mountain chain and has been worn down to a gret degree), and there aren't a whole lot of roads going from the east side to the west side. There are many of them, but given the population density on either side - most people fly over the rockies.

Obviously the most appealing way to build a road is to get from point A to point B with spending the least amount of money given what you're accomplishing. I think they can plan out a route with more freedom given the small population density - and build roads where you need the fewest tunnels. If an interstate is going from Salt Lake City to Denver ( the closest large metros along the rockies), you have a lot of room to plan out your route. I think they just stuck near rivers, as they will give you a platform to build roads without going right through a lot of mountains.

One interesting thing I would like to mention. I noticed that if we aligned drivers according to their driving skills, it would look like this:
Rural drivers
City drivers (like SF, Chicago, Seattle)
Suburban drivers
Suburban folks are the worst drivers while they are more friendly in person than city people.

Definitely...a lot turn into assholes on the road, I always get cut off in the suburbs.

@Chicagoago, this explains it, thanks. :)

I have my theories about the state of motorways in the US- and of course, it differs by state, as that's how roads are dealt with in America. Not to get too political, but we spend a lot of money militarily overseas that could and should, in my opinion, stay home and on our roads. We also have a populace that seems to put up with the Interstates in the condition they are. If more North Americans were to travel and drive the motorways of Europe I think they'd be shocked at the poor state of those roads back home. I think it'd be a real wakeup call for many.



You should come down south; I cannot remember the last time I hit a single pot hole and I drive 50k a year. Georgia, Texas (when not u/c), and even the poor states of MS and AL all have interstate roads that could not possibly be in any significantly better condition. Now, if you look at Penn., Ohio, and most other states in the region, their roads such, most of which, but not all, is due to lack of federal funding relative to the southern states.

Not that I am arguing against the notion of spending more back into infrastructure, but that is for a different reply (I agree).


It's too bad we can't be told the truth about the expense of maintaining a good road-system, instead it's always a financial emergency. We just keep ahead of the problems. One of these days, a bridge is going to collapse...wait a minute- that's already happened.

Not here, the bridge is brand new, and as smooth as the touch of skin. Our only problem with roads is we cannot build them fast enough (funding issue).


This is the TYPICAL interstate in Georgia:

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bowman.jpg

@Chicagoago, this explains it, thanks. :)

furthermore, its also much easier to build a road on top of passes than through mountains, and it allows plenty more scenery and nice bends

I am not a civil engineer, but I have my theory on how road pavement influences road maintenance. If the road is made of asphalt, it will have an exceptional quality for some time. But when it starts to deteriorate, then it deteriorates badly very quickly, so the dot just have to repair it. On the other hand, the road made of concrete is not as good as asphalt to start with, but it lasts longer and deteriorates slowly. This might be the reason why Caltrans has been ignoring this unsatisfactory conditions of I-80 for a decade.

By the way, in Europe the majority of all motorways are made os asphalt. The only state where the quality of pavement matched that of Italian autostradas was Nevada. I like their signage better too.

You should come down south; I cannot remember the last time I hit a single pot hole and I drive 50k a year. Georgia, Texas (when not u/c), and even the poor states of MS and AL all have interstate roads that could not possibly be in any significantly better condition. Now, if you look at Penn., Ohio, and most other states in the region, their roads such, most of which, but not all, is due to lack of federal funding relative to the southern states.

Not that I am arguing against the notion of spending more back into infrastructure, but that is for a different reply (I agree)

Not here, the bridge is brand new, and as smooth as the touch of skin. Our only problem with roads is we cannot build them fast enough (funding issue).


This is the TYPICAL interstate in Georgia:

50k a year! That's like 150 miles a day! What do you do for a living?

Interesting notion you pointed out, are roads in the state federally maintained? if not, how is funding determined for a particular state? i know in california its often out of necessity that new roads are built/maintained, especially the most heavily traveled roads.

I am not a civil engineer, but I have my theory on how road pavement influences road maintenance. If the road is made of asphalt, it will have an exceptional quality for some time. But when it starts to deteriorate, then it deteriorates badly very quickly, so the dot just have to repair it. On the other hand, the road made of concrete is not as good as asphalt to start with, but it lasts longer and deteriorates slowly. This might be the reason why Caltrans has been ignoring this unsatisfactory conditions of I-80 for a decade.

By the way, in Europe the majority of all motorways are made os asphalt. The only state where the quality of pavement matched that of Italian autostradas was Nevada. I like their signage better too.

I'm not sure what roads are made with in different countries, as a variety of factors determine what the actual road will be made of. The main difference between asphalt and concrete is that asphalt is usually smoother, and less noisy, but are prone to a shorter lifespan than concrete.

However, asphalt is often easy to repair, as fixing something is simply filling a pothole up, though this kind of surfacing is not effective in the long run, because the whole road is not paved over, but rather refilled up, and are probably more sustainable to damage in heavy rain (imagine stopping a leak on a tire with some plastic squirt that solidifies)

Some of this is just inference, and some is stuff I've learned..., maybe someone smart will be able to shed some light on this

However, asphalt is often easy to repair, as fixing something is simply filling a pothole up, though this kind of surfacing is not effective in the long run, because the whole road is not paved over, but rather refilled up, and are probably more sustainable to damage in heavy rain (imagine stopping a leak on a tire with some plastic squirt that solidifies)

In asphalt roads whole stretches of the road have to be repaved from time to time. It's not just covering potholes... that's obviously not enough.

What do you mean by being more sustainable to damage in heavy rain?

furthermore, its also much easier to build a road on top of passes than through mountains, and it allows plenty more scenery and nice bends

I agree with you, I can't get my eyes away from the pix in this thread, but I was thinking if slopes weren't too steep in such areas, I mean, it's freeways/expressways what we're talking about. But the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy is kinda the same thing.

In asphalt roads whole stretches of the road have to be repaved from time to time. It's not just covering potholes... that's obviously not enough.

What do you mean by being more sustainable to damage in heavy rain?

They certainly do have to be repaved from time to time, but more often than not, I simply see potholes being filled up. There was a particularly bad hole that would keep getting filled up, then ignored for sometime, and filled up again for about 5 years before they closed the ramp off and repaved the entire section.

The rain damage thing is something I've observed, and might not be true. Frequently, for whatever reason, after heavy rainstorms or rain season, potholes and surface irregularities begin appearing everywhere on the roads, particularly places where I know there were potholes before, and they filled it up.

In asphalt roads whole stretches of the road have to be repaved from time to time. It's not just covering potholes... that's obviously not enough.

What do you mean by being more sustainable to damage in heavy rain?

I'm not sure what he meant by the rain but when I'm driving in the rain I feel much safer driving on concrete than on asphalt. The asphalt seems to damn slippery in the rain while the grooves they make in the concrete (also makes that cool whistling sound) seems to work much better with the rain.

when I'm driving in the rain I feel much safer driving on concrete than on asphalt. The asphalt seems to damn slippery in the rain while the grooves they make in the concrete (also makes that cool whistling sound) seems to work much better with the rain.
Yeah, true. However, in a dry weather, asphalt seems to provide more traction than concrete.

By the way, I recently noticed that when they do major renovation of motorways in California, they put exclusively asphalt. I haven't seen a single new concrete pavement. The road on the very first picture is used to be concrete but they replaced it with asphalt, and this trend is pretty much everywhere.

Alex Von Königsberg: I think you are an immigrant. And immigrants usually criticize a lot USA because they don`t have self-confidence.

But you know, I`ve been in Germany and there you don`t find big houses.

90% of Germans live in very small flats. :puke:

We should make another thread: Why europeans can`t afford to live in big houses?

I am not going to argue with you on this subject because: You have no idea what kind of person I am
This kind of discussion doesn't belong to this forum category
If you want to discuss why Europeans can't afford big houses, then go ahead and open a new thread. But not in "Infrastructure and Mobility" subforum.

Yeah, true. However, in a dry weather, asphalt seems to provide more traction than concrete.

By the way, I recently noticed that when they do major renovation of motorways in California, they put exclusively asphalt. I haven't seen a single new concrete pavement. The road on the very first picture is used to be concrete but they replaced it with asphalt, and this trend is pretty much everywhere.

The standard practice is to pave in concrete, then after 10-25 years pave over that with asphalt, then 5-15 years after that, do a complete reconstruction of the road. They recently did the asphalt pave-over of I-45 between Houston and Dallas of a road that was built in 1969, which was in near mint condition. A rarity, that's for certain.

Alex Von Königsberg: I think you are an immigrant. And immigrants usually criticize a lot USA because they don`t have self-confidence.

But you know, I`ve been in Germany and there you don`t find big houses.

90% of Germans live in very small flats. :puke:

We should make another thread: Why europeans can`t afford to live in big houses?

WTF

I'm not sure what he meant by the rain but when I'm driving in the rain I feel much safer driving on concrete than on asphalt. The asphalt seems to damn slippery in the rain while the grooves they make in the concrete (also makes that cool whistling sound) seems to work much better with the rain.

In The Netherlands we use ZOAB Asphalt. That means very open asphalt concrete. It looks like regular asphalt, but it is less dense, so water can poor into it very good. Even in heavy rain there is absolutely no water splashing up! Even with trucks!

It's great, but the opposite side is, that it won't last very long, you can lay down concrete for 30 years, but ZOAB has to be replaced here every 10 - 15 years, because of the heavy traffic we have, and the shorter duration of the asphalt. But it's worth it.

WTF

There are several Americans who HATE having anything about the US criticized in the least ESPECIALLY if it comes from someone who wasn't born here. I think this is what's going on with this post. The fact is the critique of I-80 and other highways is right on the mark, so the truth wins the day.

I just watched "Modern Marvels; Paving America", and everyone on this thread would be quite interested.

It said when the federal government started it's massive plan in the 50's to pave interstates across America (because the Americans saw the Autobahns they used to chase the Germans back across Germany, and were wildy impressed), they used a test track with many types of surfaces 7 miles long, and drove trucks back and forth on it 24 hours a day for 2 years.

They finally chose to use concrete for the new interstates. After awhile though (I think maybe 10-12 years?), they realized that the concrete was breaking up with cracks to a great degree. They then changed, and the main material used is normally asphalt.

The great thing about asphalt is you can lay it down and drive on it right away. Another great thing is when roads need repaving, they scape up all the asphalt, and are able to fully re-use 80% of that same asphalt on a new smooth road. This is great for recycling, as well as makes the process cheaper than mixing new asphalt.

The one thing, as said, is that asphalt lasts a shorter period - especially since much of the country has temps anywhere from -20/-30 to 35-45C. You can fill in cracks in asphalt with new asphalt though for a few years, but at some point you must scrape it up and throw down new material.

It was amazing to see the history of our roads/highways before 1950. They were HORRIBLE. All the highways had names, and some of them were just dirt/gravel roads. In the 1920's when cars were becoming popular, the government finally spoke up and said "hey, we need some system here". There were dozens of roads in the country with names, and after while people were having to stop too many times because they become lost changing from highway to highway with all these different names.

That's when they developed a system of numbers for all the roads across the country. This way people knew to just look for "Highway 6" or whatever, and people were finding their destinations much more efficiently.

In 1919 the Army took a cross country trip across the country to celebrate the win in WWI, and the convoy was gettings stuck in mud and trapped on steep roads all across the country. The trip was chaos, and many vehicles had to be abandoned along the way. This was the very first time (the 1920's) that the government really started looking into the dire need of roads across the country. The 1930's saw a TON of new roads during the depression, but then everything stopped from around 1941 to 1956 because of WWII, the aftermath, and the Korean War. It was finally in 1956 when the government realized millions of Americans were buying a LOT of cars, and here we were with roads built by hand in the 1920's and 1930's.

Now that 50 years has past since we started the interstates, we're hitting the point in the 2000's that a great many of these roads just need to be replaced. I think it's something the government is going to have to start looking at on a larger level than the "patch and repave" that we've been doing since the system was built.

People say we have bad roads, but we didn't ALWAYS have bad roads - we're just living in a time when our massive interstate system is starting to reach old age. I hope the government can deal with this though, we're starting to see more and more of those 5-10 mile patches of interstates being repaved all over the place. It would cause GREAT disruption though if we went and started to reconstruct the roads at the same level as how they were built. You can't just close 150 miles of I-80 to reconstruct. Too many people depend on those roads today.

Anyway, long babble, but an interesting thought.

Yeah, we have that problem too. Most of our Dutch motorways were build in the sixties and seventies, and they need to be repaved too, they repaved some 1000km in 2 years. But our motorways are now too busy to begin such a huge pavement-job.

And here is my answer to one of the previous topics " Why European Highways are much better than American ones??". Here is why:

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad1.jpg

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad2.jpg


Just because this road is in bad shape doesnt mean that all the american highways are worst than the european highways.

Just because this road is in bad shape doesnt mean that all the american highways are worst than the european highways.


Show me any major highway in Western Europe that looks like that. I bet there isn't one to be found. And now Eastern Europe is building good highways as well. I realize the American Interstate system is quite old, but it's not older than the German Autobahn system and the Autobahns, sitting as they do in the center of Europe, are heavily used by trucks and cars.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but we shouldn't be happy with bad highways, especially major cross-country routes like Interstate 80.

but is not that bad..

but is not that bad..
That stretch of I-80 is THAT BAD, believe me. Driving there as slow as 80 km/h, you start worrying that your suspension will fail. Last time, I remember a motorway in such a sorry shape was in Russia back in 1997. I don't want to compare all American motorways with European ones, but like Billpa said, I have never ever seen such pavement on any European motorway.

alright.. whatever.. but that doesnt mean that all the freeways in the United States are in bad shape..

You are fighting with the windmills, my friend. No one said that all the freeways in the US are in bad shape.

There are several Americans who HATE having anything about the US criticized in the least ESPECIALLY if it comes from someone who wasn't born here. I think this is what's going on with this post. The fact is the critique of I-80 and other highways is right on the mark, so the truth wins the day.

There are several Europeans on here who criticize anything the US does given the opportunity. Rather than actually look at the reasons American freeways are not as good as European ones, they would rather take the moment to bash the US. If that has to do with our current president, well, he sucks, and has nothing to do with anything regarding the roads, save for nominating the Transportation Secretary.

Yes, US roads are different from European ones. Yes, they are of inferior quality at times. No, that has nothing to do with any particular deficiency of the American people, it has everything to do with lower gas taxes and the insanely lower density of the US compared to Europe.

they would rather take the moment to bash the US......

.....that has nothing to do with any particular deficiency of the American people,

Who has said any of the above?
I think you're a little too sensitive about these matters. The American roads infrastructure is quite poor at the moment- pointing that out is not un-American it's just truth-telling. As an American, born and raised, I understand our heads are filled with the idea that America's the greatest country in the world from early on- and challenging that even a little bit- can really start an argument. Oh well, what are you gonna do?:nuts:

Its all because people are being too bored =) I was watching an episode of South Park, where people say people only protest because they are bored and have nothing better to do... :lol:

It all keeps the world interesting =)

Can't we all just :hug:

Who has said any of the above?
I think you're a little too sensitive about these matters. The American roads infrastructure is quite poor at the moment- pointing that out is not un-American it's just truth-telling. As an American, born and raised, I understand our heads are filled with the idea that America's the greatest country in the world from early on- and challenging that even a little bit- can really start an argument. Oh well, what are you gonna do?:nuts:

I don't think we're the best country in the world; in fact, I think anyone claiming such a thing about any country is the height of stupidity. No one said any of the above, however, they are pretty much implied whenever nothing good about what the US is doing is said. Alex von Koenigsburg does a good job of mixing criticism with praise, so I can respect his statements. "Quite poor" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? At the same time, don't you think we do pretty well for ourselves given how much less money goes into our system compared to other Western nations? Not to mention how much less money CAN go into our system per capita compared to other Western nations?

In The Netherlands we use ZOAB Asphalt. That means very open asphalt concrete. It looks like regular asphalt, but it is less dense, so water can poor into it very good. Even in heavy rain there is absolutely no water splashing up! Even with trucks!

It's great, but the opposite side is, that it won't last very long, you can lay down concrete for 30 years, but ZOAB has to be replaced here every 10 - 15 years, because of the heavy traffic we have, and the shorter duration of the asphalt. But it's worth it.

Is that the type of asphalt that's kinda "loud" when you drive on it? I actually love the really "rough" asphalt I've seen on some highways especially on Texas 71 on the way to Houston. Let me know if that's what you're talking about. Even in the rain I've driven on that rough type of asphalt at 90mph (144kmh) and felt safe doing that speed.

"Quite poor" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

Looking at the example given, I think "quite poor" is actually kind. I just happen to believe we have our priorities backwards in this country when it comes to this stuff. We spend like there's no tomorrow all over the world through the military when we have very pressing needs here at home; i.e. the gulf coast, New Orleans, Southern Mississippi and our infrastructure. No one in congress dares cut back on what Bush wants to dump in Iraq, but propose rebuilding a highway and there's "no money" to be found. But it's not just Bush- we've spent a king's ransom over the years in the defense of Europe and other places and, personally, I've had enough.

Is that the type of asphalt that's kinda "loud" when you drive on it?

No, it's extremely noise-reducing asphalt, it makes way lesser noise than concrete.

Looking at the example given, I think "quite poor" is actually kind. I just happen to believe we have our priorities backwards in this country when it comes to this stuff. We spend like there's no tomorrow all over the world through the military when we have very pressing needs here at home; i.e. the gulf coast, New Orleans, Southern Mississippi and our infrastructure. No one in congress dares cut back on what Bush wants to dump in Iraq, but propose rebuilding a highway and there's "no money" to be found. But it's not just Bush- we've spent a king's ransom over the years in the defense of Europe and other places and, personally, I've had enough.

Fair enough, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I for the most part agree with you. I think the problem is that no matter what, even if we did have as high gas taxes as most European nations, our freeways would not be as good, simply because not as many people are paying per mile. That's what I'm trying to say.

Fair enough, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I for the most part agree with you. I think the problem is that no matter what, even if we did have as high gas taxes as most European nations, our freeways would not be as good, simply because not as many people are paying per mile. That's what I'm trying to say.

Yea, and it would be impractical for the prices to be that high up in the United States, IMO, the massive urban sprawl and different car culture in America does not leave room for gas prices to get up much higher, especially since there's not very much choice in the way of public transportation.

Plus, are labor/materials costs different in Europe and America? I don't know if that might play a factor.

When I started this topic, I didn't really want it to boil down to another "America vs. Europe" thread. My main point was to show how unsatisfactory condition some stretches of I-80 are in right now. I went further and claimed that in Europe they simply did not wait for the road pavement to deteriorate that much. The motorways I use everyday to get to university and other places is quite good.

There are freeways in Spain like I-80 and even worst than that....

California has great roads in comparison to the ones here in the Northeast.

California has great roads, but I80 isnt one of them...even so, I80 is only like that for a couple of miles as it crosses through the Sierra Nevada. Generally, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Pennslyvania have the worst roads, while Arizona and Georgia probably have the best. It varies tremendously depending on the actual road.

Alex-there are lots of rotorys and roundabouts in the US, just not on the left coast. Colorado started building them in the mid 90s as a town called Vail refused to install traffic lights at the bottom of their I70 on ramps.

There are freeways in Spain like I-80 and even worst than that....
Like on the picture? I drove across Spain all the way to Lisboa, and haven't noticed any major pavement deterioration. If you know of some, tell me where you saw it? Autopista/Autovia 7, 4, and 5 were in a very mint condition as far as I remember. Onus probandi is on you, my friend.

When I started this topic, I didn't really want it to boil down to another "America vs. Europe" thread. My main point was to show how unsatisfactory condition some stretches of I-80 are in right now. I went further and claimed that in Europe they simply did not wait for the road pavement to deteriorate that much. The motorways I use everyday to get to university and other places is quite good.

It was bound to happen, and I am not trying to pick a fight. The fact of the matter is that no one likes to hear criticism of their country from outsiders, yet, outsiders love to give criticism of others' countries, regardless of where they are from. It seems that on this site in particular, there are relatively few Americans compared to the rest of the Internet, so we tend to be a favorite target. Therefore, it is hard to discriminate between mere observation and yet another attack. As stated before, no country or continent is inherently better than another, since we all respond to the particular unique challenges that are placed before us.

Yep, Europe can afford to not wait. They have the money. I'm sure if anyone cared to look at the records about this particular segment of highway, the reason (most likely financial) for its disrepair would be pretty apparent.

Anyway, what good is the fighting? I'm sure there are universals between Americans and most of the rest of the world... :cheers:

^^ I don't think u wanna be compared to North Korea or sth.;) Although, they have fabulous 10-lane highways...:D

At the same time, don't you think we do pretty well for ourselves given how much less money goes into our system compared to other Western nations?Of course, that's the reason; no one expects you to do better job with such amount of money, but the US should put more money into its highways.

Not to mention how much less money CAN go into our system per capita compared to other Western nations?Not only 'Western nations' have good highways, so, yes, the US density is quite low, but it's one of the wealthiest nations on Earth (per capita), so I don't see how this should be a big problem, at least for highways, and especially expressways, where you can't mess around with bad quality, considering high speeds on them.

This is a completely absurd conversation... i grew up in San Francisco and have driven to Tahoe countless times on Interstate 80. In terms of surface quality, there are sections of the road that are in extremely poor shape. However, you must realize that this is stretch of road endures some of the worst weather in the United States. Donner summit on I-80 could possibly receive more snowfall than any other stretch of interstate in the U.S. Combined this with relatively heavy truck traffic, it is difficult to keep the road in good repair. See below for annual snowfalls on Donner summit:

http://www.micmacmedia.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/CSSL_Snowfall_bar_chart_2005.jpg

That said, I have also driven extensively in Europe. Most recently (this January), I drove from Munich to Kitzbuhel in Austria on the Autobahn. First, I would agree that this stretch of roadway was in great shape - night and day difference when compared to I-80 in the Sierra Nevada. Secondly, people definitely respect the left lane as the "passing lane". I must admit that I was in heaven, since slow driving in the fast lane is my number one pet peeve.

However, I find it ridiculous that people would compare a single stretch of roadway that endures extremely harsh conditions as an example for all of American Highways. Here are a few images of Interstate 80 outside of the harsh conditions of the Sierras:

Here is the start of the highway in San Francisco:
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_433b_01.jpg

... and in Berkeley ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_008b_01.jpg

... and in Richmond ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_011_05.jpg

... in Pittsburgh ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_023_03.jpg

... San Pablo ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_024_02.jpg

... Southern Napa County ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_036_02.jpg

... concrete section, not in the most awesome of shape ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_048_02.jpg

... in the central valley, here it switches back and forth between concrete and asphalt ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_067_02.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_070_03.jpg

... a newly repaved section while entering Sacramento (skyline on the left) ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_081_04.jpg

... concrete bridge over the floodplain west of the city ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_081_05.jpg

... concrete section on the business loop around the Sacramento ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_091_03.jpg

... Sacramento section with light rail in the middle ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_094a_04.jpg

... here is an extremely wide section to the east of the city ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_096_04.jpg

... this wide section extends for several miles ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_098_01.jpg

... the road begins to ascend into the Sierra foothills ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_108_01.jpg

... higher ...
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_110_03.jpg

... soon after this photo is where the Sierra Nevada tour picks up ...

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_011_05.jpg

Why do they've got this kind a road markings, and not ordinary painted lines?

Well, i have driven in Eastern Germany and Poland a few years ago, before the huge reconstruction of these Reichsautobahnen, which maintenance was about done by hitler himself, and not since.

Some motorways (German A13, Polish A4) looks more like a gravelpath rather than a full motorways.

However, I find it ridiculous that people would compare a single stretch of roadway that endures extremely harsh conditions as an example for all of American Highways.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not basing my argument on that one section of freeway; in fact, I've never driven that stretch of 80 in my life. But I HAVE driven in PA, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York, New England, Ohio, Indiana, WV, NC, VA, SC, GA, Fla, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas and New Mexico and I've experienced roads like that in several states- and in some cases worse. I've also driven in Germany and have studied countless photos of other European motorways and I've not once seen any single piece of motorway in western Europe that looks like that. If one exists, I'd ask that someone please post a photo of it here.

^^ There are of course, they aren't common though. While Italian motorways/freeways (autostrade) are excellent, expressways (superstrade) are often in deadly conditions.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not basing my argument on that one section of freeway; in fact, I've never driven that stretch of 80 in my life. But I HAVE driven in PA, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York, New England, Ohio, Indiana, WV, NC, VA, SC, GA, Fla, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas and New Mexico and I've experienced roads like that in several states- and in some cases worse. I've also driven in Germany and have studied countless photos of other European motorways and I've not once seen any single piece of motorway in western Europe that looks like that. If one exists, I'd ask that someone please post a photo of it here.

I agree that European roads, in general, have a higher surface/pavement quality. However, I also would say that interstate highways in the U.S. fluctuate between great quality and poor quality... thus, many interstates in the U.S. are in great shape.

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_011_05.jpg

Why do they've got this kind a road markings, and not ordinary painted lines?

They are called "bot dots" and are only used in states where there is no whether (i.e. snow, ice). They are good in keeping people in their lanes because they make noise when your tires hit them. They are common throughout California... I've also seen them in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Has everyone mailed in their ballot yet?

in the U.S. fluctuate between great quality and poor quality... thus, many interstates in the U.S. are in great shape.

No one has suggested there aren't good Interstates in the US; we've been discussing the overall quality vs Europe- and Europe wins that battle hands down. My point to you is that there is, unfortunately, too many examples of bad Interstate highway sements in the US. Your comment, that using one small sample from I-80 to paint the entire country was ridiculous and absurd, would be accurate, if it were true, which it's not.

They are called "bot dots" and are only used in states where there is no whether (i.e. snow, ice). They are good in keeping people in their lanes because they make noise when your tires hit them. They are common throughout California... I've also seen them in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Also saves the trouble and danger of paint wearing out over time, especially in a road as frequently as traveled as that. (NB that stretch of I-80 is just off of the bay bridge, after an intersection into 580 and 880, the Bay Bridge, as some of you might know is considered one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the entire country)

btw, sbarn, i think the ordering of the pictures on your post last page is off.

No one has suggested there aren't good Interstates in the US; we've been discussing the overall quality vs Europe- and Europe wins that battle hands down. My point to you is that there is, unfortunately, too many examples of bad Interstate highway sements in the US. Your comment, that using one small sample from I-80 to paint the entire country was ridiculous and absurd, would be accurate, if it were true, which it's not.

You realize I'm agreeing with you that the overall quality of roads in most European countries is better? My point was that Interstate 80 in the Sierras is not an example of 'typical' interstate quality. End of discussion.

End of discussion.

If it's all the same to you, I and others may wish to continue to discuss this topic. I think the sample of I-80 that got all this going IS typical of too many miles of motorway in the US. Unfortunately, there is a wide range of conditions on American Interstates from very good to very poor. In western Europe you don't have that range- it's generally all very good.

They are called "bot dots" and are only used in states where there is no whether (i.e. snow, ice). They are good in keeping people in their lanes because they make noise when your tires hit them. They are common throughout California... I've also seen them in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Why would anyone want to keep people in their lanes? If a car in front of me is slower than me, I'll naturally overtake it. Americans just drive, and don't overtake much?

Why would anyone want to keep people in their lanes? If a car in front of me is slower than me, I'll naturally overtake it. Americans just drive, and don't overtake much?

I think he means more like that in urban traffic (remember, American freeways go straight through the cities), where the traffic density is likely to be high, it's good to have that reassurance so if someone is not paying attention and starts to drift into another lane, they will notice by the vibrations.

I think he means more like that in urban traffic (remember, American freeways go straight through the cities), where the traffic density is likely to be high, it's good to have that reassurance so if someone is not paying attention and starts to drift into another lane, they will notice by the vibrations.

I guess that happens more on rural interstates in Wyoming and Nevada, than some city interstate ;)

In Wyoming on the I-80, they've got that kind of broken asphalt on the shoulder, so one who fell asleep or not paying attention, will be alarmed.

I guess that happens more on rural interstates in Wyoming and Nevada, than some city interstate ;)

In Wyoming on the I-80, they've got that kind of broken asphalt on the shoulder, so one who fell asleep or not paying attention, will be alarmed.

You'd think that, but then again, drivers are complete idiots over here.:bash:

This conversation seems to be going nowhere, just the same crap being thrown back and forth about roads in the US.

This conversation seems to be going nowhere, just the same crap being thrown back and forth about roads in the US.

Yep, pretty much. I know I'm not helping, either. :nuts:

:hug:


The thread can be closed now. :D

I agree that European roads, in general, have a higher surface/pavement quality. However, I also would say that interstate highways in the U.S. fluctuate between great quality and poor quality... thus, many interstates in the U.S. are in great shape.

If it's all the same to you, I and others may wish to continue to discuss this topic. I think the sample of I-80 that got all this going IS typical of too many miles of motorway in the US. Unfortunately, there is a wide range of conditions on American Interstates from very good to very poor. In western Europe you don't have that range- it's generally all very good.

I'm confused as to why you keep responding to my statements... you literally restated one of my earlier posts. Let me highlight a few points:

We both agree that the road surface in European countries is of higher quality.
We both agree that some U.S. highways are in terrible shape, while others are in great shape.

Thus, end of OUR discussion.

I suppose I responded because you said the conversation was absurd and ridiculous. You then informed me the discussion was ended. I guess that's why. Plus we generally have NOT agreed. While we both concede the European motorway system is in better shape, I maintain the original poster's photo of a bad section of I-80 is a great example of what is too often found in the US and its something that needs to be dealt with. I get the impression from your comments that the aforementioned I-80 section is more or less an aberration.

How is the I-80 in Pennsylvania?

How is the I-80 in Pennsylvania?

Parts of it are ok- there is, however, a section just east of I-81 in the eastbound lanes that is simply horrible. The ride is just awful on that stretch and would make you long for the 80 going through the Sierra Nevadas. I don't have a photo of it, but trust me, it's horrible. In fact, it might be the worst section of Interstate highway in the northeast- perhaps not- but I can't think of a worse example off the top of my head.

I heard the I-10 west of Baton Rouge is very bad too.

I heard the I-10 west of Baton Rouge is very bad too.

Yeah, that's pretty awful, but it's condition is probably more a reflection of corruption in Louisiana state politics than it is simply neglect.

I work in downtown and used to commute from Seatac, but I've moved to Mountlake Terrace now so I don't have to worry about backups during construction. With all the hypes about the replacement plan, does the city have a detailed plan to detour the viaduct traffic during construction? I mean, after all there are a lot of vehicles use the viaduct everyday.

98,000 votes counted as of tonight

Elevated Viaduct
45% Yes
55% No

Tunnel Lite
30% Yes
70% No

It's interesting to see both measures be voted down. I think it would have been much more informative to add the surface option and the original tunnel option to the ballot. No - No could mean a few different things here.

So....surface street? Anyone?
If the vote is just a non binding resolution, why bother in the first place?

Huhm, tunel, what else. And it should be built asap so the folks from Grey's Anatomy can get to work in time... To save lives you know...:D :D

If the vote is just a non binding resolution, why bother in the first place?

Precisely. The various opinions have not been changed and everybody thinks they have won through this vote. The whole situation is a ridiculous political circus.

What should have been on the ballot in order to correctly gauge public opinion was a multiple-choice, not a yes-no question. And the choices should have included a surface option, as well as the original six-lane tunnel option. A, B, C, D. Simple.

However, due to the political games between the state and the city and the governor's insistence on a vote before April 23rd, we ended up with the pointless yes-no vote.

The No-No could mean quite a few things: A protest against the way the whole thing was handled, support for an option not included on the ballot, and my personal favorite: Seattle doesn't actually have a majority opinion (how quaint).

This topic has been batted around in numerous other threads, but I thought I'd start one specific to the idea.

American highways are in such poor shape because of sheer financial cost of maintaining so many miles of highway. We are a car loving nation and as such we put tremendous wear and tear on our roads. Furthermore, in metropolitan areas, the sprawling nature of our cities necessitates longer commutes and thus more road usage. Again, greater wear and tear. Add into the fact that we don't like taxes as a whole, and voila, a serious backlog of maintenance work costing in the trillions of dollars.

There's no way we could ever fix all of our highways at any point in time. Not unless road building and maintenance became considerably cheaper. I'm not sure even that would help either.

For now, we rush around and fix the most pressing problems with the least amount of time and money.

HOV lanes are being added to I-5 through Tacoma. This is part of a larger plan to have continuous HOV lanes from Everett to Tacoma.

Specific WSDOT links:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/PierceCountyHOV/I5_HOV_S48th_Pacific/
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/piercecountyhov/

Hope that helps.

I don't know that we couldn't afford our current highway system if we actually wanted to, but putting that aside, we should not build highways that we can't afford to keep up. We must reject the idea of always having a backlog of terrible highways that need to be repaired but will not be for years and years to come. If a proposed freeway can't be supported once it BEGINS to get into a state of disrepair, then it should not be built in the first place.

I think eu should pay for their roads to be repaired, they are so poor:(

I think eu should pay for their roads to be repaired, they are so poor:(

European roads seem to be a lot better maintained than American roads. Particularly the German autobahnen (is that the correct plural?).

In any case, this topic is just American highways...

I don't know that we couldn't afford our current highway system if we actually wanted to, but putting that aside, we should not build highways that we can't afford to keep up. We must reject the idea of always having a backlog of terrible highways that need to be repaired but will not be for years and years to come. If a proposed freeway can't be supported once it BEGINS to get into a state of disrepair, then it should not be built in the first place.

Unfortunately the Highway Act (not the proper name) of 1956 created a ton of highways we can't afford to repair without considerably sums of money, which only come from taxes. In some respects, the federal government is responsible.

What I also find shocking is the idea that we're the "highway culture" country- you know "the Great American Roadtrip" and all of that- so we accept that Europe's mass transit is much better than ours...fine...but then their HIGHWAYS are better too?
I mean, come on!
We, as a country, need to figure out how we're going to improve our infrastructure before we get so far behind we REALLY can't afford to make improvements- because with every single truck or car on the roads and bridges right now, it's getting a little bit worse...

I think the U.S. has more than enough money to maintain our highways in pristine condition but we keep sending a shitload of money overseas or for other useless causes. I'm not sure what's going on in Washington but something needs to be done to eliminate all this traffic around the country. With all the money we've used to fight wars we could have build an infrastructure than could handle all our cars and eliminate rush-hour traffic and keep the highways smooth.

I live in Texas but the worst roads I've ever been on were on Interstate 10 in southern Louisiana and on Interstate 95 from New York City to Connecticut. Very bad especially for a world class city like New York.

^^

I think all Interstates throughout the country should have an express lane that "bypasses" the city in order to reduce traffic through the central core of our cities. I can imagine driving into say Atlanta on Interstate 75 and seeing a sign that says "South (75) Express Lanes, Macon, NO EXITS NEXT 25 MILES."

I think the U.S. has more than enough money to maintain our highways in pristine condition but we keep sending a shitload of money overseas or for other useless causes. I'm not sure what's going on in Washington but something needs to be done to eliminate all this traffic around the country. With all the money we've used to fight wars we could have build an infrastructure than could handle all our cars and eliminate rush-hour traffic and keep the highways smooth.

Money management seems to be one thing that escapes nearly every large bureaucracy in this country. Maybe that's the nature of bureaucracies, but it still needs to be fixed.

What I also find shocking is the idea that we're the "highway culture" country- you know "the Great American Roadtrip" and all of that- so we accept that Europe's mass transit is much better than ours...fine...but then their HIGHWAYS are better too?
I mean, come on!
We, as a country, need to figure out how we're going to improve our infrastructure before we get so far behind we REALLY can't afford to make improvements- because with every single truck or car on the roads and bridges right now, it's getting a little bit worse...

You're absolutely right, Billpa. The livability and economic competitiveness of our country suffers greatly from deteriorating infrastructure.

European roads seem to be a lot better maintained than American roads. Particularly the German autobahnen (is that the correct plural?).

I don't know what the American picture is of Motorways in Europe, but the German autobahnen are by far not the best.

Now let's get back to the originel subject: most income from the government concerning roads, is not road tax, but fuel tax. Here in Europe, fuel taxes are high. Not rarely over 2/3rd of the total gas price. Since gas prices in the US seems to be low, compared to Europe, they will have lesser income.

Another option is that there is actually enough income to maintain roads, but the government spends the money otherwise (military, public services, education etc). In The Netherlands, the income is actually 8 times higher than they spend on roads.

Another option is that there is actually enough income to maintain roads, but the government spends the money otherwise (military, public services, education etc). In The Netherlands, the income is actually 8 times higher than they spend on roads.

I think i found the answer!
They simply dont have enough materials to maintain the huge road network(concrete etc), so they are spending money for military equipment to get the materials from other countries (iraq etc).

I think the roads were also in disrepair before 9/11.

Could you give me a example of what inter-state highways are in bad shape?

They are mentioned in threads. I'm not an American, but what i've seen and hear at least the I-10, I-80 and I-95.

But what i've seen from pics, US Interstates rarely have some smooth road paving as seen in Europe.

They are mentioned in threads. I'm not an American, but what i've seen and hear at least the I-10, I-80 and I-95.

But what i've seen from pics, US Interstates rarely have some smooth road paving as seen in Europe.

as long as its not cause damage to the axles. I honestly think it would be better to invest sewage treatment plants and laying more fiber than building roads.

Are most US highway not mostly made of concrete (as opposed to asphalt). I know when I was driving to Seattle, I was going crazy from the road noise generated by the concrete. You can never have a smooth ride on a concrete highway, as the way they are made requires them to be made in sections with gaps between them.

Could you give me a example of what inter-state highways are in bad shape?

In addition to what's been said. I-5 in the Seattle area in particular has 40 year old concrete that is well-past it's lifetime expectancy an is falling apart. I don't know about any other areas personally, but I hear about it all the time.

Most income from the government concerning roads, is not road tax, but fuel tax. Here in Europe, fuel taxes are high. Not rarely over 2/3rd of the total gas price. Since gas prices in the US seems to be low, compared to Europe, they will have lesser income.

Indeed. The U.S. has one of the lowest gas-taxes in the world (though certain states charge much more than others and there is a federal tax in addition to a state tax). I'm sure European countries use much of that tax to maintain their roads. In this country, however, raising the gas tax is not a politically viable solution due to our "love affair" with the car, but more specifically, the nature of our built environment. The sprawling cities in the US necessitates heavy car usage in order to get to needed locations such as home, work, school, the store, etc. We won't pay for increased gas-taxes because it would hinder our ability to function economically and socially in our urban environments. So, one might say our sprawl problem has hit us up on both ends of the stick: It degrades our highway infrastructure and puts a political roadblock to raising gas taxes to pay for it.

And yes, as a whole, American society seems to be rather short-sighted in this area.

You know, Jaxom, I didn't even know this thread existed when I made that highway 'useful life/replacement' comment over in the Seattle LR thread. :lol:

Nate

You know, Jaxom, I didn't even know this thread existed when I made that highway 'useful life/replacement' comment over in the Seattle LR thread. :lol:

Nate

I don't know if this thread existed when you made that comment either. I just started it last night. Hehe.

I just made it, about, 20 minutes ago!

Nate

Incidentally, the one place the HOV lanes won't quite be continuous is in Seattle itself due to physical space constraints and the enormous cost of finding more space (probably only a tunnel could do that, and those that have been following the viaduct debate can attest to the political circus that issue is).

Could you give me a example of what inter-state highways are in bad shape?
Sure. This is I-80 near O'Donner Pass.

http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad1.jpg

And some zooming for you.
http://mikul.net/images/i80/bad2.jpg

Does it qualify as a bad road? Absolutely. Trust me, you can damage your axle over there.