I doubt it, in Europe the most aggressive driving style can be seen in the cities least built for the car (Rome, Palermo, Athens, Napels, etc.), while the tamest driving styles can be found in cities built for road traffic (Copenhagen, Berlin, Stockholm, etc.)
Same's true of Manhattan. By US standards it's pretty crazy how they drive. Part of it MIGHT also have to do with a lot of cabs in Manhattan. A lot of cabbies being Pakis, aggressive driving, breaking traffic laws and honking is in their blood. I wouldn't be surprised if they at least played a part in shaping Manhattan's driving culture.

There's a piece of I-70 - from the current 55/64/70 interchange just south of the arch to the junction with the new segment - that will need a new number. Do we know what that number will be?

Looks like it'll be I-44
http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/NMRBRe-Evaluation%203.pdf

I doubt it, in Europe the most aggressive driving style can be seen in the cities least built for the car (Rome, Palermo, Athens, Napels, etc.), while the tamest driving styles can be found in cities built for road traffic (Copenhagen, Berlin, Stockholm, etc.)

True, but there are two different styles of aggressive driving. One is big city, urban, crowded as you describe. The other is wide-open metro areas where speed and aggression manifest themselves in other ways. Aggressive driving in not limited to urban jungles...it exists when there is a lot of concrete and where there are many who need to go many miles quickly.

it exists when there is a lot of concrete and where there are many who need to go many miles quickly.

You can see this in Poland and Romania, which lack freeway mileage. People drive reckless on national roads because they have to cover a lot of miles and there are no decent roads available (a.k.a. freeways).

^^Exactly, I drive this way because for my county of million people there are barely any highways at all. During the day it can easily take 30 minutes to drive 10 miles if not longer sometimes. If you stay in the same lane you are destined to run into some idiot going significantly under the speed limit, not paying attention, turning without signal, etc. Not to mention the lights are timed so that doing the speed limit there is no way you can make it to the next light on green. Poor roads=Poor driving.

^^Exactly, I drive this way because for my county of million people there are barely any highways at all. During the day it can easily take 30 minutes to drive 10 miles if not longer sometimes. If you stay in the same lane you are destined to run into some idiot going significantly under the speed limit, not paying attention, turning without signal, etc. Not to mention the lights are timed so that doing the speed limit there is no way you can make it to the next light on green. Poor roads=Poor driving.

Agreed.

The major issue when Interstate 275 came to town 30+ years ago: The route took it through St. Petersburg and southern Pinellas County. While Clearwater and northern Pinellas County was being developed into what we know today, it did not get interstate highway service yet the planners did not know that northern Pinellas County would be developed.

Today northern Pinellas County is getting some kind of interstate highway service in one form: The conversion of US 19 from 49 St N in Pinellas Park to FL 580 in Clearwater from what used to be a four (and later six) lane highway to an interstate style highway with interchanges and frontage roads. Also, we can't forget the Bayside Bridge (opened in 1993) which helped ease congestion in traveling between St. Petersburg and Clearwater.

I am still puzzled to this day why Clearwater and northern Pinellas County did not get any interstate highway service to begin with, while St. Petersburg and southern Pinellas County got Interstate 275 and its two spurs - Interstates 375 and 175 - into downtown St. Petersburg. Perhaps US 19 could be fully converted to interstate standards in northern Pinellas County and a connection be built to Interstate 275 and be designated as a possible Interstate 575 as it would be multiplexed with US 19 for the most part. (Besides, US 19 is multiplexed with Interstate 275 as it crosses the Sunshine Skyway Bridge).

You are right: Trying to go from one end of Pinellas County to another (such as St. Petersburg to Clearwater) can be a challenge, especially in the middle of the day as well as the morning and evening commute. Not only I have seen people driving way too slow and no use of signals when turning or changing lanes, I have also seen way too many people who think using their cell phone is more important than safe driving.

yeaaaaaah guys you're right it's the road's fault ; i'm so crazy about the poor road conditions that i drink and then drive under the influence ; i killed several people but it's THE ROAD FAULT not mine ; c'mon : individual responsability of my behaviour? no way ; it's the road fault. I'm forced to behave that way

The other day i was driving at 95 mph in a 65 mph road and i rear ended a fool doing the speed limit : it's his fault, stupid driver doing the speed limit!!!!

Agreed.

The major issue when Interstate 275 came to town 30+ years ago: The route took it through St. Petersburg and southern Pinellas County. While Clearwater and northern Pinellas County was being developed into what we know today, it did not get interstate highway service yet the planners did not know that northern Pinellas County would be developed.

Today northern Pinellas County is getting some kind of interstate highway service in one form: The conversion of US 19 from 49 St N in Pinellas Park to FL 580 in Clearwater from what used to be a four (and later six) lane highway to an interstate style highway with interchanges and frontage roads. Also, we can't forget the Bayside Bridge (opened in 1993) which helped ease congestion in traveling between St. Petersburg and Clearwater.

I am still puzzled to this day why Clearwater and northern Pinellas County did not get any interstate highway service to begin with, while St. Petersburg and southern Pinellas County got Interstate 275 and its two spurs - Interstates 375 and 175 - into downtown St. Petersburg. Perhaps US 19 could be fully converted to interstate standards in northern Pinellas County and a connection be built to Interstate 275 and be designated as a possible Interstate 575 as it would be multiplexed with US 19 for the most part. (Besides, US 19 is multiplexed with Interstate 275 as it crosses the Sunshine Skyway Bridge).

You are right: Trying to go from one end of Pinellas County to another (such as St. Petersburg to Clearwater) can be a challenge, especially in the middle of the day as well as the morning and evening commute. Not only I have seen people driving way too slow and no use of signals when turning or changing lanes, I have also seen way too many people who think using their cell phone is more important than safe driving.
US19 is being converted since for many years it was a hacked up motorway from Pinellas Park to Countryside, right now its under construction soon to be a motorway from Pinellas Park to Countryside, even then you still have anything North of there will be a mess. The Bayside Bridge is nice but once you get off either end you get stuck in traffic since Mcmullen Booth, a cancelled motorway is now a heavily used road with poor light timing gets clogged. There were a bunch of proposed freeways for the area most were cancelled due to opposition or funding, you can still see parts like the overpass at Mcmullen Booth and SR60 where something got built but later cancelled.

yeaaaaaah guys you're right it's the road's fault ; i'm so crazy about the poor road conditions that i drink and then drive under the influence ; i killed several people but it's THE ROAD FAULT not mine ; c'mon : individual responsability of my behaviour? no way ; it's the road fault. I'm forced to behave that way

The other day i was driving at 95 mph in a 65 mph road and i rear ended a fool doing the speed limit : it's his fault, stupid driver doing the speed limit!!!!
It's a fact that poor road conditions cause poor driving. People will get impatient very easily causing aggressive driving or some people will don't know how to drive in these conditions. It's rare to see poor driving in the country where there aren't many people or on a proper road with good traffic flow.

Love that StL project!

US19 is being converted since for many years it was a hacked up motorway from Pinellas Park to Countryside, right now its under construction soon to be a motorway from Pinellas Park to Countryside, even then you still have anything North of there will be a mess. The Bayside Bridge is nice but once you get off either end you get stuck in traffic since Mcmullen Booth, a cancelled motorway is now a heavily used road with poor light timing gets clogged. There were a bunch of proposed freeways for the area most were cancelled due to opposition or funding, you can still see parts like the overpass at Mcmullen Booth and SR60 where something got built but later cancelled.
I'd love to see a map of those 'never-builts' in the Tampa Bay area. I am familiar with some of those 'ghost' ends, but am unsure of where they would have gone.

Mike

I doubt it, in Europe the most aggressive driving style can be seen in the cities least built for the car (Rome, Palermo, Athens, Napels, etc.), while the tamest driving styles can be found in cities built for road traffic (Copenhagen, Berlin, Stockholm, etc.)

regarding Copenhagen and Stockholm.

Copenhagen has wide straight streets and avenues especially HC Andersen Blvd, the city is easy to drive in, but the drivers are more hotblooded than the ones in Stockholm, the pace in Cph is higher too.

Stockholm on the other hand is a more complicated city for driving, the innercity streets are narrower, large number of oneway streets, speedbumps, the old town is closed to motor-traffic, roadtolls (no such in Cph ??)

But despite this difficulties, the driving is rather lame.

I think it depends on the national-temper that is the blood of the drivers, not the city it self.

Go HD, go full-screen, and enjoy.

hrSGw7Mosic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrSGw7Mosic

They need some sort of monument to announce the entrance into the Central Valley. Seriously...one second in you're in the mountains and then you turn a corner and it's the Promised Land as far as the eye can see!

Well, instead of a monument they definitly need more enforcement : where the hell is the highway patrol? This seem to be a festival of waving, following too close, no turn signals :bash: california : the promise land for highway safety?

Well, certainly the fact that the fourth lane is closed during the most treacherous stretch of the downhill slope doesn't help. I think there should be at least two truck lanes...maybe they could even grade-separate the truck lanes.

Well, instead of a monument they definitly need more enforcement : where the hell is the highway patrol? This seem to be a festival of waving, following too close, no turn signals :bash: california : the promise land for highway safety?

I drove the pass in 2008 heading south to LA. Driving there is crazy. Downhill most people go well over the limit something like 80-90mph.
In general I think US speed limits are ludicrously low and strangely many people still obey them Here, where limit actually makes a lot of sense, everyone ignores it. It's probably due to being close to LA, where people drive fast and furious. Almost like Europeans ;)

Gridlock in Atlanta...courtesy of Google. ;)

http://i53.************/dddmyp.jpg

That's hardly a gridlock, but just a traffic jam.

Gravedig!

http://www.i85extension.com/index.htm
(http://www.i85extension.com/index.htm)

The I-85 extension to I-20 near Cuba (MS/AL state line) has been approved by AASHTO last month. They're currently working on the final EIS.

This project irritates the piss out of me. It's impossible for me to imagine that duplicating an existing 2x2 highway in this rather lightly travelled corridor is significantly preferable to simply constructing controlled access bypasses of Selma, Demopolis and maybe Uniontown/Faunsdale and throwing in a few superstreet-type crossings at any sites where safety is a problem. Use the money saved for similarly improving other corridors in the state, such as US 280, US 431, US 231 and US 72. That approach has worked well in Virginia.

I also like the idea of doing a new terrain freeway from Selma to I-65 at Prattville, FWIW.

That's hardly a gridlock, but just a traffic jam.

Either way, I wouldn't want to be in that. :D

Pretty much of all of the new Google coverage of I-75/85 in Downtown Atlanta is in a jam.

Looks like a computer chip or something

This nighttime pic of Chicago also illustrates the different street lighting in Chicago versus some of it's suburbs. If you go look west (left) of downtown Chicago, you will see a darker rectangle. This is Oak Park, which is just as densely populated as neighboring parts of Chicago, but has less bright street lights. Now look to the south of Oak Park, and you will see another rectangle, which is Berwyn, which also has less intense street lighting.

this is one of the photos that I could never forget
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l2ahdwEauy1qzb7gjo1_500.jpg

Where did you find this picture? Is any higher resolution available?

It takes less than ten seconds to Google "Chicago night grid" in large size (search options on the left pane).

http://www.google.fr/images?q=chicago%20night%20grid&rlz=1I7GGLD_fr&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=fr&tab=wi#q=chicago+night+grid&um=1&hl=fr&rlz=1I7GGLD_fr&tbs=isch:1,isz:l&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=260QTf6OFsmfOv2L_eUI&ved=0CAcQpwU

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/343703624_c07e6bbe04_o.jpg

Amazing video of the I-95 / I-495 southeastern part of the Washington Beltway.

f0bmQ8H8HQk

Video works great at full-screen!

These videos have really good songs! :)

Amazing video of the I-95 / I-495 southeastern part of the Washington Beltway.
Video works great at full-screen!
What I find strange is that although speed limit is 55 and 65 (i.e. normal in US but slow for Europe) a lot of cars drive slower than the one with the camera. So either he drives too fast or so many people think even 55/65 is too fast.

What I find strange is that although speed limit is 55 and 65 (i.e. normal in US but slow for Europe) a lot of cars drive slower than the one with the camera. So either he drives too fast or so many people think even 55/65 is too fast.

Well, I don't know why people say that speed limits are slow in the US compared with EU ones. Where the hell do you find in Europe rural 2X1 roads without any interchanges but at grade intersections with 70 or 75 mph speed limits? Nowhere whereas in western US states you can find that high speed limits. Everywhere in Europe 2x1 rural roads have 55 mph speed limits.

Besides people focus on the expressways. Well in urban areas in Europe, speed limits on the expressways are more or less at the same level that those on US urban freeways! Example Paris metro area : between the Paris 1rst ring road (péripherique) and the 2dn ring road speed limit on the freeways is 90 km/h=55 mph! between the 2nd ring road and the 3rd speed limit is 110 km/h=68 mph!

To finish with I'd say that, especially in western european countries, we do have enforcement of the speed limits whereas in the US enforcement is a mere joke, everybody speeds! Come on guys look at the highway safety statistics of western european countries and compare with the US ones you will find that the image of the US as a country where people drive safely is a mere myth! With speed cameras forbidden mostly evreywhere, sobriety checkpoints forbidden, no seat belt laws for passengers on the rear, or even no helmet laws for motorcycles on some states, what do you expect?

What I find strange is that although speed limit is 55 and 65 (i.e. normal in US but slow for Europe) a lot of cars drive slower than the one with the camera. So either he drives too fast or so many people think even 55/65 is too fast.

I think the people who make these videos are more involved in traffic issues in general and probably think limits are too low. So, I think they're driving faster than the limit, but not reckless.

Besides people focus on the expressways. Well in urban areas in Europe, speed limits on the expressways are more or less at the same level that those on US urban freeways! Example Paris metro area : between the Paris 1rst ring road (péripherique) and the 2dn ring road speed limit on the freeways is 90 km/h=55 mph! between the 2nd ring road and the 3rd speed limit is 110 km/h=68 mph!

On the other hand, speed limits in suburban areas of the US are still around 60 - 65 mph, while they are often 75 or 80 mph in Germany. Downtown speed limits are more or less the same in Europe and the US. The Amsterdam Ring Road is generally limited to 60 mph, but 50 mph in some sections. But the A2 or A3 through the Ruhr area are mostly limited to 80 mph.

Well, I don't know why people say that speed limits are slow in the US compared with EU ones. Where the hell do you find in Europe rural 2X1 roads without any interchanges but at grade intersections with 70 or 75 mph speed limits? Nowhere whereas in western US states you can find that high speed limits. Everywhere in Europe 2x1 rural roads have 55 mph speed limits.

Besides people focus on the expressways. Well in urban areas in Europe, speed limits on the expressways are more or less at the same level that those on US urban freeways! Example Paris metro area : between the Paris 1rst ring road (péripherique) and the 2dn ring road speed limit on the freeways is 90 km/h=55 mph! between the 2nd ring road and the 3rd speed limit is 110 km/h=68 mph!

To finish with I'd say that, especially in western european countries, we do have enforcement of the speed limits whereas in the US enforcement is a mere joke, everybody speeds! Come on guys look at the highway safety statistics of western european countries and compare with the US ones you will find that the image of the US as a country where people drive safely is a mere myth! With speed cameras forbidden mostly evreywhere, sobriety checkpoints forbidden, no seat belt laws for passengers on the rear, or even no helmet laws for motorcycles on some states, what do you expect?

Lower speed limits in urban areas in US and in Europe make perfect sense. Also lower limits on most of 2X1 highways are perfectly justified.
One thing I dont's understand are low limits on US rural freeways.
Why only 70 or 75 mph in states like Iowa, Nebraska or Kansas with its dead straight interstates? I just don't get it. There could be easily 80 or 90mph limit or even no limit at all like on German motorways. I did drive in these states and I don't see any problems with its freeways, they are not worse than overrated German ones.

^^ The 75 limits aren't the worst, how about all the 65 - 70 mph limits on rural freeways along the Eastern Seaboard or even Illinois or Wisconsin?

how about all the 65 - 70 mph limits on rural freeways along the Eastern Seaboard or even Illinois or Wisconsin?

65mph on rural freeways, it is a total joke

There are a few interstates in CT in rural areas at 55...now that makes me mad. :mad:

Amazing video of the I-95 / I-495 southeastern part of the Washington Beltway.

f0bmQ8H8HQk

Video works great at full-screen!

Drove on it a few days ago. Great bypass road, 3-4 lanes and great quality pavement.

Speed limit is 55 mph almost everywhere around D.C., but everybody drives 70 or more.

Speed limit's in the US are a joke, almost all the roads have limits that are too low and most people simply ignore them so police easily earn money for the state writing tickets in speed traps.

There are a few interstates in CT in rural areas at 55...now that makes me mad. :mad:

You know and I know that no one fellows that....its more like 70mph....in Rural areas....in Rural areas in the Virgina my cousins hit the gas and push 100mph.

Cops sometimes are hiding in the woods so you have to be careful, especially at night. I try to stay below 65.

Low speed limits are an artifact of the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s, when a national 55 MPH speed limit was instituted in order to save fuel. This limit was repealed in (I think) the mid-1990s and speed limits have been rising since then.

I do prefer higher limits: I think they are actually safer than low speed limits, as driving at 55 MPH on a road designed for traffic at 70 MPH is just boring, so drivers will be more likely to pay less attention to the road than if they had been driving faster, and are more likely to crash. The argument in favor of lower speed limits in order to save fuel is a valid and good point, but cars are much more efficient now than they were in the 1970s, so it's less of a problem now.

55 MPH speed limits are most common now on urban highways where there's simply too much traffic for anything higher to be safe, and we're not yet to the point where we have higher speed limits at different times of day with lower traffic.

As far as speed traps go, I'd strongly suggest to always drive 2 MPH below the speed limit in the entire town of Falls Church, Virginia. There's pretty much no place in town with a speed limit higher than 25, and still the police are ridiculously strict in speed enforcement. There are places in numerous cities where people are likely to drive too fast, like at the bottom of a 30 MPH hill with lots of pedestrians, so the police will frequently sit there with a radar gun and wait for the poor fool driving at 31 MPH.

What about during night or between rush hours? 55 mph is still too low, and its common for people to travel 60 and above.

55 MPH speed limits are most common now on urban highways where there's simply too much traffic for anything higher to be safe, and we're not yet to the point where we have higher speed limits at different times of day with lower traffic.

As far as speed traps go, I'd strongly suggest to always drive 2 MPH below the speed limit in the entire town of Falls Church, Virginia. There's pretty much no place in town with a speed limit higher than 25, and still the police are ridiculously strict in speed enforcement. There are places in numerous cities where people are likely to drive too fast, like at the bottom of a 30 MPH hill with lots of pedestrians, so the police will frequently sit there with a radar gun and wait for the poor fool driving at 31 MPH.


I always drive 4 mph above speed limit in city and never had any problems.

Is it really that strict at Falls Church? I actually visited my friends there last week and drove through the town, but didn't see anything different from other towns.

I always drive 4 mph above speed limit in city and never had any problems.

Is it really that strict at Falls Church? I actually visited my friends there last week and drove through the town, but didn't see anything different from other towns.

I've not been there but about 3 times, without seeing a police car once, but I've heard they make a substantial effort to make as much money from speeding tickets as possible.

What about during night or between rush hours? 55 mph is still too low, and its common for people to travel 60 and above.

Like I say, we're not yet to the point where we have different speed limits at different times of the day.

Speed limit's in the US are a joke, almost all the roads have limits that are too low and most people simply ignore them so police easily earn money for the state writing tickets in speed traps.

Traffic police have mostly become just fundraisers for states. It's atrocious.

Like I say, we're not yet to the point where we have different speed limits at different times of the day.

Doesn't Texas have night speed limits?

Doesn't Texas have night speed limits?

I think they do have different limits. I drove I-10 from Louisiana to New Mexico and I think there were signs with these double limits, at least west of San Antonio. But I could be wrong as it was over 10 years ago.

I think they do have different limits. I drove I-10 from Louisiana to New Mexico and I think there were signs with these double limits, at least west of San Antonio. But I could be wrong as it was over 10 years ago.

Texas has a blanket 65mph speed limit at night, which is really annoying. It wouldn't be so bad if they raised it to 70 (and TxDOT has the power to do so).

The only roads that break this limit are some of the tollways operated by NTTA in the Dallas-Ft Worth area. The Bush Turnpike and Rayburn Tollway are both 70 for most of their distances with no lower night limit.

Texas has a blanket 65mph speed limit at night, which is really annoying. It wouldn't be so bad if they raised it to 70 (and TxDOT has the power to do so).

The only roads that break this limit are some of the tollways operated by NTTA in the Dallas-Ft Worth area. The Bush Turnpike and Rayburn Tollway are both 70 for most of their distances with no lower night limit.

What would be so bad about a realistic speed limit say 75 or 80? I mean, most drivers do it anyway, and don't the few that follow the low speed limit pose a threat to safety?

I think 80 mph would be much more realistic than now.

The current standards have nothing to do with safety, but to make money. State police need to fill those quotas before the month's over you know.

What I find strange is that although speed limit is 55 and 65 (i.e. normal in US but slow for Europe) a lot of cars drive slower than the one with the camera. So either he drives too fast or so many people think even 55/65 is too fast.

Maybe I could provide some insight to this...

I'm actually the person who made the video that Chris linked to (btw, thank you for the exposure!). At some points I was going over the limit because some people were hogging the left lanes by driving under the posted speed limit, and I have a limited amount of HD recording time (I use a Canon 7D, for anyone who knows the story with those...). At no point in the video did I go above 80 mph. When I speed up the videos, it sometimes give viewers (and myself) the illusion that I was going faster than I actually was. However, anywhere between 70 and 80 is my typical cruising speed if there isn't any congestion. I agree that the speed limits should be raised as I notice many people regularly going 80 and above when they think no one is looking. :) Hope this helped!

If any of you are interested, here is a link to my newest video of I-395 into DC:

Ff7LPjQYhUg

Nice vid. What software do you use to make those vids?

Very nice videos, cosmoboy!

Out of curiosity, how did you mount your 7D on the dashboard?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/5182787464_d514cc02d7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5182787464/)
D5284_CM-96 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5182787464/) by MoDOT Photos (http://www.flickr.com/people/modot/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/5182787464_d514cc02d7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5182787464/)
D5284_CM-96 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5182787464/) by MoDOT Photos (http://www.flickr.com/people/modot/), on Flickr

Very unusual looking interchange!

On the cross street going under the highway traffic shifts to the left side of the road in order to accommodate left turning traffic transitioning from the cross street to the highway in the opposite direction, as opposed to traffic having to cross opposing traffic on the cross street in order to enter the highway (and the installed traffic signals with left turn protection). This may sound like a great interchange design idea but it may be a little confusing.

Will this design and construction of future interstate highway interchanges eventually spread across the rest of the country from Missouri? I think the Missouri DOT did a great job in designing this interchange for safety reasons but I am not sure if the Florida DOT will incorporate a Missouri-style design when future interstate highway interchanges are reconstructed. After all, the Florida DOT recently reconstructed the interchange north of Tampa on Interstate 75 at Exit 279 (FL 54/CR 54) which widened the cross road (FL 54) and added a third lane on Interstate 75 in each direction for eventual widening from the Interstate 75/275 interchange (Exit 274) to the Florida Turnpike near Wildwood (Exit 320).

What's up with the two arrows inside (between) the solid yellow lines at the bottom of the picture? It kind of looks like there are dashed lines on both sides inside the solid ones, but you have to cross the solid line to get in there in the first place..
That is a shared center left-turn lane. Those are fairly common in the USA, especially on major streets with lots of closely and/or unevenly-spaced commercial driveways.

Mike

I've seen those on other US 2+2 roads, and thinking about it they look exactly the same.. I don't know why I thought this was different, maybe because it looks a little out of place right next to that concrete island..
Well, after all, they do have to start and end them somewhere....

:yes:

Mike

Nice video. Thanks.

In terms of speed limits they definitely should be raised to at least 70-75 mph (on interstate highways) because my normal speed on interstates is always 9 mph above speed limit (usually 74 mph in a 65 mph speed limit zone). And it seems like police understand that and don't care as long as you are not going 10 mph over. A few days ago I passed sheriff's car at 74 mph and kept driving (when everyone else slowed down) and he didn't care.

I've seen those on other US 2+2 roads, and thinking about it they look exactly the same.. I don't know why I thought this was different, maybe because it looks a little out of place right next to that concrete island..
They're on 1x1 roads here, too.

I have to agree--these new Missouri diamond interchanges are a great new innovation in terms of traffic safety, but in more urban areas with higher pedestrian counts I wonder about the multi-modality... still, for most areas, a very minor scruple.

They have them in the UK too, and they look like this

------------------------
///////////////////////////
------------------------

They have them in the UK too, and they look like this

------------------------
///////////////////////////
------------------------

That sort of marking in the US would indicate that you're not supposed to drive there, with the diagonal stripes indicating which side you're supposed to stay on, meaning always the right side, so they'd be going the opposite direction on a two-way road:

___________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

but in a V shape on a one-way road:
________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

with no empty space between the solid lines and the diagonal stripes.

double post

Nice vid. What software do you use to make those vids?

Danielk2, I use Apple's Final Cut Pro software. That is one of the best software investments I've ever made. :)

Snowman159, thank you! I actually set up my tripod on the passenger side floorboard and put down an all black t-shirt on the dashboard to reduce the glare and visibility issues. These last couple of DC videos didn't turn out so hot quality wise as there was a lot of salt and brine still on the highway.

They have them in the UK too, and they look like this

------------------------
///////////////////////////
------------------------
That sort of marking in the US would indicate that you're not supposed to drive there, with the diagonal stripes indicating which side you're supposed to stay on, meaning always the right side, so they'd be going the opposite direction on a two-way road: <snip>
with no empty space between the solid lines and the diagonal stripes.
Note the broken lines on Daniel's ASCII art - we have solid hatched areas, including with V shapes on one-way roads and you 'MUST NOT' (illegal if you do) cross solid hatching other than to avoid a collision or something. Broken lines are just plain old 'should not' - which means that you can, but we'd rather you didn't.

However, they aren't turn lanes - turning where there's a hatched area in the middle of the road is done like this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.914594,-1.347016&spn=0,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.914596,-1.346849&panoid=NYMWEJJopCZFWY_tTFqsKQ&cbp=12,263.98,,0,14.85) - the hatched area sort of ends and becomes a right-turn lane.

Hatched areas in the middle of roads in the UK are not the same as shared centre left turn lanes in the US - there are similarities, but they are rather different things.

Cool 1954 film by GM to promote building the Interstate system. Part 2 has some pre-Interstate freeway footage from the BQE and Gowanus in New York, The Loge and I-94 in Detroit, the NJ Turnpike. It also has footage from Chicago, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh


ukJEKy0938E


YaLTzCafXYk

Note the broken lines on Daniel's ASCII art - we have solid hatched areas, including with V shapes on one-way roads and you 'MUST NOT' (illegal if you do) cross solid hatching other than to avoid a collision or something. Broken lines are just plain old 'should not' - which means that you can, but we'd rather you didn't.

However, they aren't turn lanes - turning where there's a hatched area in the middle of the road is done like this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.914594,-1.347016&spn=0,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.914596,-1.346849&panoid=NYMWEJJopCZFWY_tTFqsKQ&cbp=12,263.98,,0,14.85) - the hatched area sort of ends and becomes a right-turn lane.

Hatched areas in the middle of roads in the UK are not the same as shared centre left turn lanes in the US - there are similarities, but they are rather different things.

In the States what we're taught is this:
- Double solid line may not be crossed.
- Single solid line should not be crossed (only to pull over a disabled vehicle, or if you're waiting at an intersection and you're ABSOLUTELY SURE it's safe to change lanes)
- Single dashed line may be crossed
- Double line with one solid and one dashed line may be crossed from the side with the dashed line, may not be crossed from the side with the solid line (Except with the center turn lane - in this case it's reversed. It would seem confusing at first - I think the Canadian system is better in this case since they keep true to that rule and use the dashed line on the outer edge with the solid line inside that)

Indeed here;

-------
////////
-------

is different too

______________
///////////////////
_____________

In the States what we're taught is this:
- Double solid line may not be crossed.
- Single solid line should not be crossed (only to pull over a disabled vehicle, or if you're waiting at an intersection and you're ABSOLUTELY SURE it's safe to change lanes)
- Single dashed line may be crossed
- Double line with one solid and one dashed line may be crossed from the side with the dashed line, may not be crossed from the side with the solid line (Except with the center turn lane - in this case it's reversed. It would seem confusing at first - I think the Canadian system is better in this case since they keep true to that rule and use the dashed line on the outer edge with the solid line inside that)
The problem with the latter is that that is also the line symbolism that means 'legal passing zone' and someone not paying full attention will use that center left turn lane to try to pass someone in the 'usual' manner, creating a serious hazard. There is a strong wariness in the USA regarding anything that might even slightly resemble the old 'suicide' shared passing lane - they were commonly used throughout the USA from the 1930s into the 1960s or early 1970s and MANY, MANY people died using them.

Mike

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

Found a nice map about general speed limits. Texas is quite a clusterfuck ranging between 65 and 80 mph.

I also remember going 80 in Utah last year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

Found a nice map about general speed limits. Texas is quite a clusterfuck ranging between 65 and 80 mph.

I also remember going 80 in Utah last year.

Hopefully Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon will go to 70 this year. I believe there's a push in all those state legislatures to raise the limit.

Hopefully Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon will go to 70 this year. I believe there's a push in all those state legislatures to raise the limit.

Forget 70 , we should make it 100 in rural areas across the country.

Forget 70 , we should make it 100 in rural areas across the country.

I'm being politically realistic here.

Found a nice map about general speed limits. Texas is quite a clusterfuck ranging between 65 and 80 mph.

I also remember going 80 in Utah last year.

TX is no diffrent than any other state if you were to break down max speed limits at country level you'd see lower speeds around see major cities


Hopefully Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon will go to 70 this year. I believe there's a push in all those state legislatures to raise the limit.

Ohio just raised the limit to 70 on the turnpike

I'm being politically realistic here.

True but its always nice to dream....

Just putting this out there, some of us (and increasingly more of us) are governed at certain speed limits in our commercial motor vehicles. My 18-wheeler is governed at 60 MPH throughout the majority of my company of 13,000 18-wheelers. A lot of other trucks are governed in the range of 60-70 MPH. So even though most of you want faster speed limits and think its PERFECTLY safe, a continued increase in someones speed will make it more unsafe because of a greater difference between your and my speed.

Just putting this out there, some of us (and increasingly more of us) are governed at certain speed limits in our commercial motor vehicles. My 18-wheeler is governed at 60 MPH throughout the majority of my company of 13,000 18-wheelers. A lot of other trucks are governed in the range of 60-70 MPH. So even though most of you want faster speed limits and think its PERFECTLY safe, a continued increase in someones speed will make it more unsafe because of a greater difference between your and my speed.
That's why you gotta be a self-owned driver. It's those company drivers that keep signing away their rights.

That's why you gotta be a self-owned driver. It's those company drivers that keep signing away their rights

I guess i should have mentioned this as well; either beginning in a few years or already has i don't remember, governors will be mandatory on all new tractors built at no more than 70 MPH, some are even trying to change that to 65MPH.

Sure you can say keep the old truck, but they won't last forever. Second, a lot of states have truck speed limits which are obviously lower than non-commercial traffic; Washington 60mph, Oregon 55, California 55, Montana, Indiana, Texas even has a truck speed limit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

Found a nice map about general speed limits. Texas is quite a clusterfuck ranging between 65 and 80 mph.

I also remember going 80 in Utah last year.

This map is a good example of one simple rule: The higher the density of population the lower the speed limit. As you can see North East (being the most populous part of the U.S.) has the lowest speed limits. It makes sense.

But I still think they should raise speed limits by at least 5 mph everywhere.

Forget 70 , we should make it 100 in rural areas across the country.

75 would be enough since everyone will go 10 miles over the limit anyways. I'd say that some interstate highways on certain parts should have unlimited speed since they are the same quality or even better than German autobahns. But make whole counties or even states 80mph is a bit too much. Not every road is suited for such speed and we have wayyyyy to many morons on the roads.

I guess i should have mentioned this as well; either beginning in a few years or already has i don't remember, governors will be mandatory on all new tractors built at no more than 70 MPH, some are even trying to change that to 65MPH.

Sure you can say keep the old truck, but they won't last forever. Second, a lot of states have truck speed limits which are obviously lower than non-commercial traffic; Washington 60mph, Oregon 55, California 55, Montana, Indiana, Texas even has a truck speed limit.
Well that's a damn shame then. I get that it's safety, and I suppose it's better then going completely Euro and banning Semis from the Interstates on Sundays, but still.

I guess i should have mentioned this as well; either beginning in a few years or already has i don't remember, governors will be mandatory on all new tractors built at no more than 70 MPH, some are even trying to change that to 65MPH.

Sure you can say keep the old truck, but they won't last forever. Second, a lot of states have truck speed limits which are obviously lower than non-commercial traffic; Washington 60mph, Oregon 55, California 55, Montana, Indiana, Texas even has a truck speed limit.

Texas' truck limit is 70, meaning you'll only see it separate on those extremely rural highway sections that are 75 or 80, so it's not a terribly big deal. But the truck limit in California, for instance, is ridiculous. I can understand those limits on steep grades like the Grapevine and Cajon Pass, but 15mph difference between trucks and passenger vehicles is generally not a good idea. That's why Illinois and Ohio did away with their separate truck limits last year.

What's the normal big-rig truck/lorry speed limit on the otherwise 'unlimited' sections of the German Autobahn system? ISTR that it is in the range of 80 or 100 km/h. OTOH, driving safety is maintained in that the 'slower vehicles keep right' rule is rigidly enforced and adhered to.

Mike

European trucks are generally limited (mechanically) to 50 or 55 mph, in some cases to 60 mph. As far as I know only Russian trucks are not governed.

75 would be enough since everyone will go 10 miles over the limit anyways. I'd say that some interstate highways on certain parts should have unlimited speed since they are the same quality or even better than German autobahns. But make whole counties or even states 80mph is a bit too much. Not every road is suited for such speed and we have wayyyyy to many morons on the roads.

Studies show people drive the speed their most comfortable with no matter the speed limit that why it recommended that speed be set to 85th percentile of free flowing traffic

This map is a good example of one simple rule: The higher the density of population the lower the speed limit. As you can see North East (being the most populous part of the U.S.) has the lowest speed limits. It makes sense.

But I still think they should raise speed limits by at least 5 mph everywhere.

Apart from Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii. :|

Holy CRAP! I-94 at Telegraph Road, Dearborn, MI:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2708327060_ce819a211d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjb4photos/2708327060/

Construction commenced this week to expand the I-635, the beltway around Dallas. The northern side will be widened with tolled HOV lanes, partially elevated and partially below grade. The freeway will be widened from 10 to as much as 16 lanes. The projected 2020 traffic volumes are 500.000 vehicles per day. The whole project cost $ 2.7 billion and is one of the largest project in the U.S.

http://www.newlbj.com/images/Project_Overview_101907.jpg

http://www.newlbj.com/images/MLSign_sm.jpg

It's a very impressive project.

YyhM6sWEOOc

So what is this gonna be? HOV or HOT lanes? Kinda confused here.

HOT lanes I think. In Texas they call them "managed lanes".

HOV doesn't work so now the popular thing in America is keeping them for carpooling but also making them express toll lanes.

HOV commuters make up 12% in Greater Los Angeles. Which means out of 10 lanes it is justified to have 1 HOV lane. Usually there are two.

New Jersey Turnpike

A very large widening project is the New Jersey Turnpike in the state of... New Jersey. It will be widened for approximately 35 miles, from I-276 near Philadelphia to East Brunswick, extending the local-express setup.

The section from Mansfield northward will be widened from 6 to 12 lanes for about 28 miles. Another 10 miles will be widened from 10 to 12 lanes, making the 12-lane section approximately 70 miles long.

The project started in 2009 and will be completed in 2014 at a cost of $ 2.7 billion. Most interchanges and all overpasses need to be rebuild.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6707/njtpk.png

The wide part of the New Jersey Turnpike is great, the speed limit was 65mph I think, nobody was following it, easily going 80+.

^^ This seems to me an extension of the project to build a 95-276 interchange on the Pennsylvania side and reroute 95 down the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania extension to the NJ TPK mainline.

As far as I know only Russian trucks are not governed.

Lithuanian ones too. They are the worst nightmare in Poland. 75 MPH isn't rare (limit: 50).

The wide part of the New Jersey Turnpike is great, the speed limit was 65mph I think, nobody was following it, easily going 80+.

yeah it's a great expressway, you can also drive 100+ completely drunk and hit highway workers since there is no enforcement

yeah, what a great freeway for idiots!! :bash:

It's a pretty low speed limit though

Nice cloverstack near St. Louis. Interchange between I-44 and I-270.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/5165026928_20a0d29954_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5165026928/)
D5292_CM-204 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot/5165026928/) by MoDOT Photos (http://www.flickr.com/people/modot/), on Flickr

Yes, that's indeed a great looking interchange. I love these interchanges surrounded by trees...:drool:

New Jersey Turnpike

A very large widening project is the New Jersey Turnpike in the state of... New Jersey. It will be widened for approximately 35 miles, from I-276 near Philadelphia to East Brunswick, extending the local-express setup.

The section from Mansfield northward will be widened from 6 to 12 lanes for about 28 miles. Another 10 miles will be widened from 10 to 12 lanes, making the 12-lane section approximately 70 miles long.

The project started in 2009 and will be completed in 2014 at a cost of $ 2.7 billion. Most interchanges and all overpasses need to be rebuild.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6707/njtpk.png

Its pretty outrageous that we still let this project go through but halted half of the Rail and Bridge Upgrade projects. And the Corrupted Turnpike Authority needs to shut down......enough of these every rising toll rates....There was alot of opposition to this and parkway widening.....and it still went through....dam corrupted state govt....:ohno:

Its pretty outrageous that we still let this project go through but halted half of the Rail and Bridge Upgrade projects. And the Corrupted Turnpike Authority needs to shut down......enough of these every rising toll rates....There was alot of opposition to this and parkway widening.....and it still went through....dam corrupted state govt....:ohno:

If it is congested, it need widening. Moreover, aren't Turnpike authorities semi-independent? I mean, can't they issue their own bonds, guaranteed and (later) paid by toll fees?

In a scenario of low gas/vehicle taxes like US, tolls are a good way to, in high-trafficked high-cost axes, charge the users for the costs of highways instead of the general population.

I guess the underlying issue is that while tolls are expected to recover part of the costs and, surely, pay for all maintenance costs of the highway once opened, most rail projects not only cannot repay capital initial investment (reasonable) but also they cannot recover maintenance and operating costs further down by tolls. Highways not always can recoup initial investments, but with tolls they can pretty much pay for their operations.

That is the reason they cancelled some transit project in US: even if there were money to build the systems, fares wouldn't recover their later costs once in operation.

If it is congested, it need widening. Moreover, aren't Turnpike authorities semi-independent? I mean, can't they issue their own bonds, guaranteed and (later) paid by toll fees?

In a scenario of low gas/vehicle taxes like US, tolls are a good way to, in high-trafficked high-cost axes, charge the users for the costs of highways instead of the general population.

I guess the underlying issue is that while tolls are expected to recover part of the costs and, surely, pay for all maintenance costs of the highway once opened, most rail projects not only cannot repay capital initial investment (reasonable) but also they cannot recover maintenance and operating costs further down by tolls. Highways not always can recoup initial investments, but with tolls they can pretty much pay for their operations.

That is the reason they cancelled some transit project in US: even if there were money to build the systems, fares wouldn't recover their later costs once in operation.

Not even close to that with the Transit Argument....its complex...NJ and PA haven't really straighted out there funding system for Transit and roads so its all over the place......As for The Turnpike Authority , they over pay there employees to much and the union and certain politicians have corrupted it.....dipping into revenue and jacking up the Toll rates....The Transit and Park / Recreational agencies have the least amount of corruption.... The Gas Tax is too low in this state too....which results in poor Urban highways and better Rural highways...and no politician wants to touch it so for Transit , Bridge and Tunnel projects they dip into the Toll $$$.....which has resulted in almost dried up Transportation trust fund....:ohno:

I-40 through downtown Oklahoma City is under construction getting a new, wider alignment to replace a 40+ year old viaduct



http://goo.gl/maps/CgVA



http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/custom/Crosstown/Crosstown_Map_1500.jpg

So I take it they would be eliminating the current I-40 alignment and rerouting it to follow the river and looks like...a couple of parks? Which begs the question, how is the new alignment going to fit in with these parks' characters? (Which itself probably begs the question of whether the Republicans people funding this project even care.)

Hammersklavier -

The new I-40 alignment is going to be along existing rail lines - click on the Google link in urbanlover's post and you can see the satellite image of the area. Not clear from the image but the area was probably long-abandoned rail classification yards. Putting it there rather than through the heart of the downtown area is probably an aesthetic improvement.

On second thought, I zoomed in a little more on the current alignment of I-40 - sprawling light industry, parking lots and vacant lots. So the city will have its work cut out for it, in terms of improving the aesthetics after the old freeway is gone.

However, I note that the new alignment has significantly less entry/exit ramps - slightly less convenient, but should substantially improve the safety and the flow of traffic.

^^
Is anyone going to be doing some video work on the old I-40 alignment before the new one opens?

Mike

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/pictures/comparison.jpg

If it is congested, it need widening.

#1 rule for roads is that they'll always be congested. the NJT could be expanded to an ungodly 24 lanes and it would still be congested. this project is an embarrassment to NJ.

#1 rule for roads is that they'll always be congested. the NJT could be expanded to an ungodly 24 lanes and it would still be congested. this project is an embarrassment to NJ.

It was originally 600 million , but now its 2 billion $$....and keeps getting more expensive.... I rather see the state invest in Smart highways then more highway widenings.....but at least we have a no new Highway policy...

#1 rule for roads is that they'll always be congested. the NJT could be expanded to an ungodly 24 lanes and it would still be congested. this project is an embarrassment to NJ.

What a nonsense. Where did they teach you this stuff?

Here is a satellite view of the area from 2002. It looks like the riverfront area involved was an open wasteland, probably the site of rail yards previously.

<a href="http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=6&lon=-97.53844288061204&lat=35.45853076373006&year=2002"><img src="http://www.netronline.com/phoenix/apps/img-server.php?op=fetchHistoricPhotograph&width=200&height=200&year=2002&bbox=-97.56022080061204,35.43675284373006,-97.51666496061203,35.48030868373006" alt="historic aerials"/></a>

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=6&lon=-97.53844288061204&lat=35.45853076373006&year=2002

This must be an unused alternative. The maps and text that I find all say it'll be ten lanes (presumably with auxilliary lanes between interchanges), not 3+2+2+3. I don't see how that would've worked, anyway, with the left-sideramps at the I-40/44/240 interchange.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/pictures/comparison.jpg

I dunno... as a pro-transit type, maybe this project should bother me, but it doesn't. I think Oklahoma City will be better off once it's done, and I don't see that any alternative would've been better.

I wish there were better maps, though. And if it were up to me, I'd leave the existing I-40 at-grade section as it is-- just do the "boulevard" where the viaduct is now.

Hey, I have an idea: number the old route/new boulevard as Business Route I-40 and name it "Green Forty Boulevard." :)

I-40/I-275/Chapman Highway Interchange, Knoxville, Tennessee


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5248966096_c3f9c82b83_b_d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vfr_photography/

I-44-I-235 interchange reconstruction, Oklahoma City (now I'm on an Oklahoma City kick :)):
http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/13757717_BG1.jpg

From http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-highway-projects-to-worsen-traffic-woes/article/3527488


It could be another decade before daily traffic gridlock at one of Oklahoma City's busiest highway interchanges gets any better.

A rebuilding project at the Interstate 235 and Interstate 44 interchange in north Oklahoma City that begins next year could potentially last up to 10 years because much of it remains unfunded, state Transportation Department officials said Tuesday.

“We're looking at ways of speeding that up,” state Transportation Department Director Gary Ridley said.

Either way, Oklahoma City metro-area commuters are sure to spend more time hung up in highway traffic in 2011 because of that project and another major highway project beginning next year.

In the second half of 2011, the Transportation Department will begin the first phase of the $150 million rebuild of the deteriorating I-235 and I-44 interchange.

Ridley said the project, which will require several phases, is a priority because traffic problems continue to worsen at the interchange.

Bidding for the $24.8 million first phase of the interchange rebuild will begin early next year, and construction should be under way in the summer, department spokeswoman Brenda Perry said.

OKC is one of the least congested metropolitan areas in the United States. Traffic volumes are not very high as well. I-235 tops out at 80,000 vehicles, I-44 at 120,000 vehicles.

However, there are a few outdated interchanges in the area, like the one in your post, which is currently a cloverleaf that doesn't even feature a C/D lane for I-235. The I-40/I-44 interchange west of downtown is also a pretty unusual configuration, which are usually called "malfunction junctions" (like the one in Birmingham, AL).

I dunno... as a pro-transit type, maybe this project should bother me, but it doesn't. I think Oklahoma City will be better off once it's done, and I don't see that any alternative would've been better.

Don't worry - you can be bothered by this just fine! All those rail lines they demolished were state-owned. As in, the only infrastructure requirement for regional rail would be upgrading the rails. No dealing with a private railroad for track usage rights, and no clearing of right-of-way in the center of the city. Now, all that is gone.

There's plenty for transit advocates to be frustrated about with this project.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area will grow from 6 to 9 million inhabitants in the next 20 years. To accomodate this incredible growth, large-scale projects are needed, but funding is scarce. Hence, they will rely on managed HOV lanes (a.k.a. HOT-lanes, toll lanes or CEO lanes).

In the DFW area, the number of lane miles will grow from 4,397 in 2007 to 8,569 lane miles in 2009. The toll share will grow from 11 to 30%.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5372555646_1957d130e1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/5372555646/)
DFW projects (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/5372555646/) by Chriszwolle (http://www.flickr.com/people/chriszwolle/), on Flickr

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area will grow from 6 to 9 million inhabitants in the next 20 years. To accomodate this incredible growth, large-scale projects are needed, but funding is scarce. Hence, they will rely on managed HOV lanes (a.k.a. HOT-lanes, toll lanes or CEO lanes).

In the DFW area, the number of lane miles will grow from 4,397 in 2007 to 8,569 lane miles in 2009. The toll share will grow from 11 to 30%.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5372555646_1957d130e1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/5372555646/)
DFW projects (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriszwolle/5372555646/) by Chriszwolle (http://www.flickr.com/people/chriszwolle/), on Flickr


I think by then DFW will have the largest system after LA
Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta will also have very large freeway system.

the Phoenix system is growing like crazy

Don't worry - you can be bothered by this just fine! All those rail lines they demolished were state-owned. As in, the only infrastructure requirement for regional rail would be upgrading the rails. No dealing with a private railroad for track usage rights, and no clearing of right-of-way in the center of the city. Now, all that is gone.

There's plenty for transit advocates to be frustrated about with this project.

IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.

I think by then DFW will have the largest system after LA

Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta will also have very large freeway system.

the Phoenix system is growing like crazy

I don't know about DFW being second, the NYC metropolitan expressway and parkway system is HUGE in terms of network miles, but not as much in lane-miles. Los Angeles is already one of the lowest on the list when comparing lane miles to population, so DFW will definitely be leading. DFW has also been growing faster than Houston in the past decade. However, nearly all DFW growth has been concentrated north of Dallas. This means some north-south and east-west freeways in that area are quite congested while other sections of the metropolitan area are relatively uncongested.

I don't think Atlanta will have a very large freeway system. Maybe in terms of lane-miles (Atlanta's freeways tend to be very wide), but the network is quite limited and the much-needed second beltway doesn't seem to gain ground yet.

IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.

I doubt thats true , our system carries 6 million ppl daily.....and the New Haven line carries 130,000+ daily along the I-95 corridor in CT. It keeps going up too...

... and the much-needed totally unnecessary second beltway doesn't seem to gain ground yet.

There- fixed that for ya. It never will gain ground, either-- it's dead.

Back in the late '90's the Atlanta Regional Commision did an in-depth study of building the Outer Loop or various segments of it. IIRC there were seven or eight alternatives. To make along story short, the study essentially found that the less of it we built, the better off we'd be.

Nonetheless, the project came back to life in the runup to the 2002 governor's election so as the Northern Arc from GA 316 to I-75 North. At that point I'd been an activist for enough years to get burned out (especially after the conservative Republicans I'd been working with fell off a cliff emotionally and politically after 9-11), but I still summoned the energy to work my butt off one more to help kill the Northern Arc. I really thought that right wingers wouldn't get it, that all most wanted was an uncongested playground for their pickup trucks and SUV's, but... as it turned out, oppostion was massive across the political spectrum.

Totally unnecessary? There are many suburbs that are 10 -15 miles outside the Perimeter (probably well over 2 million people). You need to connect those like in Houston. The reason I-285 is so congested is that all through and regional traffic that doesn't follow a straight line through the metro area needs to use I-285, and with the increasing importance of sub centers of metro Atlanta along I-285, you don't want to mix it with local and commuter traffic.

The alternative is to widen I-285 to 12 - 14 lanes. There is a complete lack of an integrated road system outside the Perimeter. There are many 4-lane highways, but all are loaded with traffic lights.

Totally unnecessary? There are many suburbs that are 10 -15 miles outside the Perimeter (probably well over 2 million people). You need to connect those like in Houston.

Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?

Note, as I explained before, that opposition was massive even among those who would supposedly benefit,and even though most of these people are pro-car and anti-transit.

The reason I-285 is so congested is that all through and regional traffic that doesn't follow a straight line through the metro area needs to use I-285, and with the increasing importance of sub centers of metro Atlanta along I-285, you don't want to mix it with local and commuter traffic.

No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.

One of the leaders of the Northern Arc opposition was a trucking company executive who found that according to his company's routing software, the Northern Arc would be virtually useless to truckers.

The alternative is to widen I-285 to 12 - 14 lanes. There is a complete lack of an integrated road system outside the Perimeter. There are many 4-lane highways, but all are loaded with traffic lights.

Odd that no such thing has ever made it far enough to be placed, even as an alternative, in the region's transportation model. Why do you think that is? As someone who was very close to the process for several key years, I'll tell you why: because everyone-- even its advocates-- knows that it's a bad idea that'd get slaughtered were it to be subjected to technical analysis.

Calming down a bit:

The real problem is that there's no system for funding an adequate arterial network in suburban/exurban Atlanta. There could be-- state law allows local governments to impose impact fees on new developments to pay for infrastructure as it becomes needed. A few jurisdictions actually do it, Alpharetta being the prime example. However, most don't-- in fact, Gwinnett adopted an impact fee ordinance in 1992, then repealed it before it was ever enforced, because... sprawl developers put the politicians in office, and campaign contributions are a lot cheaper than impact fees for them.

Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?

Has not building roads ever stopped urban sprawl? No. Look at Los Angeles, where the metro population grew by 8 million after highway construction ceased in the 1970's. Not accomodating this growth only makes things worse.

No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.

I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and I am specifically not talking about through traffic only (like Chattanooga - Savannah or Montgomery - Charlotte), but also include regional traffic. You think 2 million people in the first 20 miles outside the Perimeter don't have other travel needs other than downtown-bound routes? This will make up the majority of the traffic outside the Perimeter, perfectly suited for a second beltway. Based on the large amount of population around the corridor for a second beltway, it is perfectly justified.

Tom, widening I-285 to 12-14 lanes would be a bad idea? Then why is Revive 285 going forward? That's a stretch of freeway that was getting close to 300K vehicles per day before the recession took away a lot of that traffic.

I agree with you to some extent though, I don't think an Outer Perimeter or Northern Arc where it was proposed was completely necessary. But Atlanta's lack of freeway route miles and its sub-par (but getting better) arterial network are two reasons why Atlanta will not be one of the top 4 or 5 largest metropolitan areas in the country. That and there's just not enough water that can be legally withdrawn as well from the area watersheds. Whether all this is good or bad depends on how one perceives growth. One reads that slower growth = higher quality of life all the time, but that's not necessarily true if you don't have an economy that's producing and keeping high-paying jobs, which Atlanta is not doing now... but could do again in the near future.

I think Atlanta would have benefited from having a Northern Arc built closer in, a freeway connecting Marietta, Alpharetta, and Lawrenceville. It would have been the Atlanta equivalent to Dallas' Bush Turnpike. Granted, it's obviously too late to entertain that idea, but it's not too late to build overpasses and feeder roads along key arterials in the north suburbs... sort of like what they did with Peachtree Industrial Blvd a few miles north of 285, only on a smaller scale (have two lanes each way going over key intersections). I think a number of projects like that would do more than anything else to alleviate congestion in the northern suburbs.

Chris, I don't think you can compare Atlanta to Houston in regards toward their respective attitudes toward freeway/tollway building. Houston is actually less sprawled than Atlanta for a number of reasons: smaller lot sizes, land-use restrictions such as wetlands protection all around the metro area, and a strong central city that uses its extensive extraterritorial jurisdiction to control development up to 30 miles out in some areas. The city has multiple beltways (and will have a third soon) simply because the traffic levels in the area warranted their construction and there was ROW largely preserved for building such infrastructure. They're being very smart in building their outer beltway by planning and constructing it segment at a time as they become viable toll projects. Another key difference is that Houston is not very trepidatious about growth and becoming a gargantuan-sized metro area.

Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?

Note, as I explained before, that opposition was massive even among those who would supposedly benefit,and even though most of these people are pro-car and anti-transit.



No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.

One of the leaders of the Northern Arc opposition was a trucking company executive who found that according to his company's routing software, the Northern Arc would be virtually useless to truckers.



Odd that no such thing has ever made it far enough to be placed, even as an alternative, in the region's transportation model. Why do you think that is? As someone who was very close to the process for several key years, I'll tell you why: because everyone-- even its advocates-- knows that it's a bad idea that'd get slaughtered were it to be subjected to technical analysis.

Calming down a bit:

The real problem is that there's no system for funding an adequate arterial network in suburban/exurban Atlanta. There could be-- state law allows local governments to impose impact fees on new developments to pay for infrastructure as it becomes needed. A few jurisdictions actually do it, Alpharetta being the prime example. However, most don't-- in fact, Gwinnett adopted an impact fee ordinance in 1992, then repealed it before it was ever enforced, because... sprawl developers put the politicians in office, and campaign contributions are a lot cheaper than impact fees for them.

Well I hope you're happy. All those "bad old developers" lost their shirts in the Financial Meltdown and will be down for the count for the foreseeable future. I know developers(large and small), and they are good, honest people just like you and me. Is it so wrong that they want to buy up land, put down houses and stores, and make money from that? We all want to make money, to be successful, to succeed. A lot of people have failed in the last 3 years and maybe that makes you happy that "developers" got hit the worst but I'm not gleeful about it at all.

Well, this is fun! :)

Rail Claimore: that's a fine post. As to Revive 285 (http://revive285.com/), well... we'll see. In five years they've managed to whittle down the number of build alternatives from seven to three, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything will get built. There was also that proposal for toll roadways along I-75 North-- haven't heard anything much about that lately, either. Really, while it's hardly news that transportation in Atlanta is underfunded, I don't understand where the money we do spend goes.

As you pointed out, Atlanta is in an odd place as far as its continued development goes. After decades of rapid population growth, we've never managed to break into the ranks of top-tier cities-- the cost of living and doing business here has increased, but the value of doing so hasn't, and we seem to be on the way to becoming Kansas City on steroids. It may be that a truly massive program of roadbuilding could take us back to where we were a decade or two ago, but... maybe not. And should we even want that? It's clear,for better or worse, that the political will to do such a thing doesn't exist, and with most of the state's socioeconomic indicators stuck firmly on the bottom tier nationally (our unofficial state motto is, "Thank God for Mississippi!"), transportation is far from the only issue we face.

I suppose I should point out at this point: It's clear to me that transit isn't the answer, either. The decision was made years ago not to expend the heavy rail system since we can't afford to operate the network we have now. Since the recession, transit has more or less imploded, with MARTA scrapping a whole bunch of bus routes and cutting rail service to four trains per hour (OK, eight on the overlap sections, but still...) and Clayton County's transit system being discontinued altogether.

Has not building roads ever stopped urban sprawl? No.

Ah, the uber-familiar plaint of the sprawl apologist. I've been told that far too many times to count, mostly by people with a vested interest in the status quo. Answer me this: if roads are irrelevant to the promotion of sprawl, then why are sprawl developers so interested and getting them built (as long as it's not at their expense)?

Having said that, I really should give you a break. As a Dutchman, you've already seen one alternative for our future, and I can hardly blame you for not being impressed. Plenty of rail, even in combination with the Dutch enthusiasm for cycling and a degree of planning that the US will never come close to attaining, is not enough to yield a reasonably congestion-free transportation network, and it must be really irritating to hear people insist that it will. I don't, BTW. However, to me that means that we'd do better to set more realistic goals, not pursue something that we'll never be able to attain.

Well I hope you're happy. All those "bad old developers" lost their shirts in the Financial Meltdown and will be down for the count for the foreseeable future. I know developers(large and small), and they are good, honest people just like you and me. Is it so wrong that they want to buy up land, put down houses and stores, and make money from that? We all want to make money, to be successful, to succeed. A lot of people have failed in the last 3 years and maybe that makes you happy that "developers" got hit the worst but I'm not gleeful about it at all.

Where did you get the idea that I'm "gleeful" about any of this? Waste of societal resources on a massive scale is cause for alarm, not glee. I'll also point out: overbuilding itself is sideways to the issue of spawl versus sustainability, caused by a vast oversupply of capital that led, as usual, to a bubble economy that was destined to collaspe catastrophically, as it always does. Developers of all stripes have lost their shirts.

You'd have no way of knowing this, but: I work in the residential construction industry. Amazingly, I still have a job, but work is really hard to come by. I suppose that a lot of people think that going back to the status quo ante is the solution, but I think it's about time we tried something different.

Perhaps you're thinking that I'm some intown hippie pseudointellectual who has no comprehension of the needs of suburban residents. I'm not. I live here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.929367,-84.061203&spn=0.008475,0.019205&z=16), which is firmly in the suburbs. My home is on an axis between my wife's suburban workplace (she loves her job, BTW) and Atlanta's major construction markets. Still, as a construction guy, my workplace could be almost anywhere. Others people have the option of living closer to their workplace-- I don't. I'm more at the mercy of traffic congestion that most people are. And there's very little scope for expanding transit service in such a way that it would be personally useful to me or my family.

Roads aren't necessary for sprawl, but they sure do make it easier.

IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.

I doubt thats true , our system carries 6 million ppl daily.....and the New Haven line carries 130,000+ daily along the I-95 corridor in CT. It keeps going up too...

A medium-low busy railway with 4 tph (trains per hour) per direction with 1.000 passengers each nearly equals in one hour a 2x2 motorway considering that most commuters travel alone, one in each car.

The example I love most is Milano-Seregno railway which carries around 35.000 passenger a day increasing from 13.000 without any new infrastructure - new capacity obtained much cheaper than any road widening.

I also think that in the near future if the demographic grows continues, Many southern Cities such as Dallas,H-town,LA will need more highways and projects

A medium-low busy railway with 4 tph (trains per hour) per direction with 1.000 passengers each nearly equals in one hour a 2x2 motorway considering that most commuters travel alone, one in each car.

The example I love most is Milano-Seregno railway which carries around 35.000 passenger a day increasing from 13.000 without any new infrastructure - new capacity obtained much cheaper than any road widening.

This line serves a high commuter one of 20 in the Northeast , so its used by alot of people. So is 95 , which equally used by the same amount of commuters , but the 95 Daily usage has stayed flat. The Railway has risen , even without the future Penn Station connection , which i find interesting. The Feeder lines in CT have grown by 500-2,000 each but thats due to canceled Expressway projects like the Super 7 , No more Widenings on Route 8 and they Route 8 / Waterbury line TOD projects , TOD along Shore East has really added more ppl to the Rails. CT in recent years has come out with Desenification plans for all its cities and Railway corridor towns which will without a doubt add 10000s more to the Rail. There also building Rail connection services in all the larger towns , so people won't be tempted to drive to the stations instead taking Streetcars / Trams.... But this isn't limited to CT , Rhode Island and Massachusetts are doing the same.

Ah, the uber-familiar plaint of the sprawl apologist. I've been told that far too many times to count, mostly by people with a vested interest in the status quo. Answer me this: if roads are irrelevant to the promotion of sprawl, then why are sprawl developers so interested and getting them built (as long as it's not at their expense)?

Sprawl is not necessarily good or bad in itself. It depends how it is managed. You get a whole train (pun intended) of unexpected (but foreseeable) consequences if you try to "tackle" sprawl like you'd tackle drugs, burglaries or illegal immigration:

- housing becomes more expensive per unit, let alone per built area

- retail space becomes more expensive, reducing competition and driving prices up

- families that don't bow to the "urban life" mantra, that'd rather have each child with its own bedroom and a private garden, start to outbid everybody else for the remaining single-house market, making single-houses (detached or not) a luxury

- in turn, this drive out lower income residents or greatly reduces their quality of housing. One of the most dark sides of "smart growth" is that is pushes low-income families into cramped apartments, or forces them to move out of a city that is "meant" not to be easily car-accessible. This push wages up - only to be spent with more expensive housing, feeding the loop

The greatest example of it: New York City. A city where median (far less distorted than average) income is 39% higher than median American household income, whilst the cost-of-living index was about 145-155 (100 being the national US average).

Seattle and Portland (particularly the latter) performed poorly: they became more expensive, more congested and with ever-increasing deficit-ridden transit systems (a financial unsustainable transit system will get "redder" - not "blacker" - when it is expanded and more services provided).

Having said that, I really should give you a break. As a Dutchman, you've already seen one alternative for our future, and I can hardly blame you for not being impressed. Plenty of rail, even in combination with the Dutch enthusiasm for cycling and a degree of planning that the US will never come close to attaining, is not enough to yield a reasonably congestion-free transportation network, and it must be really irritating to hear people insist that it will.

Never underestimate the effect (mild) climate and a terrain that is COMPLETELY flat in 90% of the country has on this "cycling culture". Trains here, despite ubiquitous, will almost always yield SLOWER travel time than car - even with congestion - unless you live in close proximity (like 5 min walking) of some of its 240 train station - all of that in a country where 16,1 million people live in a land area the size of Maryland.


Where did you get the idea that I'm "gleeful" about any of this? Waste of societal resources on a massive scale is cause for alarm, not glee. I'll also point out: overbuilding itself is sideways to the issue of spawl versus sustainability, caused by a vast oversupply of capital that led, as usual, to a bubble economy that was destined to collaspe catastrophically, as it always does. Developers of all stripes have lost their shirts.

Credit considerations aside, oversupply of construction can be easily offset (automatically) by less construction activity the years following a real estate bubble burst.

Here's my Big Dig pictures...

Zakim Bridge

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5378945115_7560dce063_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378945115/)
DSC03298 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378945115/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5378941105_bc657c574c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378941105/)
DSC03287 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378941105/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5378939271_08d472de12_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378939271/)
DSC03283 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378939271/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5378936923_9d43b82042_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378936923/)
DSC03279 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378936923/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5378938071_e7547626dd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378938071/)
DSC03281 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378938071/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5379536000_3cd10eab7c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379536000/)
DSC03272 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379536000/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Entrance to I-93 North form Essex Street

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5376469153_eb580848d4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376469153/)
DSCN0134 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376469153/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5377066928_153aa3a947_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377066928/)
DSCN0127 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377066928/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5379503280_e3796d981d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379503280/)
DSC03182 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379503280/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5378902471_86d4ff943e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378902471/)
DSC03183 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378902471/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Entrance to I-93 South form Essex Street

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5377064526_dc2b962937_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377064526/)
DSCN0120 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377064526/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5163/5377065828_2a98147059_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377065828/)
DSCN0124 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5377065828/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5379504166_214027cd2f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379504166/)
DSC03185 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379504166/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5378903095_1d0986eb05_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378903095/)
DSC03186 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5378903095/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-90 East / West Interchange Complex in South Boston

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5376959718_9a65e155ab_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376959718/)
DSC03170 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376959718/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5167/5376358853_e87591691c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376358853/)
DSC03171 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376358853/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5376959406_a7f6946a7c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376959406/)
DSC03168 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376959406/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5376958110_87f73f8240_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376958110/)
DSC03162 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376958110/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5376958552_6aa665b873_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376958552/)
DSC03164 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376958552/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-90 East in Downtown / Back Bay Boston

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5379511068_711371cbc8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379511068/)
DSC03209 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5379511068/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5376951220_dd172265d2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951220/)
DSC03105 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951220/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5376951380_f6b018c2d3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951380/)
DSC03106 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951380/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5376951582_aa79593627_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951582/)
DSC03107 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951582/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5376350769_92a167eb7d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376350769/)
DSC03109 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376350769/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5376951994_4fefefe801_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951994/)
DSC03110 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5376951994/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Up Next > I-495 , I-90 , I-84 , I-684 , I-287 , I-87

Well I hope you're happy. All those "bad old developers" lost their shirts in the Financial Meltdown and will be down for the count for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully, local politics will be less corrupt as a result.

I know developers(large and small), and they are good, honest people just like you and me. Is it so wrong that they want to buy up land, put down houses and stores, and make money from that?

Yes, when they do it in a wasteful manner with only instant profitability in mind, rather than long-term impact on the community and environment.

We all want to make money, to be successful, to succeed. A lot of people have failed in the last 3 years and maybe that makes you happy that "developers" got hit the worst but I'm not gleeful about it at all.

Money is a means to an end, not the end itself. One of our biggest problems in American society is that we've confused the two.

Sprawl is not necessarily good or bad in itself. It depends how it is managed. You get a whole train (pun intended) of unexpected (but foreseeable) consequences if you try to "tackle" sprawl like you'd tackle drugs, burglaries or illegal immigration:

- housing becomes more expensive per unit, let alone per built area

Not an issue if wages are concurrently rising.

- retail space becomes more expensive, reducing competition and driving prices up

Once again, not an issue if wages are rising.

- families that don't bow to the "urban life" mantra, that'd rather have each child with its own bedroom and a private garden, start to outbid everybody else for the remaining single-house market, making single-houses (detached or not) a luxury

Seems like paying a premium to get precisely what one wants is exactly how the market is supposed to work.

- in turn, this drive out lower income residents or greatly reduces their quality of housing. One of the most dark sides of "smart growth" is that is pushes low-income families into cramped apartments, or forces them to move out of a city that is "meant" not to be easily car-accessible. This push wages up - only to be spent with more expensive housing, feeding the loop

Higher wages are a good thing. Low prices are not necessarily so, such as when they come at the expense of domestic jobs.

The greatest example of it: New York City. A city where median (far less distorted than average) income is 39% higher than median American household income, whilst the cost-of-living index was about 145-155 (100 being the national US average).

Seattle and Portland (particularly the latter) performed poorly: they became more expensive, more congested and with ever-increasing deficit-ridden transit systems (a financial unsustainable transit system will get "redder" - not "blacker" - when it is expanded and more services provided).

Prices rise in these places not because of any inherent defect in the smart growth strategies; it's because places that are built in such a way attract a high level of demand. New York is expensive because it's 8 million people living in a small area, and more are constantly moving in. The Pacific NW also falls into this category - there's high demand for its inherent amenities, especially among people with high incomes. That's just the market at work.

Never underestimate the effect (mild) climate and a terrain that is COMPLETELY flat in 90% of the country has on this "cycling culture". Trains here, despite ubiquitous, will almost always yield SLOWER travel time than car - even with congestion - unless you live in close proximity (like 5 min walking) of some of its 240 train station - all of that in a country where 16,1 million people live in a land area the size of Maryland.

There are other reasons to prefer the train than speed. Safety, cost, driving stress, etc. all factor into what mode of transportation one takes. At least in most parts of the Netherlands, there is an option.

Credit considerations aside, oversupply of construction can be easily offset (automatically) by less construction activity the years following a real estate bubble burst.

Which kills jobs, collapses housing prices, lowering wages, which lowers sales of other goods, which leads to more layoffs, etc. What you're describing is the deflationary spiral of an oversupply crisis. That was one of the things that made the Great Depression as bad as it was. That "offset" makes the problem worse!

Nice pics Nexis. Big Dig was very expensive, took forever, and had questionable management but the end product has been mostly good. No more aging overpasses all over downtown anymore and going through is less of a pain, it's a shame though with all the costs accrued, it doesn't look like other cities will be taking Boston's path anytime soon.

Zakim Bridge is pretty nice too, love it's design.

#1 rule for roads is that they'll always be congested. the NJT could be expanded to an ungodly 24 lanes and it would still be congested. this project is an embarrassment to NJ.

Exactly. There's something ridiculous like that in DT Atlanta. And...still congested.

Nice pics Nexis. Big Dig was very expensive, took forever, and had questionable management but the end product has been mostly good. No more aging overpasses all over downtown anymore and going through is less of a pain, it's a shame though with all the costs accrued, it doesn't look like other cities will be taking Boston's path anytime soon.

Zakim Bridge is pretty nice too, love it's design.

The poured-in-place box girder bridges and curved tubular sign supports look rather Californian, which is especially startling in the snow. :)

Exactly. There's something ridiculous like that in DT Atlanta. And...still congested.

Uh, no. It's ten basic lanes, two HOV's, and a number of auxilliary lanes varying from three to negative two. Big, but not ridiculous, especially for a city of that size.

I-495 North in Mass

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/5382277291_6f60529e26_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277291/)
DSC03334 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277291/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5382879948_59b1c1208b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382879948/)
DSC03335 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382879948/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5382277583_a2dd5b8a74_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277583/)
DSC03336 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277583/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5047/5382880134_35ff2cf444_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382880134/)
DSC03337 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382880134/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-290 West in Downtown Worcester

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5382277871_e4ba91a40f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277871/)
DSC03338 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382277871/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5382218611_cab43dddd9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382218611/)
DSCN0182 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382218611/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5382219173_a65597b55a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382219173/)
DSCN0183 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382219173/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Worcester Union Station ... Serving MBTA Worcester line , Amtrak Lakeshore limited , future Amtrak High Speed Rail service , MBTA Woonsocket and New London lines& Future Worcester Streetcar network

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5382822528_cedb9cfda9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382822528/)
DSCN0184 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382822528/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5382823032_e0f766b28e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382823032/)
DSCN0185 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382823032/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5382220659_ec6157ae55_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382220659/)
DSCN0186 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382220659/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5382221295_fb231bc242_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382221295/)
DSCN0187 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382221295/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5382824758_bcd4819d83_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382824758/)
DSCN0188 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382824758/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5382222467_4f2a477246_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382222467/)
DSCN0189 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382222467/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Skipping to I-90 West

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5382826382_3f5eaee33e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382826382/)
DSCN0192 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382826382/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5382223997_50a06b8859_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382223997/)
DSCN0193 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382223997/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exiting to I84 West

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5382827508_42aa960b94_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382827508/)
DSCN0194 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382827508/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5050/5382827958_49cb81e1f1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382827958/)
DSCN0195 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382827958/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-84 West Toll Gate

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382828374_4f7476860f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382828374/)
DSCN0196 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382828374/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5382226069_2894f03b9b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382226069/)
DSCN0197 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382226069/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5382829332_e29b86002f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382829332/)
DSCN0198 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382829332/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5382227397_c3447e8882_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382227397/)
DSCN0200 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382227397/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5167/5382228575_da9492c622_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382228575/)
DSCN0202 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382228575/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Entering Connecticut

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5382229855_f8e3586d8f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382229855/)
DSCN0204 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382229855/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Up Next > I-84 in CT and I-684 / 287

Uh, no. It's ten basic lanes, two HOV's, and a number of auxilliary lanes varying from three to negative two. Big, but not ridiculous, especially for a city of that size.

10 + how many?...And still congested.

Atlanta is the 4th worst ranked city for traffic (Forbes). Behind only sprawler DC, the SF Bay area, and Los Angeles metro. Traffic congestion eventually becomes a handicap in attracting businesses to a city. Not to mention how it's a definite quality of life consideration in the choice of metro areas in relocating. Being a suburban Long Islander, I would definitely concur with that.

There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years' time. For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City ... As a result of the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city." This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/729057-new-toll-road-east-highway-75-a-2.html

10 + how many?...And still congested.

Atlanta is the 4th worst ranked city for traffic (Forbes). Behind only sprawler DC, the SF Bay area, and Los Angeles metro. Traffic congestion eventually becomes a handicap in attracting businesses to a city. Not to mention how it's a definite quality of life consideration in the choice of metro areas in relocating. Being a suburban Long Islander, I would definitely concur with that.



http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/729057-new-toll-road-east-highway-75-a-2.html

Its rapidly changing to Dense DC.....you blink and sprawl is gone.....meanwhile on the NOVA side the same is happening.....and in Maryland. The population is also shifting....to along Transit corridors...

Heres I-84 West in CT

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382230245_603d94a725_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382230245/)
DSCN0205 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382230245/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Approaching Metro Hartford...entering the HOV lanes

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5382231381_1a59a5185b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382231381/)
DSCN0207 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382231381/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5382835458_d305f410cf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382835458/)
DSCN0209 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382835458/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5382835964_84949db13f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382835964/)
DSCN0210 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382835964/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382234523_04ab91d07a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382234523/)
DSCN0213 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382234523/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5382235073_430d13f896_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382235073/)
DSCN0214 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382235073/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Downtown Hartford in the Distance

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5382235509_f9e0a250d9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382235509/)
DSCN0215 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382235509/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5382838746_3c03beaa26_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382838746/)
DSCN0216 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382838746/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5382236657_3188678ce3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382236657/)
DSCN0217 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382236657/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5382839770_5d2278b42c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382839770/)
DSCN0218 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382839770/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5382840268_2ae2eef2c2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382840268/)
DSCN0219 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382840268/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

City of Hartford / West Hartford

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5382841302_e1b07f20be_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382841302/)
DSCN0221 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382841302/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5382841776_d7f1232a15_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382841776/)
DSCN0222 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382841776/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5382239977_90697cc818_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382239977/)
DSCN0223 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382239977/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5382842908_dbb6af6b6a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382842908/)
DSCN0224 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382842908/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Downtown Hartford

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5382241683_038252073b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382241683/)
DSCN0226 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382241683/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382844532_dc07841a05_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382844532/)
DSCN0228 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382844532/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5382242717_c80e768b0b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382242717/)
DSCN0229 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382242717/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5382845644_381ced3308_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382845644/)
DSCN0230 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382845644/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5382846564_2561f25efa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382846564/)
DSCN0233 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382846564/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Skipping to Waterbury,CT

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5382847022_a6edc379fd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382847022/)
DSCN0234 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382847022/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5382847908_31b9212721_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382847908/)
DSCN0236 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382847908/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Double Decker Interchange of I-84 / CT 8 in Waterbury

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5382848460_52a842ce44_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382848460/)
DSCN0237 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382848460/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Contuing West of I-84

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5382246607_3fa7bee10d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382246607/)
DSCN0239 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382246607/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5382849346_d9b6c6c978_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382849346/)
DSCN0240 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382849346/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5382250637_8f0bb3d24e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382250637/)
DSCN0248 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382250637/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Crossing Lake Lillinoah

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5382250983_fe611779ae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382250983/)
DSCN0249 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382250983/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Entering Newtown,CT

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5382853840_98ac746548_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382853840/)
DSCN0250 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382853840/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5382252157_5dc82132e5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382252157/)
DSCN0251 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382252157/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382855040_648f1c739b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382855040/)
DSCN0252 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382855040/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5382855990_75ac70f0a3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382855990/)
DSCN0254 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382855990/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5382857210_de76089624_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382857210/)
DSCN0257 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382857210/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

City of Danbury

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5382255491_2cdcd47078_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382255491/)
DSCN0259 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382255491/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5382256915_3b6335386c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382256915/)
DSCN0261 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382256915/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5382257541_9252b4810f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382257541/)
DSCN0265 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382257541/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5382258545_4ee41e2ae6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382258545/)
DSCN0267 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382258545/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5382259131_7aeee71444_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382259131/)
DSCN0268 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382259131/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5382259689_ed0f74e4d5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382259689/)
DSCN0269 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382259689/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5382261889_23e76b2d87_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382261889/)
DSCN0273 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382261889/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Entering NY state...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5382864498_b788e59a5e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382864498/)
DSCN0274 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382864498/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Its rapidly changing to Dense DC.....you blink and sprawl is gone.....meanwhile on the NOVA side the same is happening.....and in Maryland. The population is also shifting....to along Transit corridors...

Do you ever check Google Earth? DC is massively sprawled.

Do you ever check Google Earth? DC is massively sprawled.

Yea , but the changeover is happening and fast. Form the core outwards.....in NOVA and Maryland its happening along the Transit corridors and outward.

Here is the rest of my journey....

I-84 West in NY...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5382865042_065ab96754_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382865042/)
DSCN0275 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382865042/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5382264097_343a8a23ee_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382264097/)
DSCN0277 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382264097/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5382264617_99571026f5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382264617/)
DSCN0278 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382264617/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exiting....

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5244/5382867308_0572fabe15_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382867308/)
DSCN0279 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382867308/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5382867982_677a16181e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382867982/)
DSCN0280 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382867982/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-684 South

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5382868466_d99da84fbf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382868466/)
DSCN0281 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382868466/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit to the Saw Mill River Parkway...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5382267383_332274f5d1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382267383/)
DSCN0286 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382267383/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5382869916_e2c7dfae4f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382869916/)
DSCN0287 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382869916/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5382268387_dd26d04f2d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382268387/)
DSCN0289 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382268387/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

End of I-684 , exiting onto I-287 West

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5382268699_6f63f4d9ac_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382268699/)
DSCN0291 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382268699/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5382871212_045dd50529_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382871212/)
DSCN0292 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382871212/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Downtown White Plains in the Distance

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5208/5382269335_1884ec134a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382269335/)
DSCN0294 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382269335/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5382871966_af25ed46bd_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382871966/)
DSCN0296 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382871966/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Newer part of I-287

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5382269899_0150287e69_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382269899/)
DSCN0297 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382269899/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5382872436_fc3bf89739_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382872436/)
DSCN0299 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382872436/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-87 Interchange...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5382270355_8ba9580d10_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382270355/)
DSCN0300 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382270355/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I87/287 West...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5382872918_e98266aba3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382872918/)
DSCN0301 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382872918/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5382873246_77784eb06d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382873246/)
DSCN0302 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382873246/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5382271127_877f2cb084_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382271127/)
DSCN0303 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382271127/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5382271355_4aa06693de_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382271355/)
DSCN0305 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382271355/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Tappan Zee Bridge....

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5382874082_f0f8eeaf05_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382874082/)
DSCN0307 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382874082/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5382874452_91e889469b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382874452/)
DSCN0308 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382874452/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5382272277_22713c247d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382272277/)
DSCN0309 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382272277/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5127/5382875130_188ae102a5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382875130/)
DSCN0310 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382875130/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5382875448_935b85ef50_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382875448/)
DSCN0313 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5382875448/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

10 + how many?...And still congested.


Dude, I'm on your side. I don't like sprawl, either, and I fought it hard for several years. But you said that there was a twenty lane freeway in downtown Atlanta, and there isn't. :nuts:

Nice pics Nexis. Big Dig was very expensive, took forever, and had questionable management but the end product has been mostly good. No more aging overpasses all over downtown anymore and going through is less of a pain, it's a shame though with all the costs accrued, it doesn't look like other cities will be taking Boston's path anytime soon.

Zakim Bridge is pretty nice too, love it's design.

The Big Dig is cool, but I kinda wish I had the chance to drive the green monster with the amazing views it must have given of downtown.

#1 rule for roads is that they'll always be congested. the NJT could be expanded to an ungodly 24 lanes and it would still be congested. this project is an embarrassment to NJ.

I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. The reason these downtown interstates are so congested is not necessarily the number of vehicles, but that most of the drivers want to get off or on the road within a relatively few exits.

Thanks for good report, Nexis. I wanna drive that route sometime too.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5382874452_91e889469b_z.jpg
I remember taking this road early morning in the summer, cool drive coming from the mountains.

The Big Dig is cool, but I kinda wish I had the chance to drive the green monster with the amazing views it must have given of downtown.

I suppose so, but there are still nice views of the skyline to be had when driving up I-93 before it goes underground.

USA...best for sprawling away houses...offices and shady retail parks...my good...i which i could drive on these highways just to feel the American's freedom we seriously dont have here on the other side...

USA...best for sprawling away houses...offices and shady retail parks...my good...i which i could drive on these highways just to feel the American's freedom we seriously dont have here on the other side...

In my first job after college (university), I had to drive 50 or 60 km each way (the route that was faster in the evening rush was significantly longer). In rush hours, that sort of sprawl is not fun day after day. Now I live in a near-downtown neighborhood of a major city, a 12-minute walk from my job, and within walking distance of lots of other things. I like driving but I don't miss having to drive every day. Both sorts of development pattern have their good points and their bad points.

USA...best for sprawling away houses...offices and shady retail parks...my good...i which i could drive on these highways just to feel the American's freedom we seriously dont have here on the other side...
I love driving but you really lose desire when you have poor roads combined with congestion and stupid drivers. It would be nice if I didn't have to depend on my car and be able to use it just for fun not a necessity.

Interstate 70 has been closed to all traffic across Missouri for over 250 miles. I-44 in Oklahoma is also closed for the next 96 hours due to snow storms.

An interesting recently completed bridge project in Kansas City was the replacement of the I-29 Paseo Bridge across the Missouri River by the new Bond Bridge. The new bridge has 6 lanes opposed to the old 4-lanes, and eliminates one of the relatively few bottlenecks in the area.

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/850/bondbridge.jpg

I found some interesting pics of US interstate highways shot during this days:

A sign on I-70 and Pittman Road in Independence, Mo. alerts drivers that I-70 is closed East of I-470 Tuesday evening following a day of blowing snow closed much of I-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis on Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011. Kansas City Star / John Sleezer

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2011/feb11/winter_storm_sm/winter_storm_01.jpg

A vehicle is overturned along Interstate 680 in Omaha, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011. AP / Nati Harnik

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2011/feb11/winter_storm_sm/winter_storm_10.jpg

A car landed vertically in a snowbank after a multiple vehicle accident on Interstate 93 during a snow storm north of Salem, N.H. No one was injured. The Eagle-Tribune / Tim Jean

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2011/feb11/winter_storm_sm/winter_storm_24.jpg

A a group of people stop along Interstate 91 to help push a car out of a snow bank during a winter storm in Windsor, Conn., Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011. AP / Jessica Hill

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2011/feb11/winter_storm_sm/winter_storm_25.jpg

Dallas Fire and Rescue workers try to contain Diesel fuel that leaked from a jackknifed 18-wheeler Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011 in the northbound lanes of Interstate 35E. Traffic was stopped in both directions after several 18-wheelers either jackknifed of came to a total stop on ice covered interstate near Pleasant Run Road. The Dallas Morning News / Jim Mahoney

http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2011/feb11/winter_storm_sm/winter_storm_29.jpg

All pictures were taken from here (http://blogs.sacbee.com/photos/2011/02/midwest-buckles-under-storm.html)

Some more pictures of US non-interstate routes are here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=71886655#post71886655).

Interstate 10 in Houston (Katy Freeway) before and after widening:

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1513/katy1.jpg

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5209/katy2z.jpg

I-80 connecting with I-15 and Utah 201 in Salt Lake City.

vSfeKxjEKsk
By FreewayBrent

I love driving but you really lose desire when you have poor roads combined with congestion and stupid drivers. It would be nice if I didn't have to depend on my car and be able to use it just for fun not a necessity.

I want to drive when I want to, not when I need to. I wish I could take a train to work, the airport, concerts and other venues.

Exactly! It would be nice to go to the club or a party and be able to drink and not worry who will drive. Be nice to be able to take a train to the nice downtown's in my metro and not drive a broken road network. At least you guys in Texas have great roads, I miss the roads in Dallas.

I want to drive when I want to, not when I need to. I wish I could take a train to work, the airport, concerts and other venues.

I think that is the most true statement I have read in a while.

I think that is the most true statement I have read in a while.

except that those who don't want to drive usually want the 88% of adult Americans who use cars regularly to pay, fund and subsidize massively financially-burden PT systems out of their willingness not to be obliged to drive.

except that those who don't want to drive usually want the 88% of adult Americans who use cars regularly to pay, fund and subsidize massively financially-burden PT systems out of their willingness not to be obliged to drive.

PT is a tiny compared to what else states subsidize and the smart growth that comes form PT is a good return..... 88% of Americans is shrinking....as my generation is moving towards PT and Urban living....

except that those who don't want to drive usually want the 88% of adult Americans who use cars regularly to pay, fund and subsidize massively financially-burden PT systems out of their willingness not to be obliged to drive.

It's how a normal country usually works. Everyone pays for everything, even for services they don't use... it seems fair to me. That's why I like German Autobahns which are tax-funded and I don't like Italian ones.

It's how a normal country usually works. Everyone pays for everything, even for services they don't use...

I agree in principle, but it is not meant as a free hand to spend as much money without ever looking at the returns or necessity...

^^ Agreed, Chris.

PT is a tiny compared to what else states subsidize and the smart growth that comes form PT is a good return..... 88% of Americans is shrinking....as my generation is moving towards PT and Urban living....

Apparently US Census Bureau and BEA disagrees with your far-reaching statements.

This being said, important issue here is that the reason by which public transportation subsidies are so low in US is, exactly, because their usage is too low to make a dent on budgets.

But this is far from an American-only issue: the worst that could happen to most urban transit systems (long-distance medium or high-speed rail operates under some different set of premises) is to have their ridership increased to the point it requires more vehicles and a larger payroll to run, as many PT systems are inherited flawed on their financial design and will never be able to reach profitability unless massive, once-in-a-lifetime assumptions about household incomes, expectations of mobility or else changes.

New York City cannot break even with its MTA, and we are talking about the metro are with the highest per-capita income in US and the higher transit usage in North America. If NYC cannot balance its PT authority's books, no other American city can.

except that those who don't want to drive usually want the 88% of adult Americans who use cars regularly to pay, fund and subsidize massively financially-burden PT systems out of their willingness not to be obliged to drive.

Well, the small number of adult Americans who don't drive are helping pay for their roads, and - everyone always forgets this - making their travels easier by reducing traffic a little (or a lot, in some places)....

Apparently US Census Bureau and BEA disagrees with your far-reaching statements.
....

I'm not sure about that: 2010 numbers are starting to come out and cities that have been losing population for decades - such as Newark, of all places - gained over the last decade. We can't go on paving over the countryside indefinitely. And I wonder how many people actually choose 30- or 40-mile commutes as opposed to just having no alternative.

Any non-toll highways that have made a profit?

You're fucking crazy if you think urban areas on the whole are growing. Even old "main-line" suburbs can't retain population. The growth is overwhelmingly in the exurbs.

You're fucking crazy if you think urban areas on the whole are growing. Even old "main-line" suburbs can't retain population. The growth is overwhelmingly in the exurbs.

Did I say urban areas on the whole are growing? Or anything affirmative at all, for that matter?

Actually, I didn't.

But out of four cities in New Jersey with populations over 100,000, three (I believe - I read this a week ago) have gained. The District of Columbia has grown. I think I saw that Philadelphia has. (But Pennsylvania figures aren't out yet so I don't remember where I saw that - it was some time ago. Might have been the estimates that are released annually for some places.) Other cities - Boston, New York, San Francisco - had already started gaining population during the '90s or in some cases the '80s. You happen to live near a central city that has, unfortunately, declined badly, but its experience is not every city's. And I hope it's just behind the curve.

Exurban areas are still growing (albeit perhaps not "overwhelmingly"), but I stand by my opinion that this isn't sustainable indefinitely. Of course, I could be mistaken.

Older suburbs that are built out are declining, in many instances, because there's no place for young people with families to live. The town I grew up in is about 20 miles from New York and solidly upper-middle-class, and its population fell during the '80s and then again during the '90s. (I haven't looked up yet what happened during the '00s.) Does that mean it's in decline? Hell no. My parents' house is worth about 25 times what they paid for it in 1960. But their street, where 30 years ago every house had a couple with two or three kids, has a lot of households where you've just got the same couple now - the kids are gone.

Now, how do I change the "Registered User" that appears under my user name?

You're fucking crazy if you think urban areas on the whole are growing. Even old "main-line" suburbs can't retain population. The growth is overwhelmingly in the exurbs.

Northeastern cities are growing , We have 2 types of suburbs... Dense Railway suburbs and sprawly auto suburbs... The Dense Railway suburbs are growing faster then the auto suburbs... This includes along future lines , most of the cities are starting to grow as well..... Maybe not in Michigan ...but in most states this is the case.... Cities should start to outpace the suburbs in the 2020s...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3746692984_f037912d16_b_d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trefoil/

Loop 410 at San Antonio International Airport

Northeastern cities are growing , We have 2 types of suburbs... Dense Railway suburbs and sprawly auto suburbs... The Dense Railway suburbs are growing faster then the auto suburbs... This includes along future lines , most of the cities are starting to grow as well..... Maybe not in Michigan ...but in most states this is the case.... Cities should start to outpace the suburbs in the 2020s...

That has much more to do with availability of land and skyrocketing home prices than some great sociological sea change. Where land is ample and prices are affordable, especially for first time homebuyers, the 'burbs do just fine. Additionally, as more people rent, that favors in-town residency since rental developments in the suburbs and exurbs are less numerous. And while singles with no kids may be moving into cities, many of them decamp for the suburbs and better schools once they have kids. Look at the dreadful enrollment statistics in Portland and San Francisco city schools if you don't believe me. People with kids don't want to live in cities.

do we have a thread about carpool HOV system here?
or should we create one about the HOV systems in the US

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3746692984_f037912d16_b_d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trefoil/

Loop 410 at San Antonio International Airport

texas is king for nice freeways and huge freeways

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/3746692984_f037912d16_b_d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trefoil/

Loop 410 at San Antonio International Airport

Texas highways are on a different planet than here. :lol:

Why do they elevate the HOV lanes? Never got the point.

Texas highways are on a different planet than here. :lol:

Why do they elevate the HOV lanes? Never got the point.
I don't think that those are 'HOV' lanes. Rather, they are ramps for the recently-built I-410/US 281 interchange, the meat of which is behind the photographer.

Mike

Yeah, that is probably the case in that particular picture.

Texas in general just has amazingly huge freeways, I am honestly in awe.

http://i51.************/23m9309.jpg

Huge fly-overs, but only one lane?

That has much more to do with availability of land and skyrocketing home prices than some great sociological sea change. Where land is ample and prices are affordable, especially for first time homebuyers, the 'burbs do just fine. Additionally, as more people rent, that favors in-town residency since rental developments in the suburbs and exurbs are less numerous. And while singles with no kids may be moving into cities, many of them decamp for the suburbs and better schools once they have kids. Look at the dreadful enrollment statistics in Portland and San Francisco city schools if you don't believe me. People with kids don't want to live in cities.

Well as long as the Railway Suburbs are growing i don't really care that much about the cities. Its when the sprawly auto suburbs grow then i care , but those aren't growing that fast if at all...

.... People with kids don't want to live in cities.

That's a bit of a generalization (although one could point out that it's not just young singles...but middle-aged unmarrieds like me, and empty-nesters move back in): my neighborhood on the edges of Philadelphia's Center City has plenty of yuppies with children. Apparently the local public school's pretty good. Halloween in 2008 fell on a Friday, the weather was nice and we'd had a World Series victory parade earlier in the day, so I was wandering around... some of the quieter streets - the streets with the million-dollar houses that supposedly no one wants to live in - were holding what were apparently open houses for trick-or-treaters. I don't have children and never will, but the neighborhood felt particularly...civilized, almost idyllic...that day. I'd never want to move, except to another city where I could find the same type of life without it costing me a fortune. ('cause I'm not a million-dollar-house type; I rent and sometimes struggle a bit. Lots of people in the neighborhood are students.... It's a nice mix.)

When I started my current job in 1999, my ten-block commute was literally the longest in my department of five (one of those people's husband is a doctor, they still live in the neighborhood I'm in now and now have children of about 10 and 7). I've since moved closer to work. Anecdotal, of course, but there are healthy urban areas out there. (And I grant that Philadelphia has some neighborhoods that are pretty bad. But Center City's growing, adjacent neighborhoods are reviving, and the revival spreads a bit farther every year. I saw, back in the '90s so it may no longer be true, a statistic that more people in Philadelphia - more actual people, not a higher percentage - walk to work than in any other U.S. city.)

My neighborhood - I've tweaked my exact location by a block or two - since I've babbled so much at this point:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.948125,-75.179733&spn=0.001826,0.005472&z=18

And now, I'm stepping out for coffee and a bagel, and may swing by the outdoor farmer's market around the corner if it's not too cold.

You're fucking crazy if you think urban areas on the whole are growing. Even old "main-line" suburbs can't retain population. The growth is overwhelmingly in the exurbs.

They are. Almost all major cities are gaining in population.

except that those who don't want to drive usually want the 88% of adult Americans who use cars regularly to pay, fund and subsidize massively financially-burden PT systems out of their willingness not to be obliged to drive.

More bullshit from you as usual. Using gas tax funds for transit makes sense because it reduces congestion on roads. And the only reason why mass transit usage is low in this country is because of government land use regulations that perpetuate suburban sprawl and massive oil subsidies (in the form of a low gas tax and tax loopholes for oil and gas companies) that keep fuel cheap.
.

A gas tax is a subsidy?

More bullshit from you as usual. Using gas tax funds for transit makes sense because it reduces congestion on roads. And the only reason why mass transit usage is low in this country is because of government land use regulations that perpetuate suburban sprawl and massive oil subsidies (in the form of a low gas tax and tax loopholes for oil and gas companies) that keep fuel cheap.
.

The Low gas taxes has also left our road network in terrible condition....

More bullshit from you as usual. Using gas tax funds for transit makes sense because it reduces congestion on roads. And the only reason why mass transit usage is low in this country is because of government land use regulations that perpetuate suburban sprawl and massive oil subsidies (in the form of a low gas tax and tax loopholes for oil and gas companies) that keep fuel cheap.
.

I am amazed at how many large American cities totally lack public transit. I remember on one of my first visits to Detroit, back maybe six years ago or so, I kept wondering where their subway network was.

It's a good thing Gas Tax's are cheap in America, because there really aren't any other commuting options.

I am amazed at how many large American cities totally lack public transit. I remember on one of my first visits to Detroit, back maybe six years ago or so, I kept wondering where their subway network was.

It's a good thing Gas Tax's are cheap in America, because there really aren't any other commuting options.

NIMBY's and Republicans often block any attempt to build a Rail system which is sad since theres a need for it. They often use the sprawl excuse , which often makes no sense since the corridors are dense. Detroit build a Light Rail / BRT network now and seems to be popular..... The question is what happens when gas spikes? Outside the NE Megapolis living without a Car is hard... The good thing now is sprawl is ending at least in the NE or changing to Railway sprawl.....which is better... Our suburbs are also older and walkable...

The question is what happens when gas spikes?

Nothing. Gas in Europe is 2 - 3 times more expensive than in the US and still 86% of the mileage is done by passenger car. In the US this is 92%.

The only reason why sprawl is slowing down in the Northeast is the lack of population growth.

Nothing. Gas in Europe is 2 - 3 times more expensive than in the US and still 86% of the mileage is done by passenger car. In the US this is 92%.

The only reason why sprawl is slowing down in the Northeast is the lack of population growth.

I remember back in 2008 when it spiked , that was enough to hurt beach towns without Rail access and hurt resort towns , it also hurt small businesses.....so it wasn't nothing....

That's because the 2008 increase was a shock spike. If it increases slowly people can adapt by buying more fuel efficient cars. It would also help if people could buy more diesel cars as they have a 2 times better mileage than the average American car.

With $ 6 per gallon diesel in the Netherlands I spend as much on fuel per mile as an American with $ 3 per gallon gasoline. The better fuel mileage offsets the higher fuel price.

The countries with the highest fuel prices in Europe are also the wealthiest countries. Because we adapted to it.

Nothing. Gas in Europe is 2 - 3 times more expensive than in the US and still 86% of the mileage is done by passenger car. In the US this is 92%.

I bet, though, that the per capita distance traveled daily in Europe is far less than it is in the US or Canada.

A gas tax is a subsidy?

I don't know if "subsidy" is the right word, but it can certainly be a tool of policy - want to discourage smoking, raise cigarette taxes; want to incentivize the use of transit, raise gas taxes and steer the money to transit systems so they can improve their infrastructure or hold fares down. We did get a bit of a spike in transit use in the U.S. when the price of gas increased rapidly in 2008....

I was just thinking about this yesterday: just taking Pennsylvania as an example, lots of people upstate object to funding transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Well, it would be interesting to try an experiment: for, say, two years every county in the state funds its own highways and transit. I expect the result would be noticeable improvement in Philadelphia (about 15 percent of the population of the state lives in the city)...and the Interstates in rural areas falling apart.

I'm not advocating that, of course.
For that matter, I'm against increasing the gas tax, because too many people have no choice but to drive, so it's regressive. We need more money for transit and roads, but we need to distribute that tax burden fairly. Our national allergy to taxes and government spending risks pushing us into third-world status. [climbs off soapbox]

I am amazed at how many large American cities totally lack public transit. I remember on one of my first visits to Detroit, back maybe six years ago or so, I kept wondering where their subway network was.

It's a good thing Gas Tax's are cheap in America, because there really aren't any other commuting options.

There are other options in some cities; Detroit (as you probably know) has had a particularly bad experience with deindustrialization - I don't know if any other city of its size has declined quite so dramatically.

Nothing. Gas in Europe is 2 - 3 times more expensive than in the US and still 86% of the mileage is done by passenger car. In the US this is 92%.

The only reason why sprawl is slowing down in the Northeast is the lack of population growth.

Actually, we did have a measurable increase in transit use, in those cities that have decent systems but where people traditionally drive (Washington for example) when gas went up so fast in 2008.

And even if gas is so much cheaper than it is in Europe, a significant increase would still mean that some people with tight budgets would need to adjust: more money spent on gas means, say, cheaper food (or if you're a notch or two more comfortable, fewer evenings out) I know European gas prices would limit how much driving I do, and I'm a person who doesn't have to drive every day. Visits to the parents, errands in the suburbs, road trips and just drives into the country for fun are what I do.

During 2008, the New York Times published an article on the effect the increase in fuel prices was having in rural areas - people were literally quitting jobs because they couldn't afford to keep low-wage jobs that were 20 or 30 miles from where they lived. EDIT: here's that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html

I bet, though, that the per capita distance traveled daily in Europe is far less than it is in the US or Canada.

That would be and interesting fact to know. Does anyone knows more about it?

That's because the 2008 increase was a shock spike. If it increases slowly people can adapt by buying more fuel efficient cars. It would also help if people could buy more diesel cars as they have a 2 times better mileage than the average American car.

With $ 6 per gallon diesel in the Netherlands I spend as much on fuel per mile as an American with $ 3 per gallon gasoline. The better fuel mileage offsets the higher fuel price.

The countries with the highest fuel prices in Europe are also the wealthiest countries. Because we adapted to it.

Here, you may be right. I don't know much about diesel, though - it's not very common here: isn't it fairly dirty?

Diesel was dirty in the 1980's, and that's how many Americans probably remember it. Nowadays Diesel is quite clean, especially with particle filters they are cleaner than gasoline cars. They are more efficient for our natural resources and have significant less CO2 emissions due to the better fuel efficiency. Even a 3500 lbs passenger car can get around 45 mpg on diesel nowadays.

Actually, we did have a measurable increase in transit use, in those cities that have decent systems but where people traditionally drive (Washington for example) when gas went up so fast in 2008.

And even if gas is so much cheaper than it is in Europe, a significant increase would still mean that some people with tight budgets would need to adjust: more money spent on gas means, say, cheaper food (or if you're a notch or two more comfortable, fewer evenings out) I know European gas prices would limit how much driving I do, and I'm a person who doesn't have to drive every day. Visits to the parents, errands in the suburbs, road trips and just drives into the country for fun are what I do.

During 2008, the New York Times published an article on the effect the increase in fuel prices was having in rural areas - people were literally quitting jobs because they couldn't afford to keep low-wage jobs that were 20 or 30 miles from where they lived. EDIT: here's that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html

All Northeastern Transit systems have pasted there 1960s usage levels and that was before you saw a drop in ridership....alot of people place regional usage at 6 million by 2030 for Northeast which includes MARC , Septa , NJt , LIRR , MNRR , RIPTA , CTDOT , VRE and MBTA / Amtrak. There is a big push in alot of cities to make them attractive again and its working to a certain extent. Families are moving to Railway suburbs , but are changing there commuting habits. The 2008 crisis added at least 200-500 people per regional rail line that have stayed....

Interstate A-2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/emsox/IMG_0893.jpg

Interstate A-1
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/emsox/IMG_0886.jpg

Interstate A-4
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/emsox/IMG_0650.jpg

American roads and bridges are in quite bad condition. Many structures of the Interstate Highway system are approaching its 40-50 years lifespan and have to be replaced. All the money gained from eventual rise of road or gasoline taxes should be spend on fixing it.
I agree with Chris that rise in price of fuel will rather change American cars (make them more fuel efficient) than change transportation system towards public transport. There will be some increase in share of public transport but it will never reach European levels.

Here, you may be right. I don't know much about diesel, though - it's not very common here: isn't it fairly dirty?
The 'Eurodiesel' engine of today is about as far from the old smoky wrecks of over a generation ago here in the USA as modern diesel railroad locomotives are from steam.

They are completely different animals and I'd love to see then introduced en-masse into the USA. A week ago there was a Super Bowl ad from a carmaker hinting at that.

Mike

Diesel would mean oil companies would make less money and the lobbyists wouldn't be happy about that.

If we run out of natural resources 50 years earlier people aren't going to be happy about it either...

I highly doubt with all the money at stake they'd let that happen.

I highly doubt with all the money at stake they'd let that happen.

Anything is possible.

At the current rate, we are sucking the Oil supplies bone dry. There needs to be some tax increases on gas guzzlers to encourage more fuel efficient transport.

We still have plenty left though, even then when it becomes difficult to profit you know such a large industry won't give up and just say hey we are out. I am in full support of mass use of diesel in the US and funding for alternative energy but the companies will stick with what gives them the most amount of return.

American roads and bridges are in quite bad condition. Many structures of the Interstate Highway system are approaching its 40-50 years lifespan and have to be replaced. All the money gained from eventual rise of road or gasoline taxes should be spend on fixing it.
I agree with Chris that rise in price of fuel will rather change American cars (make them more fuel efficient) than change transportation system towards public transport. There will be some increase in share of public transport but it will never reach European levels.

^^ http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/roads-take-beating-from-brutal-weather-12864969

:ohno:

I agree with the idea that increased gas taxes will change the type of cars we drive more than driving people from driving at all. Public transit will still see increases and it warrants expansion of PT networks, especially in mid-sized to large cities.

Honestly, it will be housing policies that change how we live and drive people away from cars (pardon the pun).

President Obama's recent call to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will likely be embraced by many Democrats and most Republicans. Obama's statement that home ownership isn't necessarily a right is a major change as every president since FDR has championed home ownership as the main piece of the American dream.

With loans tougher to get with less backup from the feds, home ownership will decline... but with that, renting will increase and this will spur more dense developments as land owners will want to milk as much rent out of a piece of land as possible. This will also drive people towards public transit as density and congestion increases.

Interstate (with the exception of beltways) should be tolled. If I'm going from Indianapolis to Chicago, I don't think a $3 toll is gonna hurt me mcuh. But I'm strictly against tolls within city limits.

With European tolls a trip from New York to Chicago would cost you $ 200 in tolls.

With European tolls a trip from New York to Chicago would cost you $ 200 in tolls.
OK now that's insane. Considering it's on top of ridiculously highly-taxed gasoline.

For a trip NY-Chicago, I'd say $20-25 for cars, $100 for trucks. It'd be peanuts for NYers though, those guys are used to paying $35/30 minutes parking!

It'd be peanuts for NYers though, those guys are used to paying $35/30 minutes parking!

That's insane for us. I never saw a car park costing more than 2€/h.

:)

In my small city it is € 1 per 22 minutes...

In my small city/small town parking is free... but limited to 2-3 hours unless you buy a $40/year permit. Most employees just do the 3 hour shuffle, moving their cars around to different parking spots to escape paying.

With loans tougher to get with less backup from the feds, home ownership will decline... but with that, renting will increase and this will spur more dense developments as land owners will want to milk as much rent out of a piece of land as possible. This will also drive people towards public transit as density and congestion increases.

Wishful thinking. Germany has a quite low home ownership rate, and a car usage share not much different than those of France or Italy, where incomes/tax systems are somehow comparable but home ownership is way higher.

Decreasing support for home ownership will likely drive prices down and, to a certain extent, put some people (who couldn't afford homes in first place) out of the market.

Home ownership, in itself, doesn't dictate the type of housing pattern people lives most in, except in cases of social housing and alike. You can have a fair large base of renters with a fair large share of single detached homes and alike - Germany being an example of this.

Interstate (with the exception of beltways) should be tolled. If I'm going from Indianapolis to Chicago, I don't think a $3 toll is gonna hurt me mcuh. But I'm strictly against tolls within city limits.

Tolls would be a good way to pay for Interstates. I'm not sure why there is a law mandating no tolls on Interstates (other than the Turnpikes that were grandfathered in or whatnot, and one or two exceptions like the one in South Carolina). I don't like tolls at all, but a "user fee" makes the most sense to pay for highway maintenance and infrastructure expansion. After all, why should someone in New Mexico help pay the bill for the Big Dig in Boston? Why should someone in South Dakota help pay for the new Interstates in North Carolina?

After all, why should someone in New Mexico help pay the bill for the Big Dig in Boston? Why should someone in South Dakota help pay for the new Interstates in North Carolina?

Because secession back in 1861 was thwarted, and you're in the same Nation. Everybody pays for everything in one Nation, or at least they should. Otherwise there would be no point in the idea of Nation itself. "Why should someone in Nevada pay for the war in Afghanistan, or for one bureaucrat in DC, or for an ambassador in New Guinea?"

There is no need for toll roads. They need to adjust the gas taxes according to inflation and divert all gas taxes towards road funding. Plus the United States needs a national road rehabilitation programme.

Tolls would be a good way to pay for Interstates. I'm not sure why there is a law mandating no tolls on Interstates (other than the Turnpikes that were grandfathered in or whatnot, and one or two exceptions like the one in South Carolina). I don't like tolls at all, but a "user fee" makes the most sense to pay for highway maintenance and infrastructure expansion. After all, why should someone in New Mexico help pay the bill for the Big Dig in Boston? Why should someone in South Dakota help pay for the new Interstates in North Carolina?

History is as follows: when Eisenhower installed a committee to plan the financing of a national highway system for US, some alternatives were considered. There was, already, the experience of Northeastern turnpikes, built mainly on private bonds. However, tolls were not popular, as some schemes had public-guarantees and so. Moreover, many stretches of the Interstate Highway System couldn't be financed by tolls at all, mainly those in (then) sparsely populated states with difficult terrain for construction like ID, CO, AZ, NM. Yet, the transcontinental links where a key feature of the system, though some opposed the need, in 1956, to build I-80 or I-40 over the Rockies, crucial transportation links today.

So decision followed to build a toll-free system. They grandfathered the Turnpikes, which hadn't been built with federal dollars anyway. Then, they created the Highway Trust Fund to pay up to 90% of the construction costs (financed with federal gas taxes on fuel, tires, engine lubes etc.). As the States were going to be responsible for the managing the system, there was a concern of the possibility that transit states with small population like South Dakota or Arizona would see passing traffic as a cash cow to be milked through tolls. Therefore, tolls were prohibited in any sector of Interstate built with money from the trust.

However, after the 1990's legislation was tweaked, first to allow HOT lanes. Later, to include a provision that would allow tolling a highway paid by the feds if significant improvements paid by private money were to be made (Before that, only schemes like separated new toll lanes would be allowed). I don't know how regulation is today, but it seems it was tweaked again to include "structural improvements and major refurbishing" on the roll of circumstances that can be used to levy a toll.

I think that the problem, however, is the gas tax that hasn't been raised according to inflation since 1997 of $ 0.18/gallon. That is too low to keep the system when construction costs increased at least 150% over last 15 years and - more important- when almost 25% of the highway fund is diverted to purposes like building sidewalks or signaling park trails at locations near the interstates. Fortunately the Highway Trust Fund can't be used to invest in rail, otherwise it would be drained as a tank hit by a bomb.

There is no need for toll roads. They need to adjust the gas taxes according to inflation and divert all gas taxes towards road funding. Plus the United States needs a national road rehabilitation programme.

Each NE , Southern and Western state has one , but they vary so much. The NE has the best policy (not surprising).... We have started about 15 years ago repairing bridges , tunnels and roads.....its a slow process in some areas due congestion...

America should also try and control costs. This 1-lane road in front of my house had to add an addition lane (to make a central lane for turning), lay a pipe and add a sidewalk. The total length was 0.7 miles (a tad over a kilometer). It took, wait for it, 5 months to do it. And there were workers working on it all thru that time. I don't even know what the hell were they working on. Now that the work has finished, the quality is so bad, most drivers drive in the central lane to avoid the bumps. I bet they paid that contractor in millions. It should've taken no more than 2-3 weeks. There's absolutely no excuse for such a thing. Now I'm not saying that it's that bad all over America, but I'm sure this is not limited to just that 1 km stretch of road.

Some I278 shots i took in Brooklyn they other day...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5455103368_b2418c6f8e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455103368/)
DSC03799 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455103368/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 28 form Old Fulton Street...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5455104798_1352ce9d32_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455104798/)
DSC03814 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455104798/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5454493049_d6a18b55a1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454493049/)
DSC03816 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454493049/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5454494391_b2ca3f7a03_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454494391/)
DSC03833 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454494391/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5454494467_206b26d73a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454494467/)
DSC03834 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5454494467/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5455106218_2a62b28e1a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455106218/)
DSC03831 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455106218/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit for the Manhattan bridge...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/5455107558_da10957b3e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455107558/)
DSC03846 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5455107558/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-395 going into Miami Beach from the main land (Downtown Miami, FL)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5208/5250229785_fd85634105_z.jpg

I-95 going south...Miami, Florida
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5459623421_338e2f9901_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5177/5459625011_f7750a34ee_z.jpg


I-95 going north from Brickell area - Miami, Florida
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5459625555_12a905af7a_z.jpg

I'll be cursed and reviled by many for saying this (it's happened before), but IMO the policy decision to build the Interstate System as a uniform network of toll free controlled access highways was a huge mistake. I think we'd have been better off with a mix of turnpikes where they were viable, lower quality roads such as super twos or at-grade dual expressways with controlled access bypasses of significant towns for the most remote areas, and toll free motorways for segments with moderate traffic. There are a variety of reasons why I believe this:

1. By the 1950's, the US road system was inadequate across the board. It wasn't just a matter of needing new express and long-distance routes-- congestion and excessive accident rates plagued much of the nation's road system. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I remember a comment by Richard Nixon (!) that one issue was that our courts were being overburdened by the legal detritus of accidents that really never should've happened.

Had a large proportion of the early Interstate System been built as turnpikes, the remaining road funding could've been allocated to other routes, specifically those where congestion and accidents were most problematic. I also think that it's extremely likely that doing this would've increased road funding overall-- during the '50's, gas prices were extremely low, even after the fuel taxes that funded the Interstate System were imposed.

2. There's an equity issue, too: I'm not at all on board with the idea that residents of Miami (for instance) have no interest in good-quality highways across the Rockies, but consolidating long-distance traffic onto a relatively few Interstate corridors rather than an extensive network of US highways isolated many towns that had previously been on the national map. Of course, building a turnpike in a given corridor rather than a free motorway would have some of the same effect, but tolls would've provided an incentive for some long-distance traffic to stick to the old routes, freed up funding for incremental improvement of these routes, and not forced communities away from the Interstate corridors to help fund the very roads that lead to their own demise.

For example: If I were driving from Atlanta to DC, I-85 and I-95 would be the best way to go. But... if they were tolled, US 29 and GA/SC 72 to Rock Hill SC and US 29 from Greensboro NC to DC would be an attractive option, especially if improvements to 72 were a lot more advanced than they are.

3. The relatively rapid completion of the core of the Interstate System dealt a strong blow to the nation's rail and streetcar systems, one from which we still haven't recovered. I'm not arguing that the Interstate System was solely responsible, but it was surely a contributor. Now we're playing a slow game up catch-up with both freight and passenger rail, and building modern light rail at enormous expense to recreate some shadow of the transit network we once had. Surely it would've been cheaper and better to devote a lot more effort to maintaining a good proportion of our legacy transportation network rather than abandoning it in favor of expensive new highways, especially if doing so was a matter of spending less money more carefully.

4. For the turnpikes themselves, tolls would've provided a ready source of funding for both maintenance and, eventually, expansion and reconstruction. That's presumably why the voters of Ohio opted to keep tolls on the Ohio Turnpike once the bonds were paid off rather than sticking all of the state's motorists with the expense of keeping it in good repair.

Having said this, the question isn't entirely a slam dunk. There were advantages to the approach that was taken, and thinking about and discussing the various options has provided me with many hours of enjoyment. :)

I'll be cursed and reviled by many for saying this (it's happened before), but IMO the policy decision to build the Interstate System as a uniform network of toll free controlled access highways was a huge mistake.

I couldn't disagree more. It was one of the boldest and the best decisions made by the US government after IIWW.
It made transportations of goods and people easier and safer over the long distances.
It also fueled internal migrations making workforce more mobile.

Had a large proportion of the early Interstate System been built as turnpikes, the remaining road funding could've been allocated to other routes, specifically those where congestion and accidents were most problematic.
Free interstates did just that, alleviated problems on older crowded and dangerous roads by taking majority of the traffic. Tolled turnpikes would keep a lot of traffic on old dangerous roads.

2. There's an equity issue, too: I'm not at all on board with the idea that residents of Miami (for instance) have no interest in good-quality highways across the Rockies, but consolidating long-distance traffic onto a relatively few Interstate corridors rather than an extensive network of US highways isolated many towns that had previously been on the national map. Of course, building a turnpike in a given corridor rather than a free motorway would have some of the same effect, but tolls would've provided an incentive for some long-distance traffic to stick to the old routes, freed up funding for incremental improvement of these routes, and not forced communities away from the Interstate corridors to help fund the very roads that lead to their own demise
For example: If I were driving from Atlanta to DC, I-85 and I-95 would be the best way to go. But... if they were tolled, US 29 and GA/SC 72 to Rock Hill SC and US 29 from Greensboro NC to DC would be an attractive option, especially if improvements to 72 were a lot more advanced than they are.

One of the best aspects of free interstates paid by federal government is that they allowed easy transit across the country on unified, extensive and safe network. It made roads safer in Miami as well as in Dakotas.
I don't understand idea of dispersing transit artificially on multiple low quality roads (like in your example from Atlanta do D.C.). Maintaining such network would be more expensive than maintaining two freeways. Freeways are also significantly safer than lower grade roads.

3. The relatively rapid completion of the core of the Interstate System dealt a strong blow to the nation's rail and streetcar systems, one from which we still haven't recovered. I'm not arguing that the Interstate System was solely responsible, but it was surely a contributor. Now we're playing a slow game up catch-up with both freight and passenger rail, and building modern light rail at enormous expense to recreate some shadow of the transit network we once had. Surely it would've been cheaper and better to devote a lot more effort to maintaining a good proportion of our legacy transportation network rather than abandoning it in favor of expensive new highways, especially if doing so was a matter of spending less money more carefully.
That's typical pro public transport mantra. Some of it might be justified but there are many factors more responsible for demise of public transport in America. Germany has extensive network of excellent free motorways but also one of the best public transport in the world.

4. For the turnpikes themselves, tolls would've provided a ready source of funding for both maintenance and, eventually, expansion and reconstruction. That's presumably why the voters of Ohio opted to keep tolls on the Ohio Turnpike once the bonds were paid off rather than sticking all of the state's motorists with the expense of keeping it in good repair.

Fuel and road tax if managed probably are much cheaper to collect than tolls. The biggest problem are low level of those taxes and not lack of tolls.
If you install tolls you have to pay for all the expensive infrastructure like toll plazas, gates, employees, management fees etc. Collecting fuel and road tax on the other hand is really easy, you just have to raise it along the inflation.

Reading some of the previous posts I think the Interstate system is one of the best things to happen to this country. Such a genius idea that made this country better. With the aspect of tolls and road funding don't commercial truckers pay a tax that helps maintain these roads? A guy I worked with who used to be a trucker pretty much said that Interstate highways aren't really free when it comes to commercial trucking.

^^ True

Wikipedia:

The states that have a tax on their fuel, impose a tax on commercial drivers that travel through their state, even if the fuel is not purchased in that state. The paper work for this taxed on a quarterly basis and filed somewhat like a federal tax return that is done yearly. Most commercial truck drivers have an agent fill out the paper work. The driver calls in their information, the agent figures out how much tax should be paid to each state, then the agent faxes the forms to the driver and they are required to carry the papers with them along with their travel log books.

America was built for the car, it has the best roads. everything in Europe is all curvy and squiggly, whereas there it is in a nice grid, and the interstates are wide, and faster than they are here.

Birmingham's 52-mile Northern Beltline will cost $4.7 billion to build according to a new estimate, a big jump from the previous price of $3.4 billion issued in late 2009.

According to Alabama Department of Transportation officials, the new cost estimate was developed in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, which is asking states to review major projects to account for price inflation over time and other factors that have caused cost overruns on projects across the country.

The latest estimate puts the total cost of the freeway at an average of about $90 million per mile over the 25-year life of the project.
Opponents say the new price tag should prompt a re-evaluation.

"With all that is going on in Washington and Montgomery about the budget, I am alarmed that the projected cost, which was already so astronomical, has jumped even higher," said Pat Feemster, a member of Save Our Unique River, Communities and Environment, or SOURCE. "It is irresponsible to build a road that is not needed, not justified by traffic needs and will do such damage to the environment."

Proponents were surprised by the cost jump, but said it only points to the need to get the beltline built as quickly as possible.
"While I can't speak to the accuracy of the Federal Highway Administration's new cost estimate for the Northern Beltline, I do know this is a critical infrastructure project for our state, and I will continue to work to fund it expeditiously," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "Escalating costs are just one more reason why we need to get this project under way and completed as quickly as possible."

Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Vestavia Hills, agreed: "The completion of the Northern Beltline is a high priority for the Birmingham region and retains my total support." Plans call for the new freeway to branch off Interstate 59 near the Jefferson-St. Clair County border and arc across north Jefferson County, crossing I-65 north of Gardendale, then dropping southwest, crossing Corridor X and eventually connecting to I-20/59 at the western end of I-459.
Proponents say that project is a logical complement to I-459, the southern beltline, and would open large areas of northern and western Jefferson County to suburban, commercial and industrial development.

Opponents say that the proposed path of the road would do little to relieve traffic congestion and is not justified as a transportation project. It would also cross the headwaters of the Cahaba River and Turkey Creek, which environmentalists fear could lead to water pollution problems.
Despite the rising cost estimate, the beltline does have a dedicated source of federal funding. Sen. Shelby had the beltline designated as part of the Appalachian Development Highway System, tapping a pot of road money separate from the state's general allocation of federal highway dollars.
Currently, the state gets about $117 million a year from the ADHS. That money is being used to connect Corridor X to I-65 and U.S. 31, and finish two smaller projects in North Alabama. When those projects are complete, the full allocation, plus the 20 percent state match, could be available for the beltline.

However, it is unclear how much the state will receive from ADHS going forward. Congress is currently drawing up new budgets and a new transportation bill. Funding levels set there will in turn determine the amount available for the beltline.

According to Don Vaughn, ALDOT's chief engineer, cost estimates inevitably
rise over time. Vaughn was involved in planning Corridor X, the soon-to-be-completed link between Birmingham and Memphis that will become I-22. In 1977, the estimate for that 100-mile interstate link in Alabama was $100 million, which at the time was a shocking number. Thirty-four years later, the actual cost of Corridor X looks to be around $1 billion.

ALDOT has a plan to build the beltline over 25 years, Vaughn said. However, the pace of construction will be dependent on the flow of federal dollars.
If the new cost estimate is accurate over the life of the project and money from the AHDS doesn't increase, it would take more than 32 years' worth of appropriations to complete the road.

Darrell Howard, deputy director of transportation planning at the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, said that transportation planners have been aware for some time now of a troubling trend in highway financing.
As the fuel economy of cars and trucks has increased, the amount generated by fuel taxes have remained relatively flat, especially compared to increasing costs for construction, land and highway maintenance.

"If we assume federal money stays the same, there won't be enough money," Howard said. "We are running out money .¤.¤. It is something we have known was coming for a long time."

But Barry Copeland, the interim president of the Birmingham Business Alliance, said he is confident the state's congressional delegation will keep the project moving. Copeland said the increased cost estimate is not a reason to rethink the project.

"It is impossible to predict how much funding will be available, but I think the project is feasible to do and it is extremely necessary," he said. "It's absolutely important to the economic development to the northern half of Jefferson County. Wherever you put that route, economic development will follow. And the time to start it is now."

Eva Dillard, staff attorney for Black Warrior Riverkeeper, disagrees.
"With the national debt now over $14 trillion, we are at a loss to understand how beltline boosters can reconcile their support for this one project with their pledges to cut federal spending in Washington," Dillard said. "We want to see sensible, sustainable economic development initiatives for our region, not harmful projects like the beltline, which fragment communities and destroy natural resources."

This project has toll road written all over it.

ALDOT to begin construction on next phase of Montgomery's Outer Loop
Published: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 5:13 PM Updated: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 5:13 PM
By Christine Kneidinger, al.com

MONTGOMERY, Alabama -- Montgomery residents will soon see less congestion on major interstates in the area, thanks to a plan to complete Montgomery's Outer Loop road system, meaning not only a shorter commute, but a plethora of benefits for the Montgomery community.

On Tuesday, Alabama Department of Transportation Director John R. Cooper joined Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange announced that ALDOT will dust off the plans to extend Interstate 85 to build the next phase of the Montgomery Outer Loop.

According to a news release, $60 million to $70 million in federal and state funds will be used for the Interstate 85 extension to build the next phase of the Montgomery Outer Loop that will eventually serve as an extension to I-85 through west Alabama, connecting I-20/59 near the Mississippi line to I-65.
The first leg of the project will be to connect Vaughn Road to I-85, which will begin late this summer.

About $90 million in federal funds, plus $18 million in state matching funds, remains available after the cost of the I-85 corridor study, which recommended the extension of I-85 begin at the Montgomery Outer Loop and continue through rural west Alabama to Interstate 20/59 near Cuba, Ala.
“I am very pleased to see that this project will finally be able to move forward, as it will be a major catalyst for continued economic development in Central Alabama,” Shelby said.

Local officials are praising this latest development. “Without Sen. Shelby’s leadership working with Federal Highway Administration officials in Washington, this project would not be moving forward,” Strange said. “This has been a true partnership between Sen. Shelby, ALDOT, Montgomery County and the City.”Dean, chairman of the Montgomery County Commission, praised the project for the growth potential it unleashes.

"This will alleviate traffic congestion on I-65 and I-85 through Montgomery, making the daily commute easier for tens of thousands while at the same time reducing the amount of truck traffic through downtown and making our area more attractive to potential employers," Dean said. "It will also provide a boost to tourism."

Ingram represents the district where the I-85 extension begins. "It makes sense to have the Outer Loop serve as the beginning of the I-85 extension," Ingram said. "This holds tremendous potential for the eastern portion of Montgomery County. It will boost property values, bring in new commerce and assist in tourism."

The initial work is expected to cost $60 million to $70 million. As with nearly all ALDOT projects, the costs will be divided on an 80 percent/20 percent split between federal and state funds.

When completed to I-65, the Outer Loop will be designated as I-85. The portion of I-85 into downtown Montgomery will be re-designated as I-685. The Outer Loop from I-85 to I-65 covers 24 miles.

The latest estimate for completing the entire I-85 extension beyond I-65 to I-20/59 is approximately $2.4 billion.
With bids tentatively scheduled to be taken in May, the first construction would likely begin by late summer.

Is there a I-136 running from Indianapolis West to Edison, Nebraska? That would beat I-476 as the longest 3di interstate! But there is no I-36. So a orphan 3di like I-238?
NO! It's just a mistake of Google Maps. That is actually US-136: http://maps.google.es/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.588757,-93.054199&spn=8.412256,19.709473&z=6 (http://maps.google.es/maps?hl=es&ie=UTF8&ll=39.588757,-93.054199&spn=8.412256,19.709473&z=6). Is actually very very substandard...

I don't think the Birmingham Northern Beltline is really necessary. It's better to widen the remaining parts of I-20 to 8 lanes and rebuild the I-20/I-65 interchange. There isn't much north of Birmingham in terms of urban development and if it is a toll road even fewer people would use it.

I don't think the Birmingham Northern Beltline is really necessary. It's better to widen the remaining parts of I-20 to 8 lanes and rebuild the I-20/I-65 interchange. There isn't much north of Birmingham in terms of urban development and if it is a toll road even fewer people would use it.

The point is exactly to spur development along a new route :p

The point is exactly to spur development along a new route :p

That is the biggest reason its still on the drawing board. Lots of big landowners would benefit greatly from this project. Before the Southern Beltline was constructed there was little to no development of any kind in the area. But in terms of traffic needs, I gotta side with Chris. The only traffic benefit gain I can see from this is for the commercial trucks coming in from the west on I-20/59 or I-22 then heading north on I-65.

I don't think the Birmingham Northern Beltline is really necessary. It's better to widen the remaining parts of I-20 to 8 lanes and rebuild the I-20/I-65 interchange. There isn't much north of Birmingham in terms of urban development and if it is a toll road even fewer people would use it.

Actually the last phase of the I-20 widening project is underway from Brompton to near Pell City. There are still no plans for the I-20/59 at I-65 interchange, even though I-65 widening project is completed north of there in anticipation of the completion of the I-22 interchange.

The point is exactly to spur development along a new route :p

What development? Birmingham has lost over 30% of its population. The suburbs grew, but are not very large, especially not to the north. Alabama seems to be missing out on the massive growth of its neighbors (mainly Georgia and Tennessee).

I-22 project on course: Weather doesn't slow Corridor X interchange
Published: Monday, January 24, 2011, 6:30 AM
By Jeremy Gray -- The Birmingham News

Despite recent snow and ice storms, work on the interchange linking Corridor X and Interstate 65 is on schedule and on budget, Alabama Department of Transportation officials said. "The weather's been a factor but the project's going well and work will accelerate as the weather begins to improve," said ALDOT spokeswoman Linda Crockett.

Blasting work began in October by the Georgia-based Archer Western Contractors, the company building the $168.6 million interchange. It includes 14 ramps and 14 bridges and stretches 1½ miles. "So far, the contractor's efforts have revolved around clearing and performing the initial bridge work and some culverts have been constructed," said ALDOT spokesman Tony Harris.

Portions of the bridges will be constructed off-site then brought to the construction zone for installation, Harris said. "So far, everything appears to be on target as far as schedule and budget," Harris said.

With a completion date set for 2014, the project will all but finish Alabama's 96-mile portion of Corridor X, the Birmingham-to-Memphis interstate that will be known as Interstate 22. The work will produce a four-level, 85-foot-tall interchange, with workers tunneling under I-65 to allow I-22 to run beneath the existing interstate. ALDOT officials have said the finished interchange will be similar to the I-459/65 junction in Hoover.

Another leg of the interstate project, the U.S. 31/I-22 interchange, has a preliminary cost estimate of between $15 million and $20 million. It involves building a 3,000-foot stretch of road linking I-22 to U.S. 31. Bids will be taken on that project this year and it should be completed in 2014, the same deadline for completing the I-22/65 interchange, ALDOT has said.

What development? Birmingham has lost over 30% of its population. The suburbs grew, but are not very large, especially not to the north. Alabama seems to be missing out on the massive growth of its neighbors (mainly Georgia and Tennessee).

Actually Birmingham proper (within city limits) lost 30,000, while the metro area as a whole grew 7% in the last decade.

The proposed route of the Northern Beltline is mainly rural/exurban areas. The reason Alabama isnt growing as fast as states like Georgia and Tennessee, well thats another story.

I wouldn't really say they're faster, certainly not in terms of speed limits, but everything else is correct, including the curvy and squiggly part.

I must say the Interstate system strikes me as one of the most brilliant public works projects, one that had a huge impact and was part of making America what it is today.

While the Interstate System is absolutely one of the most forward-thinking projects of the country's history, I do wish the mileage had been reduced, with the money left over going toward a regional high-speed rail system. But that's just me.

America was built for the car, it has the best roads.

Wrong on both counts. America was not built for the car. Up until the 1950s which saw cheap oil and massive federal road subsidies begin, most Americans took trains or rode public transit to get around.

And America's roads are mostly in terrible shape. This country has a MASSIVE infrastructure deficit across all modes. Don't let the few shiny new roads in the South fool you.

It's time to end the Applachian Development Highway System. It has turned into a massive subsidy enabling Southern states to get more than their fair share of highway funds for new road construction while other states struggle to maintain their existing roads.

Why are we building roads to attract NEW development? That is absurd. We need to build roads to serve areas growing on their own, not induce more sprawl especially with permanent high gas prices on the horizon.

That's typical pro public transport mantra. Some of it might be justified but there are many factors more responsible for demise of public transport in America. Germany has extensive network of excellent free motorways but also one of the best public transport in the world.



Germany's auto manufacturers did not collude to destroy the nation's mass transit system the way GM did.

^^ troll

Germany's auto manufacturers did not collude to destroy the nation's mass transit system the way GM did.

True....it seems that many U.S. cities had streetcar systems and only now are they coming back as "lightrail" systems. I think the Interstate system is awesome, I drive on it almost every day (Interstate 35) yet I would love to have a good alternative to fixing my car if it breaks down or paying $3.35 for gas.

Outside of Texas in the southeast the Interstates have been improved. I remember Louisiana and Arkansas used to have really shitty pavement on their Interstates. Actually going through Shreveport, LA and Birmingham, AL last summer did have crappy conditions on 20 with speed limits as low as 50 mph in which few people followed. Still beautiful in my opinion. I kinda enjoy seeing anomalies in our highway system.


As for building more interstates I'd like to see Texas 71 from Austin to Columbus, TX build to Interstate standards but it's not really needed after Bastrop since there are not traffic lights from Bastrop to Interstate 10.

http://i54.************/2chq649.jpg

As for building more interstates I'd like to see Texas 71 from Austin to Columbus, TX build to Interstate standards but it's not really needed after Bastrop since there are not traffic lights from Bastrop to Interstate 10. It might be a bit more work, but why not the US290 corridor (you can move off it and serve Bastrop if you want), giving a route that doesn't feed into the Katy freeway?

As for more highways in the Chicago region:
1) extend I-355 on the southern and northern ends
a) Northern end from IL-53 & Lake Cook Road north to IL-120 and east to I-94. A western spur through northern Lake and McHenry County to connect to US-12 at the Wisconsin border, where it is already built to or close to Interstate Standards in WI for about 30 miles north to Elkhorn.
b) Southern end from I-80 curving southeast to I-57 north of Kankakee and continuing to I-65 in Indiana.
2) Have Elgin-O'Hare Expressway connect to the proposed western ring toll-road around O'Hare, also connect to Elgin and then continue NW to connect with I-90
3) Rebuild out-dated cloverleaf junction at I-90 and I-290/IL53 to modern interchange with flyovers. Expand lane capacity of I-90 west of I-290 and add full interchange at Meacham Rd or expand partial interchange at Roselle Rd. to full interchange.
4) Expand I-80 to 2x3 from current 2x2 from just east of I-355 to I-55
5) Expand I-57 to 2x3 from current 2x2 from I-80 to Sauk Trail
6) Expand I-90 to 2x3 from current 2x2 from Randall Rd to I-39 and have Wisconsin expand I-90 from 2x2 to 2x3 from IL line to Madison.

Germany's auto manufacturers did not collude to destroy the nation's mass transit system the way GM did.

Come on men. People were happy to jump into the cars. No one forced them.
It has more to do with people's attitudes toward public transport and also nation culture and habits in general. American society is much more individualistic than German one.
Germany is also much, much more densely populated than USA.