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.

They ripped up miles of lines , alot business owners were opposed to this.....people didn't have any other choice but the car. Fortunately the Northeastern states have committed to 19,000 miles of restored Regional , Intercity , Suburban and Urban Rail....opinions towards Rail are more welcoming and opposition is hard to find. Most projects are very cheap and get great returns like a MOM network it will only cost 380 Million $$$ and get a projected 120,000 riders... Another project will only cost 90 Million and get at least 40,000.... Society outside the NE is slowly changing.....people are fed up with traffic and endless road expansions that cost this country a trillion $$ to subsidize over the past decade... Rail has a Return ...in Smart Growth Developments which can bring millions of $$$ to the local economies and 100s of jobs to local towns

^^ New Jersey Turnpike expansion, alone, will carry more extra traffic than all rail projects in the area, combined. It will help unclog I-95 that runs west of it.

You also have to recall that despite the far higher fuel prices and light-years more extensive passenger rail (of all types) network in Europe as compared to North America, I saw an article fairly recently that said that fully 80% of all intercity trips in Europe are still by car.

I am very neutral when it comes to which modes to develop and expand vs any others, I am most interested in getting the best public benefit for the public treasure that is spent on it. They are all different.

Mike

^^ New Jersey Turnpike expansion, alone, will carry more extra traffic than all rail projects in the area, combined. It will help unclog I-95 that runs west of it.

Actually the MOM network and West Trenton lines will carry 160,000 people when completed later this decade. Feeding into other lines....so it will carry the same amount , probably less. The Widening project will not really help traffic , maybe in some aspects. But those 2 Rail projects will serve the communities that mostly use the NJTPK & GSP. And how do you know what the rail usage projections are? The West Trenton line will service the NJ 27 corridor.... There are other lines aswell... Ridership projections are always met , so i'm not worried about low usage. These 3 lines will service the fastest growing areas of the state and help with the bus congestion. Theres also the proposed New Brunswick LRT system that would connect a few Railways and college campuses , that will get around 40,000.. Theres also the Riverline Extensions that take the aim at South Jersey and grab people before they get to the highway areas. The South Jersey Light Rail network will add 10-20,000 per line. So were at 215,000 , which is more then the NJTPK......

You're comparing an entire network with a single section of Turnpike. That's apples and oranges.

Somehow people think that it's all better in Europe, but we also dismantled a large amount of our railway lines. In the Netherlands hundreds of miles were dismantled, often already before 1930. In other countries the network remains but have 2 hour train intervals which are basically useless.

In Europe, 85% of the travel mileage is done by car. In the United States this is 92%. There isn't much difference overall. In the United States, bus services mostly substitute the lack of a transit system. Buses are much cheaper to operate.

You're comparing an entire network with a single section of Turnpike. That's apples and oranges.

Somehow people think that it's all better in Europe, but we also dismantled a large amount of our railway lines. In the Netherlands hundreds of miles were dismantled, often already before 1930. In other countries the network remains but have 2 hour train intervals which are basically useless.

In Europe, 85% of the travel mileage is done by car. In the United States this is 92%. There isn't much difference overall. In the United States, bus services mostly substitute the lack of a transit system. Buses are much cheaper to operate.

Yea but the Network targets the towns that use the Turnpike the most... Buses are getting maxed out in that part of Jersey , so Rail is being restored. Rail is only restored along Dense corridors. My state is really tired of widening and building New Freeways which are unpopular and hard to fund....so thats another Reason why Rail is being pushed. Rail is not being pushed on corridors that will get low usage only dense corridors... I know you dismantled part of your network , you also have a decent system in place atm. We only have 13 corridors. Buses actually are used to fill for rail service in some areas awaiting restored Rail but its causing congestion issues and towns and small cities are demanding Rail. The MOM network targets towns that feed into NJ 33 , NJTPK , GSP , US 9 and I-195 to a small extent. The Lackawanna line targets I80 and I-380 towns in NJ and PA its currently under reconstruction. The West Trenton line would service a part of the state that is rich but commutes to NYC , mainly by the NEC which is congested or drives up NJ 27 or US 1. The Northern Branch corridor services a undeserved part of Bergen County that mainly commutes to Jersey City and Lower Manhattan...there are no highways other then the PIP on this side of the county. The Glassboro light Rail would service the congested and growing NJ 55 corridor and well supported by local towns and communities. The Bergen - Passaic Light Rail line will service the NJ 4 & I80 communities its more of a connector line between 2 cities and regional rail....that line is being redone atm due to local opposition form towns left out. The Philpsburg connections will serve the growing parts of Eastern PA , Buses are heavily congested and the Rail line will also give a spark to the local economies. These lines will service the I78 , NJ 31 , NJ 57 , US 22 , US 206 corridors which are becoming congested.... Most NJT lines have 25-45 min service , more inbound then outbound but its still decent. Ive looked at many European lines and there less then what we offer here.

Projects to be completed by 2020

MOM network
Lackawanna line (NJ section)
West Trenton line
West Trenton Riverline Extension
Northern Branch Corridor
Glassboro Light Rail line
Pennsuaken Transit Center
PATH extension to EWR
NJT HBLR 440 Extension
Bergen-Passaic Light Rail
Philpsburg Connections (2-3 lines)

In Europe, 85% of the travel mileage is done by car. In the United States this is 92%. There isn't much difference overall. In the United States, bus services mostly substitute the lack of a transit system. Buses are much cheaper to operate.

Bus service "substituting" for rail transit is like saying Sunny D substitutes orange juice.

Bus transit is cheaper to operate but also slower, more polluting, and does not encourage new development. Many routes are only served by a couple of buses an hour, whereas rail transit has much greater frequency of service and much high ridership. One can travel from London to Berlin, and explore both cities and their suburbs without the need for a car. Try doing the same in Los Angeles and New York.

Bus service "substituting" for rail transit is like saying Sunny D substitutes orange juice.

Bus transit is cheaper to operate but also slower, more polluting, and does not encourage new development.

The Interstate network encourages much development. You don't need extra encouragement save for a few selected areas.

The Interstate network encourages much development. You don't need extra encouragement save for a few selected areas.

Double post

The Interstate network encourages much development. You don't need extra encouragement save for a few selected areas.

Strip malls, fast food joints, and truck stops count as development, but not good development. Urban rail lines encourage and make possible high density, human based development that enables walking (the horror!) and interpersonal communication.

To be honest the South will continue down the Path of sprawl but does anyone really care? The other regions of the US are slowly moving away form Sprawl....so you can look at it that way?

Bus service "substituting" for rail transit is like saying Sunny D substitutes orange juice.

Bus transit is cheaper to operate but also slower, more polluting, and does not encourage new development. Many routes are only served by a couple of buses an hour, whereas rail transit has much greater frequency of service and much high ridership. One can travel from London to Berlin, and explore both cities and their suburbs without the need for a car. Try doing the same in Los Angeles and New York.

The Greyhound between here and Roanoke runs twice a day.

One can travel from London to Berlin, and explore both cities and their suburbs without the need for a car. Try doing the same in Los Angeles and New York.

While Europe has extensive intercity travel by train, don't expect a massive amount of people doing that over such distances... They use airplanes. There is no way Europeans would travel distances like Los Angeles - New York (or even Chicago - New York) by train by any significant numbers.

If Europeans travel long distances, they're either alone, on business, or with their family going on vacation. When they're on business, speed is important and they will mostly use the airplane for distances over 400 miles. If they're with their family, money and local mobility counts, hence they will be going by car up to 1000 miles.

Try comparing the cost of 3 to 5 train tickets to the cost of a car trip. The difference is huge.

[QUOTE=hoosier;73814401One can travel from London to Berlin, and explore both cities and their suburbs without the need for a car. Try doing the same in Los Angeles and New York.[/QUOTE]

As Chris wrote most Europeans fly on such distances, some drive (if they have a lot of stuff to move or on family holiday) and very few uses trains.
People traveling by train from London to Berlin are most likely to be train enthusiasts or American tourists using EuroRail passes. ;)

Some people from America, especially pro public transit ones, have completely screwed view of Europe, like we are some sort of transit heaven they should aspire to. Guys, we have our own problems with rails, be a bit critical.
I travel distance about 1000 miles couple of times a year and I never use train. Never. I don't know many people doing it. Distance of about 500 miles is probably maximum for most people (with exception of some high speed lines). Especially international train journeys are unpopular. Train would be much more expensive and would take much more time. Why would anyone take it? Again London - Paris/Brussels is rather exception confirming that rule.

As Chris wrote most Europeans fly on such distances, some drive (if they have a lot of stuff to move or on family holiday) and very few uses trains.
People traveling by train from London to Berlin are most likely to be train enthusiasts or American tourists using EuroRail passes. ;)

Some people from America, especially pro public transit ones, have completely screwed view of Europe, like we are some sort of transit heaven they should aspire to. Guys, we have our own problems with rails, be a bit critical.
I travel distance about 1000 miles couple of times a year and I never use train. Never. I don't know many people doing it. Distance of about 500 miles is probably maximum for most people (with exception of some high speed lines). Especially international train journeys are unpopular. Train would be much more expensive and would take much more time. Why would anyone take it? Again London - Paris/Brussels is rather exception confirming that rule.

Some patterns are remarkably similar in both sides of the Atlantic. "Summer peak drive" exists both here and there. Perhaps it is even more critical in Europe than in US.

Families travelling on long (1 week and longer) vacations often take long, multi-day trips from Northern Europe to "sunny" destinations in Spain, France and Italy. There is a massive exodus of people on cars, though, as in US, the average occupancy of cars on worst summer weekends is more than double the average occupancy in a normal day.

I think for Brumtonion, you might like to live in Nevada. Very few squiggly roads. Wow, someone really has an issue with roads that aren't straight. Just so you know some highways in the U.S. of A. have some curvy bits. Maybe not like in England, but from time to time a motorist may encounter a hill or even a "mountain" that they have to reconnoiter with. Seriously someone not only has a problem non straight roads in their own country but thinks that somehow highways here are like God's gift to mankind, drive around Orlando, it's great, you'll probably wonder why an interchange in Birmingham UK has as many lanes as one at Disney World, which I here is somewhat popular with tourists.

I think for some people who look at trains as the answer to their transit problems, they have to look at their transit problems. Why in the U.S. we don't have HSR in New England and the Mid Atlantic, Chicago and it's vicinity, and in California is amazingly dumb. We're a big country and these would be the areas that it would work in, but in some places it will never work. If we need 5 or 6 lane highways from Montgomery to Mobile Alabama great, just let me in San Francisco go from here to LA by train if me and my fellow citizens want it. The thing that pisses me off in this country is how train versus car travel is such a "political red versus blue" issue. We all don't live in the same place, don't expect us to get around the same way. By the way when you are paying 5 or 6 bucks a gallon or more for gas in a couple of months, I'll still have my 6 block WALK to work :)

As Chris wrote most Europeans fly on such distances, some drive (if they have a lot of stuff to move or on family holiday) and very few uses trains.
People traveling by train from London to Berlin are most likely to be train enthusiasts or American tourists using EuroRail passes. ;)

Some people from America, especially pro public transit ones, have completely screwed view of Europe, like we are some sort of transit heaven they should aspire to. Guys, we have our own problems with rails, be a bit critical.
I travel distance about 1000 miles couple of times a year and I never use train. Never. I don't know many people doing it. Distance of about 500 miles is probably maximum for most people (with exception of some high speed lines). Especially international train journeys are unpopular. Train would be much more expensive and would take much more time. Why would anyone take it? Again London - Paris/Brussels is rather exception confirming that rule.

For the Record , we don't want a European system.....were building a large scale system in this region...and thats all i care about. Outside the NE , build as many highways as you want....but in this region Rail is priority.... The Railway towns grew faster then the Auto towns , people are tired of traffic and are changing to Rail / Transit. Regional Rail ridership is 1.1 Million in NYC region and growing fast..... There aren't any lines here in the NE that are 1000 miles mostly 200-500 miles....

Regional Rail ridership is 1.1 Million in NYC region and growing fast.....

That's 550.000 people out of a population of 22.000.000 :)

That's 550.000 people out of a population of 22.000.000 :)

Overall Transit ridership is 13 Million , which a big chunk....it grew by 3 million this past decade if i'm not mistaken. Its expected to hit 17 million by 2020....other regions are growing aswell... Penn station is used by 600,000 daily , Grand Central is used by 150,000 , Jamaica station is used by 200,000 , Newark Penn Station is used by 120,000 and Hoboken is used by 70,000 daily....so its more then 550,000 people. Its 1.1 million for all 3 systems. Regional Rail ridership is 980,000 , but the PATH , SI Railway are labeled Railways by the FRA , then theres the PATCO.

^^ Nexis, let's wait final figures of US Census Bureau then we discuss about "the demise of auto in Northeastern US".

^^ Nexis, let's wait final figures of US Census Bureau then we discuss about "the demise of auto in Northeastern US".

They already came out....the Railway burbs also faired better during the recession.... If you look at the Railway or Transit connected towns and cities in my state they grew faster then the Auto-burbs...

As Chris wrote most Europeans fly on such distances, some drive (if they have a lot of stuff to move or on family holiday) and very few uses trains.
People traveling by train from London to Berlin are most likely to be train enthusiasts or American tourists using EuroRail passes. ;)

Some people from America, especially pro public transit ones, have completely screwed view of Europe, like we are some sort of transit heaven they should aspire to. Guys, we have our own problems with rails, be a bit critical.
I travel distance about 1000 miles couple of times a year and I never use train. Never. I don't know many people doing it. Distance of about 500 miles is probably maximum for most people (with exception of some high speed lines). Especially international train journeys are unpopular. Train would be much more expensive and would take much more time. Why would anyone take it? Again London - Paris/Brussels is rather exception confirming that rule.

If America had a HSR system connecting all major cities within 500 miles of one another, well over 80 percent of the population would have access to it. America east of the Mississippi is as densely populated as Europe. Air travel in most cities is terrible and consists of people being packed into tiny sardine cans prone to delays.

You left out Madrid- Barcelona and Madrid-Valencia as more "exceptions" to the rule. Any more city pairings and the exceptions will become the rule!

Alot of Ridership growth has to do with TOD projects , which fill in the open areas of the Downtowns...and areas surrounding stations. There are 2 large scale TOD projects UC , there expected to add 15-20,000 more riders to one station. So alot of the ridership big and small has come form TOD and NJ was the first state to have a policy...now every NE state has one....although not as good as NJ. .

Doesn't Europe have plenty of low-coast airplanes? I don't really see the point of driving up to 1000 miles in you cars even with families.

I saw an article fairly recently that said that fully 80% of all intercity trips in Europe are still by car.

Isn't that based on transportation mileage?

As Chris wrote most Europeans fly on such distances, some drive (if they have a lot of stuff to move or on family holiday) and very few uses trains.
People traveling by train from London to Berlin are most likely to be train enthusiasts or American tourists using EuroRail passes. ;)

Some people from America, especially pro public transit ones, have completely screwed view of Europe, like we are some sort of transit heaven they should aspire to. Guys, we have our own problems with rails, be a bit critical.
I travel distance about 1000 miles couple of times a year and I never use train. Never. I don't know many people doing it. Distance of about 500 miles is probably maximum for most people (with exception of some high speed lines). Especially international train journeys are unpopular. Train would be much more expensive and would take much more time. Why would anyone take it? Again London - Paris/Brussels is rather exception confirming that rule.

I'm glad a European finally spoke up about this. It's a huge misconception. It's expensive and it doesn't get you there faster. Car rides are still hugely popular in Europe.

For the Record , we don't want a European system.....were building a large scale system in this region...and thats all i care about. Outside the NE , build as many highways as you want....but in this region Rail is priority.... The Railway towns grew faster then the Auto towns , people are tired of traffic and are changing to Rail / Transit. Regional Rail ridership is 1.1 Million in NYC region and growing fast..... There aren't any lines here in the NE that are 1000 miles mostly 200-500 miles....

Totally agree. I've said from the beginning that, for the right price, high speed rail in the NEC makes complete sense. Outside of the Northeast is where people are more skeptical about HSR, and for good reason. Public transit advocates in the US chirp about how terrible flying is, how cramped it is, what a hassle security is, how delayed it gets. They're being disingenuous, but that's their loss. I fly quite a bit and I don't find air travel to be a hassle at all. I find it quite convenient; it's inexpensive, fast, efficient, and 95% of the time I run into no delays.

The highway system in the US is great too. Road trips are a blast, and cars give you complete flexibility to move around your destination, especially when you are unfamiliar with the area. If people want to claim that trying to figure out the bus and light rail system while transferring from one mode of public transit to another is somehow better than simply punching your destination into your car's GPS, that's fine, but most Americans disagree. For one, it's impossible to get to family in suburban areas where public transit doesn't go, so someone will have to pick you up anyway. There is virtually no way to escape the car in America.

HSR should be done regionally IMO like in the Midwest.

If they're with their family, money and local mobility counts, hence they will be going by car up to 1000 miles.

What do you mean by local mobility?

I agree with you.

Doesn't Europe have plenty of low-coast airplanes? I don't really see the point of driving up to 1000 miles in you cars even with families.

Well, it depends. Car rentals are more expensive in Europe than in US. I love low-cost airlines - for a weekend getaway alone -. If you have 2 kids and are travelling with them on vacation, you won't make it only with hand luggage. Then you add checked bag fees, then you add expensive transportation to/from airports, and lack of mobility once you arrive in your destination. Gosh, a family of 4 usually can't fit together in a taxi.

Isn't that based on transportation mileage?

It is.

Even though Europeans don't travel great distances by train (which is mostly done by backpackers who want to travel like the locals and blend in.. like a sore thumb)

Majority of people I met in hostels around Europe were travelling by low-cost airlines, which happen to be much popular among locals anyway.

, people do use trains for shorter intercity and intracity journeys much, much more than in the US. And even when you fly somewhere, you're most likely to use public transport at your destination to get around. This is especially true for larger cities, where using public transport is hugely more practical than driving in a city you're not familiar with. The road trip style journeys are mostly limited to that once-a-year Great Southern Migration.

There is some truth to that, but once you are used to the hassles of driving in your own country, you easily catch up with driving in another big city. Individual trips are another issue than family trips. Car rentals, as I told, are expensive and much less popular in European airports than in North America. There are rental parking lots, but they ware way smaller than the average rental parking facility of the average American airport hub.

Again, the share of car on land transportation is high, above 70% in all Western European countries and rapidly increasing in Eastern European ones. The difference is that in US rail intercity transport is negligible and in Europe it it gets a minority of the market. Rail accounted for 0.8% of all American passenger*mile count and it accounts from 3-15% in EU countries.

Here where I live (Netherlands) rail is extensively deployed and not expensive for local wages. There are 250 stations in a country of 32.000km² of land. Services run frequently. Yet, it accounts only for 13% of all motorized land transport (there is no domestic flight services in the country).

This latest Oil crisis , will only increase the demand for Rail and Accelerate Rail projects in this region. There are also a few Highway Demolitions underway I-678 , CT -34 and I-195.... I don't think this oil crisis will go away....and only get worse.... Transit ridership across the US jumped by 10% in the past week.

For the Record , we don't want a European system.....
Well, someone just wrote:
"One can travel from London to Berlin, and explore both cities and their suburbs without the need for a car. Try doing the same in Los Angeles and New York."
Such comment can be understood as wishing for Americans to take trains from NYC to LA which is of course total stupidity as you know. First such distance is two, three times longer than from London to Berlin. Second, even in Europe very few people make journeys from London to Berlin by train.

I have strong suspicion that you might have more people traveling from NYC to Chicago by train than from London to Berlin ;)

...were building a large scale system in this region...and thats all i care about. Outside the NE , build as many highways as you want....but in this region Rail is priority....
Totally agree about need for more rail in the north east. That's probably the only region in US dense enough to justify regional rail.

If America had a HSR system connecting all major cities within 500 miles of one another, well over 80 percent of the population would have access to it.
What you mean by major cities? Kansas City to St Louis? Oklahoma City to Dallas? Dallas to Houston? How many people travel daily between such cities? HSR make sense only with very large passenger numbers. Even in Europe more and more people question economic sense of some of the High Speed lines and ridership on some lines is lower than expected.
SF to LA could be considered but it might be too long and quite expensive to build in seismic zone. I think HSR in California is dead.

America east of the Mississippi is as densely populated as Europe.
Wrong, it might be as densely populated as some parts of Europe but nowhere near the European heartland where HSR are the most successful. By that I mean South England, Benelux, Northern France, Western and Southern Germany and Northern Italy.

Air travel in most cities is terrible and consists of people being packed into tiny sardine cans prone to delays.
Have you ever used train in London? There you can see people packed like sardines :lol:

HSR should be done regionally IMO like in the Midwest.

Distances in the Midwest are to long and population is too small for HSR.



HSRs make plenty sense between cities where travel times are <4h, which has been shown on Madrid-Barcelona, Paris-London etc. The idea of flying from London to Paris is quite absurd when you can go from city center to city center in a couple of hours.

For people living in central London train has great advantage when traveling to central Paris. But if you live in the suburbs or in wider region, and not necessarily travel to central Paris, plane might have an advantage. Plenty of people still fly between those cities.

Anyway, we probably are a bit OT as this is thread about highways ;)

Airports tend to be built at inconvenient places IMO, but that's another discussion.

There are also a few Highway Demolitions underway I-678 , CT -34 and I-195.... I don't think this oil crisis will go away....and only get worse....

Misleading.

First, I couldn't find anything on demolition of I-678 in New York but, indeed, a project widening.

I-195 in Providence is being demolished in a 1.5mi stretch that has been already replaced by a bypass :p

CT-34 is New Haven has been slated for demolition in a small stretch of 1.1mi because they decided not to expand further at its terminus it and sold the ROW for development.

Transit ridership across the US jumped by 10% in the past week.

I doubt transit agencies can provide such a national figure in 48 hours. Honestly.

Misleading.

First, I couldn't find anything on demolition of I-678 in New York but, indeed, a project widening.

I-195 in Providence is being demolished in a 1.5mi stretch that has been already replaced by a bypass :p

CT-34 is New Haven has been slated for demolition in a small stretch of 1.1mi because they decided not to expand further at its terminus it and sold the ROW for development.



I doubt transit agencies can provide such a national figure in 48 hours. Honestly.

1. The Sheridan Expressway or I-895 sorry not 678 is slated form Demolition....

2. Yea , but its a growing trend of Highway relocation form the CBD to the outer areas ....its a good trend aswell... Also covering Highways in Cuts with Urban parks...or buildings..

3. Its form the past week not 48hrs.....and yes they can....they do it after new lines open.

1. The Sheridan Expressway or I-895 sorry not 678 is slated form Demolition....



NYDOT apparently disagrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/nyregion/14sheridan.html) that it should be demolished.

NYDOT apparently disagrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/nyregion/14sheridan.html) that it should be demolished.

Hmmm , i heard NYC has other plans , when NYC gets involved it usually happens ....i don't think traffic would worsen. They have I78 and Hunts Point Truck traffic is decreasing as the areas factories close up...and are redeveloped...

I-895 is rather useless anyway, I-87 and the Bronx River Parkway both fills it's purpose more or less.

Route 34 is being demolished on it's end because it is useless as well and it created such a hole in New Haven's downtown.

This latest Oil crisis , will only increase the demand for Rail and Accelerate Rail projects in this region. There are also a few Highway Demolitions underway I-678 , CT -34 and I-195.... I don't think this oil crisis will go away....and only get worse.... Transit ridership across the US jumped by 10% in the past week.
What I-195?

Mike

I wonder how disillusioned Nexis must be if he comes to the Netherlands, or France, or Germany, or Denmark, or whatever European countries which have 2 - 3 times higher fuel prices than the US, what he calls an "oil crisis".

The I-90/ 94 split near Tomah, WI
http://www.tomahonline.com/images/aerialview.jpg
City of Tomah

Austin, Texas, is becoming another stack capital:

qpeXgXSp544

What I-195?

Mike

Providence one

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5016/5484312745_a892d7444c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58174355@N02/5484312745/)
DSCN6140 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58174355@N02/5484312745/) by lddana51two (http://www.flickr.com/people/58174355@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5388211603_756361c9e3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58174355@N02/5388211603/)
New view opens up at WIckenden (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58174355@N02/5388211603/) by lddana51two (http://www.flickr.com/people/58174355@N02/), on Flickr

New I-195 , there is a massive Development planned for the old ROW , along with streetcars and BRT

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5042563105_cc40133998_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/docsearls/5042563105/)
2010_09_26_bwi-bos_28 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/docsearls/5042563105/) by dsearls (http://www.flickr.com/people/docsearls/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1078/5118284730_5f16411ca0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7422037@N06/5118284730/)
Providence River Arch Bridge (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7422037@N06/5118284730/) by BlueisCoool (http://www.flickr.com/people/7422037@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1271/4696825897_eb64286fef_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjl_photos/4696825897/)
195 Bridge in Providence, RI (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjl_photos/4696825897/) by cjlphotos (http://www.flickr.com/people/cjl_photos/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3703343399_6dd279dcf9_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/3703343399/)
051009 2137 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/3703343399/) by dougtone (http://www.flickr.com/people/dougtone/), on Flickr

I wonder how disillusioned Nexis must be if he comes to the Netherlands, or France, or Germany, or Denmark, or whatever European countries which have 2 - 3 times higher fuel prices than the US, what he calls an "oil crisis".

We panic when it hits 4-6$ , were not used to that.....it happened in 2008.

@Nexis: uhh... are you sure that's the demolition of I-195 in Providence? Part of I-195 was rerouted through the city to, as you stated, reclaim space downtown, but I-195 as a route still exists in its entirety.
http://www.dot.state.ri.us/engineering/construction/195intro.asp

hi,

i was wondering : what is the "capital(s)" of the Us regarding freeways. Consider only large cities ; a short list is ok ; by "capital" I mean where we find network highest density, state of the art freeways, freeways as the main or only transportation resource...

And how is the congestion in this (these) city(ies)? Why?

@Nexis: uhh... are you sure that's the demolition of I-195 in Providence? Part of I-195 was rerouted through the city to, as you stated, reclaim space downtown, but I-195 as a route still exists in its entirety.
http://www.dot.state.ri.us/engineering/construction/195intro.asp

Well the old ROW is being demolished....

hi,

i was wondering : what is the "capital(s)" of the Us regarding freeways. Consider only large cities ; a short list is ok ; by "capital" I mean where we find network highest density, state of the art freeways, freeways as the main or only transportation resource...

And how is the congestion in this (these) city(ies)? Why?

If you consider the variables you pointed out, I'd go for Houston Metro. If you consider population, Kansas City does nice also.

Kansas City has the best freeway lane mileage vs population ratio. Dallas is also pretty high on that list, but the freeway capacity in the DFW area is unevenly distributed. Los Angeles, New York and Chicago are one of the worst.

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.

And Southern states are not also struggling to maintain its roads?. The point of this program in the first place is the provide a better road system in the Applachian region, not just some government free for all.

And Southern states are not also struggling to maintain its roads?. The point of this program in the first place is the provide a better road system in the Applachian region, not just some government free for all.

Virginia is having it tough lately, but we've apparently been able to start a large upgrade of the Capital Beltway. One major future project is to upgrade Interstate 81, which is 4 lanes most of its length through Virginia and is in dire need of simple maintenance, let alone the upgrade it deserves to properly carry its heavy traffic. Several ideas have been proposed in the past decade to upgrade it, most including tolls, but the money mysteriously dried up in 2008 so nothing has been done.

The current work in Providence is putting I-195 where it should have been built in the first place. I have no idea who paid off who to have it put onto that serpentine routing where it originally was.

Mike

I wonder how disillusioned Nexis must be if he comes to the Netherlands, or France, or Germany, or Denmark, or whatever European countries which have 2 - 3 times higher fuel prices than the US, what he calls an "oil crisis".

European vehicles have much greater fuel efficiency and people don't have to drive to get around.

European vehicles have much greater fuel efficiency and people don't have to drive to get around.

Most Americans remember the terrible 2008 crisis......and there worried about the looming crisis...

And Southern states are not also struggling to maintain its roads?. The point of this program in the first place is the provide a better road system in the Applachian region, not just some government free for all.

Mission Accomplished. We don't need roads to nowhere in the rural south. Building roads just to stimulate development instead of serving areas that are already developed is a terrible idea.

How many more boondoggles must the South get? You got Reconstruction in the 1870s. Then you got the TVA in the 1930s which provided dirt cheap electricity and navigable waterways and after that you got the Appalachian Development Highway System. Meanwhile all of the donor states are scrambling to find funds just to maintain their existing infrastructure.

What next? Why are we subsidizing the most anti-federal government part of the country?

Two weeks ago, the Maryland ICC (Inter-County Connector) opened its first phase. Once completed, the new six lane 18.8 mile highway will link Montgomery County and Prince Georges County. The highway will also connect with the heavily traveled Interstate 95. The project was first conceived in the 1960s to act as a second beltway around the Washington D.C. region and after years of delays an cancellations, the project is months away from being fully completed (though smaller than original plans and without a full circle considering Virginia would be responsible for their side).

The project is highly controversial in the state of Maryland and was revived by former Governor Bob Ehrlich (2002 - 2006), the only Republican Governor to serve Maryland since Spiro Agnew (former disgraced Vice-President under Richard Nixon) held the office in the 1960s (1967 - 1969). Many in Maryland, one of the more liberal states in the country, saw this project as an environmental threat to the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay and a step towards increased suburban sprawl in a section of the state that is home to some of the worst traffic in the country. Despite the controversy surrounding the project, current Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley ( 2006 - Present) allowed for the continuation of the 2.6 Billion dollar project under the condition that the new highway be a toll highway. Maryland 200 (ICC) is arguably the most environmentally safe in the nation because state lawmakers required that the highway have as little environmental impact as possible.

Controversy still surrounds the highway, largely becasue of the environmental impacts, but also because the heavy prices tag associated with the project has put other Maryland transportation projects into question. The Baltimore Red Line (proposed east-west light rail line) is estimated at 1.6 billion dollars and the proposed Purple Line in the suburbs of Washington D.C. is estimated at 1.4 billion dollars. Can the state afford these transit projects deemed vital to restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay and spurring revitalization in the city of Baltimore? Time will tell, but newly re-elected Governor Martin O'Malley has reiterated his support for these projects time and time again.

Anyway, here's a link to the MD 200 (ICC) website and a video from someone who test drove the new highway when the state opened it up for free for the first several days. The tolls are all automatic with no tolls booths or toll workers. State analysts predict that 90% of ICC drivers will purchase an EZ Pass account. Toll prices will vary based on traffic volume and time of day.

http://www.iccproject.com/

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

Mission Accomplished. We don't need roads to nowhere in the rural south. Building roads just to stimulate development instead of serving areas that are already developed is a terrible idea.

How many more boondoggles must the South get? You got Reconstruction in the 1870s. Then you got the TVA in the 1930s which provided dirt cheap electricity and navigable waterways and after that you got the Appalachian Development Highway System. Meanwhile all of the donor states are scrambling to find funds just to maintain their existing infrastructure.

What next? Why are we subsidizing the most anti-federal government part of the country?

What highways are there in the middle of nowhere in the rural south without any purpose?

Mission Accomplished. We don't need roads to nowhere in the rural south. Building roads just to stimulate development instead of serving areas that are already developed is a terrible idea.

How many more boondoggles must the South get? You got Reconstruction in the 1870s. Then you got the TVA in the 1930s which provided dirt cheap electricity and navigable waterways and after that you got the Appalachian Development Highway System. Meanwhile all of the donor states are scrambling to find funds just to maintain their existing infrastructure.

What next? Why are we subsidizing the most anti-federal government part of the country?

These are not roads to nowhere, for example corridor X (I-22) will connect two mid-size metro areas in this region (Birmingham and Memphis). Again Southern states are also struggling with transportation budgets like anywhere else in the country.

This earmarked money cant just be spent on any road project. It has to qualify for the money.

And Southern states are not also struggling to maintain its roads?. The point of this program in the first place is the provide a better road system in the Applachian region, not just some government free for all.

The ARC hasn't benefited any states except Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I-22 would have been built without any sort of ARC promotion, and it was only added to the "Corridor" list when politically convenient.

Damn I'm jealous of the ICC. So many planned highways around here (From the same area as you) that will never get built.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxCUlvEkQDg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxCUlvEkQDg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

This latest Oil crisis , will only increase the demand for Rail and Accelerate Rail projects in this region. There are also a few Highway Demolitions underway I-678 , CT -34 and I-195.... I don't think this oil crisis will go away....and only get worse.... Transit ridership across the US jumped by 10% in the past week.

Nexis, I approve of transit in theory and think we need it. Particularly in urban areas, we need to encourage transit use for everyone for whom it's practical, rather than clogging highways in rush hours. But your expectations that everyone will eagerly jump into trains if we fill the country with railroads are just unrealistic. I live a few blocks from 30th Street Station and have been on a train only once since I acquired a car. (Because I needed to be in the suburbs for a work thing in January and my car was blocked in by a mound of snow a plow had pushed up against it.) If I want to go to Washington, for example, for the afternoon, why should I walk to the station, wait until there's a train (and these days, book it in advance), spend over $100.00 round trip and have to get from Union Station to where I want to be, when I can drive more or less door-to-door on my own time and for a fraction of that cost? If I want to go to my parents for the weekend, it's easier on my mother if she doesn't have to drive to MetroPark to pick me up. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor has gotten to be a luxury for people who make more money than I do and an overpriced necessity for people who don't own cars. In the rest of the country...?

If you consider the variables you pointed out, I'd go for Houston Metro. If you consider population, Kansas City does nice also.

thanks; what about congestion in these metro areas?

Nexis, I approve of transit in theory and think we need it. Particularly in urban areas, we need to encourage transit use for everyone for whom it's practical, rather than clogging highways in rush hours. But your expectations that everyone will eagerly jump into trains if we fill the country with railroads are just unrealistic. I live a few blocks from 30th Street Station and have been on a train only once since I acquired a car. (Because I needed to be in the suburbs for a work thing in January and my car was blocked in by a mound of snow a plow had pushed up against it.) If I want to go to Washington, for example, for the afternoon, why should I walk to the station, wait until there's a train (and these days, book it in advance), spend over $100.00 round trip and have to get from Union Station to where I want to be, when I can drive more or less door-to-door on my own time and for a fraction of that cost? If I want to go to my parents for the weekend, it's easier on my mother if she doesn't have to drive to MetroPark to pick me up. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor has gotten to be a luxury for people who make more money than I do and an overpriced necessity for people who don't own cars. In the rest of the country...?

I said the NE...outside the NE it won't work.....you can't reopen rural lines since they will barely get used. In the NE Rural lines are and will be used by a decent amount of riders..... Hopefully when the regional gaps along the NEC are filled more people will use the train. The Train form NYC to DC would only cost 30$. Theres a growing need for Rail in certain parts of the NE , where its been neglected like SE PA and Delaware.....we need to address those areas... We also have to address the cost of the trains....and speed. NJ - NY - CT - MA have done this by upgrading there networks and expanding them....other states have lagged and suffered.... SE PA has alot planned but funding has always been a issue in PA for both highways and rail transit...

of the many opinions, arguments for or against, and written conversations on the subject of high speed rail in our country, one of the most sensible ones is made by nexis. the reality is that, while high speed rail might work well in the northeast, on the west coast, maybe in florida, and a very few additional places, i just don't understand these individuals who keep trying to push this concept for the nation. it is not fiscally responsible, the population in most areas fails miserably to justify such a thing, and it would be cost prohibitive for the average ridership. i don't see why these things aren't easily seen, and i have asked time and time again, who is it that is pushing this agenda throughout america? i could see the expansion of amtrak, and i would love to see the major cities of states connected via amtrak, and the return of the use of trains to travel to all parts of america through high speed rail. however, the cities that have light rail (because it looks cool, as i have been told on so many occasions) are having major difficulty filling seats. i don't know what the adr is in most of the smaller cities, such as slc, charlotte, for example, but cities like nashville, memphis, b'ham, and basically similarly sized cities could never justify the money spent on a major rail line connection to spend federal dollars and public money w/ such small metro populations.

i like the plan memphis has to put in light rail from the airport to downtown and tie it in to the downtown medical districts; however, to try to hook up the entire metropolitan area cannot be justified because of numbers and the unrealistic costs. currently, nashville, is trying to run something similar to an old coal burning or steam engine train (may be a prop from petticoat junction, lol) in order to appear that nashville is bringing in loads of people from the pastures---i think they are actually begging people to ride it---yet, again, these trains are obviously needed in areas where 8 to 13 million people are strung together, or where 3 to 7 million, etc exist. maybe, atlanta might qualify, houston, dallas-fort worth, but a definite lack of justification everywhere else, for both the money, the return, and so many other additional concerns.

thanks; what about congestion in these metro areas?

Kansas City is one of the least congested metro areas in the United States, along with several other midwest metro areas (like Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Denver, Albuquerque, Little Rock, Louisville, etc.)

Houston is known for being the only city which actually cut congestion in the past 20 years despite growing by approximately 2 million people. Still, congestion in Houston is significant.

No major metropolitan area can be completely traffic-jam free. You can't have millions of people travel to work in a 2 - 3 hour time-frame while freeways have hourly lane capacities of approximately 2000 vehicles. However, it makes quite a difference if it are just slow patches and full exit ramps or completely jammed freeways with stationary traffic. Many people forget to take such differences into account.

^^ Even with congestion, because car efficiency is linear throughout the commute (no waiting time for connections, no walking long strolls at each end), cities that are more car-based usually have less average or median commute time than transit-based ones. New York Metro, for instance, has the longest average US commute among all metropolitan areas (comparing individual cities is useless), even if it is the only metro where more than 30% of commuters use transit.

The reasoning is quite simple: if you add mere 10-min. walks in each end of a transit-based commute + 5-min. connection in the middle of the journey, you already stacked 2 x 25 = 50min. to your daily commute. Even if you have some quite jammed route, chances are you can easily beat a transit-based commute.

Also, people who bitch about congestion, you experience the same in subways. You can hardly breathe at times and can't choose to not stand next to a smelly person. I'd gladly spend 15 minutes more in my car than experience that. I must implore though, I'm not anti-transit AT ALL, unlike car-haters who are on a jihad against cars. In fact, whenever I've been in a city with subways, I've always used them except for in Chicago.

^^ Even with congestion, because car efficiency is linear throughout the commute (no waiting time for connections, no walking long strolls at each end), cities that are more car-based usually have less average or median commute time than transit-based ones. New York Metro, for instance, has the longest average US commute among all metropolitan areas (comparing individual cities is useless), even if it is the only metro where more than 30% of commuters use transit.

The reasoning is quite simple: if you add mere 10-min. walks in each end of a transit-based commute + 5-min. connection in the middle of the journey, you already stacked 2 x 25 = 50min. to your daily commute. Even if you have some quite jammed route, chances are you can easily beat a transit-based commute.
THat's true. Walking to and from the station + switching trains + waiting can add considerable time to the travel. I'm sure most people don't just live next to a station and always arrive when the train arrives. In fact, even most stations are so big that from entrance to the platform it can take anything like 3-5 minutes.

Also, people who bitch about congestion, you experience the same in subways. You can hardly breathe at times and can't choose to not stand next to a smelly person. I'd gladly spend 15 minutes more in my car than experience that. I must implore though, I'm not anti-transit AT ALL, unlike car-haters who are on a jihad against cars. In fact, whenever I've been in a city with subways, I've always used them except for in Chicago.

Well at least they move unlike the Highways and Tollways that are sluggish.....i'm not a car hater....i'm trying to cut down on congestion , we also need to upgrade our highways in this country to Smart Highways that would solve half the issues... Highway spending accounts for 97% of the Transportation funding ,Transit accounts for only 3%...that should be 50/50...... We also need to stop building highways in states were the existing highways are near collapse..... We also need to raise the gas tax in most states to cover Highway spending...

I'm just waiting for John Boehner to announce plans for a "gas tax holiday"... after which we will never have a gas tax again. You think the GOP will allow it to expire? You think the Democrats will fight the GOP on the issue?

It's going to be an even darker era for our transit and roads as funds dry up to pay for them.

I'm just waiting for John Boehner to announce plans for a "gas tax holiday"... after which we will never have a gas tax again. You think the GOP will allow it to expire? You think the Democrats will fight the GOP on the issue?

It's going to be an even darker era for our transit and roads as funds dry up to pay for them.

Well most states use sales tax to fund there programs....and the ones that do fund the transit via gas or tolls are in the NE where the feds dump most of the $$$ for Transit... Will be fine , but you will suffer....:ohno: But this wouldn't have to be if they could fix the Govt....instead they leave it a mess...:ohno:

This thread is about this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Eisenhower_Interstate_System_IMG_4192.JPG/800px-Eisenhower_Interstate_System_IMG_4192.JPG
not this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3868729880_5f4fe0e5c7.jpg
resedabear (http://www.flickr.com/photos/resedabear/) on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/resedabear/3868729880/sizes/m/)
or this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Minneapolis_Light_Train.jpg
and definitely not these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/GOP_Logo1.svg/220px-GOP_Logo1.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/US_Democratic_Party_Logo.svg/150px-US_Democratic_Party_Logo.svg.png

:)

Yes! For those topics, better go to the Subways and Urban Transport forum.
I liked that thing that was on I-238 Southbound on Street View. They have updated the images, so is no longer there.
Yes, there is an I-238, but there's no I-38! I know the history about the 238 in the Bay area...

thanks; what about congestion in these metro areas?

I just moved to Kansas City one week ago from Columbus, Ohio and I have yet to hit major congestion here. In Columbus there are few freeways and it would take me close to an hour to drive 22 miles to work via I-71 to Ohio 315 to the north Outerbelt (270). I'm interviewing for jobs here in KC and am living 10 miles north of the river/downtown and most of my interviews are in Overland Park, KS about 27 to 30 miles away and I can get down there in 30 minutes. Quite a difference than Columbus commutes.
The Kansas City freeway system is massive and overbuilt in my opinion but there are bottle necks in the urban area of KC, MO that cause brief slow downs.
KC soon will add I-49 to their list of Interstates which I have driven US71 numerous times in the past when I lived in Tulsa and it's primed and ready for the interstate upgrades.

The most useless interstate bridge in KC metro IMO is I-70 which connects the two KCs. It should just be demolished and rerouted over the 670 bridge and decommission 670.

I-435 also bottlenecks at the Missouri river crossing in the East. It goes from 3 and 4 lanes per side to 2 lanes each direction at the bridge which causes backups. There's still improvements needed here.

Hey!
I alway was quite fascinated by the KC metro fwy network. But when I finally got there, I was a bit disappointed: Quite outdated, bad pavement, oooold signs, many deserted sections... especially in the MO part, surprisingly the KS suburbian fwys seemed to be a lot more modern - but to be honest, that was in 1999! Is it still anything like this? Btw, the city itself, I liked a lot! Really cool with downtown, crwon center, plaza area... I think many people really underestimate the city.

I'll be driving from Fairfax to Roanoke and back on Thursday next week by way of Interstate 66 and 81. I guess then I'll see how much worse the pavement got this winter...

My car needs to have its wheels balanced. I'll just blame the vibration on the pavement. It was a hard winter.

My car needs to have its wheels balanced. I'll just blame the vibration on the pavement. It was a hard winter.

Out of curiosity: how much does such service cost in a regular US repair shop or service station nowadays?

Hey!
I alway was quite fascinated by the KC metro fwy network. But when I finally got there, I was a bit disappointed: Quite outdated, bad pavement, oooold signs, many deserted sections... especially in the MO part, surprisingly the KS suburbian fwys seemed to be a lot more modern - but to be honest, that was in 1999! Is it still anything like this? Btw, the city itself, I liked a lot! Really cool with downtown, crwon center, plaza area... I think many people really underestimate the city.

It is an underrated city but so far I'm impressed with it! The freeways here are in pretty good shape and since 1999 kcscout transport system has been implemented. Also MODOT but a new cable bridge for the interstate 29/35 Missouri river crossing. It opened this past November.

What I'd like to see eventually is I72 extend across the northern tier of Missouri and ending at I29 in St. joseph

The most useless interstate bridge in KC metro IMO is I-70 which connects the two KCs. It should just be demolished and rerouted over the 670 bridge and decommission 670.

When looking a map of this location I also noticed that I-70 takes an odd route. Even for people taking I-35 north or I-29, the connection is still better from I-670. I'm not sure about demolishing the road since it's already there, but at least switch the naming so I-70 flows better.

I-70 and I-670 carry a combined traffic volume of 120,000 vehicles per day. You cannot just demolish either one, as this will have major implications not only for I-70 capacity, but also the whole routing of traffic around downtown Kansas City. For example the W-N and N-W connections on the I-35/I-670 interchange are missing. Also; the I-70/I-670 interchange in Kansas is also missing connections, plus I-35 has only 4 through lanes on the western loop of downtown KC.

It's much better to demolish the entire industrial area at Kaw Point and turn it into a second CBD if necessary.

bad bad bad bad bad. Sucks. What's next, separate lanes by ethnicity?

I think it's would be better if not using space frame, disturbing the view. http://freeimagestock4you.com/img/o/Bi.png

Make it simple, let the car drivers see the full sky view http://freeimagestock4you.com/img/C/5.gif

Out of curiosity: how much does such service cost in a regular US repair shop or service station nowadays?

I'm generally not familiar with pricing on car repair, but it's had some work done on it - a broken valve stem on the tire was fixed at no cost (a real shocker)...a new set of engine bushings cost $250 installed...tire rotation, $20.

...For example the W-N and N-W connections on the I-35/I-670 interchange are missing. Also; the I-70/I-670 interchange in Kansas is also missing connections, plus I-35 has only 4 through lanes on the western loop of downtown KC.

Indeed. That's surely a big part of the reason why I-70 was left on its legacy route instead of being moved to the more-direct I-670 corridor. Imagine the difficulty of properly signing connections to and from other Interstates, especially considering the morass of non-Interstate route overlaps that already exists in downtown KC. Plus, designating the new route as I-670 enabled Interstate designations to be applied to the entire KC inner belt, which is always a bit of a challenge when an inner beltway carries only two through Interstates.

Also note that the western connection of I-70 and I-670 assigns priority to neither route-- I-670 exits I-70 from the left but enters from the right. I suspect that the authorities hadn't decided how to handle routings when the design was approved, though that's just a guess.

Between GPS and the familiarity of local drivers with their own road system, the number of drivers who choose the slightly-longer I-70 routing over the more-direct I-670 for a trip from Topeka to St. Louis will surely be very small.

It's much better to demolish the entire industrial area at Kaw Point and turn it into a second CBD if necessary.

Yeah, with good light rail service! :banana:

These are not roads to nowhere, for example corridor X (I-22) will connect two mid-size metro areas in this region (Birmingham and Memphis). Again Southern states are also struggling with transportation budgets like anywhere else in the country.

This earmarked money cant just be spent on any road project. It has to qualify for the money.

Memphis and Birmingham were already connected by U.S. 78. Was an interstate connection really necessary?

What about building the northern leg of the Birmingham beltway? There is no traffic in that part of the county to warrant this road. What about extending I-85 through Selma to Meridian when U.S. 80 more than suffices? BOONDOGGLE.

of the many opinions, arguments for or against, and written conversations on the subject of high speed rail in our country, one of the most sensible ones is made by nexis. the reality is that, while high speed rail might work well in the northeast, on the west coast, maybe in florida, and a very few additional places, i just don't understand these individuals who keep trying to push this concept for the nation. it is not fiscally responsible, the population in most areas fails miserably to justify such a thing, and it would be cost prohibitive for the average ridership. i don't see why these things aren't easily seen, and i have asked time and time again, who is it that is pushing this agenda throughout america? i could see the expansion of amtrak, and i would love to see the major cities of states connected via amtrak, and the return of the use of trains to travel to all parts of america through high speed rail. however, the cities that have light rail (because it looks cool, as i have been told on so many occasions) are having major difficulty filling seats. i don't know what the adr is in most of the smaller cities, such as slc, charlotte, for example, but cities like nashville, memphis, b'ham, and basically similarly sized cities could never justify the money spent on a major rail line connection to spend federal dollars and public money w/ such small metro populations.

i like the plan memphis has to put in light rail from the airport to downtown and tie it in to the downtown medical districts; however, to try to hook up the entire metropolitan area cannot be justified because of numbers and the unrealistic costs. currently, nashville, is trying to run something similar to an old coal burning or steam engine train (may be a prop from petticoat junction, lol) in order to appear that nashville is bringing in loads of people from the pastures---i think they are actually begging people to ride it---yet, again, these trains are obviously needed in areas where 8 to 13 million people are strung together, or where 3 to 7 million, etc exist. maybe, atlanta might qualify, houston, dallas-fort worth, but a definite lack of justification everywhere else, for both the money, the return, and so many other additional concerns.

Never mind this post being COMPLETELY off topic, but who in the Hell is promoting a nationwide HSR network? NO ONE. If mass transit is so unpopular, why are local tax increases overwhelmingly supported by the people to pay for increases transit services?

You built a straw man argument to justify your poorly punctuated rant.

Memphis and Birmingham were already connected by U.S. 78. Was an interstate connection really necessary?

What about building the northern leg of the Birmingham beltway? There is no traffic in that part of the county to warrant this road. What about extending I-85 through Selma to Meridian when U.S. 80 more than suffices? BOONDOGGLE.

Birmingham and Memphis, two metro areas with over a million people each, was connected by a high traffic, mostly two lane, US surface highway. Obviously a interstate connection was needed.

The I-85 extension is gonna spark development in the state's and probably one of the nation's poorest areas. The Northern Beltline would route mainly commercial truck traffic, etc around Birmingham.

What the need of the I-69 extention from Indianapolis to Evansville?. Is there enough traffic to warrant an interstate connection.

If you have an issue with how federal road dollars are being spent, then take it up with your representatives and senators.

Looking at the map, I-22 is definitely necessary.

I guess the Interstate designation is less important than the fact it has to be a 2x2 grade-separated route. Of course, including it on the Interstate list means federal money available..

Now if one asks me about major Interstate links (not only metropolitan ones) I think US still misses most, I'd go for the following alignments:

- upgrading US-101 to full Interstate standards all the way from San Jose to Los Angeles

- Las Vegas - Phoenix (along US-93 corridor)

- Amarillo - Wichita Falls - Fort Worth (the route is now a patch of expressways and non-upgraded US highways), with a side extension of I-27 south of Lubbock to I-20.

- Kansas City - Springfield - Little Rock and a completion of the Shreverport - I30 link and a link of Pine Bluff with Greenville and Jackson (MS).

- Montgomery - Tallahassee (as one can see, I think Deep South lacks many important connections).

- link I-64 (VA) with Morgantown (WV), opening a new Appalachian highway crossing

- a Kingsport - Columbus (OH) connection. That area is poorly served by old US routes meandering on the hilly/mountainous terrain

- a 30-year needed Norfolk - WIlmington link all the way though Delaware

- an Upstate NEw York Loop connecting I-81 to I-87 along the Canadian border + decent highway cross over Lake Champlain (NY-VT connections are a shame a.t.m.)

- Albany - Concord - Portland (ME) link, to offer a bypass for traffic routing south from the congest areas around Boston and New York metro. It would be a northern version of I-81: a route used heavily by long-distance freight trucks.

- a highway alongside the Mississippi from Minneapolis to St. Louis

- finally, a connection from Duluth to St. Saint Marie (Canada border), to be linked with a NE extension of I-43 from Green Bay (MI)



=========

I also have my dream unfeasible lists of highway projects, like some SE-NW highway all the way from Oregon to New Mexico via NV and UT.

^^
The thing missing from your Duluth-SSM musing is traffic on the part of US 2 west of US 41. It is a lonely drive, indeed, on those looooong stretches of highly-engineered two-lanes. You can go for 10-20 minutes and not meet another vehicle that is going the other way.

East of US 41, yes, IMHO, it would be a good corridor for a potential I-route extension. The closer it gets to I-75, the busier it gets, especially during tourist season.

Mike

Morgantown already has I-68 and I-79, or so says Google Maps - what's that got to do with 64? I-66 is vastly closer anyway, and besides, it's too close to I-68, if you wanna get from Washington to Morgantown just use I-66 west, then I-81 north, then I-68 west and you're there.

A much better project IMO is to upgrade the entire length of I-81 in Virginia. It's got far too much traffic for a 4-lane highway, even just adding one lane each direction would vastly help. There have been plans thrown this way and that over the past decade about upgrading it but nothing's come of it. Perhaps the new intermodal railyard they're gonna build (or already building?) near Roanoke will help take some of the freight off...

Morgantown already has I-68 and I-79, or so says Google Maps - what's that got to do with 64? I-66 is vastly closer anyway, and besides, it's too close to I-68, if you wanna get from Washington to Morgantown just use I-66 west, then I-81 north, then I-68 west and you're there.

A much better project IMO is to upgrade the entire length of I-81 in Virginia. It's got far too much traffic for a 4-lane highway, even just adding one lane each direction would vastly help. There have been plans thrown this way and that over the past decade about upgrading it but nothing's come of it. Perhaps the new intermodal railyard they're gonna build (or already building?) near Roanoke will help take some of the freight off...

That stalled or is about to....due to Virgina's Highways over Rail policy.... SMART highways would fix Virgina's congestion issues....

Morgantown already has I-68 and I-79, or so says Google Maps - what's that got to do with 64? I-66 is vastly closer anyway, and besides, it's too close to I-68, if you wanna get from Washington to Morgantown just use I-66 west, then I-81 north, then I-68 west and you're there.
...

Or 270 to 70 to 68.

^^
The thing missing from your Duluth-SSM musing is traffic on the part of US 2 west of US 41. It is a lonely drive, indeed, on those looooong stretches of highly-engineered two-lanes. You can go for 10-20 minutes and not meet another vehicle that is going the other way.

East of US 41, yes, IMHO, it would be a good corridor for a potential I-route extension. The closer it gets to I-75, the busier it gets, especially during tourist season.

Mike

I don't think some people in Europe get how sparsely populated huge chunks of the U.S. are.... (No disrespect meant, Suburbanist, but the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so Wikipedia tells me, has the land area of the Netherlands and the population of Utrecht.)

I guess the Interstate designation is less important than the fact it has to be a 2x2 grade-separated route. Of course, including it on the Interstate list means federal money available..

Now if one asks me about major Interstate links (not only metropolitan ones) I think US still misses most, I'd go for the following alignments:

- upgrading US-101 to full Interstate standards all the way from San Jose to Los Angeles

And leave it as US-101. Some people want this to be I-3, but Californians don't.

- Las Vegas - Phoenix (along US-93 corridor)

How about number it I-13 and name it the Bad Luck Highway? This could go over the bridge located just South of Hoover dam...

- Amarillo - Wichita Falls - Fort Worth (the route is now a patch of expressways and non-upgraded US highways), with a side extension of I-27 south of Lubbock to I-20.

US-287 Amarillo-Bowie and US-81 Bowie-DFW. Perhaps, I would number it I-34. In addition I would extend I-27 to Limon, CO along US-287, creating a link between Denver and the DFW area.

- Kansas City - Springfield - Little Rock and a completion of the Shreverport - I30 link and a link of Pine Bluff with Greenville and Jackson (MS).

Shreveport to I-30 is planned as part of I-49 to Kansas City. I would merge the other two routes with I-530 and I would name it I-53.

- Montgomery - Tallahassee (as one can see, I think Deep South lacks many important connections).

A reroute of I-65?

- link I-64 (VA) with Morgantown (WV), opening a new Appalachian highway crossing

I would agree with Nerdly_Dood. I even have a better route to go from Washington DC to Morgantown: I-270, then I-70, then I-68. But I see that as another N-S corridor, just reroute I-79 there and name current I-79 to Charleston I-68.

- a Kingsport - Columbus (OH) connection. That area is poorly served by old US routes meandering on the hilly/mountainous terrain

Then I-26 should get renumbered to an odd number! But it is very difficult, because all odd numbers there are already in use...

- a 30-year needed Norfolk - WIlmington link all the way though Delaware

It would be I-99, but a guy named Bud Shuster put it on the middle of PA... so it should be I-101. And I would extend to Wilmington NC (Thus creating a Wilmington-Wilmington highway :lol:) or even to Savannah.

- an Upstate NEw York Loop connecting I-81 to I-87 along the Canadian border + decent highway cross over Lake Champlain (NY-VT connections are a shame a.t.m.)

I-98. I would continue it to I-95 in ME.

- Albany - Concord - Portland (ME) link, to offer a bypass for traffic routing south from the congest areas around Boston and New York metro. It would be a northern version of I-81: a route used heavily by long-distance freight trucks.

I-92. But I would end it at Portsmouth NH.

- a highway alongside the Mississippi from Minneapolis to St. Louis

Avenue of the Saints anywhere? Maybe, but it should be numbered as a number that doesn't already exists as an US road! Maybe I-47, but then I-39 and I-43 should be renumbered as they are East of this potential I-state...

- finally, a connection from Duluth to St. Saint Marie (Canada border), to be linked with a NE extension of I-43 from Green Bay (MI)

Western I-98. I would extend it further West along US-2, with some proposals going as far as Spokane!


I also have my dream unfeasible lists of highway projects, like some SE-NW highway all the way from Oregon to New Mexico via NV and UT.

Once I had an idea for an I-38 going all the way through the country, from the Bay area to the Outer Banks. But that should be numbered as I-x0, no I-38. But it justified the I-238 in the Bay area.

^^^^ I agree with I-26 being renumbered. I grew up in Pikeville, Ky and US 23 is how we would get to Columbus to the north and Tri-cities to the south.
We always wondered if 26 would make it to Pikeville and then connect to Mountain Parkway and connect to I-64 in Winchester. But why renumber anyway..... leave it I-26 all the way to Columbus. If I-238 can exist 26 can be a weirdo interstate too :)

I was also told growing up that I-64 was originally to be routed from Beckley to Pikeville and then turn north to connect to the Mountain Parkway and onto its original route from Winchester to Lexington. Apparently West Virginia had a role in getting 64 routed onto the WV turnpike and then to connect Charleston to Huntington and then route it across KY's northern tier to Winchester. Not sure if there is truth in that.

I don't think some people in Europe get how sparsely populated huge chunks of the U.S. are.... (No disrespect meant, Suburbanist, but the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so Wikipedia tells me, has the land area of the Netherlands and the population of Utrecht.)

I have lived in Wyoming, so I get the idea of sparsely populated areas. However, even there in Wyoming, I-80 was relatively busy, mainly with truck traffic. So I though that an Interstate in Upper Michigan could boost Ontario-Midwest traffic, for instance, and maybe help revert stagnation on the area.

I have lived in Wyoming, so I get the idea of sparsely populated areas. However, even there in Wyoming, I-80 was relatively busy, mainly with truck traffic. So I though that an Interstate in Upper Michigan could boost Ontario-Midwest traffic, for instance, and maybe help revert stagnation on the area.

Ah. Wyoming is sparsely populated, it's true!
But still, you're talking about connecting northen Minnesota and upper Michigan to northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec. None of which areas are all that populated. Most of the Midwest has connections to the most populated part of Ontario, through southern Michigan. Now, if Canada did something from Sault Sainte Marie to Montreal in conjunction with your Upper Peninsula, your Upper Peninsula Interstate might make more sense.
Now, what would people be transporting by truck? The thing I associate with northern Minnesota is iron ore, which - since the 19th century - they've been putting onto ships at Duluth.

I have lived in Wyoming, so I get the idea of sparsely populated areas. However, even there in Wyoming, I-80 was relatively busy, mainly with truck traffic. So I though that an Interstate in Upper Michigan could boost Ontario-Midwest traffic, for instance, and maybe help revert stagnation on the area.

I agree that Interstates can spur some development and employment. I think Hays, Kansas could be an example of that. It's in the middle of nowhere but has numerous hotels and food services. Without I-70 I doubt any of that would have ever developed. A part of me would hate to see the UP change to a landscape with billboards and a scar on the land but it could be a great way to funnel some of the I-75 traffic that usually goes through lower Michigan and onto 90/80 into Wisconsin instead and points west/south.

Me and the Bf vacation with friends in Northern Michigan and since there's no direct way there from Kansas City we are choosing to fly to Detroit and drive up 75. If there was a faster route through the UP we'd drive instead.

Memphis and Birmingham were already connected by U.S. 78. Was an interstate connection really necessary?

What about building the northern leg of the Birmingham beltway? There is no traffic in that part of the county to warrant this road. What about extending I-85 through Selma to Meridian when U.S. 80 more than suffices? BOONDOGGLE.

I don't think somebody from the Midwest should be lecturing us about unnecessary interstates. I look at Illinois alone, and the number of interstates there that don't seem to connect anything is mind-boggling.

I-72? I-88? I-39? I-57?

I-39 is hardly "unnecessary". It allows traffic in many directions to avoid the Chicago area.

I-57 is a major long-distance freight route.

The Montgomery-Tallahassee connection is served already by US 431/US 231 until I-10. It's pretty fast free-flowing highway, except for the cities the highways go through. I would recommend a piecemeal upgrade, starting first with freeway bypasses around Troy and Ozark. I would then start upgrading 231 between I-10 and Dothan to a freeway and 431 from Dothan towards Montgomery. Then finish off with a connection between the freeways north and south of Dothan.

I-39 is hardly "unnecessary". It allows traffic in many directions to avoid the Chicago area.

I-57 is a major long-distance freight route.

By hoosier's criteria, those are unnecessary.

US-287 Amarillo-Bowie and US-81 Bowie-DFW. Perhaps, I would number it I-34. In addition I would extend I-27 to Limon, CO along US-287, creating a link between Denver and the DFW area.





I like this idea.

Alabama plans to replace 2-mile section of I-65 in Hoover and rebuild ramps at I-459 and U.S. 31
Published: Monday, March 14, 2011, 10:50 AM Updated: Monday, March 14, 2011, 12:14 PM

By Ginny MacDonald -- The Birmingham News
Workers began putting up construction signs today along Interstate 65 where a two-mile section of the road will be rebuilt between I-459 and U.S. 31 in Hoover/Vestavia Hills.

The $21 million contract will include the replacement of ramps on I-459 and 31, but not redesigning them, Alabama Department of Transportation Director John Cooper told Jefferson County legislators Monday.

The ramps will be closed during the work and detours will be along U.S. 31. Transportation officials and the contractor are working out a time-frame for the detours to be announced later.

Work is supposed be completed by Dec. 16.

ALDOT has tried to repair the section of concrete interstate for years.

"It is the worst section of interstate that we have," said Birmingham Division Engineer Brian Davis.

The work will entail removing the 52-foot long sections of concrete which are eight inches thick and re-enforced with steel and replacing them with shorter sections of plain concrete that will be 14 inches thick, Davis said.

What the need of the I-69 extention from Indianapolis to Evansville?. Is there enough traffic to warrant an interstate connection.

If you have an issue with how federal road dollars are being spent, then take it up with your representatives and senators.

Indianapolis and Evansville have no direct road connection, are located in the same state (unlike Birmingham and Memphis), are the first and fourth largest cities in the state of Indiana, and most importantly, the extension is BEING BUILT ENTIRELY WITH STATE FUNDS- proceeds from the lease of the Indiana Toll Road.

By hoosier's criteria, those are unnecessary.

I do not, nor have I ever, lived in Illinois, so why you are giving me crap about the interstates in another state is beyond me.

Besides, Illinois has more people in much less land area than Alabama and Tennessee combined- I think it warrants greater freeway density.

I guess the Interstate designation is less important than the fact it has to be a 2x2 grade-separated route. Of course, including it on the Interstate list means federal money available..

Now if one asks me about major Interstate links (not only metropolitan ones) I think US still misses most, I'd go for the following alignments:


I also have my dream unfeasible lists of highway projects, like some SE-NW highway all the way from Oregon to New Mexico via NV and UT.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to build all of those roads? You could build a vast HSR network with the tracks built of gold and diamond for the amount of money it would cost to construct your useless roads.

Indianapolis and Evansville have no direct road connection, are located in the same state (unlike Birmingham and Memphis), are the first and fourth largest cities in the state of Indiana, and most importantly, the extension is BEING BUILT ENTIRELY WITH STATE FUNDS- proceeds from the lease of the Indiana Toll Road.

That all very nice, but you didnt answer the question. Is there enough traffic to warrant an interstate connect between Indianapolis and Evansville?.

I do not, nor have I ever, lived in Illinois, so why you are giving me crap about the interstates in another state is beyond me.

Besides, Illinois has more people in much less land area than Alabama and Tennessee combined- I think it warrants greater freeway density.

If it's beyond you, there's nothing that can be done to help you.

Feel sort of like I'm watching a train wreck here....
Just sayin'.

That all very nice, but you didnt answer the question. Is there enough traffic to warrant an interstate connect between Indianapolis and Evansville?.

The portion of I-69 that will connect Bloomington and Indianapolis absolutely has enough traffic on the existing road to warrant an upgrade to a limited access freeway. The portion from Bloomington to Evansville is an unknown since people can take a number of different routes between those cities. There are quite a few students from Evansville that attend Indiana University in Bloomington.

And since this road is being built with state funds, it should not be of any concern to a resident of another state. My concern with all of these southern roads is they are being financed with federal funds from wealthy donor states that have plenty of their own highway needs.

The portion of I-69 that will connect Bloomington and Indianapolis absolutely has enough traffic on the existing road to warrant an upgrade to a limited access freeway. The portion from Bloomington to Evansville is an unknown since people can take a number of different routes between those cities. There are quite a few students from Evansville that attend Indiana University in Bloomington.

And since this road is being built with state funds, it should not be of any concern to a resident of another state. My concern with all of these southern roads is they are being financed with federal funds from wealthy donor states that have plenty of their own highway needs.

You mean the federal funds that states have to match a certain percentage of?. Where are all these southern roads that are being financed?. You make it sound like there is a new highway opening up every week.

Feel sort of like I'm watching a train wreck here....
Just sayin'.

Yeah, nothing like a good old-fashioned roadgeek catfight! :lol:

A few observations:

The US's highway system may not be finished, but it is mature. We all like to draw lines on maps, but the heroic days of actually building entire new intercity motorways on new alignments are pretty much over, I-69 in Indiana and I-85 and I-959 in Alabama (if they're actually fully built, which I doubt they will be) being anomalies introduced by odd, one-off funding opportunities.

Interstate designation isn't the unmitigated boon that it once was. IIRC, ISTEA, adopted twenty years ago, changed the maximum Federal match for Interstate construction from 90% to 80%, and for NHS corridors from 75% to the same 80%.

What does that entail on the ground? Well, consider Mississippi's situation. They built most of what will soon become I-22 as a freeway, but not to Interstate standards-- it was built with substandard signage and shoulders that were graded but neither paved nor graveled, presumably after careful cost/benefit analysis. Bringing the existing road up to Interstate standards has been/will be rather more expensive and disruptive than it would've been to do initially, and of relatively little value. (BTW, FWIW, I think the Memphis-Birmingham corridor should've been in the Interstate system from Day One)

For the I-69 corridor, getting I-69 from the Arkansas border to the newly-built Memphis outer belt will require massive upgrade or replacement of the existing four-lane US 61, which is surely already adequate for the traffic it carries. And... the new Interstate, once built, won't achieve its intended utility until the corridor from Shreveport to the MS-AS line is completed... when? Both Arkansas and Louisiana have other priorities, including the I-49 corridor in both states, in addition to the increasing cost of maintaining their legacy road systems. Where will the money come from? :ohno:

Did I-22 used to not be labeled as boldly on Google Maps/Earth as it is now? I was looking at it for the first time in a while and it stood out like I don't recall it used to doing.

Also, the region in which I-69 would traverse, SE Arkansas, is significantly declining in population and economic activity. That would either be a very good, or very bad reason to build it.

I-696 in Detroit IMO the best drive in the metro when traffic is flowing.

uRoFNBeodQc

That's some visibly bad pavement. And it's still the smoothest road in Michigan.

I-95 South in North Philly...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5576927988_f30ee4af7c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576927988/)DSC04083 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576927988/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/5576928078_2299d73dfc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928078/)DSC04084 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928078/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/5576928180_bd72bc1039_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928180/)DSC04086 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928180/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5576343127_d57e29853f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343127/)DSC04087 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343127/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5576928408_9569349474_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928408/)DSC04089 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928408/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5171/5576928450_bed2a45496_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928450/)DSC04090 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576928450/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5576343379_e03e8719a7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343379/)DSC04092 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343379/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

^^I know it well....

^^I know it well....

North Philly needs to be demolished , it looks worse then Baltimore , Newark and the Bronx combined..

North Philly needs to be demolished , it looks worse then Baltimore , Newark and the Bronx combined..

I meant I know that stretch of 95 well. And that area (I mean the immediate area 95 runs through, right along the river) is becoming hip, and parts of Baltimore are pretty bad.... :-P

I'm not trying to insult anyone but why do American roads always look as though they need a good resurfacing? Whenever i do a random jump into street view the roads have always got cracks all over them is it a funding issue?

The ones that look like that are the concrete highways. They only look bad. They are not perfect but not terrible either, I guess they use concrete because it's much stronger and durable than asphalt but of course not as smooth. Concrete roads are much more expensive but they don't need any maintenance for 10-15 years or more

I meant I know that stretch of 95 well. And that area (I mean the immediate area 95 runs through, right along the river) is becoming hip, and parts of Baltimore are pretty bad.... :-P

I had to go up Board to one of Tempe Univ , and was horrid. Then on the way back on the Trenton line , it wasn't any better intill you got into NJ.

I had to go up Board to one of Tempe Univ , and was horrid. Then on the way back on the Trenton line , it wasn't any better intill you got into NJ.

Well, yes, obviously one train ride would make you an authority on the area....

Well, yes, obviously one train ride would make you an authority on the area....

Highway / Train ride , i did go to Center city and Southern area and loved it....but the Northern area left a mark on me.....when you get off the expressway your greeting to a broken building landscape....one would think the city would clean things up...

Highway / Train ride , i did go to Center city and Southern area and loved it....but the Northern area left a mark on me.....when you get off the expressway your greeting to a broken building landscape....one would think the city would clean things up...

Please. It's that bad along the Trenton line until you get into New Jersey? You do realize that a good 15 miles of the Trenton line is in the suburbs (Bucks County, specifically), and when you get into New Jersey, you're in Trenton? I know very few people who consider Trenton an improvement over Bucks County....

But seriously, what you're seeing there is the death of American manufacturing. Philadelphia was once the biggest manufacturing city in the country. All those abandoned factories are a problem, no doubt about it. But I think you're vastly overstating the extent of it. (Many of the neighborhoods along 95 even in the city of Philadelphia are still fairly healthy working-class neighborhoods - the sort of place one goes for good Polish food - and close to Center City they're gentrifying, although I dislike that word.) Like people who judge New Jersey (my native state, by the way) by what they see on the Turnpike from Linden north.

The ones that look like that are the concrete highways. They only look bad. They are not perfect but not terrible either, I guess they use concrete because it's much stronger and durable than asphalt but of course not as smooth. Concrete roads are much more expensive but they don't need any maintenance for 10-15 years or more

Good point substance over style!

Ohio has excellent road surfaces.

Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and many parts of Washington State have excellent surfaces as well

I-696 in Detroit IMO the best drive in the metro when traffic is flowing.

uRoFNBeodQc

Is there any specific reason (like it carrying a heavy load) for that truck you see at around 3:55 to have 24 wheels?

I'm not trying to insult anyone but why do American roads always look as though they need a good resurfacing? Whenever i do a random jump into street view the roads have always got cracks all over them is it a funding issue?

Lack of funding plays a role but harsh climate is also a reason.

With some exceptions, the best roads in the US are in the warmer parts of the country, like the Southwest.

Right now, the roads here are pothole ridden. :bash:

Is there any specific reason (like it carrying a heavy load) for that truck you see at around 3:55 to have 24 wheels?

It's a Michigan train, bro:

http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/mike_boyd/2009/03-25/kw_w900_michigan_train_flatbeds_i69_mi_04-08.jpg

http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/morton/may18/ch_coy_trucking_ford_michigan_train_covered_wagon.jpg

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/2010/08/21/P4080598.JPG

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/2010/08/21/P4060550.JPG

Now, that's a man's truck (or as the English say, "lorry"). :yes:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-14013-28111--F,00.html

Roads

I have heard that Michigan truck weight laws are the most liberal in the nation. Is this true?

Answer:
Michigan permits trucks up to 164,000 pounds on the system. However, different than other states, Michigan requires a lower weight per axle which more evenly distributes the load and reduces wear and tear on roads. MDOT engineers have thoroughly studied this issue and the result of this research is that heavier trucks do not cause a disproportionate amount of damage as long as the weight is evenly distributed over an appropriate number of axles. Additionally, trucks over 80,000 pounds make up only less than 5% of all trucks operating on our roads. If Michigan were to reduce it's truck weight laws to 80,000 pounds, more damage to the system may occur because of the need to put more trucks on the road. More trucks on the road raise serious questions concerning safety and traffic congestion. Several other states are currently looking at Michigan's axle weight laws and are considering adopting similar laws.

Not sure I'd buy all of that that. :sly: The road surfaces here are pretty shit. :laugh: Big trucks, freeze-thaw winters, greedy trade unions, and a broke state government can't be a good combination though. :dunno:

I-696 in Detroit IMO the best drive in the metro when traffic is flowing.

uRoFNBeodQc

My exit is at 3:20. :banana:

Those make 18 wheelers look like SMART Cars in comparison.

Ya gotta be especially watchful of those oversized rigs in Da YuPee - they are maniacal on those two-laners away from the Wisconsin state line!

:eek:

Mike

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5576343379_e03e8719a7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343379/)DSC04092 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5576343379/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

For some reason I love seeing Interstate highways multiplexed with U.S. Highways. An Interstate seems naked without the U.S. on or hanging nearby...

HmDYaDh55Vo&hd=1

The portion of I-69 that will connect Bloomington and Indianapolis absolutely has enough traffic on the existing road to warrant an upgrade to a limited access freeway. The portion from Bloomington to Evansville is an unknown since people can take a number of different routes between those cities. There are quite a few students from Evansville that attend Indiana University in Bloomington.

And since this road is being built with state funds, it should not be of any concern to a resident of another state. My concern with all of these southern roads is they are being financed with federal funds from wealthy donor states that have plenty of their own highway needs.

Politically, it's a lot easier to build new freeways in the South than it is in the North.

It doesn't matter so much that the parts of Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas before Houston that I-69 will go through are sparsely populated; that's not the point of the highway, anyway. The highway connects the most important cargo centers in the center of the country, and this is why it is being built.

Rio Grande Valley - largest port of entry from Mexico

Houston - busiest port by foreign tonnage in the United States, second busiest port in total tonnage, and the fifteenth largest port on the planet

Memphis - Memphis International Airport is the largest cargo airport in the world, a large port on the Mississippi River

Evansville - significant regional distribution center, home to many corporate headquarters, including Atlas Van Lines

It wasn't called the NAFTA Superhighway for nothing. The only other highway that was so focused on economic benefits was the I-70 extension west from Denver, or some of the BS spurs that mainly serve as an offramp to some corporate center (I'm looking at you, I-180 Wyoming and Illinois)

When looking a map of this location I also noticed that I-70 takes an odd route. Even for people taking I-35 north or I-29, the connection is still better from I-670. I'm not sure about demolishing the road since it's already there, but at least switch the naming so I-70 flows better.
(KC's Downtown loop)
I-70 would only have 1 through lane with either route. I-35 also gets down to 1 through lane at the northern corners of the loop. The whole downtown loop needs rebuilt badly since there are dozens of dangerous ramps where lanes enter and exit within a few car lengths and they need to make it so the interstates have 2-3 through lanes.

This is part of a 1.7 billion dollar freeway project in Utah County (part of the Salt Lake City metro area). The project is a design-build rebuild of an entire 24 mile section of I-15. Most of the road will have 5-6 concrete lanes going each way and completely new bridges.

http://www.i15core.utah.gov/InteractiveMap/
http://www.i15core.utah.gov/project_information.php


UDOT makes history with American Fork bridge move

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705369446/UDOT-makes-history-with-American-Fork-bridge-move.html

AMERICAN FORK — The so-called Super Bowl of bridge moving took place Saturday night without commercial interruption but plenty of fanfare.

More than 1,100 people watched as self-propelled modular transporters put in place the 354-foot, 3.8 million-pound Sam White Bridge — the longest two-span bridge ever moved in the Western Hemisphere...

http://static.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/421713/421713.jpg
Crews prepare the transport equipment as UDOT will closes I-15 in both directions at American Fork to allow for the move of the giant Sam White Bridge. This is considered to be the largest bridge built to date in the western hemisphere using the now famous Self Propelled Modular Transporter System. Sunday, March 27, 2011. Mike Terry, Deseret News (Mike Terry, Deseret News)

..."We've kind of made the connection with the Super Bowl experience," Bryce Jaynes, the accelerated bridge construction project engineer for UDOT, said prior to the move. "We're basically moving a Super Bowl field up there, and we're moving it in a matter of hours."...

http://static.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/421716/421716.jpg
Mike Terry, Deseret News

http://static.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/421724/421724.jpg
Mike Terry, Deseret News.

(KC's Downtown loop)
I-70 would only have 1 through lane with either route. I-35 also gets down to 1 through lane at the northern corners of the loop. The whole downtown loop needs rebuilt badly since there are dozens of dangerous ramps where lanes enter and exit within a few car lengths and they need to make it so the interstates have 2-3 through lanes.

Yea it does need redone. I almost smashed up some old caddie who didnt get into the 1 lane of I-35 Northbound if I had not completely stopped. I-70 which I have now driven in rush hour is not packed with traffic. I just want it gone.

Politically, it's a lot easier to build new freeways in the South than it is in the North.

It doesn't matter so much that the parts of Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas before Houston that I-69 will go through are sparsely populated; that's not the point of the highway, anyway. The highway connects the most important cargo centers in the center of the country, and this is why it is being built.

Rio Grande Valley - largest port of entry from Mexico

Houston - busiest port by foreign tonnage in the United States, second busiest port in total tonnage, and the fifteenth largest port on the planet

Memphis - Memphis International Airport is the largest cargo airport in the world, a large port on the Mississippi River

Evansville - significant regional distribution center, home to many corporate headquarters, including Atlas Van Lines

It wasn't called the NAFTA Superhighway for nothing. The only other highway that was so focused on economic benefits was the I-70 extension west from Denver, or some of the BS spurs that mainly serve as an offramp to some corporate center (I'm looking at you, I-180 Wyoming and Illinois)

Not to mention that I-69 was designed to take some of the load off of I-35 which is extremely congested from San Antonio to Dallas because of the large amount of truck traffic.

At the rate it's going, I don't think I-69 will be completed 20 years from now.

The main reason why this is being constructed is to connect Texas and Mexico with Michigan and Ontario directly, both being major trade chokepoints.

i.e: the NAFTA superhighway.

The first four level interchange in the ozarks (Springfield, MO) at US 60/65 interchange.
http://www.6065interchange.org/images/New-Eastbound-60-Ramps.gif
The longer flyover is 2,019 feet long and is now the longest bridge in southwest missouri.

^^ Wrong thread. There's one for non-interstates: [USA] United States Non-Interstate Roads and Highways (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=605044).

^^ Wrong thread. There's one for non-interstates: [USA] United States Non-Interstate Roads and Highways (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=605044).

Its part of the future I-66

Its part of the future I-66

Hopefully I-66 will get built, all of it!
The section that will run through my hometown had their last meeting in 2007. People there thinks that it's a dead project, meanwhile further west in South Central Kentucky there are still future I-66 shields up. I don't know whats going on with this project anymore.

http://www.interstate66.com/

Hopefully I-66 will get built, all of it!
The section that will run through my hometown had their last meeting in 2007. People there thinks that it's a dead project, meanwhile further west in South Central Kentucky there are still future I-66 shields up. I don't know whats going on with this project anymore.

http://www.interstate66.com/


I had no idea it was supposed to get farther west than it does now (not that that's very far west). But frankly, I put most supposed "future interstates" strictly in the category of things-I'll-believe-when-I-see-them.

Texas is considering an 85 mph (138 km/h) limit:

http://autos.aol.com/article/texas-speed-limit-gas-mileage/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C55616

I had no idea it was supposed to get farther west than it does now (not that that's very far west). But frankly, I put most supposed "future interstates" strictly in the category of things-I'll-believe-when-I-see-them.

Well after I-99 I think anything is possible.
Heres a link to the Future I-66 signs in Southern Kentucky
http://www.kentuckyroads.com/images/signs/100_0993.jpg.html

From my understanding it was supposed to reach Wichita eventually but I think Kansas could care less about it.

Mix this with the "Future" I-74/I-73 corridors through WV who knows how all of these are going to get built. Currently WV has already been building the Coalfields expressway which you can google earth/map Beckley, WV and follow Highway 121 SW and you can see the ROW and the existing expressway and interchanges. THEN hop over to Welch, WV and move North on the map and find the weird stretch of highway built near the prison that connects to nothing. This is where an interchange was supposed to be built for access to the prison/new intustrial park which obviously hasn't happened yet.

Tolls might come back to CT.


Return of Connecticut tolls one step closer; diesel tax hike sought
By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

A Connecticut legislative panel has given the go-ahead to a bill that allows tolls on new highways or highway extensions. Other toll bills that met their demise sought to charge tolls on all drivers at the state’s borders and a separate effort that singled out truckers.

Another effort still active would have truckers chip in more to help pay for roads.

State officials removed tolls from the Connecticut Turnpike in the mid 80s. Concerns about safety and congestion spurred the state to remove toll booths that were scattered across roadways.

Facing a budget deficit of nearly $7 billion, the Legislature’s Transportation Committee voted 23-12 to advance a bill that would open the door to the revenue source. Temporary tolls would be authorized to pay for such projects as the completion of state Route 11 in southeastern Connecticut. Existing roadways would continue to be toll free.

If approved by lawmakers, the bill – HB6200 – would move to Gov. Dannel Malloy’s desk. The governor has said he wants the last eight miles of the road connecting Hartford with the southeastern part of the state to get done, and tolls are an option.

Tolls would be removed when enough toll revenue is generated to cover construction bonds and “an amount estimated to be required for maintenance and repair” is collected.

Rep. David Scribner of Brookfield, the ranking Republican on the panel, is opposed to applying tolls for any one project. He said it would create a slippery slope for reinstituting tolls throughout the state.

Scribner also addressed the public’s misperception that truckers damage Connecticut highways and often don’t even stop for fuel to compensate the state.

“There is a perception that tractor-trailer trucks that drive through Connecticut don’t share any revenue with the state. That is not accurate,” Scribner said in remarks on his web site. “They are required under federal law to maintain a log that monitors their hours and distances traveled in the state. From that information we get revenue. It goes into the Special Transportation Fund.”

He noted that Connecticut gets about $16 million annually from out-of-state truckers through IFTA.

Another option being sought relies on truckers to pay 42.6 cents per gallon in state fuel taxes. The Connecticut Motor Transport Association is lobbying to have a penny added to Gov. Malloy’s proposal to increase the diesel tax by 2 cents per gallon.

The state already applies a 39.6-cent-per-gallon tax on diesel. The state’s gas tax is 41.6 cents.

In return, the truckers group wants a break elsewhere. Connecticut lawmakers are looking at ending a property tax exemption that saves the state’s trucking companies millions of dollars each year.

CMTA President Mike Riley is hopeful lawmakers will keep the exemption intact in exchange for an extra penny in diesel taxes.

“The fuel tax can be passed through in fuel adjustments. That is an understandable cost of doing business that truckers can explain to their customers,” Riley told Land Line Now. “There is no such thing as a good tax, but some taxes aren’t as bad as others.”

To view other legislative activities of interest for Connecticut, click here.

Editor’s Note: Please share your thoughts with us about the topic included in this story. Comments may be sent to statelegislativedesk@ooida.com.

Land Line Now Staff Reporter Reed Black contributed to this report.

Copyright © OOIDA
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Apr11/041111/041111-03.shtml

Kind of off-topic, but does anybody know if the leaves will be on the trees by next weekend or so in Pittsburgh? I am planning a roadtrip and am curious. Thanks.

Kind of off-topic, but does anybody know if the leaves will be on the trees by next weekend or so in Pittsburgh? I am planning a roadtrip and am curious. Thanks.

Can't speak to leaves particularly, but my sinuses and I can tell you that spring (flowering trees, notably) is well under way in Philadelphia. We may be slightly warmer than Pittsburgh as a general rule, but I believe they've been having warmer weather than us lately. Enjoy the trip.

Texas is considering an 85 mph (138 km/h) limit:

http://autos.aol.com/article/texas-speed-limit-gas-mileage/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C55616

That should be the default for all rural Interstates. :cheers:

^^I don't know about that: you could define I-95 in northeastern Maryland as a rural Interstate, but traffic can be pretty heavy....

That should be the default for all rural Interstates. :cheers:

^^^^ AGREE! I drive that fast on rurals anyway.

Tolls might come back to CT.
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Apr11/041111/041111-03.shtml

But the thing is, there are just not that many new expressways going to be built in CT in the future. This proposal will just be a phantom. Most places in the state have already been penetrated by expressways with only a few spot left in the State, where the expressways were planned but have never been built. Anything that is new will be either upgrade / widen existing state roadways, or just short extension of existing expressways.

Doubt this short new segments are going to have toll on them.

Texas is considering an 85 mph (138 km/h) limit:

http://autos.aol.com/article/texas-speed-limit-gas-mileage/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C55616

Which means people are going to drive 95-100 mph versus 90-95 now, and get the speeding ticket when the speedometer hits 110 instead 100. May as well just make it the AutoBahn of the US.

But the thing is, there are just not that many new expressways going to be built in CT in the future. This proposal will just be a phantom. Most places in the state have already been penetrated by expressways with only a few spot left in the State, where the expressways were planned but have never been built. Anything that is new will be either upgrade / widen existing state roadways, or just short extension of existing expressways.

Doubt this short new segments are going to have toll on them.

The Tolls will be used for taking care of the Highway system , Replacing Bridges , and expanding the Transit system. Since the Feds are being neglectful once again , many states are turning to Tolls.....which isn't a bad thing since things tend to move faaster.

But the thing is, there are just not that many new expressways going to be built in CT in the future. This proposal will just be a phantom. Most places in the state have already been penetrated by expressways with only a few spot left in the State, where the expressways were planned but have never been built. Anything that is new will be either upgrade / widen existing state roadways, or just short extension of existing expressways.

Doubt this short new segments are going to have toll on them.

True. Not much highways will be added in the future. Other than the Route 11 missing link and the Route 72 extension into Bristol, I don't know of any other real projects since most of the state is adequately covered by expressways.

However I think this is just a front since we all know that Route 11 will never be crowded enough to justify tolls in the first place. It's in the middle of nowhere. Their real plan is eventually put tolls on the state borders so they can capture money from the cars from neighboring states that toll us through the nose but drive free on our highways. I have heard this being discussed before and doing this will make it easier for this eventual plan to happen.

^^I don't know about that: you could define I-95 in northeastern Maryland as a rural Interstate, but traffic can be pretty heavy....

I still say make it 85. Traffic will do its own thing and slow everyone down just like it does in a 65 zone. One thing I've noticed on freeways at least here in Texas is that there are still a lot of people that like to cruise way below the speed limit. I look over and wonder if they're on drugs, not paying attention or what. Speed Limit in the city is 65 and they're lounging in the slow lane doing 50.

When I was much younger my perception was that everyone was itching to drive fast, frustratingly it seems that slow drivers really screw up the flow of a freeway. :ohno:

The Tolls will be used for taking care of the Highway system , Replacing Bridges , and expanding the Transit system. Since the Feds are being neglectful once again , many states are turning to Tolls.....which isn't a bad thing since things tend to move faaster.

In reality, it should be, but not in Connecticut. The toll proposed are supposed to only provide maintenance and other operational support for the infrastructure itself. These money in talk now are not supposed to go out to fund other infrastructures around the State.

True. Not much highways will be added in the future. Other than the Route 11 missing link and the Route 72 extension into Bristol, I don't know of any other real projects since most of the state is adequately covered by expressways.

However I think this is just a front since we all know that Route 11 will never be crowded enough to justify tolls in the first place. It's in the middle of nowhere. Their real plan is eventually put tolls on the state borders so they can capture money from the cars from neighboring states that toll us through the nose but drive free on our highways. I have heard this being discussed before and doing this will make it easier for this eventual plan to happen.

There is also the missing piece of "Super 7" between north Norwalk and south Danbury. Amongst all, this piece is probably the most critical.

Anyways, the "real thing" have been in fire for a while, and turned off for a few times. The most recent one was last year, rejected just before this new proposal came out.
The whole loop conclusions have been
1. Toll booth is going to be dangerous, and people/the DOT is afraid the 1983 tragedy will happen again. So toll booths are not going to be built at the boarder again.
2. EZ-Pass or similar electronic tag is going to track where people go, and will be in violation of privacy, so the politicians are objecting to the touch-free high speed technology.

At the end, I just don't see toll highways will come back in CT in a fashion as they do in other states. Gas tax will still be the big part of the income source to fund transportation infrastructures in the State.

I still say make it 85. Traffic will do its own thing and slow everyone down just like it does in a 65 zone. One thing I've noticed on freeways at least here in Texas is that there are still a lot of people that like to cruise way below the speed limit. I look over and wonder if they're on drugs, not paying attention or what. Speed Limit in the city is 65 and they're lounging in the slow lane doing 50.

When I was much younger my perception was that everyone was itching to drive fast, frustratingly it seems that slow drivers really screw up the flow of a freeway. :ohno:

I read the article you posted and also this post. I would remind you that the speed limit is not a target that you should be aiming for. Just because the speed limit is 65, doesn't mean everyone should be necessary be doing exactly 65. For example, when it's raining or foggy, people shouldn't be doing 65 anyway.

I do like Texas's idea of posting the "range", in other words stay with 45 and 80(or whatever it may be in the cities there in Texas). Of course 45 is probably too slow for a minimum range. 50 would probably be better.

I think 80 mph is an excellent idea, but not in Texas, nor anywhere in The States frankly. If Americans had better driving training, like in Western Europe, I would be for it, but until Americans learn how to drive better, I think 60-70 mph is fast enough, especially since US traffic accident statistics are much higher that in Western Europe.

I'm not putting Americans down. I am one(Californian), but I have lived long enough in Europe, and driven through different countries in W Europe enough times to know that Americans really need to get their act together and learn some driving skills, such as basic lane discipline.

For example, make it illegal(and enforce it) to pass on your right. If you want to pass, you need to go to a left lane. And if the person behind you wants to get by, stay to the right!! That would help eliminate those silly traffic bunches that I have been forced to endure on the I-5 in the middle of nowhere Central California because some idiot persists in staying in the left lane, while staying at the same speed as the 18-wheeler in the right lane! :bash: Just one place to start.

For example, make it illegal(and enforce it) to pass on your right. If you want to pass, you need to go to a left lane. And if the person behind you wants to get by, stay to the right!! That would help eliminate those silly traffic bunches that I have been forced to endure on the I-5 in the middle of nowhere Central California because some idiot persists in staying in the left lane, while staying at the same speed as the 18-wheeler in the right lane! :bash: Just one place to start.

For instance, in Connecticut, passing on the right is actually illegal in the book, but the question is no enforcement is being made to make this a clear cut telling everyone it is illegal to pass on the right, similar with cruising on the left lane when not passing.

If fact, one local police officer one time traveled at about70 mph on a 35 mph local road in the middle of the night, passed his colleague on the right with no siren on, then crashed into another car killed two teenagers at a intersection, and ended up charging with man slaughter. I think this tragedy actually made it to the national news. The point is, if the people that suppose to enforce the laws and regulations are in violation on their own, how could you expect the general public obey the same kind of regulations and laws at the same time?

For instance, in Connecticut, passing on the right is actually illegal in the book, but the question is no enforcement is being made to make this a clear cut telling everyone it is illegal to pass on the right, similar with cruising on the left lane when not passing.

If fact, one local police officer one time traveled at about70 mph on a 35 mph local road in the middle of the night, passed his colleague on the right with no siren on, then crashed into another car killed two teenagers at a intersection, and ended up charging with man slaughter. I think this tragedy actually made it to the national news. The point is, if the people that suppose to enforce the laws and regulations are in violation on their own, how could you expect the general public obey the same kind of regulations and laws at the same time?


I agree, hence what I said about enforcing it! It does work, even on freeways with 4 lanes.

I-95 in Miami. Another great video.

XfRgJwSwmDI

^^I don't know about that: you could define I-95 in northeastern Maryland as a rural Interstate, but traffic can be pretty heavy....

I dunno, I was doing 85 there last week.

I don't think it's enforcement of the law that's lacking. It might bring more attention to the problem, but the real problem is lack of driving etiquette (as in, it doesn't exist, people don't think it's a big deal).

People don't keep to the right in Europe because they're afraid to get fined (something that rarely happens) but because it's a part of the social etiquette..

I think you mean "they DO keep to the right."

I dunno, I was doing 85 there last week.

If everyone was, it would be a problem. (Personally, I'm most comfortable between 70 and 75; above that it starts to feel too fast.) And - without having statistics at hand - I'm assuming an accident at 85 is more dangerous than one at 70. Perhaps that's an acceptable risk, perhaps not; don't feel like debating now. (Nor do I feel like debating policy implications like the fact that we're supposedly trying to wean ourselves from middle eastern oil.) I would say that if you're going to raise the limit to 85, you need to enforce it, and strictly.

I don't think it's enforcement of the law that's lacking. It might bring more attention to the problem, but the real problem is lack of driving etiquette (as in, it doesn't exist, people don't think it's a big deal).

People don't keep to the right in Europe because they're afraid to get fined (something that rarely happens) but because it's a part of the social etiquette. Cruising in the left lane or undertaking is frowned upon and people know this. It's like picking your nose in public, you just don't do it. And this etiquette is enforced by the common driver; try undertaking a few cars because you're impatient and you're likely to get honked at. Likewise I think maybe in the US if you see a BMW coming up fast behind you you're more inclined to think "well screw you Mr. BMW, you don't own the road" while in Europe you get out of the way.


Yes, it's social etiquette here in Western Europe, but it's also safer.

1. Toll booth is going to be dangerous, and people/the DOT is afraid the 1983 tragedy will happen again. So toll booths are not going to be built at the boarder again.

In what way toll booths are dangerous? There are plenty of them in Europe and I never heard they are particular safety hazard. What happened in 1983?


I don't think it's enforcement of the law that's lacking. It might bring more attention to the problem, but the real problem is lack of driving etiquette (as in, it doesn't exist, people don't think it's a big deal).

People don't keep to the right in Europe because they're afraid to get fined (something that rarely happens) but because it's a part of the social etiquette. Cruising in the left lane or undertaking is frowned upon and people know this. It's like picking your nose in public, you just don't do it. And this etiquette is enforced by the common driver; try undertaking a few cars because you're impatient and you're likely to get honked at. Likewise I think maybe in the US if you see a BMW coming up fast behind you you're more inclined to think "well screw you Mr. BMW, you don't own the road" while in Europe you get out of the way.

Well, don't generalize about Europe. In Poland we complain how our drivers are and how they keep hogging the left lane, on Irish forum locals complain about Irish hogging right lane (overtaking lane in Ireland) etc. It seems like grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. ;)

But I do agree that lane discipline is particularly bad in the US. I remember driving I-15 from LA to Vegas on Friday evening few years ago. It is busy but flow of traffic would be much faster if people moved back to the right after overtaking. It is especially important on 2x2 rural freeways.
To defend American drivers I have to say lane discipline is much more complicated on urban freeways with 4 or more lanes in each directions with multiple exits an mergers in short distance. That's where majority of drivers drive a lot and they develop habits of keeping off right lanes as they are used mostly by merging and exiting drivers. Then they keep driving that way on 2x2 rural freeways.

If everyone was, it would be a problem. (Personally, I'm most comfortable between 70 and 75; above that it starts to feel too fast.) And - without having statistics at hand - I'm assuming an accident at 85 is more dangerous than one at 70. Perhaps that's an acceptable risk, perhaps not; don't feel like debating now. (Nor do I feel like debating policy implications like the fact that we're supposedly trying to wean ourselves from middle eastern oil.) I would say that if you're going to raise the limit to 85, you need to enforce it, and strictly.

70-75 is way to slow for me on rural freeways. I get bored and distracted. Here in UK I drive in 80-90 range even in much heavier traffic. Not only me, plenty of people do so.
Obviously accident at 80 is more dangerous than at 60. But accident at 60 is more dangerous than accident at 40 etc. Where do we strike the balance?
People should remember that speed limit is not a target. If it's wet, visibility is bad or traffic is heavy, you just slow down. On German autobahns there are plenty of stretches with no limit and it is still country with one of the safest roads on earth. They do put limits where they needed and enforce them. Some states in the US could go that way. I remember that few years ago Montana didn't have limits on its freeways. Such solution makes perfect sense in sparsely populated states. When I drove in Dakotas or Nebraska I was thinking about it. Drop the universal limits on freeways and introduce local speed limits in urban areas or in some places with steep grades or tight curves.

In what way toll booths are dangerous? There are plenty of them in Europe and I never heard they are particular safety hazard. What happened in 1983?


It isn't my word, but it's how the Connecticut politicians have expressed their opinion on toll booth.

The story was an accident occurred back then when a distracted tractor trailer truck driver plowed into dozen of cars that stopped at the toll booth who were waiting to pay. The accident killed numbers of people on scene. Since then, Connecticut removed all toll booths around the State to prevent such accident will ever happen again. The argument is if there is no toll booth, no one stops, and no one is going to be hurt or killed in another similar accident.

In Chicago they love tolls booths. It's like the toll booth capital of the world. Every few miles you're paying tolls there. :hahaha:

The one I like best is the Skyway toll that has the McDonald's in the median. I always buy a coke there. :yes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Chicago_skyway_mcdonalds.jpg

It isn't my word, but it's how the Connecticut politicians have expressed their opinion on toll booth.

The story was an accident occurred back then when a distracted tractor trailer truck driver plowed into dozen of cars that stopped at the toll booth who were waiting to pay. The accident killed numbers of people on scene. Since then, Connecticut removed all toll booths around the State to prevent such accident will ever happen again. The argument is if there is no toll booth, no one stops, and no one is going to be hurt or killed in another similar accident.

Well, that's a bit lame, in my humble opinion: Connecticut is in the middle, more or less, of the most heavily-tolled area of the country, so they're surely aware that that sort of thing is not happening all that often in nearby states. (Not that I'm advocating the return of tolls.)

In reality, it should be, but not in Connecticut. The toll proposed are supposed to only provide maintenance and other operational support for the infrastructure itself. These money in talk now are not supposed to go out to fund other infrastructures around the State.



There is also the missing piece of "Super 7" between north Norwalk and south Danbury. Amongst all, this piece is probably the most critical.

Anyways, the "real thing" have been in fire for a while, and turned off for a few times. The most recent one was last year, rejected just before this new proposal came out.
The whole loop conclusions have been
1. Toll booth is going to be dangerous, and people/the DOT is afraid the 1983 tragedy will happen again. So toll booths are not going to be built at the boarder again.
2. EZ-Pass or similar electronic tag is going to track where people go, and will be in violation of privacy, so the politicians are objecting to the touch-free high speed technology.

At the end, I just don't see toll highways will come back in CT in a fashion as they do in other states. Gas tax will still be the big part of the income source to fund transportation infrastructures in the State.

Hehe , but thats not how it happens in reality.....CT is a state that wants and = Transit / Highway system i have a feeling half the Tolls will go to Transit....

Well, that's a bit lame, in my humble opinion: Connecticut is in the middle, more or less, of the most heavily-tolled area of the country, so they're surely aware that that sort of thing is not happening all that often in nearby states. (Not that I'm advocating the return of tolls.)

It isn't just "not happening all that often," but I don't recall having any after that one particular one occurred. It is plain politic, not scientific and engineering. One of such tragedy is more than enough to touch the politic nerve. If there is a way to avoid it, even if it may sound nonsense, the people in-charge will go for it to avoid oppositions.

And true that both NY and MA have toll roads, but there aren't that many booths across the state line.
I-95 only has booths on the northbound side in NY, and nothing on the southbound side; and it doesn't have anything on the RI side.
Rt 15 had booths 20+ years ago, but removed after the I-95 tragedy. All the booth areas have been converted in the service areas.
I-84 doesn't have booth on the NY state line, and does have one in the MA side, but it is usually pretty quite.
I-91 is also free from toll booth, too.

Hehe , but thats not how it happens in reality.....CT is a state that wants and = Transit / Highway system i have a feeling half the Tolls will go to Transit....

If the toll system were to implement in all expressways, then certainly some money will go towards the public transport sector; however, if the toll system is going to go the new kind of a BOT-way with new construction, the money is so small it probably won't even be able to self-sustain financially.

The transit funding is still just going to find its own money from taxes, and federal grants.

It isn't my word, but it's how the Connecticut politicians have expressed their opinion on toll booth.

The story was an accident occurred back then when a distracted tractor trailer truck driver plowed into dozen of cars that stopped at the toll booth who were waiting to pay. The accident killed numbers of people on scene. Since then, Connecticut removed all toll booths around the State to prevent such accident will ever happen again. The argument is if there is no toll booth, no one stops, and no one is going to be hurt or killed in another similar accident.
Sounds like good logic. But then, why not go for a booth-less toll road like the 407 in Ontario or ICC in Maryland?

No toll booths means no stopping means nobody gets killed by passing through overhead cameras/video.

Sounds like good logic. But then, why not go for a booth-less toll road like the 407 in Ontario or ICC in Maryland?

No toll booths means no stopping means nobody gets killed by passing through overhead cameras/video.

It was debated, but privacy is the issue.
People were then afraid the on-board electronic tag and/or photo camera will become the big brother that can watch where you go on the road and they claim it is in violation of the constitution.
That's why red-light cameras are still illegal in Connecticut, even tough it has been proven the technology can discourage red light running and improve safety.
But then no one has complained about the blackberry or iphone that are in their pocket which do even better job in tracking if the big brother really wants to hunt you down. Again, it's politic and philosophy, not science or engineering.

It was debated, but privacy is the issue.
People were then afraid the on-board electronic tag and/or photo camera will become the big brother that can watch where you go on the road and they claim it is in violation of the constitution.
That's why red-light cameras are still illegal in Connecticut, even tough it has been proven the technology can discourage red light running and improve safety.
But then no one has complained about the blackberry or iphone that are in their pocket which do even better job in tracking if the big brother really wants to hunt you down. Again, it's politic and philosophy, not science or engineering.
So what we need to do is toll the cars at the booths, but allow for trucks to go through without stopping. Let the semis be the ones video'd.

That way, nobody has to be killed.

....
And true that both NY and MA have toll roads, but there aren't that many booths across the state line.
I-95 only has booths on the northbound side in NY, and nothing on the southbound side; and it doesn't have anything on the RI side.
Rt 15 had booths 20+ years ago, but removed after the I-95 tragedy. All the booth areas have been converted in the service areas.
I-84 doesn't have booth on the NY state line, and does have one in the MA side, but it is usually pretty quite.
I-91 is also free from toll booth, too.
....

By remarking that Connecticut politicians and citizens ought to be aware, due to their geography, that there haven't been a rash (understatement) of toll-booth-caused accidents, I wasn't just talking about New York and Massachusetts, but the whole Northeast. Surely most Connecticut drivers have paid plenty of tolls in their day even if they're too young to remember the '83 accident and to have paid tolls in Connecticut. (And the same applies to the argument that E-ZPass is a violation of privacy....)

It isn't just "not happening all that often," but I don't recall having any after that one particular one occurred. It is plain politic, not scientific and engineering. One of such tragedy is more than enough to touch the politic nerve. If there is a way to avoid it, even if it may sound nonsense, the people in-charge will go for it to avoid oppositions.

And true that both NY and MA have toll roads, but there aren't that many booths across the state line.
I-95 only has booths on the northbound side in NY, and nothing on the southbound side; and it doesn't have anything on the RI side.
Rt 15 had booths 20+ years ago, but removed after the I-95 tragedy. All the booth areas have been converted in the service areas.
I-84 doesn't have booth on the NY state line, and does have one in the MA side, but it is usually pretty quite.
I-91 is also free from toll booth, too.



If the toll system were to implement in all expressways, then certainly some money will go towards the public transport sector; however, if the toll system is going to go the new kind of a BOT-way with new construction, the money is so small it probably won't even be able to self-sustain financially.

The transit funding is still just going to find its own money from taxes, and federal grants.

Well CT has plans to find funding through Tolls....on I-95 and I-91 which could generate alot of $$$. With the Amount CT is trying to do , and Tolls will allow it to speed up that process..... Feds will only fund large scale Rail Projects.....and starter lines , CT will have fund smaller and extensions..... $$$ form that would come form Tolls....

You make it sound as if there is a concrete plan. Connecticut politics works as slow as molasses on these kinds of things. The nickname of this state is "The Land of Steady Habits". Last time I checked, they were STILL working on the planning arrangements that New Britain-Hartford busway. I knew about that plan since the late nineties, lol. And I doubt the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail plan will be done in this decade.

I honestly don't mind paying like a dollar for a toll if I am leaving the state. As a consequence of not having tolls, CT has among the highest gas taxes in the country. Just across the border in Massachusetts where they have tolls all over the place, they pay almost 30 cents on gas less than us.

You make it sound as if there is a concrete plan. Connecticut politics works as slow as molasses on these kinds of things. The nickname of this state is "The Land of Steady Habits". Last time I checked, they were STILL working on the planning arrangements that New Britain-Hartford busway. I knew about that plan since the late nineties, lol. And I doubt the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail plan will be done in this decade.

I honestly don't mind paying like a dollar for a toll if I am leaving the state. As a consequence of not having tolls, CT has among the highest gas taxes in the country. Just across the border in Massachusetts where they have tolls all over the place, they pay almost 30 cents on gas less than us.

Exactly, I guess this is the thing only the local knows more about, and raise the different opinions. I am all in support with toll in CT, the money has to come from somewhere to maintain the roads, promote public transport, or simply keep the DOT running. But making toll comes back in CT will just be a miracle.

By the way, Xusein, the busway planning is done, designed, and will begin construction soon, but it will just take another decade to finish it after a 15+ year of talking.

I still say make it 85. Traffic will do its own thing and slow everyone down just like it does in a 65 zone. One thing I've noticed on freeways at least here in Texas is that there are still a lot of people that like to cruise way below the speed limit. I look over and wonder if they're on drugs, not paying attention or what. Speed Limit in the city is 65 and they're lounging in the slow lane doing 50.

When I was much younger my perception was that everyone was itching to drive fast, frustratingly it seems that slow drivers really screw up the flow of a freeway. :ohno:

Did you ever see this video of the group of people in Atlanta that got together and DID the posted 55mph speed limit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU&feature=related

Check out this jaw-dropping video about the I-820 overhaul in Fort Worth, Texas.

Keep in mind the current freeway is nothing more than a 4-lane Interstate.

_DXkZ2yCLWA

Screendump:
http://i.imgur.com/oJeCs.jpg

In what way toll booths are dangerous? There are plenty of them in Europe and I never heard they are particular safety hazard. What happened in 1983?




Well, don't generalize about Europe. In Poland we complain how our drivers are and how they keep hogging the left lane, on Irish forum locals complain about Irish hogging right lane (overtaking lane in Ireland) etc. It seems like grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. ;)

But I do agree that lane discipline is particularly bad in the US. I remember driving I-15 from LA to Vegas on Friday evening few years ago. It is busy but flow of traffic would be much faster if people moved back to the right after overtaking. It is especially important on 2x2 rural freeways.
To defend American drivers I have to say lane discipline is much more complicated on urban freeways with 4 or more lanes in each directions with multiple exits an mergers in short distance. That's where majority of drivers drive a lot and they develop habits of keeping off right lanes as they are used mostly by merging and exiting drivers. Then they keep driving that way on 2x2 rural freeways.



70-75 is way to slow for me on rural freeways. I get bored and distracted. Here in UK I drive in 80-90 range even in much heavier traffic. Not only me, plenty of people do so.
Obviously accident at 80 is more dangerous than at 60. But accident at 60 is more dangerous than accident at 40 etc. Where do we strike the balance?
People should remember that speed limit is not a target. If it's wet, visibility is bad or traffic is heavy, you just slow down. On German autobahns there are plenty of stretches with no limit and it is still country with one of the safest roads on earth. They do put limits where they needed and enforce them. Some states in the US could go that way. I remember that few years ago Montana didn't have limits on its freeways. Such solution makes perfect sense in sparsely populated states. When I drove in Dakotas or Nebraska I was thinking about it. Drop the universal limits on freeways and introduce local speed limits in urban areas or in some places with steep grades or tight curves.
The problem of hogging the left lane (or right lane in some countries) comes from drivers being too nice. In Pakistan if I see that I'll honk till he fucker moves out of the way or flash my lights. Also, when I'm too pissed I'd tailgate within an inch or two and honk and the driver in the front usually pisses his pants (seen that in UAE too). I won't recommed that though, but it should be fair game to honk or flash the lights. The only thing I've seen in the US (although pretty rare) is drivers moving a bit to the left so the driver in the front can see them in the left mirror.

I really don't understand why honking or flashing the lights is such a taboo in most countries. IT works perfectly fine.

Also, when I'm too pissed I'd tailgate within an inch or two and honk and the driver in the front usually pisses his pants (seen that in UAE too).

In my opinion, behaving such way you put yourself to category even worse than left lane hoggers. Road assholes. Sorry mate, it's damn dangerous and stupid.

The only thing I've seen in the US (although pretty rare) is drivers moving a bit to the left so the driver in the front can see them in the left mirror.
Better that than tailgating.

I really don't understand why honking or flashing the lights is such a taboo in most countries. IT works perfectly fine.
For some reason in countries where such practices are used the most (Africa, Asia etc) roads are the most dangerous. I guess why.
Don't want to sound racist but I have feeling you would love driving in India:ohno:

In my opinion, behaving such way you put yourself to category even worse than left lane hoggers. Road assholes. Sorry mate, it's damn dangerous and stupid.


Better that than tailgating.


For some reason in countries where such practices are used the most (Africa, Asia etc) roads are the most dangerous. I guess why.
Don't want to sound racist but I have feeling you would love driving in India:ohno:
How do honking and flashing the headlights make the roads dangerous?

^^ Aggressive drivers are more likely to be in car crashes.

^^ Aggressive drivers are more likely to be in car crashes.

Exactly, you can scare/stress the driver in front and he/she will do something stupid. Especially if, as you said, you are tailgating as well. Such behavior is against the law in most of the civilized countries. And for a reason. It is no coincidence that countries with the most polite drivers have the safest roads.

It is no coincidence that countries with the most polite drivers have the safest roads.

The US traffic fatality rate is about double that of Western European countries when compared to the number of inhabitants. Though this disregards possible differences in vehicle miles, it is still significant. The U.S. traffic safety is similar to that of the worst performing European countries (Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, etc.) It's even more remarkable if you consider that European speed limits tend to be higher, especially on freeways.

The US traffic fatality rate is about double that of Western European countries when compared to the number of inhabitants. Though this disregards possible differences in vehicle miles, it is still significant. The U.S. traffic safety is similar to that of the worst performing European countries (Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, etc.) It's even more remarkable if you consider that European speed limits tend to be higher, especially on freeways.

That only confirms that speed limits on freeways don't influence road safety as much as some people think. Especially that most fatal accidents happens on smaller roads. Freeways/autobahns are the safest roads around even without speed limits, like for example in Germany.

Yes, calculated by miles traveled, American Interstate Highways have approximately 40% more fatalities than German Autobahns.

Exactly, you can scare/stress the driver in front and he/she will do something stupid. Especially if, as you said, you are tailgating as well. Such behavior is against the law in most of the civilized countries. And for a reason. It is no coincidence that countries with the most polite drivers have the safest roads.
I can tell you with conviction that fatality rate (deaths/1000 kms) in Pakistan is way lower than any of the Western countries. I don't know why you'd assume that it'd be higher. If everyone drives like a maniac and breaks the law, the roads actually become SAFER. You really won't undersatnd that until you actually drive for a long time in such conditions. But the reason is simple, you're always looking out for anything that could go wrong. Here's an example - try driving in the wrong direction on a highway in the US, it'll result in a big pile-up. In Pakistan it won't, coz we EXPECT that. Same for running a red light or not stopping at a stop sign. Having said that, I don't condone breaking traffic laws (nor have I ever done that in Pakistan), not coz it's safer (it's actually more unsafe) to follow rules, but coz it's efficient (in Pakistan it'd take you much longer to travel the same distance). I have no issues with breaking speed limits, maniacal driving or tailgating though as none of that is inefficient.

Also, I asked you about honking not tailgating. Honking has nothing to do with aggression or unsafe (as you put it) driving.

The US traffic fatality rate is about double that of Western European countries when compared to the number of inhabitants. Though this disregards possible differences in vehicle miles, it is still significant. The U.S. traffic safety is similar to that of the worst performing European countries (Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, etc.) It's even more remarkable if you consider that European speed limits tend to be higher, especially on freeways.

One thing: isn't flashing lights to get people out of your way (if they're in the left lane) common and accepted practice in Germany? If not, ignore this post, but if it is, I think that contradicts the politeness-correlates-to-fewer-fatalities hypothesis. At least if we count flashing lights as impoliteness. (Underline "think." I just woke up from a nice nap and my brain may still be half asleep. :-) )

But, yeah, if you're literally tailgating an inch or two behind someone and they have to stop or slow down for any reason at all you're in an accident. If I had my say, you'd lose your license.

One thing: isn't flashing lights to get people out of your way (if they're in the left lane) common and accepted practice in Germany? If not, ignore this post, but if it is, I think that contradicts the politeness-correlates-to-fewer-fatalities hypothesis. At least if we count flashing lights as impoliteness. (Underline "think." I just woke up from a nice nap and my brain may still be half asleep. :-) )

But, yeah, if you're literally tailgating an inch or two behind someone and they have to stop or slow down for any reason at all you're in an accident. If I had my say, you'd lose your license.
Why would flashing lights be considered impolite? Even if it is, it's less impolite than hogging the lane while talking to your BFF on the phone!

Yes, calculated by miles traveled, American Interstate Highways have approximately 40% more fatalities than German Autobahns.

I'd be curious to see those statistics. (Not doubting you, just curious, especially about Europe beyond Germany.)

Why would flashing lights be considered impolite? Even if it is, it's less impolite than hogging the lane while talking to your BFF on the phone!

You misunderstand me. The others seemed to be counting it as impolite. As I say, I may be half asleep.
(For the record, I'll flash if you're crawling in the passing lane, although I don't know how many Americans understand that.)

Does anyone flash their high beams to warn oncoming vehicles that there are police close to that place? Usually people flash their high beams twice. I have seen that a lot in Bulgaria on two-way roads because technically you can't do it on highways. I have never seen that in USA

I can tell you with conviction that fatality rate (deaths/1000 kms) in Pakistan is way lower than any of the Western countries.Really? Iceland is 3.9 fatalities per billion km, Ireland and the UK are 5.7 (a low value for non-little countries), Germany is 7.2, France and the Netherlands are 7.7 and the USA is 8.5.

Pakistan is 25.3 road fatalities per 100k people (compare France's 6.9 being a higher rate in Western Europe, USA's 12.3 for a high rate for the West, and the UK's 3.59 for a lower rate), which unless the average Pakistani drives about twice as far as the average American, 3 2/3 times more than the average French person, or 7 times more than the average Brit, then - per distance traveled - Pakistan has more deaths on the road.

So while you can tell us with conviction, you can't say it with any justification as it's very unlikely that it is the case that Pakistan is even in the same ball park as the USA, let alone Western European countries. The suggestion that you made of Pakistan having a 'way lower' fatality rate than any country in the West is swill not worthy to feed a pig with.

Does anyone flash their high beams to warn oncoming vehicles that there are police close to that place? Usually people flash their high beams twice. I have seen that a lot in Bulgaria on two-way roads because technically you can't do it on highways. I have never seen that in USA

People in Washington State must be very laid back. Plenty of people (including me) do it "back East."

r21wV82F7AM

You misunderstand me. The others seemed to be counting it as impolite. As I say, I may be half asleep.
(For the record, I'll flash if you're crawling in the passing lane, although I don't know how many Americans understand that.)

I don't bother flashing they just stay on bright until it annoys the slow person and they move out of the lane or a lane opens up so I can pass.
I don't EVER tailgate
1) it's dangerous
2) the closer you are the less your high beams are seen :)

People who drive slow should really consider the side streets if they are afraid of speed or others speeding around them.

If I'm in no hurry and just want to take my time and relax I skip the interstate and hit the US routes or state routes.

As for city driving, it doesn't matter who is traveling under or over the speed in which lane. It's impossible to gain any advantage in time by speeding or flashing lights ETC (in my personal opinion)
So I go with the flow and don't stress about it.

I'd be all for unlimited speed limits once an Interstate reaches the rural areas and all for posted speed limits in suburban/urban interstates.

Really? Iceland is 3.9 fatalities per billion km, Ireland and the UK are 5.7 (a low value for non-little countries), Germany is 7.2, France and the Netherlands are 7.7 and the USA is 8.5.

Pakistan is 25.3 road fatalities per 100k people (compare France's 6.9 being a higher rate in Western Europe, USA's 12.3 for a high rate for the West, and the UK's 3.59 for a lower rate), which unless the average Pakistani drives about twice as far as the average American, 3 2/3 times more than the average French person, or 7 times more than the average Brit, then - per distance traveled - Pakistan has more deaths on the road.

So while you can tell us with conviction, you can't say it with any justification as it's very unlikely that it is the case that Pakistan is even in the same ball park as the USA, let alone Western European countries. The suggestion that you made of Pakistan having a 'way lower' fatality rate than any country in the West is swill not worthy to feed a pig with.
Relax. I'm not in Pakistan right now, but I know where I got my figure from and I'll try and post it if I can get my hands on that book somehow. No need to get all upset.

How do honking and flashing the headlights make the roads dangerous?
If you flash once or twice it's not a big deal. But initially you wrote about honking, flashing and tailgating. Such combination can be dangerous and is illegal in most countries. You can cause accident by forcing driver ahead of you to make an error.

One thing: isn't flashing lights to get people out of your way (if they're in the left lane) common and accepted practice in Germany?
People do it if you keep hogging left lane for long but I think it is illegal, especially when connected with tailgating. I guess if German police witness such situation they would penalize both drivers. Slow one for hogging left lane, and fast one for tailgating and flashing. Honking is big "no no" in Germany. It can be only used in emergency situation. Same in Poland and I think most European countries.

If not, ignore this post, but if it is, I think that contradicts the politeness-correlates-to-fewer-fatalities hypothesis. At least if we count flashing lights as impoliteness. (Underline "think." I just woke up from a nice nap and my brain may still be half asleep. :-) )
Some young Germans in expensive cars flash lights more often. As well as for example Poles who lived in Germany for a while, bought nice car and who think they are kings of the road ;)
They are definitely not polite. They are also the most dangerous drivers on German roads.

Why would flashing lights be considered impolite? Even if it is, it's less impolite than hogging the lane while talking to your BFF on the phone!
All behaviors you mentioned are equally impolite. Stop justifying reckless driving. Encountering idiot hogging left lane don't give you right to behave like an idiot yourself.

Relax. I'm not in Pakistan right now, but I know where I got my figure from and I'll try and post it if I can get my hands on that book somehow. No need to get all upset.
I would like to see where you got your ridiculous numbers from.
If everyone drives like a maniac and breaks the law, the roads actually become SAFER. You really won't undersatnd that until you actually drive for a long time in such conditions.But the reason is simple, you're always looking out for anything that could go wrong. Here's an example - try driving in the wrong direction on a highway in the US, it'll result in a big pile-up. In Pakistan it won't, coz we EXPECT that.
:hm:
Please tell me you are kidding, or you smoke something really good. It's the weirdest statement I've seen on this forum so far. And believe me, I've seen a lot of crap here.
Thinking that way why not abandoning all road rules? People would move slowly and be careful to avoid others driving wrong way or driving on red. Actually there wouldn't be red light anymore. :ohno:
What a brilliant idea. I can already see Nobel Peace Prize going your way. :lol:

I don't want to derail this thread, so if you wanna carry on this discussion make a new thread and I'll gladly reply there.

Hogging the left lane when there is no traffic to you right is not being polite.

Does anyone flash their high beams to warn oncoming vehicles that there are police close to that place? Usually people flash their high beams twice. I have seen that a lot in Bulgaria on two-way roads because technically you can't do it on highways. I have never seen that in USA

I do it sometimes especially for the pure speed traps you see around town. Other than that I'll leave others to their fate on the highway.

My kind of cop. ;)

ELZQ-Z6lASI

LOVE IT!

That cop deserves a medal.

Hogging the left lane when there is no traffic to you right is not being polite.

Amen! :-) But seriously... it is just unsafe inefficient driving, and causes those unnecessary traffic bunches.

My kind of cop. ;)

ELZQ-Z6lASI

The fact that the kids filming this couldn't understand why the cop did what he/she did shows that the average American driver knows very little about staying right except to pass.

I-78 through Jersey City - Bayonne - Newark has been getting overhauled recently...

I-78 West in Jersey City...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5146/5628861984_c79d1d379c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628861984/)
DSCN1073 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628861984/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5628279649_907c874361_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628279649/)
DSCN1075 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628279649/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Yuck can't wait till Christies name is off that sign...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5024/5628863600_26bcbe8071_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628863600/)
DSCN1077 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628863600/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5628281323_9b9eba9f4c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628281323/)
DSCN1079 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628281323/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5628864720_44cd063eca_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628864720/)
DSCN1080 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628864720/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 14 A

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5227/5628865434_9d045bf684_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628865434/)
DSCN1082 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628865434/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5628865902_93597e6731_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628865902/)
DSCN1083 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628865902/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5261/5628866300_1cffedfc9e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628866300/)
DSCN1084 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628866300/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Newark Bay Bridge

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5628283517_0d4f5ec35e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628283517/)
DSCN1085 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628283517/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5628283985_5a0f5bea4f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628283985/)
DSCN1086 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628283985/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5628867926_97d7e268ce_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628867926/)
DSCN1088 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628867926/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

City of Newark

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5628285235_6c82b7bfe1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628285235/)
DSCN1089 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628285235/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5628285937_74c036acdb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628285937/)
DSCN1091 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628285937/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 14

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5309/5628286423_814798f241_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628286423/)
DSCN1092 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628286423/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

NJ Turnpike Northbound

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5628287591_8daa8956c4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628287591/)
DSCN1095 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628287591/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 15E

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5628871526_340d1f221a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628871526/)
DSCN1097 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628871526/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Eastern Spur of the NJTPK


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5628288603_d191fecdf3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628288603/)
DSCN1098 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628288603/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Going under the Pulaski Skyway

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5628872146_85a20d04fd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628872146/)
DSCN1099 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628872146/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5628872676_505f4c5bbc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628872676/)
DSCN1100 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628872676/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Crossing the Morristown , Montclair - Boonton , Raritan Valley , Gladstone , North Jersey Coast line , Northeast Corridor lines , and PATH , NJ 7 / Newark Turnpike...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5628873000_1b3f3debee_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628873000/)
DSCN1101 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628873000/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5304/5628873396_48ba238cbb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628873396/)
DSCN1102 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628873396/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5628291059_a6a6f2f48c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628291059/)
DSCN1104 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628291059/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5628874432_4e9648eb52_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628874432/)
DSCN1105 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628874432/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Crossing the Hackensack River & Old Boonton line / Future Northern LRT link

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5628292057_fe4e749044_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628292057/)
DSCN1107 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628292057/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 15X Secaucus JCT / Secaucus Exchange and Jersey City Heights

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5628876310_a9e1cbfa8a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628876310/)
DSCN1110 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628876310/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5146/5628293505_31dc9d7652_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628293505/)
DSCN1111 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628293505/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5025/5628293841_0dc5fb844a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628293841/)
DSCN1112 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628293841/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5628877610_fa109c4edb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628877610/)
DSCN1114 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628877610/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5628294975_f2d9bd92d6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628294975/)
DSCN1115 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628294975/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Exit 16 E > NJ 3 / NJ 495 / Lincoln Tunnel

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5628295365_34b5947cd3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628295365/)
DSCN1116 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628295365/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5628878814_a2bf4a7769_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628878814/)
DSCN1117 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628878814/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5628879234_e56059a49b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628879234/)
DSCN1118 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628879234/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5628297257_2d871e729c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628297257/)
DSCN1121 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628297257/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5186/5628880688_fab7723114_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628880688/)
DSCN1122 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628880688/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5628298091_38783acd62_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628298091/)
DSCN1123 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628298091/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5628881560_63dc3ca543_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628881560/)
DSCN1124 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628881560/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

End of the NJ Turnpike / Begin I-80

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5628299807_52e1233e79_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628299807/)
DSCN1127 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628299807/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5628883168_106bdf63e6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883168/)
DSCN1128 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883168/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-80 Local Westbound

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5261/5628883594_10df63fa1f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883594/)
DSCN1129 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883594/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5628883868_1d54baf7ce_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883868/)
DSCN1130 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628883868/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Crossing the Hackensack River > City of Hackensack, CSX Riverline / Future NJT / MNRR West Shore line

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5628884348_42a4569048_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628884348/)
DSCN1131 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628884348/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5150/5628301975_7f973ff27f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628301975/)
DSCN1132 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628301975/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5628885414_dba5e47fa0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628885414/)
DSCN1133 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628885414/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5628885856_612cfabb3f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628885856/)
DSCN1134 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628885856/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5628886202_2d639632bb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628886202/)
DSCN1135 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/5628886202/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

My kind of cop. ;)

ELZQ-Z6lASI

That's call "idiotic stupid."

He shouldn't have turned his siren lights on when he was only 2 feet behind the car in front of him. The person in the front could have scared and slammed on the break, and the police could have rear-ended the other car at high speed. At that point the police is at fault not the slow car. Even if he was trying to be a jerk, give himself some room of safety.

Yes, calculated by miles traveled, American Interstate Highways have approximately 40% more fatalities than German Autobahns.

Having driven on both, it does not surprise me the least. German (and, for that matter, British, Dutch, Swedish etc...) motorway drivers seem to focus mainly on the job at hand, i.e. driving on a busy, high-speed road. US freeway drivers do not have the same focus.

My kind of cop. ;)

ELZQ-Z6lASI

My favorite cop! But most Americans wouldn't understand why he did that :ohno:

My favorite cop! But most Americans wouldn't understand why he did that :ohno:

Yes they would , don't make assumptions that the Majority of Americans don't know have to drive because of a few.

Considering the excessive left-lane hogging I see in all highway videos on Youtube, it's not just "a few".

Considering the excessive left-lane hogging I see in all highway videos on Youtube, it's not just "a few".

Well, Nexis comes from a state where "Keep Right Except to Pass" is the law. Not that I've ever heard of it being enforced....

Well, Nexis comes from a state where "Keep Right Except to Pass" is the law. Not that I've ever heard of it being enforced....

haha i have.... one of my teachers got ticketed for that lolz....=p

Yes they would , don't make assumptions that the Majority of Americans don't know have to drive because of a few.

I disagree... it may vary somewhat state by state, but my gut tells me at least 50 + 1 (which is a majority) of American drivers don't know about the keep right except to pass concept.

I deliberately ignore the "keep right except to pass" rule when driving on an Interstate at night. Headlights in my mirror is not something I'm fond of, so I drive on the left at night on the Interstate to keep my left side mirror clear, and I always keep the interior mirror flipped up to the darker setting.

I disagree... it may vary somewhat state by state, but my gut tells me at least 50 + 1 (which is a majority) of American drivers don't know about the keep right except to pass concept.

We know about it, we just don't care. A lot of drivers here have the attitude that if I'm doing the speed limit I can be in any damn lane I want and if you don't like it fuck you go around me. I only wish we had more cops like in that vid.


In other news Kansas is upping it's speed limit to 75

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2814361/top-kansas-speed-limit-will-increase.html

We know about it, we just don't care. A lot of drivers here have the attitude that if I'm doing the speed limit I can be in any damn lane I want and if you don't like it fuck you go around me.

Yup, that about sums it up. If I'm gonna turn left I'm gonna get in that lane, even if the turn is twenty miles away.

We know about it, we just don't care. A lot of drivers here have the attitude that if I'm doing the speed limit I can be in any damn lane I want and if you don't like it fuck you go around me.


In other news Kansas is upping it's speed limit to 75

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2814361/top-kansas-speed-limit-will-increase.html

No , you stay out of the left lane , you people who go slow in the left should have points added to your licenses....

^^+ 1

I'm with Nexis on this one. Mostly. Actually, on freeways/expressways where there are more than two lanes, I'll use one of the middle ones unless I feel like going fast, to avoid conflicts with traffic entering at interchanges. (If there are only two lanes, and the road's fairly busy, I'll use the one appropriate for my speed; if there are two lanes on an empty road, I'll keep right.) But I don't like passing on the right and will only do it if you force me to by driving slowly in the left lane and being unresponsive to a couple of flashes. (Although I'd be stunned to be ticketed for passing on the right, just as I'd be stunned to see someone ticketed for being in the left lane when they shouldn't.)

Nerdly Dood, I hate headlights in my rearview mirror too, and if someone's actually shining them in my mirror - either because they're idiotically driving with their high beams on or they're in a hulking big vehicle so their low beams are right in my mirror, I'll turn my blinkers on to get them to back off. It usually works.

If cops give tickets for driving too slowly in the left lane, they'd effectively be requiring that you drive above the speed limit. The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, so ticketing people who drive under the speed limit would be dumb.

If cops give tickets for driving too slowly in the left lane, they'd effectively be requiring that you drive above the speed limit. The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, so ticketing people who drive under the speed limit would be dumb.

Except in states where you're supposed (by law) to keep right except to pass.... If you're driving down the left lane of an empty road, you're ticketable as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: It's like Washington-area Metro escalators, actually. Only tourists stand on the left.

In Europe or at least in Bulgaria there is a minimum speed 50 km/h (30 mph) on highways unless there is traffic of course. If you drive below this, you are illegal and shouldn't be on that highway

If cops give tickets for driving too slowly in the left lane, they'd effectively be requiring that you drive above the speed limit. The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, so ticketing people who drive under the speed limit would be dumb.
From what I am aware of, the 'slower traffic keep right' law supersedes the speed limit in many states. IMHO, it is a highway safety rule that works (just ask the Germans!).

Mike

please post pics, pics in this subforum are a rarity. I would like to see interstates outside city limits.

please post pics, pics in this subforum (outside of the coastal states) are a rarity. fixed it
I would like to see interstates outside city limits. Agreed 100%

:cheers:

From what I am aware of, the 'slower traffic keep right' law supersedes the speed limit in many states. IMHO, it is a highway safety rule that works (just ask the Germans!).

Mike
Exactly, the idiots who stay in the left lane impede the flow of traffic which lead to aggressive driving from people trying to get around them. People who stay in the left lane are pompous assholes who are the same people who don't use their signals because they feel they are too good(lazy) for that. I remember driving through Indiana so many people including truckers were staying in the left lane going at or below the speed limit. I had been driving for many hours and needless to say I pissed off a lot of drivers in that state because you bet I squeezed, cut off, and pushed my way through those idiots. Not saying my reaction was right but that is what it leads to. Majority of Americans don't know how to drive well, of course it varies by state but you will find the same stupid driving habits everywhere here. Then again it might be because in American you can get a drivers license without ever having to leave a parking lot.

Exactly, the idiots who stay in the left lane impede the flow of traffic which lead to aggressive driving from people trying to get around them. People who stay in the left lane are pompous assholes who are the same people who don't use their signals because they feel they are too good(lazy) for that. I remember driving through Indiana so many people including truckers were staying in the left lane going at or below the speed limit. I had been driving for many hours and needless to say I pissed off a lot of drivers in that state because you bet I squeezed, cut off, and pushed my way through those idiots. Not saying my reaction was right but that is what it leads to. Majority of Americans don't know how to drive well, of course it varies by state but you will find the same stupid driving habits everywhere here. Then again it might be because in American you can get a drivers license without ever having to leave a parking lot.
I'll be driving thru Indiana tomorrow. Wish me luck! But my ordeal will be followed by driving in Chicago, which I absolutely love.

Kansas will increase rural 4-lane speed limits from 70 to 75 mph.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2815536/in-brief-new-75-mph-speed-limit.html

Kansas will increase rural 4-lane speed limits from 70 to 75 mph.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2815536/in-brief-new-75-mph-speed-limit.html

When? I'm going there in a little over two weeks. I suspect it will take them a while to actually change signs.

I'll be driving thru Indiana tomorrow. Wish me luck! But my ordeal will be followed by driving in Chicago, which I absolutely love.

I won't be in Indiana (or Chicago) tomorrow, so I won't have to worry about being tailgated two inches behind. :-P

I'll be driving thru Indiana tomorrow. Wish me luck! But my ordeal will be followed by driving in Chicago, which I absolutely love.
Yeah Chicago is one of the worst cities as far as drivers go but at least they are all trying to get to their destinations quickly(aggressive driving).

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....

Exactly, the idiots who stay in the left lane impede the flow of traffic which lead to aggressive driving from people trying to get around them. People who stay in the left lane are pompous assholes who are the same people who don't use their signals because they feel they are too good(lazy) for that. I remember driving through Indiana so many people including truckers were staying in the left lane going at or below the speed limit. I had been driving for many hours and needless to say I pissed off a lot of drivers in that state because you bet I squeezed, cut off, and pushed my way through those idiots. Not saying my reaction was right but that is what it leads to. Majority of Americans don't know how to drive well, of course it varies by state but you will find the same stupid driving habits everywhere here. Then again it might be because in American you can get a drivers license without ever having to leave a parking lot.

This. I didn't know until a few years ago that many states don't even require a real road test, the drivers training reqiurements in many places are a joke.

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....

Driving faster is safer simply because 55 mph is boring on a road designed for traffic at 70-75mph. Boring, on a straight road with long sight lines... at night, had a long day... people will tend to fall asleep, shortly before eating their windshield.

It's common knowledge that it's unhealthy to eat windshields, even more so than McDonald's.

Plus cars are more fuel efficient.

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....
I seem to remember up there in NY and Jersey that 55mph=80mph for most people, it makes sense because even when 55mph were set in the 70's many people didn't follow them. Setting reasonable speed limits is sound logic.

This. I didn't know until a few years ago that many states don't even require a real road test, the drivers training reqiurements in many places are a joke.
Yeah I mean at least make it mandatory to go out on the road and a highway to learn proper driving.

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....

Lowering speed limits will offset the cost of consuming more fuel by speeding tickets. Lowering speed limits always seems to be more expensive. I say give people more freedom and raise those damn speed limits on freeways, they were designed for high speed. :cheers:

Which states don't require road tests?

Alabama, though it's a farce of a test, requires one.

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....
everyone has a brain. If you think you don't wanna pay more for gas, you drive slower in the right lane. If you don't care, you drive faster. I hate it when the government tells me how to drive my car on a road that is designed for higher speed

everyone has a brain. If you think you don't wanna pay more for gas, you drive slower on the right lane. If you don't care you drive faster. I hate it when the government tells me how to drive my car

The government is better at driving cars than we are. ;)

Which states don't require road tests?

Alabama, though it's a farce of a test, requires one.

The Southern / Rural states have laxed tests , while the Dense / Northern states have stricter tests...

I don't understand why were raising speed limits when Gas prices are going up? It seems idiotic to me....

(Psst. That's the sort of thing it's best not to say around here. Don't tell anyone I said so.)

The government is better at driving cars than we are. ;)

Well, unfortunately, we have not yet found a source of energy for our cars that (1) is not going to run out within our lifetimes; (2) is not (apparently) fouling up our atmosphere to the point where the planet may become unrecognizable at a date a bit beyond our lifetimes and (3) does not keep us involved in some pretty nasty parts of the world....

I'm not advocating returning to 55 - that was absurd, and it wasn't enforced anyway. But the sort of people who say "I should be able to do 150 at night" are just ignoring all that to a degree I think is irresponsible. And probably have unrealistic ideas about how they'd survive an accident at that speed.

(Psst. That's the sort of thing it's best not to say around here. Don't tell anyone I said so.)

I can take the heat , i'm a New Yorker / New Jerseyite were the strongest in the country.

Could you guys post up some more of your favorite youtube highway tour videos? Who are your favorite youtube users to subscribe to? I cant enough of them!! :banana: USA highways only, please

FreewayJim is awesome. He mixes his videos with good music, too. :)