anywhere in New jesery...

hey why some people are saying the U.S can't maintain all it is roads. i actually see maintaing a highway as an easy problem. i mean Europe does it why can't the U.S? if they have more traffic then that just means more money from paytolls.

hey why some people are saying the U.S can't maintain all it is roads. i actually see maintaing a highway as an easy problem. i mean Europe does it why can't the U.S? if they have more traffic then that just means more money from paytolls.
We ain't got no paytolls here :lol: I personally would agree to pay $5 per 100km if they agreed to keep the roads in a decent shape. Besides, it would reduce the number of joy-riders as well.

^There aren't any paytolls in Germany, yes, but in most European countries you still have to pay for using motorways.

Most all highways are built out of concrete to begin with. Then as the highway ages is usually covered with asphalt for smoother ridering as cracks develop in concrete. Concrete is much stronger and lasts much longer, but concrete can crack in more dangerous, long-term ways.

Let me know if you see a truly new highway that is asphalt with no concrete underneath!

Nate

Low fuel taxes, and heavy traffic keep American roads in disrepair. US cities are generally very auto dependent which makes repairing roadways very difficult. The US also has a much larger network of secondary roads (which are often as wide as the highways) that need to be maintained. Federal tax on one gallon of gas (3.8L) is $0.18. Most states either charge a lot for gas (like NY) or they gouge you with exise or property taxes (MA and NH). Either or, American drivers pay a fraction per mile compared to their EU counterparts, and therefore they have a network which is in disrepair.

Dutch fuel tax is € 0,668 per liter, plus 19% VAT. Some 64% of the fuel price exists out of tax. The US fueltax is a laughter compared to the Dutch fueltax.

But i heard, in Venezuela, it costs around € 0,03 per liter, that is about 5 dollarcents.

Sure. This is I-80 near O'Donner Pass.

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

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

Funnily enough, I've seen worse (don't remember specifically where, but I've definitely seen worse)

Funnily enough, I've seen worse (don't remember specifically where, but I've definitely seen worse)
Was that at least in California?

Please... you haven't seen Quebec's Highways. I bet any Third-World Country can beat us in terms of the road condition.

Was that at least in California?

Pretty sure, yes, unless it was in Nevada

Pretty sure, yes, unless it was in Nevada
Nevada... Nevada has the best road pavement compared to the rest of America as well as Europe (at least the countries I've driven in). I-80 and all 2-lane roads in the middle of the desert look like they've been paved yesterday. And Nevada drivers, compared to Californians, have better discipline too :)

We use our cars way too much here in the US, which is probably the reason why Europe can maintain them better, they don't use personal automobiles as much as we do.

hey why some people are saying the U.S can't maintain all it is roads. i actually see maintaing a highway as an easy problem. i mean Europe does it why can't the U.S? if they have more traffic then that just means more money from paytolls.

Tolls are a political hot potato due to the sheer number of drivers that require use of the roads to get to every essential place in their daily lives. This again goes back to the way American society is structured, economically, culturally, politically, and physically.

I know that tolls are more common on the eastern seaboard than over here in the west. Perhaps the political situation is some what regional. We're almost done building a new suspension bridge here in the Seattle region and we will toll this in order to pay for it. There's a good number of people that travel across the bridge every day. Incidentally, the bridge connects to part of the region that generally has a higher than average income.

Those pictures of I-80 look a lot like the concrete on I-5 in the Seattle region. It's an excellent example of the problem.

Please... you haven't seen Quebec's Highways. I bet any Third-World Country can beat us in terms of the road condition.

I never had any problems with the Autoroutes (mostly driven in the Quebec City region- not so much Montreal)- but I'd agree with you on many of the back roads that have provincial route designations.

Route 15 going through montreal is a nightmare capped off with the expansion joints on that ancient bridge going over the St L River.....


Nevada does have good roads, but the roads in Arizona are better. But dont worry, once you reach New Mexico, they turn to shit again... ;)

Generally, US highways are best in the south and west, and worst in the Northeast and upper midwest where there are temperature extremes. Hence Alex's Donner Pass looking like crap.

Generally, US highways are best in the south and west, and worst in the Northeast and upper midwest where there are temperature extremes. Hence Alex's Donner Pass looking like crap.

And here I am complaining about the roads in the west. Hehe.

Actually, that makes sense, since the repeated freezing thawing and refreezing of water in minute cracks in the roadway surface makes those cracks worse. Not to mention repeated plowing tears roads apart.

that and our underroad deck is much thinner due to the fact we have more highway to maintain (or not maintain). But having driven over donner pass i do have to say you cant brake your axle. Those cracks make for a more bumpy ride yes, but you have more danger of braking your car on surface city roads than on our highways.

The quality of roads and highways varies from state to state in the U.S. The entire country shouldn't be judged by a visitor's experience with one or two shabby highways. In my area the highways are excellent and well-maintained, and most of the surrounding states are the same way.

The quality of roads and highways varies from state to state in the U.S. The entire country shouldn't be judged by a visitor's experience with one or two shabby highways. In my area the highways are excellent and well-maintained, and most of the surrounding states are the same way.

What region of the country do you live?

I am also surprised by how bad the US higway system is.

But its not, that the US cannot afford maintaining it, they just dont want to.

Countries all over Europe are able to keep their Highways in proper conditions, why should the US, which has much more money not be able to do so?

People in the US are just much to used to bad infrastrucutre

Bad public transportation, bad electicity infrastructure, bad public schools and bad public universities and bad public health care.

Public universities aren't bad and road network is in a very decent condition for most of the part. I don't know why you concluded that the US highway system is bad. In this topic, we were talking about the road pavement, weren't we?

I, for the life of me, don't know what he's talking about when he says America has bad public universities. I actually think they're quite good. In fact, (I'm not expert) but the higher education setup in the US is exellent from what I know.
Also, bad public health system? We, for the most part, have a private health system in this country.

I am also surprised by how bad the US higway system is.

But its not, that the US cannot afford maintaining it, they just dont want to.

Countries all over Europe are able to keep their Highways in proper conditions, why should the US, which has much more money not be able to do so?

People in the US are just much to used to bad infrastrucutre

Bad public transportation, bad electicity infrastructure, bad public schools and bad public universities and bad public health care.

...and bad manners from Europeans. Why do so many of them want to live in the U.S. if it's all bad?

What region of the country do you live?

I'm in Atlanta...the warm weather states normally don't have as much road maintenance.

I am also surprised by how bad the US higway system is.

But its not, that the US cannot afford maintaining it, they just dont want to.

Countries all over Europe are able to keep their Highways in proper conditions, why should the US, which has much more money not be able to do so?

I think you have a good point with this. The U.S. spends billions of dollars a many other things besides transportation infrastructure. If we wanted to reorganize our priorities, we could, but we don't. A good question to ask those of us that live in America: why is this? What programs are receiving more attention that maybe don't need to?

Public universities aren't bad and road network is in a very decent condition for most of the part. I don't know why you concluded that the US highway system is bad. In this topic, we were talking about the road pavement, weren't we?

Indeed, why the pavement has not received proper maintenance in many regions of the country.

I think you have a good point with this. The U.S. spends billions of dollars a many other things besides transportation infrastructure. If we wanted to reorganize our priorities, we could, but we don't. A good question to ask those of us that live in America: why is this? What programs are receiving more attention that maybe don't need to?

I can think of several programs that AREN'T getting the attention...education for one...but aren't most of the highways maintained by each state? I know the interstates are funded by the fed, but the maintenance and upkeep are the responsibility of the state right?

Yeah, states do most of the funding for maintaining the highways, state and interstates. I guess it's a state level question rather than a federal level one. Though the federal government has much influence on the ability to fund transportation projects. From some of the projects in my area that I've looked at recently, the federal government has dollars in nearly all of the major construction.

And you're right about programs not getting proper attention either. It's another symptom of our misaligned priorities. Everybody wants to fund some project or another, and the vast majority of them are worthy causes. However, even the U.S. government in deficit spending doesn't have enough money to fund everything. As such, programs get slashed here and there and priorities are rearranged frequently. I'm concerned that the projects that form the foundation of this country are receiving less funding than necessary. Education in may parts of the U.S. is lacking. (Washington, incidentally, has nearly 2 billion dollars in surplus and much of that is going to education.) I see transportation as a foundation project that ensures the smooth operation of the economy. A healthy economy means a healthy nation able to support itself and maintain a certain standard of living.

So, the larger question I guess is do people agree with this and if so, what we might do to change the way money is spent? Can we even hope to achieve this goal? I think our transportation infrastructure is one of many indicators of a larger problem.

Interesting topic. I believe the condition of our freeways and highways is a State issue. How does your State prioritize this? Yes, there is federal funding for the Interstate system, supplemented by State funding.

My experience is the smaller to mid-size States seem to do a better job with their highways, especially in the West. Could be simple economics...less people, less traffic, less wear and tear, less need overall. For example the Interstates in Montana and Utah are in very good condition, and upgrades are frequent. The larger States in the west, California, Washington, and many large midwestern and eastern states are the worst.

Comes down to how much residents are willing to pay for road improvements. And that varies from State to State.

Sub-topic suggestion: Which State has the worst maintained highways?
Most will vote for their own, but for those who travel, what are the troublesome States?

Yeah, states do most of the funding for maintaining the highways, state and interstates. I guess it's a state level question rather than a federal level one. Though the federal government has much influence on the ability to fund transportation projects. From some of the projects in my area that I've looked at recently, the federal government has dollars in nearly all of the major construction.

And you're right about programs not getting proper attention either. It's another symptom of our misaligned priorities. Everybody wants to fund some project or another, and the vast majority of them are worthy causes. However, even the U.S. government in deficit spending doesn't have enough money to fund everything. As such, programs get slashed here and there and priorities are rearranged frequently. I'm concerned that the projects that form the foundation of this country are receiving less funding than necessary. Education in may parts of the U.S. is lacking. (Washington, incidentally, has nearly 2 billion dollars in surplus and much of that is going to education.) I see transportation as a foundation project that ensures the smooth operation of the economy. A healthy economy means a healthy nation able to support itself and maintain a certain standard of living.

So, the larger question I guess is do people agree with this and if so, what we might do to change the way money is spent? Can we even hope to achieve this goal? I think our transportation infrastructure is one of many indicators of a larger problem.

Yeah but unfortunately most of the federal highway funds are going to Southern States. Many fund goes to Katrina affected states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama but I heard that other states like The Carolinas and Texas are getting some federal funds too. Those states are currently booming so there are heavy constructions of highways there (Or maybe the fed govs are prioritizing them :hm: )

Interesting topic. I believe the condition of our freeways and highways is a State issue. How does your State prioritize this? Yes, there is federal funding for the Interstate system, supplemented by State funding.

My experience is the smaller to mid-size States seem to do a better job with their highways, especially in the West. Could be simple economics...less people, less traffic, less wear and tear, less need overall. For example the Interstates in Montana and Utah are in very good condition, and upgrades are frequent. The larger States in the west, California, Washington, and many large midwestern and eastern states are the worst.

Comes down to how much residents are willing to pay for road improvements. And that varies from State to State.

Sub-topic suggestion: Which State has the worst maintained highways?
Most will vote for their own, but for those who travel, what are the troublesome States?

Yeah, you can't blame the U.S. Fed Gov for this issue. To OP, blame Washington State instead or the City Hall of Seattle. One of the state I noticed is Virginia. Their roads have nice maintenance and and are being improve using State Funds[they never ask for Fed Funds except for mega projects). There are more roads and highways being built here too. Unfortunately, DC has the worst maintenance ever. our roads are crappy and too many potholes. Some roads like in Georgetown Area are better now (After 10 years of waiting).

IMHO, HOV lanes are a waste of concrete. Seattle is in love with them. Yah, Seattle traffic is SO much better after these are built! It is also discriminatory toward singles, who may not have families to use them. The concept of carpooling is "neato", but in reality does not work for most. Open up all the lanes that the public has paid for. I'm convinced Seattle traffic would move smoother and faster WITHOUT them. Yet, that city continues to pour billions into building more of them. I say, ENOUGH! (I realize this argument will meet nothing but opposition in PC Seattle.)

I totally disagree.

Carpool lanes might not work for you, but they do encourage carpools. More importantly, they allow buses to travel faster.

The bus issue I will concede. But I have personally never met or known of anyone in the Seattle area that put together carpools for the express purpose of being able to use these lanes. More often, it is accidental..."oh, we've got three people, we can use that lane!". Then they proceed to drive 55 in a 60 and slow everyone else down. Sorry, but I think this is an idea that everyone thought would work, but hardly makes a difference. But, back to the busses, I'm all for improved mass transit and am glad to see light rail FINALLY being built in Seattle. But busses on freeways? Not many US cities even operate city busses on freeways. Seriously, I'm all for improving traffic flow, I just don't think HOV is the way to go.

I think that all interstates should be funded by federal government only. It would ensure the even distribution of funds among all states and would keep some uniformity in road quality. At the same time, if a particular stretch is in a bad shape, people will not say something like: "Hey, this road is aweful because [insert a state] is a shithole and doesn't spend enough money on it." For instance, the decrease in road quality on I-80 once you cross Nevada-California border is just shocking.

I think a nationalistic federal takeover of all Interstate maintenance and construction would be a disaster. First, how would they decide who gets what? Politics would seep into it, it always does. Second, for this to happen, federal taxes would have to go up. I say, let the people in their own States decide how much (or little) they want to pay.

If anyone understands Seattle and Washington State politics they know that this (and most other large projects) are argued about for years, sometimes decades, before they are eventually built at five times the original cost.
Example: I-90 across Lake Washington & Mercer Island. First planned in the 1960's, eventually opened in the late 80's, and then a 1990 storm destroyed the old bridge to hasten final completion.

A nationalized funding program would have to be distributed on a per-capita basis. Theoretically, the most money would go to the areas with the most drivers. And it can't just be state to state, the divisions of funds must be taken down to the census tract level in order to properly allocate funds to where the roads are. It's not like the federal government doesn't have that data with the census and all.

I think a lot of it has to do with the amount of traffic on the roads, especially trucks, and the extreme temperature changes. These are what rip our roads up more than anything.

For example, if you look at 4 flat states in the United States, the degree to which their temperatures can change within any given year are vast.

Iowa has seen a spread of 74 degrees C (165 degrees F) within that one state, and it's completely flat - hence no mountains or anything to throw off the differences.

North Dakota has seen temperatures swing by 83 degrees C (181 degrees F)
Ohio has seen temperatures swing by 67 degrees C (152 degrees F)
Michigan has seen temperatures swing by 73 degrees C (163 degrees F)

When you have winter temperatures getting down to -51C (-60 F) in the winter, and up to 50C (121 F) in the summer on the same stretch of road, this can really rip up the asphalt/concrete.

We also have 75,376 KM of Interstate Highways to maintain, and 256,000 KM of Highways total in the United States. These are a small portion of the 6,430,364 KM of total roads in the United States - but they carry 75% of our truck traffic.

With 243,023,485 vehicles traveling on these roads, including 6,161,028 semi-trucks with massive amounts of freight, it can be a huge task to keep the roads in good condition.

I've driven from top to bottom, coast to coast, and while there are many roads which aren't in GOOD condition, a vast majority are perfectly fine to drive on. Sure, you might not feel like you're floating smoothly on a cushion of air, but it's really not something that's going to bother you. If we REALLY wanted the roads to be perfect, we're reconstruct them more and spend a lot more money on them. Obviously we're fine having them run down a little more than in Europe before we repave them. It's just chaper, less closures to reconstruct, and something your average citizen is perfectly fine dealing with on a daily basis. Different perspectives I suppose.

^^ Where'd you get those numbers? It's a great way to see the significance of the traffic on our freeways. I might want to call them up for myself at some point, too, so if the source is readily available on the web, it'd be great to have.

Nevada... Nevada has the best road pavement compared to the rest of America as well as Europe (at least the countries I've driven in). I-80 and all 2-lane roads in the middle of the desert look like they've been paved yesterday. And Nevada drivers, compared to Californians, have better discipline too :)

I realize now. I was driving today and remembered this thread. I'm talking about the section of US-101 throughout much of the peninsula, holes EVERYWHERE, I'll try to take a picture if I get a chance.

Admittedly, it's very heavily traveled (but shouldn't it, for exactly the same reason, have excellent pavement?)

I was in Las Vegas, so many Californians, didn't notice much better driving habits.

I think that all interstates should be funded by federal government only. It would ensure the even distribution of funds among all states and would keep some uniformity in road quality. At the same time, if a particular stretch is in a bad shape, people will not say something like: "Hey, this road is aweful because [insert a state] is a shithole and doesn't spend enough money on it." For instance, the decrease in road quality on I-80 once you cross Nevada-California border is just shocking.

Don't know if it's been said, but the problem with that is that the contrast between the interstate and us highways/state highways would be too great in some of the poorer areas/states. I rather recommend the state distribute all its funding equally to ensure good road quality all around.

Of course, I haven't thought it out clearly yet, I can sing both ways. My real problem is that the interstates are too tightly integrated with other roads (esp in metropolitan areas) and the change in quality might differ. Also, states can lobby for different amounts of funding etc... and disparity might nevertheless result.

Connecticut's highways are in crap condition because of many reasons...

-Cost. In some areas, the land is just too expensive to make widenings, and NIMBYs will block any widening at all. On I-95, right outside the NY state line, they are thinking of removing some exits, to let less cars in.

-Outdated techniques. There are too many left exits, too much unused interchanges, and too much crazy turns, from plans that were cancelled. A lot of the interchanges are not needed.

-Too much use. Connecticut, being a relatively dense state on the east coast, has a crap public transportation system compared to it's neighbors. Commuter rail doesn't serve the capital, and nobody wants to take buses, so more and more people will crowd the highways.

-Corruption. An over $1b construction process to refix and widen Interstate 84 has been finished with shoddy storm drains and shoulders. The best contractor to do the job wasn't allowed to do the job, but the one with the most connections were. This isn't the first time this happened.

Connecticut's highways are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. They are traffic filled, which has lead to many devestating accidents in the past and present. If the state government wasn't so corrupt and lazy, or more people took PT, probably it wouldn't be that bad, but it is. We're paying the price.

The East Coast has the WORST highways period though, do NOT get me started on New York or Mass.

The US is broke. Our economy and expeditures are based on creating debt.

We've gotten a free ride in a fancy car that's about to end.

Nate

Dutch fuel tax is € 0,668 per liter, plus 19% VAT. Some 64% of the fuel price exists out of tax. The US fueltax is a laughter compared to the Dutch fueltax.

But i heard, in Venezuela, it costs around € 0,03 per liter, that is about 5 dollarcents.

Yes it is true... it's very cheap here and because of that we have too much cars in the streets, then we have things like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/252515528_959f6cce36_o.jpg

those are repaired and aren't everywhere but i just post the picture because the one posted early on this post seemed like nothing hehe

You realise the difference between a city street and a motorway, don't you? You may find same potholes in the US cities too, but on the motorways these potholes would be unacceptable.

The US is broke. Our economy and expeditures are based on creating debt.

We've gotten a free ride in a fancy car that's about to end.

Nate

The U.S. is far from broke. Local jurisdictions may be broke, but that is their fault. Why blame the feds for every local problem? Local prosperity begins with local economic growth. I believe the best answer to fixing our roads comes from the local and state level.

^I was referring federally. :)

Nate

If the federal government were any normal institution, it would be having collection calls every nano-second the debt is that large. But who can call the most influential government in the world on its debt? Deficit spending is an artificially created construct when we're talking this level, so the rules are a bit different.

But getontrac has a good point - a problem that manfests its symptoms in our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. It is my belief that sometime within the next 50-100 years, they'll be a crisis. Our way of life is too expensive and we arn't paying for it. I can't back that up with any hard proof, obviously, so only time will tell. I hopefull got another 60 years on me so maybe I'll see if I'm wrong. Maybe.

Sure. This is I-80 near O'Donner Pass.

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

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

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

If this is Donner Pass in California - you must remember one thing... 33feet of snow every winter - temperature extremes. The road is going to take a beating. Lots of heavy trucks. Ice. Melting water. Ice. I spent a couple of months working at the Sugerbowl Resort - and the I80 is definately hammered by severe weather. That makes upkeep more of a challenge. We are luckier down here in South Africa. No real climatic extremes. Just big trucks destroying our roads. With an insane upkeep backlog.

I worked at a couple of ski resorts in this tahoe area while studying. Donner Ski Ranch and Sugarbowl. The weather extremes combined with heavy traffic takes a toll on the I-80. In spite of the roadsurface - what a drive! And with 33 feet of snow average a year at Donner summit - how hectic is that!? In 2003 we had a single storm dumping 24 feet of snow at the summit - with something like 14-18 feet in truckee... It was crazy.

With this country so vast, and states maintaining their own roads, it's kinda like we're trying to compare the roads in 50 different countries with 50 different geography/climates in one fallow swoop.

It's not really the Federal Government responsible for these roads. They came to the states 50 years ago and said:

"listen - we'll build you these expensive roads to connect the country together, but if we pay for these roads, you need to take care of them".

It's like having someone build you a house, but you have to pay the taxes and keep up on maintenance. It's an awesome deal for the states, but after the roads start to fall apart, they need to tweak their budgets to make sure they can take care of them. Many states have stumbled on coming up with the funds to keep the roads in top quality.

Our government only spends 4.1% of its income on Education, 2% on housing, 20% on healthcare, and transportation is included in this huge "other" which eats up 11% of the Federal budget.

I think a lot of people don't understand that the federal government isn't really responsible for our education system or our road networks. It's mostly the states who are in charge of all "civil" matters. The government is in charge of defense more than anything, making sure old people and sick people at least have some option other than starving in the steets, and coming to the rescue during an emergency.

States are in charge of drawing up plans and getting all the cost estimates of road projects. At that point the state goes to the government and presents a plan costing, say, $100 million. The federal goverment looks it over and says - ok, you pay $50 million of this, and we'll cough up the rest to get it completed. They pay a lot, but its all up to the states to make it happen. They have to get their part, and they have to get it on the feds desk, and they have to get it all planned out and budgeted.

Same with education and all civil services. Even health care is almost entirely private in this country, the feds don't run our lives, they just (try) and protect us from dying in ways that are out of our control.

So in discussing our road networks, it's almost like you're talking about 50 different countries here. Their priorities vary greatly, so it's hard to talk about all our interstates as one equal network.

K, i'm done....

^^ You have a great point. There seems to be a general discourse in this country about changing the role of the federal government. Heck, it's changed considerably from the 50's. One of the larger debates, which you bring up nicely, is the role of the federal government. Given that our national economy is dependant on our network of highways, shouldn't the federal government have some repsonsability? I mean, if we're to properly adress the problem it ought to be addressed on the scale of the problem, which is, on a whole, national.

I think that even though I brought up this issue, and that it is a problem in many places, the severity and the weight of the problem has yet to hit us on a grand scale. I think I said this before, but give it 50 years and then look at what the problems are, especially if we don't deal with it.

Exactly, I've driven tens of thousands of miles around our country, and very very rarely have I ever thought consciously "wow, this road really sucks". They might not be amazing and smooth, but as long as my drink doesn't spill, my car doesn't lose a wheel, and my CDs are skipping, I really never think at all about the condition of the road.

People here are just use to it, it's honestly not that disrupting 99% of the time. When it is, people bitch to holy hell and they repave the roads. I-88 in Illinois got to be in HORRIBLE condition a few years ago from some massive freeze-thaw potholes that formed within a few weeks.

People's cars got damaged, they sued, the government paid them for any damage, and then immediately repaved 225KM of interstate all at once when the ground thawed.

^Still, again and again I hear americans(and not only) saying that USA is the most powerful country in the world and I think that a country like this should have excellent freeways.

^Still, again and again I hear americans(and not only) saying that USA is the most powerful country in the world and I think that a country like this should have excellent freeways.


I think you could safely say that the U.S. DOES have excellent freeways. If you consider the extent of the highway system, the poorly maintained areas must be a small percentage of the total miles of highway.

California is like the 5th biggest economy of the world, so they must be able to repair the I-80 Sacramento - Reno.

I-88 in Illinois got to be in HORRIBLE condition a few years ago from some massive freeze-thaw potholes that formed within a few weeks.
People's cars got damaged, they sued, the government paid them for any damage, and then immediately repaved 225KM of interstate all at once when the ground thawed.

And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem. In western Europe, it would never get to the point where cars were getting damaged. It's the responsibilty of the government and its road agencies to not allow it to get even close to that state of disrepair.

Can your country build 5 level stack interchanges and 24 lane expressways? If not, I suggest you STFU, and shove some kraut up your ass. :lol:

^^ If the situation arose within weeks as Chicagoago said, then the ability for the government to respond quickly enough is severely hampered, if not impossible. Some of it's merely bureaucratic paper shuffling, but a goodly portion of it is environmental and other regulations that must be met for highway projects.

^^ Estonia is far from being "the most powerful country in the world", nor did Rabasepoiss say anything like that...

Chris1491, the easy answer is that compared to the multi-million people populated areas, and the main N-S I-5 and 99 corridors, I-80 over the Sierra is relatively low priority. Not sure California cares how easy it is to get over to Nevada to spend their money there! (However, it is a major trucking corridor, and that is important) Probably too simplistic an answer, but at the end of the day, each state has to ascertain what their priorities are. And yes, as someone mentioned earlier, it is quite a task to maintain a high elevation road with extreme winter temps and snowfall.

Can your country build 5 level stack interchanges and 24 lane expressways? If not, I suggest you STFU, and shove some kraut up your ass. :lol:

24 lane expressways? That sounds immensely inefficient, if nothing else.

Chris1491, the easy answer is that compared to the multi-million people populated areas, and the main N-S I-5 and 99 corridors, I-80 over the Sierra is relatively low priority. Not sure California cares how easy it is to get over to Nevada to spend their money there! Probably too simplistic an answer, but at the end of the day, each state has to ascertain what their priorities are. And yes, as someone mentioned earlier, it is quite a task to maintain a high elevation road with extreme winter temps and snowfall.

Not part of the interstates, but the US 101 is quite heavily traveled, and many parts of it look like they've been littered with shotgun blasts.

Can your country build 5 level stack interchanges and 24 lane expressways? If not, I suggest you STFU, and shove some kraut up your ass. :lol:

Are you laughing at your own "joke"?

Anyway...people keep talking about the freeze/thaw issues in places like the Sierra Nevada. Roads can be built to withstand that sort of thing, if the agency so chooses....So in my opinion, that's really not a good excuse.

Are you laughing at your own "joke"?

Anyway...people keep talking about the freeze/thaw issues in places like the Sierra Nevada. Roads can be built to withstand that sort of thing, if the agency so chooses....So in my opinion, that's really not a good excuse.

Examples?

Maybe they should speak with Colorado:

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_195_03.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_190_06.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_180_17.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_176_03.jpg

Maybe they should speak with Colorado:

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_195_03.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_190_06.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_180_17.jpg

http://www.rockymountainroads.com/colorado050/i-070_wb_exit_176_03.jpg

I've driven on those roads several times personally, and they can be just as bad as the Sierra. Those were recently repaved, not to mention the gateway to the state's most important tourist region. It's obvious that Colorado would spend a ton of money on them, while I-80 in California (which is primarily to take money out of state) would be less of a priority.

Ok, then I guess it's impossible.

I just returned from my trip to Washington and Idaho, where I drove roughly 300 km in a rented car. Just a couple of obervations: Road pavement is not as smooth as on some well-maintained roads in California, but at the same time, there are no such disasters as the I-80
Road signs are more standardised and easily understandable. All signs point to a city, not only the route number
Drivers are better disciplined and more courteous than in California
Tiny Chevy Aveo is a nice car. Too bad they didn't have a manual one ;)

In places like the Sierra Nevadas which have freezing temperatures and heavy snowfall is it possible to carry out road maintenance and construction all year round or only in summer when it's snow-free? If the latter then roadwork is only possible for a few months of the year, meaning that any improvements will take longer than in places with more temperate climates, unless they deploy large numbers of men and machines to do the work.

Road signs are more standardised and easily understandable. All signs point to a city, not only the route number[/list]

I get the feeling California's always been different-
no exit numbers for the longest time, US highway "cutout" shields, big buttons to divide lanes as opposed to painted lines, etc...

And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem. In western Europe, it would never get to the point where cars were getting damaged. It's the responsibilty of the government and its road agencies to not allow it to get even close to that state of disrepair.

It didn't develop over time, the temperature that spring was going up and down and up and down, and it was very wet. The road kept expanding/contracting with all the water and 140 miles of it was broken apart. They came through and repaved it all, but they couldn't do it IMMEDIATELY for whatever reasons they have. I believe the state actually went back and got money from the asphalt supplier since there was obviously something wrong with the previous batch that made the road split apart so fast.

The EU has 53,114 KM of motorways covering a population (the stats were for the 15 member EU, which has over 83% of the moterways in Europe ) 392,201,538.

That's 7,384 people for each KM of motorway.

The US has 75,376 KM of interstates (and countless other KM's of limited access highways that aren't actually INTERSTATES) for a population of 301,414,000.

That's 3,999 people per KM of interstate.

That's only 54% of the per person tax base to fund these roads as Europe has. We just don't have the capacity or urgency to have the roads all be in perfect shape.

The US has approximatly 94.000 km of road that meet Motorway standards.

Road signs are more standardised and easily understandable. All signs point to a city, not only the route number

Yeah, i never know why most US exits have only a street name or a road number.

Driving in the US using the road numbers works great, but some more local destinations/cities/neighborhoods would be great. An example: (German style)

What i miss in US signage are good control cities, neighborhood names (they say more than a road name, unless that road is very important) Names in white are local destinations.

http://i3.tinypic.com/2r709y9.png

Oh yeah, those large road number shields look great, but i don't think such large shields belong on regular signage.

I just returned from my trip to Washington and Idaho, where I drove roughly 300 km in a rented car. Just a couple of obervations: Road pavement is not as smooth as on some well-maintained roads in California, but at the same time, there are no such disasters as the I-80
Road signs are more standardised and easily understandable. All signs point to a city, not only the route number
Drivers are better disciplined and more courteous than in California
Tiny Chevy Aveo is a nice car. Too bad they didn't have a manual one ;)

I've never driven in California, so I can't compare drivers to where I live, but they must be pretty bad, because it seems drivers around here aren't very pleasant. I have my bad days too, mind you. :crazy2:

Did you enjoy your time up in "this neck of the woods" as it were?

^^Do you have that number for the EU (15, 25 or 27)?

I don't know the math right now, but the 53K number above was 83.5% of the total for all of Europe. I just segregated it since so much of the network is in the 15 member EU, as opposed to the full Union.

Ok, then I guess it's impossible.

Except in Germany apparently, where the roads are built by the master race, and are maintained to ultra-smooth standards on pain of death by the fuhrer himself. :lol:

Except in Germany apparently, where the roads are built by the master race, and are maintained to ultra-smooth standards on pain of death by the fuhrer himself. :lol:
You just have a prejudice against Germany, admit it. You invented a fictious argument and now are trying to defeat it. Well, good luck fighting with your windmills.

I get the feeling California's always been different-
no exit numbers for the longest time, US highway "cutout" shields, big buttons to divide lanes as opposed to painted lines, etc...
Yes. Since I have been living here for 7 years I just became used to California's customised signage and road marking, but whenever I drive in Nevada or Oregon, I immediately notice better standardisation. Actually, I would prefer better if instead of the exit numbers they installed mile-markers. In California they have distance markers but they are not intended for motorists because they have just too much of information. County name and distance are written in such a small font that it is impossible to read it while driving.

Yeah, i never know why most US exits have only a street name or a road number.
Since the USDOT wants to keep all guide signs green, they never put distant cities and local streets on the same sign. If they indeed used white background for local destinations, then it would work great. I also like the target sign instead of words "Zentrum" or "Downtown".

I've never driven in California, so I can't compare drivers to where I live, but they must be pretty bad, because it seems drivers around here aren't very pleasant. I have my bad days too, mind you. :crazy2:
I have heard that Seattle drivers are not very good, but I never had a chance to experience it yet. But the view that opens from the Seattle Int'l Airport is just GREAT. I had to spent nearly 3 hours waiting for Spokane flight, and I enjoyed it so much.

Did you enjoy your time up in "this neck of the woods" as it were?
I actually did. By the way, "this neck of the woods" in Eastern WA and Western ID seemed more civilised than over-populated Bay Area for example. I hope by the mid June I will consider myself a resident of WA :cheers: Go Cougars!!! :lol:

One interesting thing was that two taxi drivers who drove me to/from Spokane airport said they were originally from California. They both said they never regret leaving Kali and that they enjoyed every single moment of living in Spokane.

Except in Germany apparently, where the roads are built by the master race, and are maintained to ultra-smooth standards on pain of death by the fuhrer himself. :lol:


Why don't you peddle your offensive nonsense elsewhere.

Except in Germany apparently, where the roads are built by the master race, and are maintained to ultra-smooth standards on pain of death by the fuhrer himself. :lol:

Ok, yes, that could be construed as offensive, but really, that's pretty funny. :nuts:

It's funny how?
We're not exactly dealing with someone here who has the timing of John Cleese; it's just a crap statement from someone who has nothing to add. And it's aimed a country that does a very decent job keeping their motorways at a super-high standard.

It's funny how?
We're not exactly dealing with someone here who has the timing of John Cleese; it's just a crap statement from someone who has nothing to add. And it's aimed a country that does a very decent job keeping their motorways at a super-high standard.

Someone with no point going straight to Nazi references about Germany = funny, since it just shows how pathetic the argument has gotten. It's just like whenever anyone brings something up that Bush has done to try to make fun of the United States.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that Germany of today is one of the foremost countries of the world, so no worries. There's no harm in laughing at dumb humor once in a while.

I don't disagree with what you've said. I was actually more offended by the fact that he, or anyone else, thought what was written was funny. From a humor standpoint it's just crap. And by placing the " :lol: " at the end of his "humor" it was all the more pathetic.

I thought it was funny...but it's only funny if you're amused by sarcastic/offensive humor. I call it Southpark Humor...equally offensive to all races, nationalities, genders, religions, etc. :)

Sure. This is I-80 near O'Donner Pass.

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

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

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

:lol:
You should come to India

Yeah, that kind of humor might be funny (like Family Guy where they make fun of everyone), but our dude from C-O-L-U-M-B-U-S has got a thing against Germany. Keeping this in mind, it is hard to regard his remarks about Germany simply as humor.

I don't get it. No one can prohibit SSC members to use word d o w n t o w n regardless of whether it is someone's trademark or not. It is pathetic.

Yeah, that kind of humor might be funny (like Family Guy where they make fun of everyone), but our dude from C-O-L-U-M-B-U-S has got a thing against Germany. Keeping this in mind, it is hard to regard his remarks about Germany simply as humor.

Considering how many people have a thing against the United States on this site, I can sympathize, but at the end of the day, I have less of a chance of changing their opinion than I do of becoming President tomorrow, so really, there's nothing to get worked up over.

I don't get it. No one can prohibit SSC members to use word d o w n t o w n regardless of whether it is someone's trademark or not. It is pathetic.

I think it has to do with it being April Fool's Day.

I went on a random voyage this weekend. Flew to Long Island, then ferry over to Connecticut, drove up to Providence, Rhode Island, up to Boston, up to Portsmouth New Hampshire and up to Maine, over to Battleboro Vermont, then down through Hartford to Bridgeport and across on the ferry back to Long Island, New York.

Rhode Island and Mass. roads were pretty good, I was VERY impressed with New Hampshire roads, and then when I got into Vermont they suddenly were just TERRIBLE. Back down in Connecticut the roads weren't too good or too bad. They were just so-so.

It was very interesting how every time I crossed a state line the roads instantly changed. Sometimes they were suddenly smooth, other times (like Vermont) it was like I'd driven onto a gravel road.

It really made me think of this thread though and how each state is in charge of their own roads. I couldn't possibly have made a definite decision on the quality of the USA's roads based on this trip - you really can't. Each state is totally different.

I was VERY impressed with New Hampshire roads, and then when I got into Vermont they suddenly were just TERRIBLE. Back down in Connecticut the roads weren't too good or too bad. They were just so-so.


Having grown up in Maine I certainly agree that NH roads are in quite good shape and always were, at least during my lifetime. The rest of New England is generally OK- there are some very annoying things about the New England road system- but it would take me a few hours to discuss that! :)

First off, every country has its places where the roads are in bad condition. And second, quit generalizing. Honolulu, Hawaii is apart of the U.S. and it has some of the best maintain roads in the world. How so? Honolulu falls under the category of island-cities like Hong Kong and Singapore and since its a city within in Island, its much easier to maintain the environment and road ways unlike other cities like LA where isn't compact but wildly spread apart.


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2004/Jul/26/ln08a2_b.jpg

Does Hawaii have only one major highway on Oahu or all over the islands as well?

Does Hawaii have only one major highway on Oahu or all over the islands as well?

Hawaii has 4 interstates, with the prefix H.

H1 Honolulu - Makakilo City
H2 Pearl City - Wahiawa
H3 Aiea - Kailua/Kane'ohe
H201 Int'l Airport bypass

Those are all on the island of Oahu, other islands doesn't have roads with motorway standards.

Hawaii has 4 interstates, with the prefix H.

H1 Honolulu - Makakilo City
H2 Pearl City - Wahiawa
H3 Aiea - Kailua/Kane'ohe
H201 Int'l Airport bypass

Those are all on the island of Oahu, other islands doesn't have roads with motorway standards.What do you mean by "motorway standard"? The other island have great road ways such as many vast highway systems but they aren't populated enough so they don't have their own interstate.

The only island that doesn't really have a traffic light/road signs is Molokai, other than that all the other islands including of course Oahu, has some of the best-highly modern roads in the world.

Motorway standard- you know, high-speed, limited access, shoulders, large signs, gentle curves....what's being discussed here.

I think that rebuilding the current structure is best. I say this because there are a dozen other major projects in Washington that are already "ready" so to speak (compared to the viaduct, where no decision has been made...and probably won't be made for another 4 years).

Motorway standard- you know, high-speed, limited access, shoulders, large signs, gentle curves....what's being discussed here.Then yes, the other island does have motorway standard except for one island, Molokai. Hope that clears up the confusion around here.

The problem with Seattle is that they always seem to down-size projects with little understanding that the population here will continue to grow. Example: Hwy 520 (north floating bridge across Lake Washington), was built for early 1960's population and no forward thinking of increased population. Now, the replacement is being planned at the same early 60's capacity! Just doesn't make sense. I understand there are problems with the neighborhoods around the road, but why not build for the future, not the past? The new 520 and the new Alaska Viaduct need to be built for INCREASED capacity, not current capacity. Nobody can seem to get this done, but from a realistic, sensible standpoint, I truely believe this is the way to proceed.

What other island? There are more.

My RandMcNally 2006 Road Atlas only gives motorway-standard (interstate) roads for the island of Oahu. But there are some multi lane highways on Maui en Hawaii though.

The big problem with today's American freeways is not road quality, but rather shitty drivers from the suburbs.

The big problem with today's American freeways is not road quality, but rather shitty drivers from the suburbs.
Oh yeah. The road quality is definitely not the major problem with the American traffic system today. Sometimes I really wonder how come Americans, who always form perfect lines in stores and who are very friendly in person, behave so ignorantly and egoistically behind the wheel? :no: I guess most of it has to do with poor driving training or the complete lack of thereof. I don't think that parents teaching kids how to drive can be considered a proper driving education because most of adults are not good drivers themselves :lol:

A lot of it is culture as well. All Americans (except maybe someone growing up in NYC or Chicago or a dense area) are pretty much born thinking that when you turn 16 you get your personal car. It's just what you do, like getting a job. We spend SO much of our lives in cars, everyone develops very confident driving skills, regardless of how good they actually are.

When I meet people they would never ask me if I own a car, they ask me what kind of car I have. When I said I gave it up 3 years ago people either look at me really weird or go "oh wow, that's awesome, I could never do that".

I don't think Americans are really BAD drivers, we just function on a level where almost everyone in our country drives around every day, you just get so use to so it's not something you focus on as being serious at all or a special activity. People are just indifferent to driving, it's as if 100% of the people in the country drive around every day of their lives.

I find in Europe a lot of Americans have a stressful time walking through really dense busy packs of rush hour pedestrians in large cities. We are, as a society, not use to walking around in large groups. I see lots of tourists in NYC who really piss me off because they totally have no clue about the culture of pedestrian street traffic. Blocking streets, all walking side by side, walking slow, running into people.

Put those same people behind the wheel and they might do stupid things, but they would be very comfortable, to the point of seeming to be very "bad drivers".

^^ Some good observations. Most Americans are polite in person, but get them behind the wheel and all bets are off. Perhaps the fact that the U.S. is still a relatively young country compared to most Europeon countries has something to do with it. I also believe there are certain stresses involved in the U.S. culture that cause many American drivers to release this tension with bad, and rude driving in the anonymity of their automobiles.

^^ Some good observations. Most Americans are polite in person, but get them behind the wheel and all bets are off. Perhaps the fact that the U.S. is still a relatively young country compared to most Europeon countries has something to do with it. I also believe there are certain stresses involved in the U.S. culture that cause many American drivers to release this tension with bad, and rude driving in the anonymity of their automobiles.

What does the US being a young country compared to Europe have anything to do with it... lol that's soooo random

I think America also sports a go getter culture, and when people dont get where they want at their speed, they get impatient and start cutting people off everywhere... sometimes these drivers are soo irresponsible.

Anyway, it also arises out of a necessity for cars, regardless of driver skill or desire to drive, nearly everyone has to drive, whether they want to or not, because of necessity, this brings people that are not the best drivers, or those that dont even want to drive, etc. into the roadways.

In Europe, it's quite rare to have a car when you are 18. I had one when i was 18, but i was one of the few. Most student's can't afford a car, since owning and driving one in Europe is multiple times more expensive than in the US.
Most people don't buy a car unless they've got a well paid or fulltime job.

I see lots of tourists in NYC who really piss me off because they totally have no clue about the culture of pedestrian street traffic. Blocking streets, all walking side by side, walking slow, running into people.
Maybe they're from small cities or rural towns where they don't have to contend with large crowds on the streets, that's if they walk at all.

Maybe they're from small cities or rural towns where they don't have to contend with large crowds on the streets, that's if they walk at all.

Exactly, other than the downtown areas of our largest cities, most Americans aren't walking around in crowds on any given day. People leave their house, drive to work, walk into the building and work, and then go home after work. Sure there are people in stores, but there isn't the highly developed culture of how to quickly more around in large crowds on the street like in NYC or downtown Chicago (or Europe). It's the same when tourists try and use the subway, they just don't understand the small random acts you do on public transit to make it run more efficiently.

Most people driving around dont' WANT to be driving, they have to to get from point A to point B. Lots of time if you're running late or there's traffic, people get fussy and act stupid. Like waiting for a subway in London when they're running on a delay, people get pissy.

Oh yeah. The road quality is definitely not the major problem with the American traffic system today. Sometimes I really wonder how come Americans, who always form perfect lines in stores and who are very friendly in person, behave so ignorantly and egoistically behind the wheel? :no: I guess most of it has to do with poor driving training or the complete lack of thereof. I don't think that parents teaching kids how to drive can be considered a proper driving education because most of adults are not good drivers themselves :lol:

How ironic...such an ignorant and egotistical generalization about "Americans behaving ignorantly and egotistically". I lived in Europe for a year and until then I had never seen such reckless, carefree driving in my life. I'm not saying European drivers are maniacs because I wouldn't make such a sweeping, misguided statement. But I would say that traffic overall was a nightmare compared to traffic in the U.S. I guess it depends on what one is accustomed to...

honestly, I think Americans in general are not bad drivers, but a larger proportion of them are selfish assholes who think they own the road.

I would say that traffic overall was a nightmare compared to traffic in the U.S.
Yeah, driving in Europe is not for everyone. You have to be constantly aware of your surrounding and use your brain in planning the next maneuvre. Otherwise, it will be a nightmare. I agree.

The biggest difference between American and European drivers is that the latter don't think they own the road and don't mind if you want to drive faster than them.

^^Increasing capacity simply increases unnecessary traffic.

I found this quote from a siegel article on ssp:

"Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here."

It's a phenomenon called "disappearing traffic" when freeways are torn down. EVERYBODY expects crazy traffic jams, but in reality the opposite happens. Why? Because people's driving habits change. Everybody assumes that driving habits will remain the same before and after the viaduct.

We're not going to have a viaduct for 10 years anyway while we tear it down/rebuild it; people are going to realize that the city's doing just fine without one as people adjust to the new environment. Just tear it down for pete's sake!!

who DOESN'T love road rage!!!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/rage.jpg

With the political bullcrap running around this project, I think an earthquake will destroy the thing for us before we can decide on what to do with it.

^^Increasing capacity simply increases unnecessary traffic.

I found this quote from a siegel article on ssp:

"Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here."

It's a phenomenon called "disappearing traffic" when freeways are torn down. EVERYBODY expects crazy traffic jams, but in reality the opposite happens. Why? Because people's driving habits change. Everybody assumes that driving habits will remain the same before and after the viaduct.

We're not going to have a viaduct for 10 years anyway while we tear it down/rebuild it; people are going to realize that the city's doing just fine without one as people adjust to the new environment. Just tear it down for pete's sake!!

Well, I have heard that argument, we have different philosophies about this. I also don't think you can compare Manhattan and Seattle. NY has a huge transit system, Seattle has Metro busses. The percentage of New Yorkers using public transit is much higher than in Seattle, where they are still in love with their cars. If Seattle doesn't increase capacity things will get worse, just the way they have by coincidentally "not increasing capacity" the past 35 years!

Going back to the remarks about quality depending by state...

I drove to Vermont for a ski trip on Saturday, on Interstate 91, which goes from CT to there directly. The skiing was great, but driving there sucked.

Interstate 91 in Connecticut is okay, not great but decent...there were 6 lanes to the state line, and the road quality was smooth..but when I went to Massachusetts, it automatically got WORSE, with the pavement making crazy noises, not much of shoulder, and really, really old signage.

It got even worse when I got to Vermont...just horrible. It truly depends from state to state how bad the quality of the road is.

Yeah, driving in Europe is not for everyone. You have to be constantly aware of your surrounding and use your brain in planning the next maneuvre. Otherwise, it will be a nightmare. I agree.

The biggest difference between American and European drivers is that the latter don't think they own the road and don't mind if you want to drive faster than them.

Yet another condescending generalization..."duh, do I really have to be aware of my surroundings? I don't feel like using my brain." People should really use their brains before posting their bitter anti-American thoughts. Your nasty attitude is noted, and your ignorant observations on the superior driving skills of Europeans is amusing. One has to laugh at such things...

Von Krautburger acts like he's der fuhrer of der forum. He makes several posts here each day, decrying the quality of American roads compared to the "superior" German roads constructed by the master race. The funniest was his thread on the mountains of NorCal, where he was surrounded by all this spectacular scenery on I-80 but what he chose to take pictures of was some cracks in the road. :lol:

Paddington, that is a little unfair. This German poster evidently lives now in the Bay Area, and has offered some good observations on US highways. This site is so much better without the name calling...just an opinion. (BTW, this poster had GOOD things to say about the Northwest).

He makes several posts here each day, decrying the quality of American roads compared to the "superior" German roads constructed by the master race.
First of all, no name calling please. Second, can you show me a single post where I said something about the quality of German roads? Anything about German roads at all? I said that Italian autostradas had so far the best quality I have seen in both Europe and America.


The funniest was his thread on the mountains of NorCal, where he was surrounded by all this spectacular scenery on I-80 but what he chose to take pictures of was some cracks in the road. :lol:
You obviously did not understand what I told you in that thread. Go and re-read it.

Alex, good for you for defending your posts.

It would be great to have you in the great Northwest! Sounds like that is where you would be most comfortable. Welcome.

Alex, good for you for defending your posts.

It would be great to have you in the great Northwest! Sounds like that is where you would be most comfortable. Welcome.
Thanks! :) My fiancee and I believe that crossing Columbia River would be a fresh start for us. Eventually we want to settle somewhere near Seattle because of great scenery and job market.

Yeah, driving in Europe is not for everyone. You have to be constantly aware of your surrounding and use your brain in planning the next maneuvre. Otherwise, it will be a nightmare. I agree.

The biggest difference between American and European drivers is that the latter don't think they own the road and don't mind if you want to drive faster than them.

People are actually supportive of Alex for posting this arrogant nonsense? There is no defending such garbage...

So far, you haven't written anything useful but constant insults to me. I wrote my observations based on 3 year experience driving in Europe and 6 years driving in the USA. If you call it a garbage, then at least try to provide your reasoning. Until then I will ignore your posts.

I thought you had excellent posts, as well as insightful things to say on the topic. You didn't insult anybody either. And if it truely matters at this point, being the topic's OP, I think I have at least some say in the quality of posts eh?

My sentiments exactly...you are ignored. I can't stand snotty arrogance. I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone for that.

You should re-read some of his posts then...they were offensive and insulting, as well as inaccurate.

You have a good point. There are enough other options within New York that the displaced drivers are disseminated in a non-intrusive manner throughout the rest of the system, highways and transit. The structure of Seattle's built environment, roads and communting patterns, prevent such a displacement from having as little affect as it would in New York. We have only two other major freeways and an assortment of city roads that'll take up the excess traffic. People will still have to get to where they want to go. Not to mention east-west cross overs between our north-south routes are limited due mainly to geography. Oftentimes, people will take a particular north-south route because it get's them closest to their destination without having to go too far east or west. Losing 1/3 of our north-south capacity will have severe impacts.

Essentially, both statements are true, but inherently specific to the environment from which they orginated.

In any case, the viaduct needs attention, and whatever attention it gets, be it rebuild or tunnel or surface option or what have you, we'll be dealing with the displaced traffic.

I agree Jaxom92. Alex comments have been quite useful, on point and NEVER offensive. Having driven in Europe I can understand where a lot of his points are coming from. And I've also noticed a lot of Americans driving more aggressively than ever in recent years. The PA state police, where I live, started a program aimed at aggresive driving some time back....they didn't do that because it ISN'T a problem.

here is the thing most people still dont understand about america, our roads aint the smoothest in the world, but they work. Its not comfortbale to drive over donner pass, but people do. You cant break an axel or loose a car in those cracks, although they do make the drive a litttle more uncomfortbale. We buy thicker tires that can hande a little jaring every now and again, and guess what, we move on. Maybe the rest of the world should too.

But the argument of roads based on states, i think wyoming and south carolina have some of the best roads, they may not be the smoothest, but there mostly straight and easy to get on and off.

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place, the rest of the road it's on other than the viaduct isn't even access controlled, just the viaduct and tunnel section are!

Just get rid of that road next to the viaduct and the viaduct itself and turn it into a Santa Monica Blvd-looking avenue.

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place, the rest of the road it's on other than the viaduct isn't even access controlled, just the viaduct and tunnel section are!

Just get rid of that road next to the viaduct and the viaduct itself and turn it into a Santa Monica Blvd-looking avenue.

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place? Because prior to it being built in the early 1950's, there was no main north-south route through the city except city streets. Before the viaduct was built Highway 99 connected up with 4th Avenue near Boeing Field, and up Aurora to Green Lake, (then the north city limits), and continued on its current course up to Everett. Even back then, this route was cumbersome and slow. The growth in the city demanded a better, high speed route, and the viaduct was built.

It can be argued whether it was built at the proper location, but it needed to connect with Highway 99, and the 4th avenue route wasn't far from where the viaduct eventually was built. I am guessing the thinking at the time was the waterfront would disrupt the least amount of businesses and homes. Later, I-5 took a further east route, (and destroyed thousands of businesses and homes) and to this day, the viaduct and I-5 are the only main north-south routes through the city. Tearing it down with no replacement, in my opinion, would be a disaster. But many in Seattle are argueing about it, and that is slowing everything down.

Thanks for the explanation!
It clears up a lot, but still, wouldn't a nice-looking blvd still be an acceptable solution? Maybe they can put two/four-lane underpasses in the middle of the boulevard at major intersections, so the traffic wouldn't be too snarled.

yeah, the viaduct is just an elevated road without stoplights for a mile. That's why the cars come in spurts and the traffic never gets heavy except during peak for about an hour. Otherwise, the viaduct is virtually empty. To increase capacity just to alleviate rush hour congestion is stupid. I also hate the argument that people want to rebuild it simply because they like the views and to impress the out-of-towners. The new viaduct will have giant WALLS so only truck drivers would get a glimpse of something. Most would see a concrete barrier out your window. Gosh, when will people realize this?? :ohno:

Just turn it into a 6-lane landscaped boulevard. Add transit. People's driving habits will change. Everything will be just fine.....as everyone will find out when the city's functioning perfectly when the viaduct's closed for rebuilding or whatever.

here is the thing most people still dont understand about america, our roads aint the smoothest in the world, but they work. Its not comfortbale to drive over donner pass, but people do. You cant break an axel or loose a car in those cracks, although they do make the drive a litttle more uncomfortbale. We buy thicker tires that can hande a little jaring every now and again, and guess what, we move on. Maybe the rest of the world should too.

Well said. To be honest, I feel it is a little ridiculous there is an entire thread devoted to the state of American roads. Yes, on average, European roads have higher pavement quality. That said, the majority of countries around the world would LOVE to have such an extensive highway system as what exists in the United States.

here is the thing most people still dont understand about america, our roads aint the smoothest in the world, but they work. Its not comfortbale to drive over donner pass, but people do. You cant break an axel or loose a car in those cracks, although they do make the drive a litttle more uncomfortbale. We buy thicker tires that can hande a little jaring every now and again, and guess what, we move on. Maybe the rest of the world should too.

But the argument of roads based on states, i think wyoming and south carolina have some of the best roads, they may not be the smoothest, but there mostly straight and easy to get on and off.


I'd agree with this, they're not the best, they're not the worst. A car I've driven in has never been DAMAGED just from driving down the road. I think we just went and built a LOT of paved roads for how many people we have to pay for them. We can't treat them all with extra love and care.

It is all understandable, but the government still has to at least try to keep some major arteries—and I-80 can certainly be referred as such—in a satisfactory condition. I never complained about the entire interstate network, and I admitted that some parts of it does have an outstanding pavement quality, but some parts are in a very bad shape. Our argument basically boils down to this — you say that the quality similar to that of O'Donner Pass is still bearable, and I say it is not. As long as I remember, no one argued about the entire interstate network in this thread.

Well, I've never advocated rebuilding the viaduct "just for the views"...Views are a bonus from highway design, but shouldn't be a justification for highway design.

I believe Seattle needs to improve its north-south corridors, both with I-5 and the waterfront. Anyone familiar with I-5 through Seattle knows that about 80% of the time it is a bottleneck. There needs to be a total redesign there, but unfortunately, other projects (520, and the Viaduct), have priority. I believe that shutting down the viaduct (either temporarily or permanently) will just divert more traffic to an already clogged I-5. What is truely needed is an expanded I-5, (with fewer lane endings/restrictions, etc.), combined with an expanded Viaduct-99, frankly tunnel or elevated doesn't matter to me (although the cost will be higher with tunnel). Bottom line is you need these N-S routes in a very narrow land-mass.

It's not "O'Donner," it's just Donner Pass

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


and not nitpick even more, but the 80 doesn't actually go through that pass, I think, but a little bit to the north.

I went to Buffalo and their interstate is horrible.

I notice how involved people are in this thread - but honestly I NEVER EVER hear any Americans or media outlets doing any stories on interstate quality. Good, bad, ok, they're just roads. People could care less until it gets really bad, at which point they're normally resurfaced. If people complain they repair the roads, but other than that many times it's just live and let live.

To be honest, I feel it is a little ridiculous there is an entire thread devoted to the state of American roads.

I apologize. I thought it would have been an interesting topic for discussion. The seven pages of discussion seem to indicate that indeed people are interested and still posting.

I notice how involved people are in this thread - but honestly I NEVER EVER hear any Americans or media outlets doing any stories on interstate quality. Good, bad, ok, they're just roads. People could care less until it gets really bad, at which point they're normally resurfaced. If people complain they repair the roads, but other than that many times it's just live and let live.

It is an interesting phenomenon and one that has larger implications for creating a transportation system capable of keeping this country moving well into the 21st century. I think we need to be more proactive with managing, maintaining, and building our highway system.

It seems the general consensus thus far is that there are a few choice cases where the roads are deplorable, but on a whole, American roads aren't too terrible. Perhaps what I'm seeing is a localized case where 50-year-old concrete has reached the end of it's usable lifetime in my metropolitan region. Indeed, there is a wide spread effort across the Seattle area to deal with this problem. It'll take a while, but incidentally, 2007 will be the busiest highway construction year ever in the state of Washington (barring the initial construction of the interstates, that is).

I went to Buffalo and their interstate is horrible.

There are several interstates and other freeway in and around Buffalo ;)

How ironic...such an ignorant and egotistical generalization about "Americans behaving ignorantly and egotistically". I lived in Europe for a year and until then I had never seen such reckless, carefree driving in my life. I'm not saying European drivers are maniacs because I wouldn't make such a sweeping, misguided statement. But I would say that traffic overall was a nightmare compared to traffic in the U.S. I guess it depends on what one is accustomed to...

btw europe isnt one country. they are 46 different countrys and very different streets and styles of driving. i think u can say that they drive more dangerous in the southern countrys but there are still big differences. in my opinion driving in germany is more safe then in the states... might be subjective

It's not "O'Donner," it's just Donner Pass

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


and not nitpick even more, but the 80 doesn't actually go through that pass, I think, but a little bit to the north.
Pardon my imperfect English ;) It is called Donner Summit, and it is the highest elevation on I-80 (at least in the West). And by the way, Donner Summit is slightly higher than Donner Pass (2,203 m vs 2,160 m).

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

For the record, Donner Pass is about two miles south of I-80. However, it was the main highway at one time.

So arguing about how the superiority of roads in countries many, many, many times smaller than the United States is fair?

Our country is so large and our network is so monstrous that it's hardly even imaginable to have the entire network perfect. That's why the states control the roads within their boundaries. And as you're probably aware, most states aren't as wealthy as others, or their priorities are focused elsewhere.. hence the fact that the roads in Tennessee could be perfect and as soon as you cross the state line into Missouri/Arkansas the roads are made out of bumpy, loud, sectional concrete.

Someone was complaining about a crack in the road and even took a picture of it... the crack was how wide? a few inches maybe? when you're going 60+mph, how long does it take to go over the crack? it's like 1/16th of a second.. you go over it and forget. stop nitpicking.

It wouldn't be all that bad if there was a single crack. However, if you have continuous cracks 3-4 cm wide for 30 km, then the ride becomes VERY BUMPY ;) That stretch of the interstate begins at the California border and continues to the junction of I-80 and CA-89 (near Truckee).

You have a good point, philvia, about the size of the countries relative to our own. I think that is something that factors in. European countries are relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the world. So is the U.S., but the smaller countries have less volume of infrastructure to worry about paying for. The U.S. has many more paved miles. Not to mention a growing population that puts increasing pressure on our roads.

So, it is correct that the comparison isn't fair in the idea that European countries are superior road managers. But the comparison becomes valid in answer the question why American roads have more trouble than those of our European neighbors.

You have a good point, philvia, about the size of the countries relative to our own. I think that is something that factors in. European countries are relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the world. So is the U.S., but the smaller countries have less volume of infrastructure to worry about paying for. The U.S. has many more paved miles. Not to mention a growing population that puts increasing pressure on our roads.

So, it is correct that the comparison isn't fair in the idea that European countries are superior road managers. But the comparison becomes valid in answer the question why American roads have more trouble than those of our European neighbors.

Other factors are that Western Europe has a much milder climate overall compared to the continental climate prevalent throughout much of the U.S. Also, in Europe the vehicles are much smaller (European trucks are tiny, compared to what you see on American interstates) and the volume of traffic is less, so there is much less wear on the roads.

The volume of traffic is not less. :ohno:

The volume of traffic is not less. :ohno:

Traffic near larger US cities are significant higher than their European counterparts, however, European motorways are often overcrowded and mostly not wider dan 2x4 lanes, while 12 or more lanes is common in US cities.

Traffic near larger US cities are significant higher than their European counterparts, however, European motorways are often overcrowded and mostly not wider dan 2x4 lanes, while 12 or more lanes is common in US cities.

12 lanes... does that mean 6 one way, 6 the other or 12 one way? I guess the Seattle area isn't typical because them most lanes I've seen in any given area are 5 one way, including the carpool lane, but not merge lanes. Actually, in Seattle, the freeway shrinks to two lanes one way (idiotic transportation engineering/politics when they built I-5 through the city).

Traffic near larger US cities are significant higher than their European counterparts, however, European motorways are often overcrowded and mostly not wider dan 2x4 lanes, while 12 or more lanes is common in US cities.

Exactly that I said, the traffic in europe is not less important,

For me 100,000 cars for 4 lanes in Europe, this is 25,000 cars per lane.
and 300,000 cars for 12 lanes in USA, this 25,000 cars per lane.

I've lived on both coasts, the center of the country, driven completely across it more than 10 times on most routes north and south, and all I can say like many others before is IT VARIES.

Maryland had excellently maintained roads, they were just horribly over crowded (anyone driven on the beltway or I-95 during rush hour in DC?). The pavement was pretty smooth, no big cracks or anything, but just far too many people. Take a quick drive north to PA, and your car immediately dives into a pothole. I used to joke that i could FEEL the border between the two states on I-70, just because the roads turned to crap so quickly. I think PA is actually famous (or infamous, however you want to call it) for it.

Colorado's roads were interesting in that there were a lot of mountain passes, and freeways through canyons etc. I-70 through Glennwood Canyon was a very interesting drive. All roads seemed to be well maintained, but the pavement was maybe a little rough.

In Seattle, my car has developed so many rattles and squeaks just from being shaken to death on the crappy roads and highways through the city. But then you get just a few miles north to the Lynnwood and Everett area, and its like you've gone deaf from how quiet the road is. They just finished a large paving project, and the road runs great now.

I know Seattle is in for a big mess this august because they are CLOSING I-5 North just south of downtown for up to a month to fix failing bridge joints. Its the first time I've ever seen a city agency actually recommend taking a vacation for that month (yes, they are actually asking people to get the eff out of the city).

But yes, it all comes down to state priorities.

Yeah borders...

here is the Dutch border with Belgium in the extreme south of NL:

http://www.grensovergangen.nl/afbeeldingen/eijsden/IM000359.JPG

I'm curious to see what effect light rail will have on traffic. It itself will basically become a main north south route, and once the UW link is complete, thats 70,000 fewer drivers on either I-5 or 99.

Also, I don't get the whole traffic apocalypse theory of taking out the viaduct, and why everyone assumes it needs to be replaced with a 50 mph freeway. It's 1 mile long.... time to travel 1 mile at 50mph: 1.2 min, at 35 mph: 1.7 min. Maybe add 5 minutes for waiting at signals? your "commute" just went from 1.2 minutes to 6.7 minutes... oh drat... thats 5.5 minutes of my life I want back. I'm not saying it will be perfect, but I think a little inconvenience is worth getting that ugly piece of crap off the waterfront.

Based on the lighting I assume that the photographer was in Belgium? :)

I also believe Belgian roads vary based on the region they're in; i.e. Flanders, etc.

Based on the lighting I assume that the photographer was in Belgium? :)

I also believe Belgian roads vary based on the region they're in; i.e. Flanders, etc.

Yes it's in Belgium, those guys have some kind of a light fetisj or something :lol:

Well, until recently, almost every Belgian road was just crap. No wonder; they'd build a road in the sixties/seventies and never looked back at it in maintenance.

Well, that is starting to change. Specially in the Wallonie region in the south, major parts of the E25 and E411 are being repaved, or better said; completely rebuild (imagine how bad those roads were), but there are still some horrible motorways leftover.

Interesting.
There are some very good looking photos of Belgian roads here:

http://europe.aaroads.com/belgium/index.htm

It looks like their signage standards, while certainly OK, are not quite up to Dutch standards and will also change based on when they were installed or, again, what region is putting them up.

Those pictures on that site are actually from the better Belgium roads. For instance the E313, E314, E34, E42 are in much worse conditions. When you drive it, it sounds like your car is about to take off.

Maybe they should divert some of the funds from the overhead lighting to pavement maintenance. :)

Maybe they should divert some of the funds from the overhead lighting to pavement maintenance. :)
Very true :lol: I remember a significant difference when I entered Belgium from Germany. The roads were not as smooth and the signage was not as clear as German ones, but lighting was unbelievable.

Their lightning power comes from power that is leftover at nuclear power stations.

Belgium motorways are know for their bad quality.
The worst in western europe :lol:

Well, I've never advocated rebuilding the viaduct "just for the views"...Views are a bonus from highway design, but shouldn't be a justification for highway design.

I believe Seattle needs to improve its north-south corridors, both with I-5 and the waterfront. Anyone familiar with I-5 through Seattle knows that about 80% of the time it is a bottleneck. There needs to be a total redesign there, but unfortunately, other projects (520, and the Viaduct), have priority. I believe that shutting down the viaduct (either temporarily or permanently) will just divert more traffic to an already clogged I-5. What is truely needed is an expanded I-5, (with fewer lane endings/restrictions, etc.), combined with an expanded Viaduct-99, frankly tunnel or elevated doesn't matter to me (although the cost will be higher with tunnel). Bottom line is you need these N-S routes in a very narrow land-mass.

I agree with you about I-5. Unfortunately, if we thought replacing the viaduct was expensive, a total redesign of I-5 would be even more so. I have absolutely no experience in financing highway projects, so this is just a random ballpark figure, but 8 billion seems about right to me for something of that scale.

I agree with you about I-5. Unfortunately, if we thought replacing the viaduct was expensive, a total redesign of I-5 would be even more so. I have absolutely no experience in financing highway projects, so this is just a random ballpark figure, but 8 billion seems about right to me for something of that scale.

I'm not sure either, but to do it right will be expensive. In my opinion I-5 needs to be rebuilt from 520 south to Dearborn, starting with a new flyover from 520 to the right side of I-5. It would probably make sense to do a SB flyover to 520 at the same time. The I-90 exit needs to be simplified, and NB needs more lanes through downtown. Doubt this this will happen in the next decade or two...perhaps someday.

The problem with road maintanence and construction here in the USofA is, in my opinion, mostly due to the fact that when taxing fuel was first used as a main source of roadbuilding money, it was never set up to easily respond to inflation. It was set as a straight volume based tax, not a percentage of the price based tax. As inflation happens, proposals to adjust it to keep pace are very unpopular and a favorite target of politicians. The USA's federal fuel tax has not been adjusted since the late 1980s and now has less than half of the real-world buying power that it had when it was last set.

The situation is just as bad, if not worse, in most states.

As for the reason why Belgium has lights on all of their motorways, the best explanation that I have heard is that the country did a study on safety and found that the cost of lighting was less than the cost of crashes that could occur without them. YMMV.

Mike

I guess if a country is relatively small, has a high population density and extensive motorway network - then it makes sense to install continuous lighting on every kilometre of the motorway.

Thank god we didn´t do that in The Netherlands. There is enough light pollution here at night.

There aren´t already places where you can´t see city lights at night, since there are hardly any places more than 20-30km away from a larger city.

I guess if a country is relatively small, has a high population density and extensive motorway network - then it makes sense to install continuous lighting on every kilometre of the motorway.

Yeah, imagine if you put lights up on I-94 from Fargo to Billings. That stretch basically just has one urban area of 90,000, and covers almost 1,000 KM's. What a waste of electricity!

The problem with road maintanence and construction here in the USofA is, in my opinion, mostly due to the fact that when taxing fuel was first used as a main source of roadbuilding money, it was never set up to easily respond to inflation. It was set as a straight volume based tax, not a percentage of the price based tax. As inflation happens, proposals to adjust it to keep pace are very unpopular and a favorite target of politicians. The USA's federal fuel tax has not been adjusted since the late 1980s and now has less than half of the real-world buying power that it had when it was last set.

The situation is just as bad, if not worse, in most states.

As for the reason why Belgium has lights on all of their motorways, the best explanation that I have heard is that the country did a study on safety and found that the cost of lighting was less than the cost of crashes that could occur without them. YMMV.

Mike

Not necessarily as I found roads / highways in Minnesota were better than in Illinois! I think a lot of it has to do with big internal corruption that is there in the bureaucracy of big cities.

Thank god we didn´t do that in The Netherlands. There is enough light pollution here at night.

There aren´t already places where you can´t see city lights at night, since there are hardly any places more than 20-30km away from a larger city.
I thank my mum and dad for living in a country where I can see the stars :).

oh you can see stars easily, but there aren't places where it gets intense dark. There is always city lights near the horizon. In Belgium, that's even worse, because the places where are no big cities have 100% lit motorways!

Some places have a LOT of highways for not a whole lot of people.

North Dakota and South Dakota have 9,097 Km of Federal Highways (not even just roads or state highways) and only 1,397,044 people served by those highways. Many of them are just through interstates.

The central area of the US has 5,796,725 people and 19,957.47KM of Federal roads (obviously a lot more state and county roads).

That's quite a few miles of roads for not even 6 million people. A lot of the money to upkeep roads in the urban centers gets taken away to maintain the endless roads through our countryside.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/road.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/road1.jpg

These are always fun days!!!!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/road2.jpg

These are always fun days!!!!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/road2.jpg

Haha, in Oklahoma, that's today! Too bad I have class, otherwise I'd be chasing!

I'd agree with this, they're not the best, they're not the worst. A car I've driven in has never been DAMAGED just from driving down the road. I think we just went and built a LOT of paved roads for how many people we have to pay for them. We can't treat them all with extra love and care.

Better surfaces for the roads can be achieved, however, that has to be achieved at the cost of higher taxes, though for more right wing people like me, those funds can just can taken from social programs and be transferred to infrastructure spending, so in the end taxes would not increase, also, a better solution might be to include road funding in the tax bill rather than in gasoline taxes, since including them in the tax bill that a person gets would theoretically allow for more funding flexibility.

Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze
2 freeways closed near Bay Bridge


(04-29) 09:24 PDT OAKLAND -- The heat of a dramatic gasoline tanker fire destroyed an overpass and closed two major roadways in the MacArthur Maze at the East Bay access to the Bay Bridge early this morning.

A section of the roadway taking traffic from the Bay Bridge onto eastbound Interstate 580 fell onto the connector that brings East Bay traffic from Interstate 80 to Interstate 880 southbound toward Oakland and San Jose.

Lanes of 580 near the East Bay Municipal Utility District sewage treatment plant at the maze are draped like a blanket over the northeast edge of the freeway below with the corner tip touching the ground below that.

Traffic is being routed several different ways around the scene and tie-ups are likely to worsen as the day wears on.

"We're screwed, huh? That's going to be rough on everybody," said Joe Dorey, 55, an engineer who lives in Oakland.

The tanker, which was traveling from I-80 full of vehicle-ready gasoline, seems to have disappeared. One Caltrans worker at the scene held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker is now.

The driver, who got out of the truck on his own after it overturned, hailed a taxi to a nearby hospital, where he is in critical but stable condition with burns.

One section of roadway has fallen away from the main structure and another may yet fall this morning.

Below the two stretches of roadway is a Caltrans property full of equipment being used to rebuild the Bay Bridge.

So far this morning, traffic on all the affected roadways remains light, but major backups are expected today and for the foreseeable future.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_wxs101.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_freewaycollapse_155.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_freewaycollapse_201.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_caoak101.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_freewaycollapse020_la.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_freewaycollapse039_la.jpg

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_freewaycollapse_246.jpg

This is BAD news for Bay Area motorists... this is one of the busiest interchanges in the region, and one of the busiest in the state of California. :ohno:

Oh damn, is that why East Bound Bay Bridge was closed a couple nights ago when I drove by?

Wait, nevermind.

Doesn't the Bay area hate freeways anyways?

Oh man, that freeway interchange is already bad enough as it is. Its like 20 minutes or more just to get from 80 South to 880 south.

The road looks like taffy.

Sucks for them, I'm glad I don't live near there.:ohno:

This will have an interesting effect on commuting in our region. :lol:

This stretch must be hexed. The '89 quake took out part of the Bay Bridge, and the Nimetz Freeway just to the south. Now this...

Damn, the asphalt looks more like rubber on the fourth picture :eek:

Today early in the morning I went to Fremont from Sacramento to pick up my fiancée, and we already came back. For some strange reason I decided to make a round trip via Stockton and Tracy instead of Oakland, and now it appears I avoided a major delay.

OMG, this is serious. I wonder if the effects will be felt farther south, i.e. in San Jose etc.

There was a goodly sized article on the front page of my local paper this morning. While the local angle isn't necessarily important, the article does bring up a rather interesting point about the economic ramifications of such an important connection.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003686711_freeway30.html

When the earthquake toppled the freeway, what sort of economic and communting problems were experienced at that time? The earthquake of course had a winder damage footprint, so affected more people, it might have some bearing onto the problems that will be seen after this accident.

With gas prices rising and breaking record highs this season (currently $3.25 average for my hometown) the political feasibility of more gas taxes is highly problematic. Washington has already locked in a stepped gas tax increas in the next couple years, so were kinda stuck, but I doubt we'll see new gas taxes any time soon.

We'll have to come up with a different way to fund our highways. The Seattle metropolitan region could directly tax itself to build a host of new projects. Portland has been doing this for quite some time, though they've historically been anti-highway.

That's insane. Good to see that only one person was hurt.

Are we sure fire could have actually made the highway collapse? We should contact Rosie O'Donnell to find out whether this was actually caused by surreptiously placed charges of plastic explosives.

Doesn't the Bay area hate freeways anyways?

No. What a stupid question. the Bay Area understands the need for BALANCE between roads and rail.

That's insane. Good to see that only one person was hurt.

Are we sure fire could have actually made the highway collapse? We should contact Rosie O'Donnell to find out whether this was actually caused by surreptiously placed charges of plastic explosives.

:ohno:

Stack interchanges are my favorite.

I hope this doesn't discourage DOTs from building them in the future. :badnews:

This is really a wake-up call to the entire West Coast. Our transportation system, for the most part, is not up to natural disasters. Remember the LA Northridge quake in '94? Tremendous freeway damange. Same with '89 in the Bay Area. In Seattle, the Alaskan Way Viaduct was damaged by an '01 quake. These roads needs to be replaced or strengthened or disaster will be in our future.

Well, there is always the last solution - charging drivers directly (like in most of Europe) either by installing tollbooths (France) or introducing vignettes (Austria). I am not saying that the USA should do it right now, but it is certainly an option.

http://www.german-way.com/imagesGW/autobvignetteAT1.jpg

From what I heard the traffic wasn't bad since public transit was free on Monday. I guess a lot of people rode the BART to SF. So far this hasn't affected me at all, except when this man got lost from the detour on Sunday and ended up in Alameda. He asked me how to get to 580. I gave him this WTF look. I didn't know how he could have gotten lost and ended up in Alameda. He was also looking for Grand Ave.

The US already has 8,615 KM's of toll-roads, and hundreds of other bridges that have tolls. They're in over half our states, and have been in use since the 1790's on roads out east.

In 2005, toll roads/bridges brought in $11,818,315,000 in revenue.

Many now are upgraded where a person has a transponder in their car that his hooked up to their bank account. When they drive through where they toll are taken, they don't have to slow down because the toll is taken directly through the transponder. People who don't have a transponder for whatever reason will have to pull off to the right and stop at the booth to pay.

Tollbooth near Chicago with the new transponder readers:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/toll.jpg

Rendering of the projects when they were under construction a few years ago around Chicago:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/toll1.gif

Well, there is always the last solution - charging drivers directly (like in most of Europe) either by installing tollbooths (France) or introducing vignettes (Austria). I am not saying that the USA should do it right now, but it is certainly an option.

http://www.german-way.com/imagesGW/autobvignetteAT1.jpg
We do pay an annual fee to register our cars here in the USA, which varies by state and which, in most states, goes to fund roadbuilding and maintenance. Here in Wisconsin, that costs me USA$55/year plus an additional USA$15/year because I have personalized numbers on my car's plates. In exchange for that USA$70, I get a little year sticker (a 'vignette') to put on the rear plate to show that the registration is up to date.

However, under the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause in the USA's Constitution, along with parts relating to interstate commerce and duties, plates that are valid and current in one state are recognized as such in all of the other states and no other special tax can be charged to just drive through, other than for direct tolls.

There has been discussion of increasing Wisconsin's plate fees to raise more money for state road works, too.

Mike

However, under the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause in the USA's Constitution, along with parts relating to interstate commerce and duties, plates that are valid and current in one state are recognized as such in all of the other states and no other special tax can be charged to just drive through, other than for direct tolls.
That is exactly what I meant by proposing to charge motorists "directly". The registration sticker you put every year on your number plate allows you to drive on public roads, and it has a fixed costs regardless of whether you drive 2 km or 40,000 km per year. Vignette, on the other hand, can be purchased for 10 days and up to 1 year. Vignette is needed only to drive on motorways in Austria; other roads are free. As far as I remember, vignette for 10 days (under €10) was much cheaper than paying tolls in France or Italy to travel in a single day.

I should mention that if tolls were introduced for all motorways, I would be the first one to suffer since I use motorway to get to my university every single day :lol:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/493539448_a5158097ed_o.gif

NY Times reports on the number of things that fall out of moving vehicles and litter up the place...sometimes causing a dangerous driving situation.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/493558285_56756612cb_o.jpg

an estimated 140,000 cubic yards of road debris a year. That is enough to fill 8,750 garbage trucks, which would extend for 45 miles, said Tamie McGowen, a spokeswoman for Caltrans, the state transportation department. And it is increasingly hazardous, experts say.


More here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/us/11debris.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

^ :crazy:

check some Belgium motorways. Looks more like the average garbage dump than a nice motorway. I saw numerous tires, concrete, and even burned-out cars on the E34.

Haha, I see paper boxes that falls off trucks a lot, and once a chair fell from a truck in the middle of the freeway, quite dangerous as everyone braked to avoid it.

I've seen a latter that fell on top a car in the middle of rush hour. Some rock or something, could have been a small rock, bolt, nail hit my car once and made a small scratch. It didn't occur to me that I could get the vehicle's license plate number and sue only after it was too late.

BTW:That's not as many pieces of paper as I would have imagined.

I was driving on I-5 in Seattle, and I saw a Christmas tree, in the middle of the northbound lanes. The odd thing was that it was June, and that remnants of tinsel and glass bulbs were on the tree. Oddly enough, the same thing happened to me in Idaho, except in September.

Yeah, the disrespect of intentional discarded items along the roadways makes me sick.

This is mildly off topic, but what is the worse "lost load" you've seen/heard of on the highways?

The worse in my area was hot roofing tar spilled all over one direction of I-5 in the middle of Seattle. Freeway was shut down for most of the day to get that off.

While this isn't a highway, it illustrates my point well (they are potatoes, by the way):
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/Jaxom92/Transit/Potatoes.jpg

Bay Area traffic rebounding from highway collapse
10 May 2007

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) - San Francisco Bay area commuters are resuming their old driving habits nearly two work weeks after a tanker truck fire hobbled one of the nation's busiest freeway interchanges, regional transportation officials said.

Traffic on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Wednesday was 5 percent below the daily averages recorded before key stretches of the MacArthur Maze were damaged. Traffic dropped by as much as 18 percent in the days after the April 29 accident, officials said.

"Traffic levels on the bridge are still below what they were before the maze accident, but folks are finding their way back to their cars," said John Goodwin, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Part of the rebound is probably due to Monday's reopening of the roadway connecting westbound Interstate 80 to southbound Interstate 880, Goodwin said. The collapsed overpass connecting eastbound Interstate 80 to eastbound Interstate 580 was expected to be replaced by late June.

When a fire from an overturned gasoline truck severely damaged two sections of a cloverleaf interchange, officials initially warned it could take months and countless inconveniences for drivers to repair them. But neither scenario has come to pass.

At the same time, proponents of mass transit hope persuades some commuters to permanently trade in their cars for trains and buses. The Bay Area's light rail system had 358,000 riders on Tuesday, far short of the one-day record of 375,200 set May 1, but still encouraging, said Bay Area Rapid Transit spokesman Linton Johnson.

"We haven't kept all the new riders we had, but we still have about half of them, "Johnson said.

Al Romero, an Oakland resident who works in San Francisco, started taking BART after the tanker accident and hasn't decided whether he'll get back behind the wheel for a solo commute.

"I don't miss the traffic," Romero said. "But it's still a hassle. I have to drive to BART, and then when I get to the city I have to walk about six blocks to work."

so reason are...we have alot of cars....many house holds have two or three cars...with kids from 16 to 65 driving...public transit that run 18 - 24 hours a day...not to mention 18 and 20 "wheelers"...big trucks...that always run...here in San Antonio,TexaS..we have add freeway cojestion cause of these truck from Mexico...alot of commerce comes on truck...that are bigger than ones in Europe and Asia.

Construction at San Antonio's, TeXaS - USA Loop 410 and US 281 interchang with ramps on the norhtside along with add 4 lanes to Loop 410...was 6 expanding to 10 lanes.
Friday May 18, 2007...410/281 interchange w/ ramps
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4109/sd531135ln4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7909/sd531136yv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4580/sd531137vk6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4174/sd531138wc6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1935/sd531139ti1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1923/sd531140od8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9681/sd531141iu0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8934/sd531142bq2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2104/sd531143cj4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/913/sd531144de3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6953/sd531145mi2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4559/sd531147vo8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5580/sd531148ca1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7525/sd531149zb3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9941/sd531153ua9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6019/sd531155uz2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)[/QUOTE]

OK guys. Seems like DC people is not posting its pride, the SPRINGFIELD INTERCHANGE!!! (maybe they are all stuck in a typical DC traffic!!!) The biggest interchange in Northeast US and soon will be the biggest in Atlantic Coast (sorry to say this Atlanteans). Some people say that it will become the biggest in United States or the World but they are just dreaming. A max of 16 lane intersection and the construction is not over yet.

I am sorry to say that I only got a PDF version for now but I will update it later with true images. :)

http://www.springfieldinterchange.com/pdf/map.pdf

We are talking about the biggest highway complex of any country in the entire world and only 10% are tolled, with the most numbers of vehicles of any country in the entire world, a country with one of the most complex weather changes, the second oldest freeway ever after Germany's Autobahn and a very complicated state funded maintenance. Of course, its hard to maintain it but it is not possible. It will just take time unless if you got the Magic Touch :)

Here ya go Naga:

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images101/ca-110_nb_exit_024a_03.jpg

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images101/ca-110_nb_exit_024a_03a.jpg
VERY interesting here in that the big green sign in these two images was modified by someone other than CalTrans (the state agency in charge of roads in California). Someone whom was handy at art got tired of getting lost because of missing info from the sign. He then took it upon himself to make the changes needed to correct that problem and in August of 2001, added the 'NORTH/I-5' to the sign. He did such a good job that CalTrans itself did not realize that anything was done to it (or that it was done by CalTrans sign crews) for nearly a year and when they did find out, they determined that it as such a useful improvement and of such good quality that it was allowed to remain and at last report, it is all still there.

Amazing.

:cheers1:

Mike

I actually saw a TV programme (I think on TLC, but may be mistaken) about this story a while back. The man used some pretty advanced technique to create the shield, and it was by no means an easy job to do. I think he deserves a recognition.

As for the CalTrans, sometimes they themselves do such a bad job that it leaves you wondering who was that freelance painter to create such a crap. I will take a picture of CA-99/US-50 interchange to show what I mean.

House overwhelmingly votes to put restrictions on Mexican trucks on U.S. highways
15 May 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to delay a Bush administration plan to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways.

The trucks would have to be declared safe first, the lawmakers said, and Mexico would have to give U.S. truckers the same access south of the border.

The House voted 411-3 to approve a three-year Department of Transportation pilot program that would restrict opening the border to 100 carriers based in Mexico. They would be allowed to use a maximum of 1,000 vehicles under the pilot program.

The Bush administration wanted to start a pilot program this year that would run for a year before fully opening the border to Mexican trucks.

The House bill, however, specifies criteria for the pilot program before it can start, including setting up an independent panel to evaluate the test program and getting certification from the inspector general that safety and inspection requirements have been met.

A Mexican government spokesman viewed the House action in the light of NAFTA, a free-trade agreement binding the two countries and Canada.

"While the legislative process has yet to conclude, the decision today by the House of Representatives raises questions about the commitment of most of its members to comply with international trade obligations," said Rafael Laveaga, communication director at the Mexican Embassy in Washington.

The Transportation Department says it could be as late as 2008 before Congress's criteria are met, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Lawmakers said their major concern is whether Mexican trucks, often older than U.S. cargo vehicles, and Mexican drivers will be able to meet rigorous U.S. safety standards.

"We do not need 90,000-pound unguided missiles on our highways," said Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C.

American trucking companies have spent years getting their vehicles up to the Transportation Department standards, lawmakers said. Letting Mexican trucks across the border without making them meet those standards is wrong, they said.

"We're going to have a major accident somewhere, and people are going to say, 'How did this happen?" said Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif.

Added Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich: "We need to ensure that this program only takes places after the Mexican companies meet the same conditions that American companies do."

Lawmakers also complained that allowing Mexican trucks greater access will cost American truckers their jobs.

"You can get a Mexican truck driver to work for a heck of a lot less than a Teamster in the United States, and you can get a Mexican dock worker to work for a heck of a lot less than a longshoreman in the United States and that's what this is ultimately designed to do," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

The Teamsters, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Environmental Law Foundation sued in federal court in April to block the pilot program, citing safety and environmental concerns.

"We don't know how safety laws such as hours of service and drug testing would be enforced," Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said. "This vote by the House repudiates those questionable attempts to open our borders without adequate safeguards."

The Bush administration had planned to run a yearlong pilot program that would allow Mexican trucks beyond the current 20-mile limit from the border but the launch was halted after complaints from Congress.

Since 1982, trucks have had to stop within the buffer zone and transfer their loads to U.S. truckers to take them into the country. The legislation would allow Mexican drivers to take their loads from Mexico to any point within the country.

Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. They include many in the trucking industry, the Bush administration and lawmakers who favor the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

Access to all U.S. highways was promised by 2000 under the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, as was access through Mexico for U.S. carriers. That aspect has been stalled by lawsuits and disagreements between the two countries, though Canadian and U.S. trucks travel freely across the northern border.

------

Associated Press writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report.

Take a look at the freeways in Riverside County. I-215 was just repaved and look amazing. The 60/215 segment is being completely redone and the 60/91/215 interchange is huge.

I really need to get pictures of all of the work being done there.

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_001a_01.jpg
WTF?(the signs)

Yeah, you see those signs a lot in California. Useless, and stupid.

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_001a_01.jpg
WTF?(the signs)
The photographer's back in that image is right tight to the USCustoms station at the San Ysidro (San Diego), CA border crossing from Mexico. It is the World's busiest international border crossing. They basically tell people leaving the checkpoint that the highway splits very quickly and to get to the correct side of the road.

Yes, it could be clearer.

:ohno:

Mike

maybe it should look like this

..........I-5..............................I-805........
...........................................................
San Diego West +..............El Cajon...........
National City.....................San Diego East.
Imperial Beach...................Chula Vista......
......................................Bonita.............
^........^........^..................^..........^....

^ = arrow
+ = airport symbol

Hehe, Americans are obsessed with road numbers. :) When driving on the I-95 through Maine, heading towards Canada, there are such small towns along the highway, that they just put "THRU TRAFFIC". :) I was thinking, ok, 'no one' knows those small towns there, but at least they could put "Canada". :)

maybe it should look like this

..........I-5..............................I-805........
...........................................................
San Diego West +..............El Cajon...........
National City.....................San Diego East.
Imperial Beach...................Chula Vista......
......................................Bonita.............
^........^........^..................^..........^....

^ = arrow
+ = airport symbol
And then to be accurate, you'd have to add a couple of '500m's at the bottom, the split is that close.

Mike

interstates are "ok". somewhat convenient

lol those "left/right lanes" signs are okay. I find this picture very funny :)
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_016a_01.jpg
"Trucks okay" ... "Trucks not okay"... :lol:

bbbbbooooooooooooo

:hilarious

I wouldn't want Mexican trucks on U.S. highways either.

Are they such bad drivers?

Some pictures of interstates in my area...not great, but I'm showing them anyway...(not mine, BTW)

Interstate 91

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_029_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_032a_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_032a_05.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_032b_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_033_04.jpg


Interstate 84

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_058_03.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_056_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_051_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_047_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_039a_02.jpg


Interstate 291 (relatively recent, completed in 1994)

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_004_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_005_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_006_02.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut200/i-291_eb_exit_006_03.jpg

That 291 doesn't look that good for a 13 year old interstate highway.

http://www.northeastroads.com/connecticut050/i-084_wb_exit_058_03.jpgSo signs on these restricted lanes are white? :) So green isn't the exclusive color on US motorways/freeways. :)

Those are for the HOV lanes. (High Occupancy Vehicle).

But you should check out Cleveland, they have red interstate signs there.

these signs are pretty rare, aren' they?

http://www.aaroadtrips.com/ohio/cleveland_intl_airport_exit_signage_2040.jpg

these signs are pretty rare, aren' they?

http://www.aaroadtrips.com/ohio/cleveland_intl_airport_exit_signage_2040.jpg
Isn't that signage on the airport grounds?

Mike

this could be the reason ;) is it just on this airport? I can't remember seeing red signs on Dulles, Phoenix Sky Harbor or Orlando Airport. actually that's also the only pic with a red sign I have found

That 291 doesn't look that good for a 13 year old interstate highway.

Except for some pavement issues, it's one of the better highways in the area, the only problem about it is that it's only 4 lanes...making it a traffic trap during rush hour.

Also, snow and ice (and bad maintenance) have made the road age badly.


So signs on these restricted lanes are white? So green isn't the exclusive color on US motorways/freeways.

Yeah, those our HOV lanes.

They were an absolute waste of space...nobody really uses them except some express buses during the rush hour period. Hartford has almost 50km of HOV lanes.

However, since gas prices increased, their usage has grown incredibly...

HOV signage is indeed white to help drivers visually determine which signs they need to pay attention to and which ones to ignore; you'll also notice the diamond symbol, which should be on all the HOV signs.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/512370917_29d857166e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/512370915_26fd9089cc_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/512370909_0cb5bd5322_o.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/512370903_b965b79c64_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/512370893_ffcb3c8144_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/208/512370887_fa8448f497_o.jpg

Simple explanation: US airport property can use any signage and colors they choose. Why? Not sure. But you will see this variety in signage at most US airports.

Are those HOV-lanes a succes in the United States?

Are those HOV-lanes a succes in the United States?
IIRC, the State of New Jersey tried that (HOV-2) on an express lane segment of I-287 but converted them into regular full-access (but no trucks/lorries) lanes after a few years, they were so unpopular. I believe that this was in the early-mid 1990s.

I think that the overall 'success' of HOV lanes is a mixed bag.

----------------------------

I do remember a Dilbert comic strip from a few years ago where one of the office workers took the zit-faced young intern with her to a client meeting simply so she could use the HOV lanes on the freeway to get there faster.

Mike

Are those HOV-lanes a succes in the United States?

I hear that they are almost as popular as the main lanes in certain Northern Virginia highways (Washington DC suburbs). Carpooling is at a different level down there.

California also has a few popular HOW lanes, as far as I know.

I think it has something to do with the truck maintainance regulations, not the driving skills of Mexican truck drivers. Basically, US lawmakers are afraid that Mexican trucks may fall apart on the US motorway :lol:

How about insurance and liability issues if an accident arises between a Mexican vehicle and an American vehicle?

Come on! Mexican trucks are made on the US and most of them belong to US companies! Mexico City vehicule stardards are even higher than those of Arizona!

That's just not fair; US trucks come down to Mexico freely as it is agreed on NAFTA. This thing only has to do with protectionist measures... Lots of NAFTA agreements are being unaccomplished. Mexico complains but doesn't do anything further, Canada says: Hey that's not fair! But doesn't do anything either... Because if both of them do something, they're are going to be considered immidiately part of the axis of evil.

is that the clearview font on the signs posted in #144 by billpa? looks great!