^^ Ha, let's implement a tax on American cars in the USA :D

Hmm, if everybody has a smaller car (and not necessarily a compact or something), this problem wouldn't exist.

I checked some car sale sites in the Netherlands, but nearly all American cars have 3 liter engines or above, even up to 7.2 liters (Chevy Suburban), and also a V8 engine. That's what we put in full sized trucks over here. Those massive cars run like on half or a third than on regular cars in Europe. If all Americans decide to buy smaller cars, everybody can enjoy driving much longer. (you consume less fuel, which is also better for your wallet :D )

In the Netherlands, we have a slurptax for extremely fuel-inefficient cars. (usually sports cars and american cars).

Keep in mind that in Europe, most vehicles are also diesel-powered. I know for a fact that an Audi Q7 here with a 3.6 liter engine runs on about 14-19 miles a gallon. A 3.0 liter diesel engine on the Q7 in Europe can get a mileage in the mid-twenties, with higher engine torque than the US-spec 3.6. Lots of diesel-powered vehicles in Europe have Prius-equivalent/beating fuel economy. A recently introduced Volkswagen Golf diesel-hybrid gets 69 miles per gallon. The demand for diesel in Europe is because diesel fuel is kept relatively cheap compared to petrol.

Now when it comes to US vehicles, diesel engines are not available yet because of air-quality-regulations, but new technology is cleaning that up and should be available soon. BUT, that doesn't mean Americans should just hop back into SUVs. I think a heavier gas tax should be implemented once diesels are established along with a gas-guzzler tax.

Many people feel unsafe in even smaller SUVs. They like having a taller view of the road. Yes, I know this is very irrational, but take it for what it's worth.

Then maybe they should subsidize smaller cars more...

The most modern Diesel engines are not as polluting as their counterparts from the early 1990's. Diesel is also more fuel efficient, indeed beating a Toyota Prius easily.

You don't seem to know what rail-bound system can carry, do you. A train every 90 sec is the very well possible. Trains don't have to stop for 2 min. I suggest you read some literature on that matter.

Probably not. If they were busy they would run a few more trains.

Passenger (Intercity) trains run here up to 15 coaches, about 400-500 metres. Higher frequentions with those lengths are only worsening the capacityproblems, and makes PT very costinefficient...

Proposing government-imposed solutions to the problem is fine, but you have to remember that it will be incredibly unpopular among half the American population. Remember, we don't necessarily have the same viewpoint on the role of government as you all do.

That being said, a combined hefty tax on gas-guzzlers and substantial tax credit for efficient cars is an idea that is floating around here lately, and one that is gaining support.

It depends if you mean heavy rail or light rail/metro.
But even in busy London Undrground 90 sec is just minimum or even to short. It's simply imposible for normal trains to stop every 90 sec.
Tell me at least one example where trains stop every 90 sec on the same track and same platform?

A train every 90 sec is the minimum. Under some circumstances and for a short time such a frequency is reached. However, no rail company schedules 40 train on a single track. That's why I wrote up to 40 trains an hour. We were talking about capacity after all.

Most metros are heavy rails by the way. I actually can't name one that isn't.

Well, you seem to know it all so well, why don't you explain to the Dutch railways they should stop shorter?


Why should I? Dutch railways run obviously way under capacity. So they can easily afford to stop for 3 min or longer.

I just contradicted your claim roads would require less space than rail-bound systems which is simply wrong.

Diesel's a good idea(one I've supported for a while), but after seeing the Price per Gallon of Diesel(3.78 Liters worth), it made me take pause.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

^Why is diesel going up faster and more dramatically then Gasoline? The low-sulfur diesel switchover took place last summer yet the major price rise began after New Year's 2008.

What's wrong with electric cars?

And it's going to take a while to get Americans into the same tiny cars that Europeans will drive in. American mentality has always been bigger=better.

Whoever thought of putting an electric motor and engine into a car? Not efficient at all. An electric battery on its own would incredibly more efficient.

Why are Americans so unwilling to allow gas taxes to rise yet think that the roads will still be there at the same quality? No cars without roads, no roads without money. I'm usually against taxes, but this is one of my exceptions. The cost of driving is more than just the price of the car, car insurance, and gas.

Keep in mind that in Europe, most vehicles are also diesel-powered.

Eh? Since when? Last I saw the vast majority of cars were running on petrol

Eh? Since when? Last I saw the vast majority of cars were running on petrol

There are very little noticeable differences between the way a petrol powered car runs compared to a diesel powered car. Modern diesels do not emit huge puffs of black smoke and the popping engine sound is virtually eliminated. It also varies country to country.

Diesel sales in October 04 to September 05:

In Belgium and France, diesels made up more than 70% of the market, and increased by 3% in Belgium and 6% in France.
In Germany, about 43% and sales are increasing by 6%
In the U.K., 36% and increasing 8%
In Greece, it is only 1% and decreasing 56%.

The price of diesel also varies in different countries whereas in France, diesel is 19% cheaper than petrol, while in the U.K., it's actually 5% more expensive. Either way, the trade off is that diesel cars are more efficient.

While we're on gas tax and numbers, does anyone know how much Europe is taxed compared to the U.S.? I'm also curious to hear some general tax numbers such as sales tax and property tax, just to see how much overall tax Americans pay compare to Europeans.

^^
Ok. New car sales. Now I understand.
I thought you meant cars on the road.

The petrol tax in The Netherlands is around 70% of the price I believe.

I live in Spain and it's said that more than 50% of the fuel price are taxes, I don't know it it's true, but here is more expensive than in USA, (I've a diesel car, like most on Spain and I pay about 1,20€/l).

You can visit this page (http://193.146.123.247/aplicaciones/carburantes/index.aspx) to know the prices of all the gas stations of the country. Here we are used to see the diesel cheaper than the petrol but now sometimes is more expensive (it should become cheaper in June).

Bye!

Gas tax in the US is pretty pitiful, and what's worse is that we can't get electric cars here. They would be the most efficient (as far as I know) and there's no local pollution. So why is there not more demand for it?

Connecticut has one of the highest fuel taxes in the US, and I believe that we are seeing a hike come July.

It's still tiny compared to Europe, at ~62 cents/gal.

So in general, do Americans pay less taxes than Europeans? If they do pay less, then seriously Americans need to change their spending habits and bust out some more cash into our infrastructure.

Also has anyone noticed that most American roads have really thin lane markings?

Americans pay MUCH less than Europeans across the board. It's no comparison.

In some ways, it's a good thing. A lot of that money goes to social programs and not everyone will agree on that. It's just a different mindset. But when it comes to infrastructure, the US should expect to pay more.

We need to pay a LOT more when it comes to infrastructure.

I don't know about you guys, but I felt disturbed after seeing those pics of I-95 in Philly. If it can happen there, it could literally happen anywhere, and people may get hurt. This is the worst time to be picky about upgrading infrastructure.

And it's not really the best time to raise any taxes at the moment, and I don't really see any prospect of higher gas tax anytime soon.

Also has anyone noticed that most American roads have really thin lane markings?

Especially on the edge- I think many states use a four inch width on regular two lane roads. Not the greatest thing, for sure- but not the end of the world either.

And it's not really the best time to raise any taxes at the moment, and I don't really see any prospect of higher gas tax anytime soon.

But people are not paying the actual cost of driving. Infrastructure is degrading quickly and something has to be done. Of course people don't want more taxes, but if they don't want more taxes, then they had better expect their government gifts to start dwindling.

Gas tax in the US is pretty pitiful, and what's worse is that we can't get electric cars here. They would be the most efficient (as far as I know) and there's no local pollution. So why is there not more demand for it?
Are you willing to build all of the new power plants and high-energy power lines needed to charge the batteries in a large national fleet of electric cars? Also, effective driving range has been a BIG issue for electric cars, with few ever being able to go more than 100-150 km between charges. Effective highway range on a full tank of fuel in my car is about 800 km.

Mike

Electric cars can go as far, that's really just a myth about them not having as long a range.

If electric cars are rolled out, let's be serious, it would be done gradually. That would give enough time for the power companies to match up with demand. I don't see why it shouldn't be done. Power companies will upgrade the infrastructure with respect to demand, and the rates will be higher for those who use the most. It's an experiment that definitely needs to be tried, especially in valley/desert cities.

But people are not paying the actual cost of driving. Infrastructure is degrading quickly and something has to be done. Of course people don't want more taxes, but if they don't want more taxes, then they had better expect their government gifts to start dwindling.

I agree, but certainly not in the current status of the economy...plus the 47 billion dollars that are going overseas to who knows where...

Especially on the edge- I think many states use a four inch width on regular two lane roads. Not the greatest thing, for sure- but not the end of the world either.

I also noticed that many states only use Bots Dots as their primary lane marker. There's no paint. Once the dot breaks, it's gone so in some sections of I-90 in Washington, the lane markers are...not there. The new highways I see use 4-inch wide paint with painted rumblers. So the paint actually sticks out of the lane marker to form little bumps. Those are much more clear, but seriously, they are still thin. When it's raining, they're just invisible.

The best motorway marking I observed in Nevada - very thick and wide (~20cm). At the same time, it seems to me that Washington has a problem with road paint that doesn't stay on the pavement for too long. For instance, I-90 has some mountain stretches that don't have any lane marking at all, although the concrete pavement shows an obvious lane division. Also, they widened a highway between Pullman and Moscow right before the winter. Now, the winter is gone... and so is paint :lol: Well, maybe it was a temporary paint, I don't know since I am not a road engineer.

I also noticed that many states only use Bots Dots as their primary lane marker. There's no paint..

I know that's the case often in California and Texas, but I can't think of anywhere else where that's the case. I've never actually driven anywhere like that myself, so I have no idea how it works. It doesn't look great in pictures- but I've never been critical because I thought perhaps in practice it might work.

Impressive Insterstate highways, are the best

Some new Interstate highway photos, this time from Michigan:

I-696 (Michigan's Autobaun):
http://www.canhighways.com/MI/PHOTOS/I696_11.jpg

http://www.canhighways.com/MI/PHOTOS/I696_16.jpg


I-94:
http://www.canhighways.com/MI/I/94/dg-i94_cl_w-mm184.jpg

http://www.canhighways.com/MI/I/94/I94_MI_cl_274_west.jpg

I-475:
http://www.canhighways.com/MI/PHOTOS/I475_MI_7.jpg

Myself and my co-webmaster Dan have been working a lot with Michigan photos lately on our website http://www.Canighways.com/MI/. There are lots of high-resolution photos of some of Michigan's large and interesting freeways. Please have a look at our site.

I know that's the case often in California and Texas, but I can't think of anywhere else where that's the case. I've never actually driven anywhere like that myself, so I have no idea how it works. It doesn't look great in pictures- but I've never been critical because I thought perhaps in practice it might work.

That's not true in Southern California.

That's not true in Southern California.

OK, I may be basing that on some older photos...:)

But there are some places where the paint is completely worthless, like the East LA interchange. It's been painted and repainted so many times that it's hard to tell which ones you should follow. I guess it's a good thing that there's always traffic there.

The best motorway marking I observed in Nevada - very thick and wide (~20cm). At the same time, it seems to me that Washington has a problem with road paint that doesn't stay on the pavement for too long. For instance, I-90 has some mountain stretches that don't have any lane marking at all, although the concrete pavement shows an obvious lane division. Also, they widened a highway between Pullman and Moscow right before the winter. Now, the winter is gone... and so is paint :lol: Well, maybe it was a temporary paint, I don't know since I am not a road engineer.

Yeah that is true, I've seen some different types of markers used in Washington state, I don't know why they can't keep them consistent.

3 types off the top of my head:

1. Regular paint, often used with bots dots placed on it.
2. A very "glossy" sort of paint that has the painted rumblers. Those come off very easily, especially during winter.
3. Bots dots alone.

I know that's the case often in California and Texas, but I can't think of anywhere else where that's the case. I've never actually driven anywhere like that myself, so I have no idea how it works. It doesn't look great in pictures- but I've never been critical because I thought perhaps in practice it might work.

Yeah I can't either, most places use very nice paint, I don't get why many places don't. Bots Dots come off very quickly, especially with heavy truck traffic or winter weather. It's better to see where the lanes are rather than "feel" them. There's a section of State Route 520 that uses both bots dots, reflectors, AND glossy paint with painted rumblers.

Also what really bugs me is the way the paint is removed. Either they "rub" the paint off the road or the paint is so thick that over time it actually punches a hole into the pavement. Either way, once they remove the old paint, there's a very shallow hole (a few millimeters) that is in the place of the removed pavement markings.

This kind of marking is very good:

http://lh5.google.com/ASWchris2/R8xJFVXvX-I/AAAAAAAAGBM/anAvRd7OxMA/IMG_6167.JPG.jpg?imgmax=800

In the Netherlands, we have a slurptaxLMAO!

Add the ever-charming anti-homicide/suicide bridge railing, and surely the apartments in the background charge a hefty premium for such an inspiring view.
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/4383/85316140sd7.jpgGreat report again (and yeah, I'm a slow coach too again :)). I didn't know these railguards were intended for preventing suicides/murders. Actually, I was never thinking about it.

This kind of marking is very good:

http://lh5.google.com/ASWchris2/R8xJFVXvX-I/AAAAAAAAGBM/anAvRd7OxMA/IMG_6167.JPG.jpg?imgmax=800

Yes I like those type of markings. The center dashed lines could be longer though. I don't know if there's a specific purpose to the spacing of the lines, but longer lines and wider spacing gives a calmer look haha, although that would probably lead to increased speeding...I know Washington state has glass beads in their paint to reflect light. I'm not sure if that's the case on the picture you sent me.

I also noticed how nicely colored European roads are. Roads in the U.S. seem to always have a very noticeable lighter color where the tires normally travel, does anyone have an explanation of that? Do Europeans use some coloring on their roads?

^^^ Here in Spain there are some light gray asphalts too (usually because it's old or it supports heavy traffic), but I've noticed (in photos) that your asphalt is lighter. I haven't seen any US photo with our typical black asphalt.

Yeah, everything you stated sure is a problem. I wonder what the solution for urban transportation will be in the future. There has to be a way to eliminate traffic but we don't know what the formula is.





Walking is the slowest and least efficient form of long distance transportation for humans. That's why people used horses in the past and now cars, trains and airplanes. When I go shopping I don't want to have to carry all my belongings 2 miles from the train station when I get off and hope that no one steals my merchandise. It's much better to put that in your car, lock the doors and get back to your house in 10 minutes instead of 2 hours.

What's good for the environment is generally bad and very uncomfortable for humans. The environment might like it better if I walked from Miami to Tampa along Interstate 75 but the same environment might kill me. Mosquitoes, alligators, high heat, potential lightning strikes...etc will all attack you during the possible 6 day journey. Contrast putting a human in a car. Very comfortable, nice seats, a/c, relative safety from the weather and maybe a 2 hour trip is much better than walking.

Are you nuts? I am not talking about walking miles to and from a train station every day, nor am I talking about walking from Miami to Tampa. Keep creating those strawmen arguments. I guess you find it enjoyable to sit in endless traffic jams for hours and hours.

Acid rain, cancer, lead and mercury poisoning, toxic waste dumps, air and water pollution, those are things that are bad for both the environment AND humans. You see, humans need a clean environment as much as any other creature- we are organic organisms that still rely on clean air, water, and food to survive, all of which are not possible when we ignore the environment.

There are two, perhaps three, big reasons why it is so hard to upgrade infrastructure:

3) Enviro-whackos whom feel that any and all infrastructure is a sign of the pure evil of humanity with its audacity to spoil the pristine planet and also often have the money and connections seen in #2.

:ohno:

Mike

That isn't true. Replacing aging freeways and replacing outdated, energy inefficient power plants with better ones won't be met with any environmental opposition. The problem with US road infrastructure isn't capacity, it is decaying pavement, bridges and interchanges, especially in urban areas- upgrading these roads won't generate environmental opposition at all.

But keep making shit up if you like.

^^^ Here in Spain there are some light gray asphalts too (usually because it's old or it supports heavy traffic), but I've noticed (in photos) that your asphalt is lighter. I haven't seen any US photo with our typical black asphalt.

I've always thought our asphalt was lighter too, until I started to see some very European-looking highway pictures in the Mid-West. But of course, there's light traffic there. I really think the U.S. should adopt to a single, nation-wide highway standard. Okay, yes they kind of do, hence the Interestates, with regulations on lane width, median width and such. But I mean a single technique of pavement marking or a standard use of pavement material. Yes I know some states have varying weather and such, but we should adopt a system where there's a standard for cold weather, a standard for hot weather, etc.

The U.S. should also really increase the thickness of their highways, I'm feeling sinkholes everywhere. The Autobahn is about 27 inches in thickness, and US highways are about half that, with trucks that are often times heavier.

Yes I like those type of markings. The center dashed lines could be longer though. I don't know if there's a specific purpose to the spacing of the lines, but longer lines and wider spacing gives a calmer look haha, although that would probably lead to increased speeding...I know Washington state has glass beads in their paint to reflect light. I'm not sure if that's the case on the picture you sent me.

The broken lane markings are actually somewhat longer in reality (about the same/slightly shorter than the standard US lane markings). I think the camera was zoomed a bit when the photo was taken creating the illusion of shorter markings. But the spacing between them is indeed longer

Yes I like those type of markings. The center dashed lines could be longer though.

The photo was zoomed 4 times, in reality, the central lines are 3 m long with a 9m gap in between.

@ HAWC1506

I think that each state probably does have their own pavement standards; but a uniform standard wouldn't work. Pavement is graded based on the type of temperature swing it must endure, and the amount of traffic it is expected to carry. In Ontario, there are specific zones across the province where a specific pavement blend must be used, based on these criteria.

In a lot of cases, where line markings have failed, they simply weren't installed correctly or during proper conditions.

Someone from Los Angeles mailed me these pics, enjoy

91 freeway:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2uzwabq.jpg

105 freeway, from the 110 fwy interchange i guess:
http://i30.tinypic.com/5dqfzd.jpg

405 freeway, traffic jam.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2q9x8av.jpg

Not sure where, but i think the 210 freeway in Pasadena
http://i29.tinypic.com/242dg8j.jpg

Wow! there are many traffic jams there? :S:S

That last pic is in Pasadena. That's the Gold Line in the middle and the carpool lane that doesn't move. It seems to suffer from a lot of truck traffic, and it gets traffic from everywhere: Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, etc. The carpool lanes are a complete joke and offer no advantage to solo driving. Through Pasadena, it's one of the widest freeways in LA (if not the widest, it's just enormous). It's also the longest freeway in LA (although not continuous because it shifts alignment west of Pasadena to go to San Fernando). It's not on maps yet, but once the extension gets marked as interstate, it will run from San Fernando to Redlands.

Orik, yes, LA is notorious for bad traffic jams, especially the 405. From 3-7pm is not the time to drive in LA.

I heard State Route 30 is already renamed into State Route 210, awaiting Interstate designation.

Wow! there are many traffic jams there? :S:S

Ofcourse, there is no real alternative than driving, and the number of freeway lane miles is actually quite low, about the same level as New York, a city known for it's public transportation favor.

LA only built less than 70% of their planned freeway network.

Take a look for instance at the I-10 east of Los Angeles.

It stretches for about 60 miles between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Over 2 million people live less than 3 miles from this freeway. (i have just calculated that), and Los Angeles isn't even taken into account. Let's say 900,000 of them has a job, and 90% of those use their car to get there. That are 810,000 one-way trips, or 1.62 million car trips, only for work along the I-10 corridor. You need more than 60 lanes to handle that kind of traffic. There is no way any freeway system can handle that properly, so people seek alternatives, trains, cycling, different routes, working at home, different commute times, etc. That's in a nutshell why the LA Freeway system is terribly jammed.

Other calculation:

There are 1.337.706 housing units in Los Angeles. A typical Dutch kind of suburban area generates about 6 car trips per household daily (official figures for traffic analysts). I guess this isn't that much different in Los Angeles. That are over 8 million car trips daily. Let's say 25% of those trips involve a freeway. That are 2 million car trips on a freeway daily. That kind of traffic requires 80 lanes. There is nowhere near that amount of lanes in Los Angeles (accumulated). That's why it's so terribly jammed.

There is Metrolink as an alternative, but if you live in the San Gabriel Valley (west of El Monte and east of Cal State LA) then you pretty much have to take the freeway. There are no Metrolink stops there. Of course, you could always take the bus, but the San Gabriel Valley typically gets the worst of the worst when it comes to LA buses.

Take a look for instance at the I-10 east of Los Angeles.

It stretches for about 60 miles between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Over 2 million people live less than 3 miles from this freeway. (i have just calculated that), and Los Angeles isn't even taken into account. Let's say 900,000 of them has a job, and 90% of those use their car to get there. That are 810,000 one-way trips, or 1.62 million car trips, only for work along the I-10 corridor. You need more than 60 lanes to handle that kind of traffic. There is no way any freeway system can handle that properly, so people seek alternatives, trains, cycling, different routes, working at home, different commute times, etc. That's in a nutshell why the LA Freeway system is terribly jammed.

Other calculation:

There are 1.337.706 housing units in Los Angeles. A typical Dutch kind of suburban area generates about 6 car trips per household daily (official figures for traffic analysts). I guess this isn't that much different in Los Angeles. That are over 8 million car trips daily. Let's say 25% of those trips involve a freeway. That are 2 million car trips on a freeway daily. That kind of traffic requires 80 lanes. There is nowhere near that amount of lanes in Los Angeles (accumulated). That's why it's so terribly jammed.

There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not enough up to speed to discuss this in great detail any more, but there are huge variations in car travel per capita between American cities. LA is often held up as a prototype of urban sprawl, but in terms of vehicle travel per capita it's a veritable model of sustainablity compared to Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and some others.

A few years ago I served as a citizen member of a planning task force for our local MPO, and I remember a graph that showed the projected increase in per capita vehicle miles traveled for Atlanta and various peer cities (actually, the ones whose MPO's had bothered to present projected per capita car travel growth at the time). The good news was that Atlanta's was projected to stop increasing in the not-too-distant future. The bad news was that that was because non of the peer cities would reach Atlanta's current level of per capita car travel within the planning horizon.

Take a look for instance at the I-10 east of Los Angeles.

It stretches for about 60 miles between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Over 2 million people live less than 3 miles from this freeway. (i have just calculated that), and Los Angeles isn't even taken into account. Let's say 900,000 of them has a job, and 90% of those use their car to get there. That are 810,000 one-way trips, or 1.62 million car trips, only for work along the I-10 corridor. You need more than 60 lanes to handle that kind of traffic. There is no way any freeway system can handle that properly, so people seek alternatives, trains, cycling, different routes, working at home, different commute times, etc. That's in a nutshell why the LA Freeway system is terribly jammed.

Other calculation:

There are 1.337.706 housing units in Los Angeles. A typical Dutch kind of suburban area generates about 6 car trips per household daily (official figures for traffic analysts). I guess this isn't that much different in Los Angeles. That are over 8 million car trips daily. Let's say 25% of those trips involve a freeway. That are 2 million car trips on a freeway daily. That kind of traffic requires 80 lanes. There is nowhere near that amount of lanes in Los Angeles (accumulated). That's why it's so terribly jammed.

The freeway system in the LA basin handles aprox 50% of the regions traffic at any given time I believe.

I have used the HOV lanes alot in LA mainly on the 105,405,605 and 91.
The big hassle is when entering the freeway in peak periods and crossing 4 to 6 lanes to get into the HOV lane. Once youre in it you cruise along pretty nicely usually.

^^Not even close to true on many freeways. I mean about the smooth sailing on the HOV lanes. During rush hour those things are as packed as any other lane. Of course, it depends on the freeway. Like I mentioned before, the lanes on the 210 are just as slow if not slower than the mixed-flow lanes. The HOV lanes on the 134 however are terrific.

Uff, here in Spain traffic jams are usual when holidays are starting/ending and in the mornings (afternoon Fridays are also hard because the weekends) you can find heavy traffic in some roads at the afternoon when people go back to their homes.

I live in a village at 50 km of my University (it's near Madrid), and I usually find heavy traffic going there (about 45 mins) and some traffic jams of 2 or 3 kms. I can come back in 30 mins. Going in/out of my University's city usually takes 10-15 mins (because the university is on the center of the city). I remember a morning in which a (ONLY ONE) train station was closed because a suicide about 2 hours and it took me more than 1 hour and a half to arrive. I think you need more urgently a public transportation service!!

See u! :P

Uff, here in Spain traffic jams are usual when holidays are starting/ending and in the mornings (afternoon Fridays are also hard because the weekends) you can find heavy traffic in some roads at the afternoon when people go back to their homes.

I live in a village at 50 km of my University (it's near Madrid), and I usually find heavy traffic going there (about 45 mins) and some traffic jams of 2 or 3 kms. I can come back in 30 mins. Going in/out of my University's city usually takes 10-15 mins (because the university is on the center of the city). I remember a morning in which a (ONLY ONE) train station was closed because a suicide about 2 hours and it took me more than 1 hour and a half to arrive. I think you need more urgently a public transportation service!!

See u! :P

Hm I don't believe I ever saw an High Occupancy Vehicle lane in Europe. Do they exist?

^^ Yes, they exists but they are different, they are called "Carriles VAO" (VAO = Vehículos de Alta Ocupación = High Occupancy Vehicles, Carriles = Lanes), inside those lanes, only cars with more than x persons can fo through them (the number of persons is indicated at the entrance), we also have "Carriles BUS-VAO" that also allows buses.

I know one BUS-VAO in the A-6 from Madrid to Las Rozas (Spain) there is a separate roadway in the middle of the motorway (with 2 lanes and links with tunnels). Only cars with 2 or more persons and buses can go through this roadway. This roadway can be used in both directions (but not at the same time, both lanes always have the same direction and their direction is choosen according to the traffic).

You can see that on google maps (http://maps.google.es/maps?f=q&hl=es&geocode=&q=A-6&sll=40.029847,-3.906403&sspn=0.110412,0.32135&ie=UTF8&ll=40.46634,-3.807777&spn=0.001714,0.006781&t=h&z=18) (the motorway have new asphalt on this photo excepting the BUS-VAO lanes that looks gray in the middle of the motorway)

http://autoviaa50.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/busvao.jpg

^^ Yes, they exists but they are different, they are called "Carriles VAO" (VAO = Vehículos de Alta Ocupación = High Occupancy Vehicles, Carriles = Lanes), inside those lanes, only cars with more than x persons can fo through them (the number of persons is indicated at the entrance), we also have "Carriles BUS-VAO" that also allows buses.

I know one BUS-VAO in the A-6 from Madrid to Las Rozas (Spain) there is a separate roadway in the middle of the motorway (with 2 lanes and links with tunnels). Only cars with 2 or more persons and buses can go through this roadway. This roadway can be used in both directions (but not at the same time, both lanes always have the same direction and their direction is choosen according to the traffic).

You can see that on google maps (http://maps.google.es/maps?f=q&hl=es&geocode=&q=A-6&sll=40.029847,-3.906403&sspn=0.110412,0.32135&ie=UTF8&ll=40.46634,-3.807777&spn=0.001714,0.006781&t=h&z=18) (the motorway have new asphalt on this photo excepting the BUS-VAO lanes that looks gray in the middle of the motorway)

http://autoviaa50.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/busvao.jpg

That sounds like the same exact system that we have in the states. We have HOV lanes that require 2+ people or 3+ people depending on the highway volume, and on some highways there's also a reversible HOV lane in between the two directions and the direction changes according to time.

Also, Washington DOT recently introduced the HOT lane. I know it has been used in some other states before. Basically, HOT lanes are HOVs with the added capability of allowing single-occupant vehicles to pay their way into the HOT lane. The fare adjusts according to traffic volume. However, there are designated entrances so vehicles can only enter/exit lanes at certain areas.

Hm I don't believe I ever saw an High Occupancy Vehicle lane in Europe. Do they exist?

The Netherlands also used to have a carpool lane, at the A1 motorway between interchange Muiderberg and interchange Diemen (just east of Amsterdam). It didn't worked out, and they turned it into a reversible lane for peak hours. Personally, i don't think it would work very good in the Netherlands, because we are not one continuous urban area like Los Angeles or any large US metropolitan Area.

Californians seem to love it though, i have never seen a state that has used HOV lanes as much as California.

Also, Washington DOT recently introduced the HOT lane. I know it has been used in some other states before. Basically, HOT lanes are HOVs with the added capability of allowing single-occupant vehicles to pay their way into the HOT lane. The fare adjusts according to traffic volume. However, there are designated entrances so vehicles can only enter/exit lanes at certain areas.

DC or state?

What about the 91 express lanes east of Anaheim? They have a fare that is also adjustable to traffic volumes. (the most expensive time can be as high as 10 dollars for 10 miles! :nuts:)

The only reason California loves their HOV lanes is because they are freeway widening. At least in Los Angeles, mixed-flow lanes cannot be converted to carpool lanes. This was after a situation in the 70s when two lanes of the Santa Monica Freeway were taken away and designated as HOV lanes. People complained, and they got their way. Now there are no carpool lanes on that freeway and any plan to add carpool lanes to a freeway costs about $1 billion. But people here still think that freeway widening will work and that Metro is just good insofar as it decreases road traffic.

DC or state?

What about the 91 express lanes east of Anaheim? They have a fare that is also adjustable to traffic volumes. (the most expensive time can be as high as 10 dollars for 10 miles! :nuts:)

washington state, my bad. I haven't heard about California's system yet, I do know that HOT lanes have been used in many states. I'm not surprised that California uses it. I believe in Washington the fares can range from 1 to 8 dollars. I am not sure about how they measure out the distance.

washington state, my bad. I haven't heard about California's system yet, I do know that HOT lanes have been used in many states. I'm not surprised that California uses it. I believe in Washington the fares can range from 1 to 8 dollars. I am not sure about how they measure out the distance.

Never knew that existed! I remember using the HOV lane in Houston, easy way to escape the traffic jam :lol:

Never knew that existed! I remember using the HOV lane in Houston, easy way to escape the traffic jam :lol:

I don't believe Houston has as many cars traveling on highways as California are there?

Looking east from Seattle toward Mercer Island across Lake Washington. Floating sections are approx. 1 mile in length (5000-5500 ft; 1500m) and overall length (with approaches) is about 8000 feet/1.5 miles (2500m).

http://cpm-seattle.smugmug.com/photos/270200451_Z2Cmf-X2.jpg

I don't believe Houston has as many cars traveling on highways as California are there?

I'm not sure what the density is but Houston has frontage/side roads unlike Los Angeles' freeways. If you get caught in a traffic jam in Los Angeles you're stuck. No cutting across the grass or exiting to the frontage road like you can in Houston.

Here in Austin Interstate 35 has 3 main lanes in each direction but if you really look at it the roadway essentially has 6 lanes in each direction because there is also a significant amount of traffic using the frontage roads. Still there are traffic jams but I think frontage roads really help in easing traffic congestion.


^^

I also love that picture of Interstate 90 cpm_seattle. I guess that lake or river doesn't get much boat traffic.

I'm not sure what the density is but Houston has frontage/side roads unlike Los Angeles' freeways. If you get caught in a traffic jam in Los Angeles you're stuck. No cutting across the grass or exiting to the frontage road like you can in Houston.

Here in Austin Interstate 35 has 3 main lanes in each direction but if you really look at it the roadway essentially has 6 lanes in each direction because there is also a significant amount of traffic using the frontage roads. Still there are traffic jams but I think frontage roads really help in easing traffic congestion.


^^

I also love that picture of Interstate 90 cpm_seattle. I guess that lake or river doesn't get much boat traffic.

The floating bridge goes across a lake. There was a previous floating bridge that sank in the 80s, it was replaced with the new bigger bridge that has a mainline and a reversible carpool lanes. Up North, there is another floating bridge, about 40 years old, on State Route 520 and there are plans to replace it.

Now what I like about the I-90 bridge is that when there's little traffic in the express HOV lanes in the center roadway, people keep right except to pass, which makes it a truly wonderful experience to travel through it. A little disappointed how the concrete isn't completely smooth though. Sure it's a comfortable ride, but the surface tends to get "wavy" with minor vibrations.

Looking east from Seattle toward Mercer Island across Lake Washington. Floating sections are approx. 1 mile in length (5000-5500 ft; 1500m) and overall length (with approaches) is about 8000 feet/1.5 miles (2500m).

http://cpm-seattle.smugmug.com/photos/270200451_Z2Cmf-X2.jpg

How this bridge works in bad weather? Are there ever high waves?
Do they use some flexible pavement so it doesn't crack when bridge moves?

This floating bridge is located on a large inland lake (Lake washington) a few miles in from the ocean (pugeot sound). Although the lake gets choppy at times it experiences nowhere near the harsh weather the ocean gets , so designing a bridge tolerant to the hydraulic challenges of a lake (waves, currents etc.) isn't as overdaunting as a challenge as it would be compared to designing the same structure over an exposed sea. The expansion joints are somewhat like a knuckle on your finger where a certain tolerance of movement is allowed on any axis. We have a similar bridge here in kelowna BC that is a floating bridge. It is currently under construction, due to open august 2008. It is 5 lanes and piered in certain spots....but even the piers float on a floating bed.

I also love that picture of Interstate 90 cpm_seattle. I guess that lake or river doesn't get much boat traffic.

Most of the boat traffic passes thru on the other side of Mercer Island which you are looking at in the picture. The bridge is higher and is short pass to the mainland.

I have a question about Alaska. Is it possible to drive from Fairbanks to Valdez in one day? And from Valdez to Anchorage?

I think that is possible, however i think it can take you all day, especially when you want to stop sometimes to check out the stunning scenery.

it makes me to sing; "country rooooads, take me hooome, to the place, i belooong" :)

...West Virginia... :D

The floating bridge goes across a lake. There was a previous floating bridge that sank in the 80s, it was replaced with the new bigger bridge that has a mainline and a reversible carpool lanes. Up North, there is another floating bridge, about 40 years old, on State Route 520 and there are plans to replace it.

Now what I like about the I-90 bridge is that when there's little traffic in the express HOV lanes in the center roadway, people keep right except to pass, which makes it a truly wonderful experience to travel through it. A little disappointed how the concrete isn't completely smooth though. Sure it's a comfortable ride, but the surface tends to get "wavy" with minor vibrations.


How come people stay to the right except for passing on this bridge and not on other freeways?

Has anybody who drove on Interstates lately notice a difference in lane discipline in different freeways in the same metro area? For example, people drive slow on the left on I-695, our orbital freeway and refuse to move to right most of the time yet on I-83, from Baltimore to Harrisburg, people drive fast and move to the right over 90% of the time after passing.

I-210 in California east of the 57 just has terrible drivers. Every lane there goes the same speed, it makes no sense.

Everywhere else in LA that I know of works pretty well, but when I was driving on the 210 west of the 57 everyone was really aggressive, I couldn't believe it. Every time a small opening popped up it was taken, even if that driver would go nowhere.

How come people stay to the right except for passing on this bridge and not on other freeways?

One reason is that there is less traffic. People in Seattle tend to like spacing more than keeping right. If it starts to feel a little crowded then people use the left lane. And generally, Washington freeways are pretty crowded. HOWEVER, many still do not keep right on roads that normally carry high-volume traffic, even if it's at night with a few cars. I don't know if that makes sense haha I'll try to think of a better explanation.

Also, when a couple people start doing it, others follow. When someone's in the left lane alone, I guess they must feel a little outcast so they move right to join their buddies. :lol:

Can you explain that? Sounds interesting.

Atlanta was also the result of extreme racism, most notably MARTA.

"Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta" Basically the white counties were afraid of decreasing property via "less desirables" moving in.

Atlanta was also the result of extreme racism, most notably MARTA.

"Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta" Basically the white counties were afraid of decreasing property via "less desirables" moving in.
There's a Black Fear of Whites too. It goes both ways. You think during the deepest days of White Flight that Blacks would've been welcoming of White families that "held their ground" in a given neighborhood?

I can only hope we've passed those days, and with the growing Hispanic population maybe that'll help to bring Blacks and Whites together.

Has anybody who drove on Interstates lately notice a difference in lane discipline in different freeways in the same metro area? For example, people drive slow on the left on I-695, our orbital freeway and refuse to move to right most of the time yet on I-83, from Baltimore to Harrisburg, people drive fast and move to the right over 90% of the time after passing.


I can only speak for myself- but on 695 there are times you almost don't want to get too far to the right because you'll be "stuck" there as no one in the left will allow you back over to pass. That's happened to me quite a bit. I believe in lane discipline as much as the next guy, but it's a two-way street. If the faster drivers never let anyone in for a few seconds, people are not going to want to give up their lane.

It's because MD drivers are dumb as shit.

There's a Black Fear of Whites too. It goes both ways. You think during the deepest days of White Flight that Blacks would've been welcoming of White families that "held their ground" in a given neighborhood?

I can only hope we've passed those days, and with the growing Hispanic population maybe that'll help to bring Blacks and Whites together.

Well blacks had a reason to be afraid of whites- centuries of slavery and violent racism will make a race distrustful of another.

I have a question about Alaska. Is it possible to drive from Fairbanks to Valdez in one day? And from Valdez to Anchorage?

It can be done but frankly there's just too much to see to want to do it. Fairbanks-Delta Junction-Glennallan-Valdez is 361 miles. you then have to backtrack to Glennallan to get to Anchorage. Valdez-Anchorage is 263 miles.
Big state, big distances !
And no divided highways. Its all wide 2 lane.

It can be done but frankly there's just too much to see to want to do it. Fairbanks-Delta Junction-Glennallan-Valdez is 361 miles. you then have to backtrack to Glennallan to get to Anchorage. Valdez-Anchorage is 263 miles.
Big state, big distances !
And no divided highways. Its all wide 2 lane.
Well, it is four lanes interstate compatible (unmarked I-routes, in fact) in the Anchorage area, mainly the Glenn Highway (AK 1) from Palmer to Anchorage and then the Seward Highway (AK 1) through part of the city.

Mike

It can be done but frankly there's just too much to see to want to do it. Fairbanks-Delta Junction-Glennallan-Valdez is 361 miles. you then have to backtrack to Glennallan to get to Anchorage. Valdez-Anchorage is 263 miles.
Big state, big distances !
And no divided highways. Its all wide 2 lane.

I just won't have enought time to see everything. I will spend a few days in Denali, and I will visit the arctic circle on the Dalton. Furthermore, I will also be a few days in Valdez.
Anyway, I have seen a few pics of Alaskan highways. Because it is so quiet, there will be no traffic jams, so I'm not to worried about that. I'm also aware of the distances, they are really huge!

Well, it is four lanes interstate compatible (unmarked I-routes, in fact) in the Anchorage area, mainly the Glenn Highway (AK 1) from Palmer to Anchorage and then the Seward Highway (AK 1) through part of the city.

Mike

Mike. you are right of course. I had forgotten about the main roads out of Anchorage. Thanks.

Yeah, I know. I hope to make a one-day organized tour from Fairbanks to the Arctic Circle (with most of the rented cars it's not allowed to go on unpaved roads, unless you hire a 4×4). If I do that, I will of course try to make some nice pics.

Timon that clause about not driving on unpaved roads is almost entirely ignored in AK. you wouldnt get anywhere. hell visiting friends just off the main highways involves driving on gravel roads.
A few years ago I drove Fairbanks-Tok-Dawson City in a rented WHITE Ford Escort. The section from Tok to Boundary on the Yukon border is mostly
unpaved and the soil is a rich red colour.It rained most of the way for good measure. By the time I reached Dawson City the car was red up to the tops of the windows ! Luckily, I found a car wash in Dawson !
Verso the Dalton is paved I believe as far as the Yukon river bridge.

^^Anyway, I didn't really have plans to leave the main routes. I will take a bus into Denali, and I will go on a van tour on the Dalton (which is btw, 100% unpaved, as far as I know), and I will make a small trip on the Prince William Sound near Valdez by boat, if that is possible, so I don't need to break that rule (btw, I will drive in a Chevrolet Aveo)

So can anyone say for sure whether or not the U.S. as a whole has bad highways?

Also, this is a picture of I-90 in central Washington:
http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/state_information/02_pavement_types/I-90_3.jpg

and
http://www.interstate-guide.com/images051/i-082_wt_07.jpg

US has great highway system. Of course there are worse (north east) and better (south east) parts but most countries have some worse highways.

Comparing with Europe driving in US is real fun. Roads are generally wider, people drive slower and less hectic (apart from few metropolitan areas like NYC or LA).
By comparison roads in UK are so narrow, you almost touch mirrors when passing other vehicles. Only motorways and some dual carriageway roads are wide enough.
I don't even mention expensive French or Italian motorways and narrow roads apart from motorways.

Comparing with Europe driving in US is real fun.
Let's say it is a very subjective opinion ;) Long distances and wide roadways do not necessarily mean "fun to drive".

Or being stuck behind some dumbass doing 55mph or less on the left who refuses to move over.

Let's say it is a very subjective opinion ;) Long distances and wide roadways do not necessarily mean "fun to drive".

I think driving on the Autobahn is more fun than any road in the U.S. Of course, I'm talking about when the Autobahn has relatively low traffic.

Anyways, aren't there states that made it illegal to stay in the passing lane? I know Washington has repeatedly tried to pass the proposal but failed. Damn politicians...

Here is an excerpt from Washington law, created in 1986:

(2) Upon all roadways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except (a) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, (b) when traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow, (c) when moving left to allow traffic to merge, or (d) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit, or into a private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted. On any such roadway, a vehicle or combination over ten thousand pounds shall be driven only in the right-hand lane except under the conditions enumerated in (a) through (d) of this subsection.

(4) It is a traffic infraction to drive continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic.

The law does not specifically state that it is illegal to drive in the left lane. In fact, it says it is only an infraction when it impedes the flow of other traffic. So yes doing 55 on the left can get you a ticket. However, it is not illegal to drive on the left lane when the other lanes are wide open.

Shows the stupidity of American politicians.

I think driving on the Autobahn is more fun than any road in the U.S. Of course, I'm talking about when the Autobahn has relatively low traffic.

Low traffic on German highways it means almost never ;)
I really don't understand all this fuzz about Autobahns. Some of them mostly renovated stretches in east Germany are great but most of the older ones (and there are plenty of them) have just two lanes in each direction,
Exits are every mile which are mostly design that you have to slow to 30km/h to be able to take them safely.
Many Motorways junction are just cloverleaf.
Trucks because of strict regulation are painfully slow and there are plenty of them.
In my opinion British motorways have much better standard. Most of them have three lanes in each direction, better profiled junctions and so on.
So if you think that driving German Autobahns is fun I propose British Motorways. Problem is that both countries have serious problem with congestion.
In US congestion mostly applies to urban areas. In Germany even relatively rural motorways carry heavy traffic. Of course there are few exception but I really prefer good Interstate than most of autobahns.

Low traffic on German highways it means almost never ;)
I really don't understand all this fuzz about Autobahns. Some of them mostly renovated stretches in east Germany are great but most of the older ones (and there are plenty of them) have just two lanes in each direction,
Exits are every mile which are mostly design that you have to slow to 30km/h to be able to take them safely.
Many Motorways junction are just cloverleaf.
Trucks because of strict regulation are painfully slow and there are plenty of them.
In my opinion British motorways have much better standard. Most of them have three lanes in each direction, better profiled junctions and so on.
So if you think that driving German Autobahns is fun I propose British Motorways. Problem is that both countries have serious problem with congestion.
In US congestion mostly applies to urban areas. In Germany even relatively rural motorways carry heavy traffic. Of course there are few exception but I really prefer good Interstate than most of autobahns.

Yup notice I said "of course I'm talking about when the Autobahn has relatively low traffic." When it does have low traffic (mainly only possible in rural areas, with no speed limits for some parts) then Autobahn is beyond the driving experience of any interstate. Bigger isn't always better. In some areas, I think the interstates are very badly configured. Exits on the left, cloverleaf exchanges, short distances between exits, onramps before a freeway-freeway interchange, etc.

previous thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Eisenhower_Interstate_System.svg/600px-Eisenhower_Interstate_System.svg.png

New thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=604931)

This one will be closed because of it's size. (over 1000 posts). Further discussions can be continued in the new thread.

By KOMO Staff

http://media.komotv.com/images/080408_variable_speed_limit.jpg

SEATTLE -- Big changes are ahead on Interstate 5 in Seattle.

The Department of Transportation is planning to put in variable speed signs along the roadway which means depending on traffic flow, the signs will drop the speed limit from 60 mph to 30.

Seattle could become the first in the country to use the new speed signs which are slated to be up and running by late next year, according to the DOT. The idea came from Europe, where some countries have been using them since the 1980s.

After the new signs are installed, the speed limit could change as often as every hour. The DOT says the flexibility will help ease congestion and prevent accidents when the Alaskan Way Viaduct is taken down.

Traffic engineers also say varying the speed limit will help traffic flow better, even if it means drivers have to slow down to 30 mph.

"When you try to put too much traffic all at once through a congested area, it really brings things to a halt," said engineer Patty Rubstell. "So when you can manage traffic more efficiently and bring them in slower, you can get more through."

The signs will be installed only in the northbound lanes between Boeing Field and the I-90 interchange. The DOT plans to install 12 to 16 signs along the stretch of the roadway heading into Seattle.

The cost of the project is $25 million, making it a tough sell for some drivers.

"Slowing the traffic down to 30 is precisely the reason I sometimes take side roads, because traffic is already slowed down to 30 mph," said driver Nick Huntington.

"It seems necessary to them (officials)," said driver Steve Massee. "Every year I get property tax increases. Now I know where the money goes."

The DOT believes it's money well spent. They hope drivers will agree once they see the benefits first-hand.

"It is a lot of money, but it's a lot of signs," said Rubstell "It's new technology that needs to go in and it's a complex area through Seattle."

Highway engineers plan to implement variable speed limits to the 405 interchange with I-5 in Tukwila as well as in Lynnwood.

^^ About time. They should have these variable speed signs on all highways in the US and Canada.

I don't see the point of variable speed signs. It's a freeway and they should just raise all speed limits to 85mph for cars and trucks. Rural freeways should have no speed limit for cars/light trucks and 85mph for heavy trucks.

60mph is way too slow for a freeway in my opinion.

I don't see the point of variable speed signs. It's a freeway and they should just raise all speed limits to 85mph for cars and trucks. Rural freeways should have no speed limit for cars/light trucks and 85mph for heavy trucks.

60mph is way too slow for a freeway in my opinion.

I agree, these shouldn't be used to control congestion, but should instead be used for weather-related issues/other cautions only. The argument they have is to bring traffic in slower so cars don't pile up quickly. Well if the speed limit was raised, they could get traffic through faster too. I think this is money going to waste. It's a good concept, but a bad execution.

^^
The faster traffic goes, the faster it enters congestion, the harder it brakes, the bigger the jam......

^^ By that rationale, we should just sit at home all day,lol.

Anyhow, I don't know if the benefits justify the cost. I would think that the traffic flow would dictate speed limits anyhow, unless they use it in a precautionary means, which would piss me off.

If the road slowed down to 30, I might as well take other roads.

We use the system in the Netherlands very extensive, and with good results. It's a way to control a traffic jam, and warning upcoming traffic that a traffic jam is ahead, resulting in fewer accidents, which eventually worsen the T-jam.

Sometimes, it's better to have a variable speed limit, what is often see in Germany, is, that in otherwise quiet freeways, which sometimes have heavy traffic, some people still try to drive 160km/h in busy traffic. With variable speed limits, this kind of traffic jam/sluggish traffic encouraging behaviour can be avoided.

The traffic flow is the best when people drive more or less the same speed.

http://media.komotv.com/images/080408_variable_speed_limit.jpg

^^ Will they use a European style for speed limit signs? Would be awesome. On mountain stretches of I-90 they already have variable speed limits, but those are just textual signs saying "Speed limit XX", and they only depend on weather conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc)

http://webpages.csus.edu/~om37/pics/highways/variable_speed_limit1.jpg

I think that slowing down traffic on a motorway when approaching a traffic congestion could be done by displaying this sign http://z.about.com/d/german/1/0/W/H/vz124.jpg, and not by changing the speed limit.

I don't see the point of variable speed signs. It's a freeway and they should just raise all speed limits to 85mph for cars and trucks. Rural freeways should have no speed limit for cars/light trucks and 85mph for heavy trucks.

60mph is way too slow for a freeway in my opinion.

With gasoline and diesel hitting records daily, I don't see this ever happening.

In fact, I think if these records continue in the future, the opposite will happen, like it did in the seventies. I believe that, if gas ever hits $4 or so, the government will lower speed limits.

I heard something here in my state about a state senator pushing to lower the speed limit back to 55 mph (~90 km/h). Until the late 1990s, this was the speed limit in Connecticut, one of the lowest in the country. The bill died, but I think as gas prices continue to rise, these bills will be more common in the future.

BTW: I noticed that truck drivers here in Connecticut are driving a lot slower than they used to before. Then again...they are trying to conserve cost. Some stations are selling diesel close to $4.40/gal ($1.16/liter) now. :shocked:

I think that slowing down traffic on a motorway when approaching a traffic congestion could be done by displaying this sign http://z.about.com/d/german/1/0/W/H/vz124.jpg, and not by changing the speed limit.

I think seeing a sea of bright red brake lights works well for me. It would be redundant if there was a sign noting congestion ahead. Going into San Antonio on south Interstate 35 there is an electronic sign that flashes "congestion ahead" and it does nothing for you because as you're slowing down seeing that sign flashing you think to yourself "no shit, thanks for the reminder!!!"

With gasoline and diesel hitting records daily, I don't see this ever happening.

In fact, I think if these records continue in the future, the opposite will happen, like it did in the seventies. I believe that, if gas ever hits $4 or so, the government will lower speed limits.

I heard something here in my state about a state senator pushing to lower the speed limit back to 55 mph (~90 km/h). Until the late 1990s, this was the speed limit in Connecticut, one of the lowest in the country. The bill died, but I think as gas prices continue to rise, these bills will be more common in the future.

BTW: I noticed that truck drivers here in Connecticut are driving a lot slower than they used to before. Then again...they are trying to conserve cost. Some stations are selling diesel close to $4.40/gal ($1.16/liter) now. :shocked:

I think lower speed limits will be costly for everyone because more people would be pulled over. I find it sad when a state of the art Interstate has the same speed limit as a farm road or a city street. Some freeways in San Antonio have a speed limit of 50mph but who in the hell would drive 50mph on a freeway? As for car efficiency I don't think because a car is driving slower it's more efficient. Cars differ in their speed vs. fuel efficiency.

Even with the way gas prices are these days I still drive over the speed limit when I feel like it. Seeing a 55 speed limit sign out in the desert would do absolutely nothing more than frustrate me. If I want to burn more gas driving faster I'd rather be the judge of that, not the U.S. or state government.

I would like speed limits to go up too, however, I don't see it happening now of all times.

I would like speed limits to go up too, however, I don't see it happening now of all times.

Amen, I think we should just follow Germany and have a recommended speed limit.

But then, the U.S. drivers ed program is such a joke I don't think high speeds will be safe for everyone. Get the grannies out of the passing lane first, then we can start talking about raising limits.

I think seeing a sea of bright red brake lights works well for me. It would be redundant if there was a sign noting congestion ahead. Going into San Antonio on south Interstate 35 there is an electronic sign that flashes "congestion ahead" and it does nothing for you because as you're slowing down seeing that sign flashing you think to yourself "no shit, thanks for the reminder!!!"



I think lower speed limits will be costly for everyone because more people would be pulled over. I find it sad when a state of the art Interstate has the same speed limit as a farm road or a city street. Some freeways in San Antonio have a speed limit of 50mph but who in the hell would drive 50mph on a freeway? As for car efficiency I don't think because a car is driving slower it's more efficient. Cars differ in their speed vs. fuel efficiency.

Even with the way gas prices are these days I still drive over the speed limit when I feel like it. Seeing a 55 speed limit sign out in the desert would do absolutely nothing more than frustrate me. If I want to burn more gas driving faster I'd rather be the judge of that, not the U.S. or state government.


No one is forcing you to go the speed limit. But if you are caught going over it, then you deserve a punishment. Go ahead and be an idiot and burn more fuel, no one is stopping you.

And yes, engines burn more gas at higher speeds, so driving faster increases fuel consumption. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Freeways have more cars using them and thus have greater congestion, meaning vehicles cannot drive at 90 mph all the time on them.

And the signs warning of congestion often are placed in advance of the actual bottleneck to warn motorists so they don't have to slam on their breaks and endanger the flow of traffic.

"It seems necessary to them (officials)," said driver Steve Massee. "Every year I get property tax increases. Now I know where the money goes."



That guy is a fucking retard. Property taxes don't pay for projects on state and federal highways, fuel taxes do.

That guy is a fucking retard. Property taxes don't pay for projects on state and federal highways, fuel taxes do.

Haha I didn't notice that in the article. I think I've mentioned this before though. Washington State taxes itself on construction projects. So the gas tax dollars that are used to fund construction projects are actually taxed, and the tax goes to other general funds not related to transportation, like schools, healthcare, police/fire, etc. Some people don't support this (republicans), but the democrats are actually fighting to keep this "double-tax." What a waste of fuel tax...

I think seeing a sea of bright red brake lights works well for me. It would be redundant if there was a sign noting congestion ahead. Going into San Antonio on south Interstate 35 there is an electronic sign that flashes "congestion ahead" and it does nothing for you because as you're slowing down seeing that sign flashing you think to yourself "no shit, thanks for the reminder!!!"
I can't believe you have never experienced a situation where you bump into an unexpected traffic jam and have to use emergency braking not to slam into a car in front of you. In California it happened quite often. "Sea of red light" may not be enough to warn you that you have to start braking RIGHT NOW, and a lot of rear-end collisions happen because people underestimate the speed difference between them and a traffic jam ahead. In Germany, for instance, those who spot traffic jam early turn on their emergency lights to warn vehicles behind to be prepared to slow down or stop. I do it regularly, but in the USA I have seen others doing it only 3 times in 7 years.

As for the warning sign, like hoosier said, it would be displayed ahead of the congestion and would show an approximate distance to it.

No one is forcing you to go the speed limit. But if you are caught going over it, then you deserve a punishment. Go ahead and be an idiot and burn more fuel, no one is stopping you.

And yes, engines burn more gas at higher speeds, so driving faster increases fuel consumption. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Freeways have more cars using them and thus have greater congestion, meaning vehicles cannot drive at 90 mph all the time on them.

And the signs warning of congestion often are placed in advance of the actual bottleneck to warn motorists so they don't have to slam on their breaks and endanger the flow of traffic.

We waste lot of gas anyway.

BTW: I noticed that truck drivers here in Connecticut are driving a lot slower than they used to before. Then again...they are trying to conserve cost. Some stations are selling diesel close to $4.40/gal ($1.16/liter) now. :shocked:


Netherlands:

Diesel: $ 1.86/liter -> $ 7 gallon
Gas: $ 2.4/liter -> $ 9.1/gallon

You guys still have a long way to go :D

And nobody in the Netherlands is driving slower or less to compensate for high fuel prices.

BTW: I noticed that truck drivers here in Connecticut are driving a lot slower than they used to before. Then again...they are trying to conserve cost. Some stations are selling diesel close to $4.40/gal ($1.16/liter) now. :shocked:


Netherlands:

Diesel: $ 1.86/liter -> $ 7 gallon
Gas: $ 2.4/liter -> $ 9.1/gallon

You guys still have a long way to go :D

And nobody in the Netherlands is driving slower or less to compensate for high fuel prices.

^^
It's a far cry from 8 years ago when petrol (in the US) was 1/4 of the price as in Holland. Proportionately the increases in the US have been far higher than in Europe.

LOL. 8 years ago, you could have filled a car for less than $20!

Now, it would cost almost 50 dollars.

Increased speed limit means more maintenance, and the gas taxes aren't high enough for that. It'll never happen unless we change our thinking in this country.

That guy is a fucking retard. Property taxes don't pay for projects on state and federal highways, fuel taxes do.



Gas tax only pays for %60 of the interstate system, it is not completely paid for by user fees. Even then they still want to raise the federal tax $.40 per gallon to pay for deferred maintenance.

Seeing how the majority of the US population is against new petrol taxes, I think the alternative would be introducing vignettes or other methods of payment.

I don't see the use why normal cars need 3L engines anyway. They only consume more fuel. I have a 1.4 L hatchback, and you can drive perfectly fine with that. If you want more power, you can get a 1.8 or 2 liter engine, but ofcourse, bigger engines are available too.

If i check a car sales site, i see the average Buick has a 3.8 L engine. Older type Cadillacs even have a 4.5 L engine, or above. Chrysler is doing a bit better with an average 2.7 L engine. Older Fords also have a 4.0 L engine.

These are usually sedans or small SUV's. I mean, what's the use of putting a 3.8 Liter engine in a sedan?

If you drive cars with a smaller engine, say somewhere between 1.3 and 2.0, you can perhaps save half the costs of fueling, without having much difference in driving on the freeway or urban roads.

I don't see the use why normal cars need 3L engines anyway. They only consume more fuel. I have a 1.4 L hatchback, and you can drive perfectly fine with that. If you want more power, you can get a 1.8 or 2 liter engine, but ofcourse, bigger engines are available too.

If i check a car sales site, i see the average Buick has a 3.8 L engine. Older type Cadillacs even have a 4.5 L engine, or above. Chrysler is doing a bit better with an average 2.7 L engine. Older Fords also have a 4.0 L engine.

These are usually sedans or small SUV's. I mean, what's the use of putting a 3.8 Liter engine in a sedan?

If you drive cars with a smaller engine, say somewhere between 1.3 and 2.0, you can perhaps save half the costs of fueling, without having much difference in driving on the freeway or urban roads.

A 2.0L Turbo Diesel VW is suh-weet with crazy gas mileage :) Automakers are starting to notice that bigger isn't always better now. I believe GM's Cadillac CTS does not offer a V8, but only a V6 that has the performance of a V8. To be specific, it's a 3.6L Direct Injection V6 that produces 304 horsepower. Of course that is one of the higher end vehicles and I believe Cadillac is making the right decision by not offering a V8. Lower-end vehicles like GM's redesigned Chevy Malibu offers a 2.4L 4-cylinder with 169 hp. I say that's sufficient for everyday driving.

169 hp is still a lot. I have a 65 hp car, and have no problem getting around with traffic. However, it's not a very fast car, and i rather have a 80/90 hp car. I refueled today, and i did 35 miles on one gallon of petrol. How about that. :)

Chris got a point - no sedans need an engine larger than 2 litres. I used to have a 1.3L hatchback, and although its speedometer ended at 140 km/h, it could easily drive faster than that.

Chris got a point - no sedans need an engine larger than 2 litres. I used to have a 1.3L hatchback, and although its speedometer ended at 140 km/h, it could easily drive faster than that.

How does it do on hills and snow?

How does it do on hills and snow?
I don't know about the snow because there was no snow in California :D As for the hills (mountains really), it had enough power (65 hp) to get from Sacramento to Reno via Donner Pass (2,203 m) in exactly the same time as my current car (145hp).

Seeing how the majority of the US population is against new petrol taxes, I think the alternative would be introducing vignettes or other methods of payment.

Here, our fuel taxes are going up in July...the sales tax of fuel is going up from 7% to 7.5%. Not much of a difference (just two more cents), but the public really can't do much about it. The government won't be shelving it because they would lose almost $25 million from this, and our budget surplus is shrinking.

Connecticut will have a total fuel tax of 64.3 cents/gal. Not much compared to most places in the world, but it may be the highest in the nation come July. Surprisingly, our gas prices are not the highest (although among the highest in the East Coast and over 25 cents higher than Massachusetts)...so this time around, it's not the taxes that's making prices go up for once

I don't see the use why normal cars need 3L engines anyway. They only consume more fuel. I have a 1.4 L hatchback, and you can drive perfectly fine with that. If you want more power, you can get a 1.8 or 2 liter engine, but ofcourse, bigger engines are available too.

If i check a car sales site, i see the average Buick has a 3.8 L engine. Older type Cadillacs even have a 4.5 L engine, or above. Chrysler is doing a bit better with an average 2.7 L engine. Older Fords also have a 4.0 L engine.

These are usually sedans or small SUV's. I mean, what's the use of putting a 3.8 Liter engine in a sedan?

If you drive cars with a smaller engine, say somewhere between 1.3 and 2.0, you can perhaps save half the costs of fueling, without having much difference in driving on the freeway or urban roads.






Bigger engines are supposed to help men get laid by more women and hotter women. All a man really needs to get around these days is a small motor bike or hatchback car but to really impress the ladies he'd rather get a 12 cylinder 6.0 L vehicle that roars and rumbles and has all the comforts of home inside.

Humans like to have power in their hands although it doesn't make sense to have it all the time. Cost saving and fuel efficiency is not sexy.


Lame but efficient:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/xmoped1.jpg
http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/x336bt.jpg


Cool but wasteful is the name of the game:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/xAstonMartinV12Vanquishwallpapers2.jpg
http://uploader.ws/upload/200804/x0302_10z2003_Ford_ExcursionFront_Driver_Side.jpg

^ Wow. Do people still think driving an Excursion is cool?

I'd hate to be driving a Smart and getting into an accident with a Tahoe/Excursion...Well I guess the speed limit here would be beneficial to my safety if I were in the Smart...

Well, a Smart is completely the opposite of an SUV, like black and white. There is a whole grey area inbetween. Like, sedans, hatchbacks, stationwagons, MPV's, etc.

I would never drive in a Smart, indeed too dangerous in an accident, especially with trucks.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2370620500_f69d95f588_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/2191359495_28f5ec70c7_b.jpg

http://eecue.com/img/images_pic-large-28774-Griffith_Park_Fire__Downtown_LA_and_101.jpg

Pretty large Pano, i think it's the 605 in the center.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2279203544_cba225309d_o.jpg

105/110 interchange
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2259461771_1c2d234946_o.jpg

110 near downtown
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2346045614_400fa31b72_b.jpg

That last picture is not near downtown, it is downtown.

And that pano pic really focuses on on the 210 and the 2. It's kinda hard to make out the other freeways there.

And that pano pic really focuses on on the 210 and the 2. It's kinda hard to make out the other freeways there.

Alright, i already had that feeling that the freeway was too close to downtown (the 605 is further east).

I-12 during hurricane Katrina:
http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/8033788.jpg

The East LA Interchange has 444,400 vehicles a day. (5 directions accumulated divided by 2.5)

Latest 405 traffic volume is still 390,000 vehicles a day, with a peak of 417,000 vehicles a day. Peak hour has 28,000 vehicles, which is 14 lanes filled to capacity (the 405 has 12 lanes there). In 2003, that was 382,000 vehicles a day, an increase of 8,000 vehicles in 4 years or an average of 2,000 vehicles a year, which is only 0.5%, very low.

What is responsible for such low increase in traffic along that corridor?

What is responsible for such low increase in traffic along that corridor?
I would think that it is because it is operating at its throughput limit.

Mike

Indeed, and the area almost completely build-up, so there's no room for new development which generates new traffic. Orange county is also quite full. 390,000 vehicles on 12 lanes means the freeway is operating 15 hours a day at it's capacity, which is extremely high.

The East LA Interchange has 444,400 vehicles a day. (5 directions accumulated divided by 2.5)

Latest 405 traffic volume is still 390,000 vehicles a day, with a peak of 417,000 vehicles a day. Peak hour has 28,000 vehicles, which is 14 lanes filled to capacity (the 405 has 12 lanes there). In 2003, that was 382,000 vehicles a day, an increase of 8,000 vehicles in 4 years or an average of 2,000 vehicles a year, which is only 0.5%, very low.

That's interesting. You can only fit so many cars which is pretty much what mgk920 pointed out. I wonder what the real solution is then. There has to be a way to eliminate traffic in big cities and make it so that everyone can get to their destinations quickly and efficiently.

It seems kind of hard to believe to me that with all the new development in the Antelope Valley that traffic on the 405 would not be increasing too much. Most of those people are commuters, and they'll probably either work in the SFV, the Westside, or downtown/Hollywood. Are these people just not driving at peak hours?

^^ We're talking about the 405 section near Seal Beach here. That's pretty much too far south for commuting from the Antelope Valley or the Inland Empire.

Oh, I thought we were talking about the 405 through West LA. I don't know much about traffic down there near Seal Beach, but I've always thought that the 405 through West LA was the most congested. And now the traffic along there is going to increase with the widening from the 91 to the 101 (roughly).

The 405 in Westside and around Sepulveda Pass isn't as busy as many think, the busiest point is near Santa Monica Blvd with 308,000 AADT. The volumes around Mulholland Drive are around 270,000 - 280,000 vehicles a day. That means, the capacity is fully taken during 14 hours a day. That's still pretty much.

The problem i think with the 405 is that there are very few alternatives between the San Fernando Valley, and the suburbs up to Ventura along the 101, towards the Westside and job locations around LAX. All traffic has to cross the Santa Monica Mountains, and the only reasonable way to do that is the 405, and maybe the 101 if you need to go to downtown.

The 5 is being widened, because it has only 6 lanes, and is a major bottleneck. The problem is the connecting roads (the 10 and 91) cannot take any more traffic. There is usually a long traffic jam outbound (westbound) on the 10 from Downtown during the morning rushhour, which is quite remarkable, since most TJ's tend to be focussed towards downtown and around higher ed job locations in O.C.

San Antonio is one of the least known major cities outside the USA. It has 1.3 million inhabitants, and is located in Southern Texas.

I-10 in San Antonio
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2144317623_cf0ce63b07_b.jpg

I-410 in San Antonio

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/2145111598_89e0322ed2_b.jpg

Interchange in San Antonio
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2144314975_1d4f29ae3b_b.jpg

San Antonio is one of the least known major cities outside the USA. It has 1.3 million inhabitants, and is located in Southern Texas.


Do you mean "one of the least known major cities inside the USA"?

I said outside.

San Antonio is not well known, like New York, Los Angeles or Houston, in Europe. Maybe it's also not wellknown inside the USA as a major (pop 1,000,000+) city.

I said outside.

San Antonio is not well known, like New York, Los Angeles or Houston, in Europe. Maybe it's also not wellknown inside the USA as a major (pop 1,000,000+) city.

No, it is well known. Its NBA team, the Spurs, have won 4 championships over the past decade, and the Alamo is located in the center city, which was the site of a famous battle in the war for Texan independence.

I said outside.

San Antonio is not well known, like New York, Los Angeles or Houston, in Europe. Maybe it's also not wellknown inside the USA as a major (pop 1,000,000+) city.

Hehe, like HAWC1506, I was also confused by your introduction at first. He meant that it sounds like you are saying that San Antonio is not inside the United States :) "... by people outside the USA" would be clearer :)

No, it is well known. Its NBA team, the Spurs, have won 4 championships over the past decade, and the Alamo is located in the center city, which was the site of a famous battle in the war for Texan independence.


And might I ad, from the pictures, it looks like a fabulous place to live.:lol:

Hehe, like HAWC1506, I was also confused by your introduction at first. He meant that it sounds like you are saying that San Antonio is not inside the United States :) "... by people outside the USA" would be clearer :)

Haha now I don't feel like a loner. Glad we got that figured out haha :)

For anyone interested, I-95 is being widened here in Delaware between exits 4 (Delaware Route 1) and 5 (I-295) from 4 lanes to 5 lanes. The widening is to account for the massive amount of traffic where I-95 and I-295 (New Jersey Turnpike traffic) split or merge, depending on the direction. Commuters from places like Bear and Middletown take Delaware Route 1 up to I-95, then take I-95 into Wilmington, and so the combination of inter-state traffic and commuters has made this project the #1 priority road project in Delaware.

Any plans to extend that SR-1 tollway further south than Dover?

Any plans to extend that SR-1 tollway further south than Dover?
(fantasy mode = ON)
Heck, why not build a bridge-tunnel crossing between Lewes, DE and Cape May, NJ?
(fantasy mode = OFF)

Mike

(fantasy mode = ON)
Heck, why not build a bridge-tunnel crossing between Lewes, DE and Cape May, NJ?
(fantasy mode = OFF)

Mike

In your Dreams Gov. Corzine wants to close 8 state Parks and sell the states major tollways to Major Coporate owners to close the budget gap. I don't he'll ive want to think on spending between 1 to 9 billion on a bridge-tunnel between Delaware & Southern New Jersey.

He was kidding, I believe.

Any plans to extend that SR-1 tollway further south than Dover?

Yes, although no formal plans for construction have been made so far. It shouldn't be too hard to do, since Route 1 from Dover AFB to Milford is a surface highway with very few cross-streets; the only problem is giving access to other roads for the few people that live on Route 1. These plans really hinge on the building of the Route 113 expressway from Milford south to the maryland line, though.

I actually mentioned this Route 113 project in the non-Interstate thread a couple weeks ago. It wouldn't be an Interstate or anything, so I put it in there with other non-Interstate expressway projects in Delaware.

I should clarify that when I said that I-95 is being expanded from 4 to 5 lanes, I meant that it was adding that lane in both directions. It will go from a total of 8 lanes to 10 lanes.

Some traffic reports are quite funny.

US 101 North at Highland Av
King Size Mattress and Victorian Style Chair on lane #3, 4

Well I guess it's better than the house that was on the 101 for about a month.

San Antonio is one of the least known major cities outside the USA. It has 1.3 million inhabitants, and is located in Southern Texas.

I-10 in San Antonio
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2144317623_cf0ce63b07_b.jpg


This is one hell ugly cowboy freeway :D

I have to admit too, Texas highways are fugly.

All those stores on the side of the highway is not a good look.

It's those idiotic roads running right besides the highways called service roads (or access roads, feeders, wherever you are). They attract businesses along the highway and the results are what you see right there. There are some nice freeways and they are fun to drive on.:banana:But I hate those service roads.

The only positive that I can think of regarding those roads is that if there was an accident, I jump the median, drive down the access road and ride it until I see the highway cleared up and jump back on the freeway at the next entrance ramp. Other than that......

Frontage Road ;)

Frontage Road ;)

Feeder road, damn it!

I have to agree that most Texas freeways are ugly, because of their massiveness. However, they seems better maintained than the Californian ones.

Frontage Road ;)

Thattttt's the other word I was looking for lol. But I don't think the Texas freeways are ugly in so much that the area surrounding them actually are. It's fun driving down the area between the loop and Houston intercontinental. But the area surrounding the freeways are terrible and Houston is desperately trying to change that.

This is what i call a "Texan Traffic Jam"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg

WTF, they all go in one direction...

Feeder road, damn it!

IMO, feeder road is to frontage road as freeway is to expressway. IOW, the highest and best type: one way, well integrated with interchange layouts, and often including free-flowing U-turn ramps. All feeder roads are frontage roads, but not all frontage roads are feeder roads.

WTF, they all go in one direction...

Hehe, evacuation of Houston during hurricane Rita. Too bad i don't know which freeway this is. (I-45?)

Looks like a typical drive on the Newhall Pass.

IMO, feeder road is to frontage road as freeway is to expressway. IOW, the highest and best type: one way, well integrated with interchange layouts, and often including free-flowing U-turn ramps. All feeder roads are frontage roads, but not all frontage roads are feeder roads.

Nah, they're all feeders in Houston. It's really just a regional terminology. In San Antonio, they're service roads, while in Dallas they're access roads. In Austin, they call them frontage roads, that's why they're signed that way.

Hehe, evacuation of Houston during hurricane Rita. Too bad i don't know which freeway this is. (I-45?)

That's I-45 at the Woodlands Parkway in The Woodlands (obviously). That shot was taken literally five miles away from my parents' house in Spring.

My cousins live in Tomball. They waited out the hurricane and nothing bad happened near them.

And nobody in the Netherlands is driving slower or less to compensate for high fuel prices.

Yeah not really, I had the worst fuel economy a few weeks ago, filled up my 50 liter tank with Shell Vpower at € 1,62 a liter (€ 81 euro total) at the German autobahn and 240 km later I was back at the gasstation to fill it up again... :nuts:

^ and i bet it was worth every penny :)

Nah, they're all feeders in Houston. It's really just a regional terminology. In San Antonio, they're service roads, while in Dallas they're access roads. In Austin, they call them frontage roads, that's why they're signed that way.



That's I-45 at the Woodlands Parkway in The Woodlands (obviously). That shot was taken literally five miles away from my parents' house in Spring.


I have a friend that lives in the Woodlands and she waited the storm out, nothing really happened to Houston though. My moms cousin came to Austin and she said it took her 48 hours to reach Austin via 290 (U.S. 290).





As for the frontage road argument I think frontage roads are great because they make the roadway more efficient and better for business. As for making the road look worse, I could say I agree to an extent but I believe freeways in a city should focus on function more than scenery. Since I've lived in Texas since I was 6 (1986) my idea of freeways include frontage roads and I think that other forms of freeways in the rest of the U.S. look weird and you're literally stuck if something happens on the mainlanes.

I was in the Los Angeles area last November and I was looking for an In-n-Out burger on IH 210 and I saw one in the distance but I already past the exit. Sadly the next exit was about 3 miles away and it wasn't easy to turn around and find out where the restaurant was. I eventually found it by guessing which surface road it could have been but if I had a Frontage road to help me out finding business would be much easier.

I also jump the median if there is an accident on the freeway. Everyone sits on the freeway while you cruise along the frontage road wasting no time. :cheers:

One thing that I *REALLY* like about how Texas does its freeways with those frontage roads (they are likely the result of the solution to the quandary of how to balance the standards of the interstate highway system with a tenet of state law that grants the owners of any and all private land unrestricted access to any rights of way that their properties front on) is that they allow the state to 'blaze' and establish a new corridor by building the frontage roads first and then adding the freeway in the middle later on whenever the traffic numbers call for it - completely neutralizing the NIMBY factor in the process.

I wish that more states would figure out that big-time advantage.

Mike

New York City is heavy with frontage roads too. This is I-278 through the South Bronx.

Unlike in Texas though, it's more because of space than convenience. Lots of homes on the sides too.

Pics from AAroads.com

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_033b_05.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_03.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_05.jpg

New York City is heavy with frontage roads too. This is I-278 through the South Bronx.

Unlike in Texas though, it's more because of space than convenience. Lots of homes on the sides too.

Pics from AAroads.com

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_033b_05.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_01.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_03.jpg

http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york200/i-278_eb_exit_034_05.jpg

Do I see people keep right except to pass? I think I do.

I'm not sure.

Do I see people keep right except to pass? I think I do.

Yeah, what an oddity. :lol: :lol:

Actually, New York drivers are the worst that I have ever seen in the US.
People don't know how to signal in that city.

Yeah, what an oddity. :lol: :lol:

Actually, New York drivers are the worst that I have ever seen in the US.
People don't know how to signal in that city.

yeah people in Washington are beginning to not signal, there's a lot of cutting in and out going on now. We've got some nice roads though, I'll take pictures when I get the chance.

Here's a few I found on google:

Rendering of I-90 after an additional HOV lane is added to the outside roadway (scheduled to be complete in 2009)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CE75E735-3AAC-4FDA-B861-B5D0BEAEB155/0/I90ShorewoodDrFutureView_510.jpg

I-90 at Columbia River
http://www.barraclou.com/photo/highway/i90_wa26_wa243.jpg

Somewhere in central Washington, not sure where, but here's a hundred miles of VERY nice pavement, smooth as silk.
http://www.freewebs.com/quadk/scan0017.jpg

Central Washington again, I might have posted this one before.
http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/state_information/02_pavement_types/I-90_3.jpg

I-90 floating bridge in Seattle
http://www.theseattletraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/floating-bridge.jpg

A project by Washington DOT in the mountain passes:

http://media.wsdot.wa.gov/asxgen/video/projects/I90/snoqualmiepasseast/project_video_2008.wmv

Overview
WSDOT will improve approximately five miles of I-90 between Hyak and Keechelus Dam. Improvements include adding an additional lane in each direction between milepost 55.1 and 59.9, extending chain on and off areas, expanding the snowshed, building new bridges over Rocky Run, Gold Creek, and Resort Creek, and adding oversized culverts at Wolfe, Resort and Townsend Creeks. WSDOT will also improve safety along I-90 by reducing sharp curves, repairing deteriorated pavement, stabilizing unstable slopes, installing avalanche fences, and connecting wildlife habitats over and under the highway.

Why is WSDOT improving I-90 from Hyak to Keechelus Dam?
The Hyak to Keechelus Dam project is the first step toward improving safety, reducing congestion, and preserving the natural environment along the I-90 corridor.

The End Result
WSDOT will increase capacity by 50% in each direction, improve safety by stabilizing slopes and straightening sharp curves. Reducing the amount of closures due to avalanches will increase the reliability of Snoqualmie Pass when the project opens to traffic in 2015.

http://www.barraclou.com/photo/highway/i90_wa26_wa243.jpg
^^ I get on I-90 at that junction to go to Seattle. Prior to that I start at the very beginning of WA-26 from Colfax. Driving 215 km on a 2x1 road is the pain in the ass, I tell you :lol: Even though the speed limit is ~100 km/h most of the time, it is hard to stick to it.

http://www.barraclou.com/photo/highway/i90_wa26_wa243.jpg
^^ I get on I-90 at that junction to go to Seattle. Prior to that I start at the very beginning of WA-26 from Colfax. Driving 215 km on a 2x1 road is the pain in the ass, I tell you :lol: Even though the speed limit is ~100 km/h most of the time, it is hard to stick to it.

Are you saying that you want to go faster? haha Most people drive about ~125-135 km/h on that stretch. Especially when there's a cop in front of you doing 135, then you can just follow it. He didn't care haha. I can tell ya, that stretch of road is so nicely built that speed limits just kill the fun.

Are you saying that you want to go faster? haha Most people drive about ~125-135 km/h on that stretch. Especially when there's a cop in front of you doing 135, then you can just follow it. He didn't care haha. I can tell ya, that stretch of road is so nicely built that speed limits just kill the fun.
Are you talking about I-90 or WA-26? If the latter - than I should assure you that it is the most boring road I have ever driven on. The average speed limit is about 100 km/h, and there is not a lot of people who drive faster than 120 km/h because highway patrol is enforcing the speed of traffic pretty aggressively. And I would NOT advise anyone to follow the cop faster than +10 km/h. It just doesn't work in this state :(

As for I-90, it is pretty nice since the speed limit is not that bad, and it is always almost empty. Plus, you get a nice scenery past Ellensburg.

Pretty cool video of the I-279 in Pittsburgh, quite some impressive infrastructure they've got over there.
77ao59lRnDg

[QUOTE=HAWC1506;20132334]Here's a few I found on google:

Rendering of I-90 after an additional HOV lane is added to the outside roadway (scheduled to be complete in 2009)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CE75E735-3AAC-4FDA-B861-B5D0BEAEB155/0/I90ShorewoodDrFutureView_510.jpg

Will those be "reversible" HOV lanes when completed? It looks like it from the rendering. If so, it will be full circle from the 1950's-60's when the old original I-90 had reversible lanes without barriers! It was a deathtrap.

Strange that the HOV concept works so well in the US. We used to have a reversible carpool lane in the 1990's on the A1 between Amsterdam and Almere, but it didn't work out, and they turned it into a regular reversible lane.

http://www.barraclou.com/photo/highway/i90_wa26_wa243.jpg
^^ I get on I-90 at that junction to go to Seattle. Prior to that I start at the very beginning of WA-26 from Colfax. Driving 215 km on a 2x1 road is the pain in the ass, I tell you :lol: Even though the speed limit is ~100 km/h most of the time, it is hard to stick to it.

What is a "2x1" road?

I think you're talking about lanes but why would there be a road with 1 lane going in one direction and 2 going the opposite?


Pretty cool video of the I-279 in Pittsburgh, quite some impressive infrastructure they've got over there.
77ao59lRnDg


Loved the video but I had to put it one mute for that awful rock music.

I like how they had to cut through and bridge over the landscape throughout the freeway. Also some interesting bridges there and the tunnel was nice as well. Great video, now I want to drive on Interstate 279.

I'm familiar with WA-26. It is two lanes, one in each direction, with perhaps a passing lane here and there. It is strictly enforced even though there is little traffic, probably has something to do with it being the main route from Seattle to Washington State University in Pullman.

2x1 = 2

So a 2 laned road in US terminology. In Europe they're usually called 2x1.

2x2 = 4

4 lane road

2x5 = 10

10 lane road

^^

I see it now. Interesting to know it's a European thing. I guess it's just one more thing I have to convert like I do with metric back to imperial so I can visualize what's really going on. :)

[QUOTE=HAWC1506;20132334]Here's a few I found on google:

Rendering of I-90 after an additional HOV lane is added to the outside roadway (scheduled to be complete in 2009)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CE75E735-3AAC-4FDA-B861-B5D0BEAEB155/0/I90ShorewoodDrFutureView_510.jpg

Will those be "reversible" HOV lanes when completed? It looks like it from the rendering. If so, it will be full circle from the 1950's-60's when the old original I-90 had reversible lanes without barriers! It was a deathtrap.

What you see in the picture is one side of the highway that travels eastbound (very left of the picture), the middle reversible carpool lanes (those are already completed), and the westbound direction (very right of the picture). The reversible carpool lanes already exist. What Washington DOT is doing is adding a non-reversible lane to the outside roadway of the eastbound and westbound direction. So the configuration before was:

3-2-3 (eastbound-reversible HOV-westbound)

In a few years, it will be:

4-2-4 (a permanent-direction HOV lane is added to each direction so drivers have access to HOV lanes at any given time, not only when the reversible lanes are open.)

Now in a few more years after that, the configuration will be:

4-light rail tracks-4. Light rail will replace the reversible center-HOV lanes.

Pretty neat stuff.

Check out this nighttime video of LA rushhour traffic
HnPI7bKoDi8&NR=1

Cool video Chris!

The video shows three interchanges, first the SR-110 / US 101 north of downtown, and they move over to the East LA Interchange southeast of downtown, and finally the I-10/I-110 interchange at the southwest corner of downtown near Staples Center

http://www.barraclou.com/photo/highway/i90_wa26_wa243.jpg
^^ I get on I-90 at that junction to go to Seattle. Prior to that I start at the very beginning of WA-26 from Colfax. Driving 215 km on a 2x1 road is the pain in the ass, I tell you :lol: Even though the speed limit is ~100 km/h most of the time, it is hard to stick to it.

Seriously, that is a beautiful picture.

Also, Chicago has frontage roads in some parts of the city as well to an extent. Same with Miami on the Palmetto (826).

^^
There are also frontage roads in Missouri as well. We call them outer roads though. I don't know if its true or not but Wikipedia says that Missouri and Texas are the only states that widely constructs frontage roads along the highways. However, I would imagine that there not as busy as the frontage roads in Texas.

Seriously, that is a beautiful picture.
A lake in a desert? Well, there is some charm in these landscapes, but like I mentioned, there are much better scenery 70-100 km to the West on I-90.

A lake in a desert? Well, there is some charm in these landscapes, but like I mentioned, there are much better scenery 70-100 km to the West on I-90.

That would be Columbia river. In person, the scenery is actually really beautiful.

Actually it is Lake Wanapum created on the Columbia River by the Wanapum dam.

Actually it is Lake Wanapum created on the Columbia River by the Wanapum dam.

Yes that, mah bad haha. Hey how do you guys put videos on posts?

I emailed the Texas DOT to obtain traffic counts, since they don't publish that on their website directly, I had to email them.

Hope to get an answer soon! :)

I emailed the Texas DOT to obtain traffic counts, since they don't publish that on their website directly, I had to email them.

Hope to get an answer soon! :)

Do you mean traffic count on a certain highway or a statewide traffic count?

Statewide, i got an answer, quite fast, they have some kind of interactive traffic map :)

Highest AADT i've seen so far was 302,000 at the I-45 in northern Houston.

Statewide, i got an answer, quite fast, they have some kind of interactive traffic map :)

Highest AADT i've seen so far was 302,000 at the I-45 in northern Houston.

Check the US 59 Southwest Freeway in Houston. I've heard that it has the highest AADT for any non-multiplexed highway in the United States

^^ 330.000 vehicles a day.

I believe that's the highest in Texas, and also one of the highest in the United States.

I think Houstons network is somewhat underdeveloped, so all traffic concentrates on the few massive inbound freeways.

^^ 330.000 vehicles a day.

I believe that's the highest in Texas, and also one of the highest in the United States.

I think Houstons network is somewhat underdeveloped, so all traffic concentrates on the few massive inbound freeways.

While I respect your obvious education on the matters of infrastructure, I do have to argue that looking at a map of houston, it certainly has no shortage of highways and the marginal utility of the creation of more highways would, just form a land use efficiency perspective, be quite detrimental to the area.

On a side note, I do have to ask what is the motivation behind a fellow dutchy being so enthralled by American infrastructure, as you know I am not really in love with the life style the highways and automobile created, nor do I hope my mother's country envies that lifestyle.

Houston has an excessively large metropolitan area of 5.6 million inhabitants spread out over large distances. Each freeway serves hundreds of thousands of people. Besides the beltways, there are no suburb-to-suburb connections, like they have in Dallas for instance. Every freeway is littered with massive industrial and office developments.

These developments are not in favor for mass transit, since it just wouldn't be efficient unless you build a Tokyo-style rail system, which is, for Houston, out of their league. Houston has a radial system, which causes traffic to concentrate along these freeways. That's why Houston has excessively high numbers of traffic compared to other metropolitan area's of similar size. It's even more busy than Chicago or Philadelphia.

There are approximatly 1.9 million households in Houston. An average household can produce between 5 - 7 vehicle movements per day. That multiplies to 9.5 to 13.3 million vehicle movements per day in metro Houston. Ofcourse, not all of them use the freeway, but it is still possible to have massive amount of traffic on the freeways.

A little traffic comparison. Times: 7.45 and 8.20

Dallas - Fort Worth
http://i25.tinypic.com/n4czu9.jpg http://i29.tinypic.com/24yakpy.jpg

Houston
http://i32.tinypic.com/34sm8pf.jpg http://i32.tinypic.com/2zz5czt.jpg

San Antonio
http://i29.tinypic.com/w2p160.jpg http://i28.tinypic.com/24liipg.jpg

Austin
http://i32.tinypic.com/11ils7m.jpg http://i26.tinypic.com/35avtqa.jpg

Houston has an excessively large metropolitan area of 5.6 million inhabitants spread out over large distances. Each freeway serves hundreds of thousands of people. Besides the beltways, there are no suburb-to-suburb connections, like they have in Dallas for instance. Every freeway is littered with massive industrial and office developments.

These developments are not in favor for mass transit, since it just wouldn't be efficient unless you build a Tokyo-style rail system, which is, for Houston, out of their league. Houston has a radial system, which causes traffic to concentrate along these freeways. That's why Houston has excessively high numbers of traffic compared to other metropolitan area's of similar size. It's even more busy than Chicago or Philadelphia.

There are approximatly 1.9 million households in Houston. An average household can produce between 5 - 7 vehicle movements per day. That multiplies to 9.5 to 13.3 million vehicle movements per day in metro Houston. Ofcourse, not all of them use the freeway, but it is still possible to have massive amount of traffic on the freeways.

Commuter rail with park and rides are the only way for these suburbs to have any option besides driving.

As for those traffic levels, they look like heaven compared to what I've seen for LA freeways during afternoon rush hour.

Houston has probably the MOST developed freeway network of any metro over 2 million people when taking population/lane-mile ratios into account. The only drawback is that for such a sprawled out metro area, it's radial in nature rather than oriented on a grid. But multiple beltways and a well-developed arterial system can help mitigate those shortcomings, something Houston has which Atlanta, a comparably-sized metro, does not.

A TONEP (Trace of never executed plan :D) in Hartford:

Interstate 84 & State Route 9.
http://i30.tinypic.com/wisthg.jpg

Test, post don't seem to appear.

Edit: That's better :)

In the above pic, only the east-west and the lanes to the south are actually in use. The north-south lanes and connectors are abandoned

@ Chris: I go down that interchange almost every day! :D

It's a shame that we were not ever able to use that entire monster interchange because Route 9 north of I-84 (which was originally supposed to be the I-291 beltway) was canceled.

No, it is well known. Its NBA team, the Spurs, have won 4 championships over the past decade, and the Alamo is located in the center city, which was the site of a famous battle in the war for Texan independence.

I'd imagine that South Americans and Europeans are very familar with the Spurs and the great international talent they have.

In your Dreams Gov. Corzine wants to close 8 state Parks and sell the states major tollways to Major Coporate owners to close the budget gap. I don't he'll ive want to think on spending between 1 to 9 billion on a bridge-tunnel between Delaware & Southern New Jersey.

So basically New Jersey's Gov't is broke and indebt'd to the unions(among other organized groups)?

I have to agree that most Texas freeways are ugly, because of their massiveness. However, they seems better maintained than the Californian ones.

I actually like frontage roads. Allows for one to count as many chain stores and restaurants you can see. It's a game really, and one that shows the kind of retail/service industry capitalism that's alive and well in the Lonestar State.

This is what i call a "Texan Traffic Jam"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg

Even with the freeways that Houston has, it was still a mess trying to evacuate from that Hurricane Rita(which didn't even end up hitting Houston).

http://www.freewebs.com/quadk/scan0017.jpg

^That pic is not in Washington. It's Arizona(look at the state shield on the green sign in the background).

I think Dallas has a way better freeway network than Houston...

Netherlands:

Diesel: $ 1.86/liter -> $ 7 gallon
Gas: $ 2.4/liter -> $ 9.1/gallon

You guys still have a long way to go :D

And nobody in the Netherlands is driving slower or less to compensate for high fuel prices.

But you guys don't have to drive long distances do you???

Even with the freeways that Houston has, it was still a mess trying to evacuate from that Hurricane Rita(which didn't even end up hitting Houston).

It's impossible to evacuate 2.5 million people in a few hours on a handful of freeways. If you do that in like 5 hours, you need 225 outbound lanes.

How will we ever evacuate the Randstad when the dikes are breaking or a tsunami is coming? :D

We don't, everybody drowns.

^^Ok, but what happens if for whatever reason the whole Randstad has to be evacuated? All routes going east (A4-A10/A9-A1, A15 and the A20/A12-A12) would be completely stuck. This would take weeks.

I think 7 motorways can be considered outbound from the Randstad to safer areas. All of these have 2x2 lanes at crucial points, and even with all lanes outbound, it would take 60 hours to evacuate all vehicles. So if an immediate major life threatening disaster happens, you're screwed if you live in the Randstad.

However, i think Long Island is screwed too when an evacuation is necessary. And what about New York, Baltimore, Washington, Miami, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Houston, Bay Area etc.

Let's try again
I love this American Signs. I don't understand why people complain about signs in US. I never had problems with navigation. I can't say the same about France for example.
http://images25.fotosik.pl/214/af581d9b992727a2.jpg
http://images33.fotosik.pl/257/400860608538d0f8.jpg
http://images34.fotosik.pl/257/99b0bede17615a33.jpg
http://images34.fotosik.pl/257/7de98485e8eef918.jpg
This is bridge in Charleston SC
http://images23.fotosik.pl/215/eec0fd70b3073d78.jpg
http://images28.fotosik.pl/216/cda34c8ff7026543.jpg
Blue Ridge Parkway
http://images24.fotosik.pl/216/f8c045c373c4f8c2.jpg
http://images24.fotosik.pl/216/777f9dfca0b12f1e.jpg
Amish Country Highways
http://images34.fotosik.pl/257/3087f71c3c5adc7a.jpg
http://images34.fotosik.pl/257/e2a93dacfc3ce452.jpg
Somewhere, perfect surface
http://images32.fotosik.pl/256/70126c28b6204bc1.jpg
Fuel easy to find, food as well.
http://images25.fotosik.pl/214/fcbe57aee2bdd084med.jpg

However, i think Long Island is screwed too when an evacuation is necessary. And what about New York, Baltimore, Washington, Miami, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Houston, Bay Area etc.

I think that Long Island is the most screwed, the only way is to get through the congestion of New York City. They are like on a cul-de-sac. This is why they should have built a bridge to Connecticut when they could, now it's too expensive.

US signage is pretty clear if you understand the system, especially the cardinal directions. We don't have that in Europe, because our highway system is far less of a grid, so people always complain about the bad signage in the US.

But you guys don't have to drive long distances do you???We feel so much better after this statement. I don't think a Texan drives to New York every day.

Well, the US has large rural area's, so distances are generally longer. In the Netherlands, 60 miles is seen as a long distance for instance. If i say to someone i drive 200 miles in one day, they tell me i'm crazy. Most Europeans only drive long distances twice a year; back and forth to their holiday.

I know, but still, that doesn't make me feel any better about fuel prices. You can make tens of thousands of miles over your small country, which actually is the case. I empty my tank in a couple of weeks. :(

When I was in Canada in 1998 we would visit some friends somewhere in a small town in BC. We were driving to them from Vancouver. I still remember me asking how long it was. The one who was driving us answered: not a lot, only 500 km. See how relative distances are.

Me too, i drive 15,500 miles private and 6,000 miles for work per year. A lot of Dutchmen drive over 15,000 miles per year. The average commuting distance by car is 12 miles. A commute of 25 miles is seen as far here.

When I was in Canada in 1998 we would visit some friends somewhere in a small town in BC. We were driving to them from Vancouver. I still remember me asking how long it was. The one who was driving us answered: not a lot, only 500 km. See how relative distances are.

After 500 km (300 mi) I say: more! :lol: I don't like more than 600 mi a day though.

I have done super drives before in a day, solo, like

LA-Seattle: 1130mi / 1818km
LA-Portland: 960mi / 1545km
Chicago-Cape Cod: about 1000mi / 1610 km

that was when I was younger, but I recently did
LA-Las Cruces (New Mexico) in a day: 760mi / 1223km

LA-Seattle in a day? Are you crazy or what? How can someone drive for that long?

But you guys don't have to drive long distances do you???

But I bet that their Public Transport infrastructure is:
- more convenient to use (better hours, frequency, more days)
- safer to use
- gets you to where you want to go more

LA-Seattle in a day? Are you crazy or what? How can someone drive for that long?

It can be done in a day if you define a day as 24 hours. If you averaged 70 mph (optimistic speed) you could conceivably do it in about 15 and a half hours. Rand McNally estimates more like 17+ hours.

But think about it, you've got to refuel atleast two or three times, you've got to get through major metro areas like Sacramento and Portland, and you've got to deal with major speed enforcement in all three states. I suppose you could do like that crazy astronaut lady and wear diapers so could save some time there.

Strange HOV sign, never seen this type before. Location: US 59 in Houston.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/3821256.jpg

^^Am I seeing it right? "Trucks over 1 ton prohibited". Hell, it's hard to find a compact lighter than a tone, not mentioning a truck :nuts:

We feel so much better after this statement. I don't think a Texan drives to New York every day.


Well,a driver in Dallas probably has to drive many more miles to work than one in Amsterdam,Vilnius,etc.