Best Highways (EU vs USA) [Archive]

lindenthaler

May 21st, 2005, 11:15 PM

Hmm...I could see both buses and trains being used for developing suburbs, but for existing communities it would be too much hassle with little gain. I'm just imagining it right now in my community; as it is right now, most trains run from the interior of Chicago through different neighborhoods and into suburbs, almost moving in a linear fashion . To imagine the trains then crossing into other towns is kinda scary :) I mean, not only would there be a lot of demolition and diverting of roads and construction but I wonder how the people who spent anywhere from $600,000 to a few million on a home would feel and do in order to stop such programs. So then you go into legal battles and such that make projects more costly and are time consuming. And even if the trains are built, very few people need to go from one suburb to the next. The only reasons would be shopping (you'd need to carry all your bags onto the train) and visiting friends and family (but that is flawed as well because of how spread out the 'burbs are).

But the bus implementation is an easier solution that is somewhat already there but just lacks many stops and stations.

Now that is understandable. It was mistake of city planers, because in america main idea was that everyone could use cars, to choose their ways in their freedom, in principe it s very cool idea (car driving in US is part of american dream !!), but what ll happen when everyone get a car ? Planers didn't thought about it. In eur. countries train (tram) systems are for decades there, it s typical here, first build a suburban railway line than suburbs around it, or existing suburbs allready have empty gaps or canals for future railway lines there. Everyone knows that trams have very long history in europe so i dont need to write much about it now :) I can maybe say that usage of public transport and cars in europe are really fifty-fifty (i own a car, but i use railway and public transport by far much more than car), while in USA it s higher value for cars.

spyguy

May 21st, 2005, 11:38 PM

Yeah, that's true. In the US, railways were what established major cities while the suburbs were only created around the end of WWII, when Americans were finally able to purchase automobiles and move into more spacious houses (returning GIs + baby boom) instead of cramped apartments, eventually leading to the demise of the American city in the 1950s. Since less and less people were living in the cities at that time, trains were setup for the commuters who'd work in the city in the morning and return home in the suburbs at night.

eusebius

May 21st, 2005, 11:58 PM

Autobahnen in NL:

http://www.burow3.nl/luchtswart/utrecht/image/03.11.586_1.a4.jpg
Utrecht

http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/0203/uitv-necro3.jpg
Den Haag

http://www.leaderplus.nl/Nederlands/gebieden/veluwe/images/HR-OMSLAG%20FOTO.jpg
Arnhem

asws

May 22nd, 2005, 02:19 AM

Here in Canada, the freeze thaw tempratures really decimate the roads, and a fresh pavement may last only 4-5 years without it start to crack. It is also expensive to pave all of the land Canada has.

Here is a example of a freshly paved road (Alberta)
http://albertaroads.homestead.com/transcanada/hwy1/0104/11hwy1ab1_0104.jpg

After only about 10-12 years (Alberta)
http://albertaroads.homestead.com/transcanada/hwy1/0803/4hwy1ab1_0803.jpg

As you can see, in Canada, and in the northern US states, it is quite expensive to maintain the roads at 'freshly paven' status, and that is obvously expressed in the quality of the interstates, and the Canadian Major Highways. (we have much smaller population density, and lower taxes)

CAESARS-PALACe

May 22nd, 2005, 03:00 AM

In Rome there is this big elevated highway that runs through a part of the city :runaway: , it will be demolished within a few months and replaced with a beautiful urban tunnel :)

Tangenziale Est :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/a/a20.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/a/a21.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/a/a28.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/b/b09.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c05.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c07.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c11.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c12.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c20.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/c/c28.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immfoto/a/a27.jpg

There were some proposals to find another purpose for "the monster", some were quite interesting :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/ambro/ambro01.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/ambro/ambro02.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/ambro/ambro12.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/ambro/ambro04.jpg

this one proposed making a garden of the highway :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/basel/basel03.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/basel/basel04.jpg

making a building out of it :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/bondi/bondi01.jpg

constructing houses on it :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/marchei/marchei_03.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/marchei/marchei_05.jpg

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/marchei/marchei_07.jpg

another integrated building :

http://www.amicidelmostro.org/m_immag/data/immprog/elash/elash05.jpg

Jonesy55

May 22nd, 2005, 02:01 PM

I like this motorway in Osaka, Japan which actually goes through the middle of a building!

http://www.tkolar.com/travel/Asia/Japan/Osaka/freeway_throughpass.jpg

el tico

May 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM

That last picture is cool, I had never actually seen a road or freeway go through a building.

The Texas highways shown prevously look like a rollercoaster.

(Off Topic)
What I hate most is when people complain about roads in bad shape, in places like Central America, where tropical climate (heavy rain, humidity, worse than winter) cracks and does damage to the roads. With that kind of climate you can't just fix a road every 2 years, you gotta do it at least twice a year, which is very costly.

DaDvD

May 22nd, 2005, 09:22 PM

Nothing special...see...we have clusters aswell!
Yeah men!
This is the intersection between the A-3 motorway (Madrid-Valencia) and the M-50 circunvalation motorway in Madrid. It has 28 structures in 3 different levels, one of Europe's biggest (as it's said in the Spanish Ministry of Fomento page).
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/M-50A-3.jpg

rantanamo

May 23rd, 2005, 11:06 PM

Are you comparing that to the big interchanges in the US?

CborG

May 24th, 2005, 02:15 AM

Biggest dutch intersection, Ridderster:

North:

http://212.11.63.101/mapsgene/dm/NRSKiZOTIn7cU7w7LuV0WLLbT0Y8Q6dhXbmV=i7R23BjF2VkkT=ws2kruX2RdtbDzWjFlKZInm_me38ndgx6ZWdP_QDHyt8pqX3SfkdA1sEnxHcLM7cFa0fACDMOztWtiSq09l9Z4Rp8s0nBnLni4XnqrG0R6WqY6tq0FCzlFqQ8vbH87CmOPsM41kcW==h48AzlkB9WW5x8MxnCyg31YYP3SfBx4pBNZOgKJuvhjR1y1ET4yEwW6izPHbJuU

South:

http://212.11.63.101/mapsgene/dm/04HxLC18k51AGMeKGVfTCVuyT2oRYTXwkf4Qtd2M=yEeAxQ_wfttI8ks2fif8xwsk_OvH3RSaoUlg41aLmHWBdF-y-1cMa6c8IJfXnW_AcG3eGcztCS-0rS0ILB7UjZ3m=_F5BVtk4lVyTWUhk8DZYX7VGnukEzvkGzEntCcIY-_T5Zy_i1k1pmxonfv9fUS_DAEg63Rj-L4=kaH-mZV0XDY-krLiLsjZyj52EGos1T2xOOzIugR0LcLAFEeP

Total overview:

http://212.11.63.101/mapsgene/dm/bfvXvmckjvSNsCqkOE2zIgEsjtNfZ9EYDsu_Cw-gHIXxTG_2F=CCbR3B-vg8hMx2OQy1RmCIynRIF3lNALQswxeKKaV71ufrSdLT3_oVbOF8C0BGgnkbnfCxP6-FMkV=72Y2reVvHm=qNG8n47JMHFU=9y9QTGrVKn3vNMGvzLkegqRRzootZ9yHd8ckPpcVqu4TKXtrV8SzpO3Ke58h5kopcY=beSbAqbTusG8xmrChhofCmFhR_mSL

FM 2258

May 24th, 2005, 02:42 AM

Yeah men!
This is the intersection between the A-3 motorway (Madrid-Valencia) and the M-50 circunvalation motorway in Madrid. It has 28 structures in 3 different levels, one of Europe's biggest (as it's said in the Spanish Ministry of Fomento page).
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/M-50A-3.jpg

That thing has too many loops unlike the intersections we have in Texas like the US 75, IH 635 intersection in Dallas, the IH 35E/Texas 121 north of Dallas, the many ones in Houston that don't require you to make an unconfortable, dizzying loop to change highways.

I honestly think the 635/US75 in Dallas will be the most impressive interesection in the U.S. Looking at it you have direct connectors to each highway plus an intersection for the Frontage Roads, Toll Lanes and HOV lanes in the middle.

The U.S. Beats Europe in highways hands down plus I like "whistling" concrete much better than asphalt.

eddyk

May 24th, 2005, 02:45 AM

http://img91.echo.cx/img91/8743/motorway11fz.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img272.echo.cx/img272/2558/motorway25wz.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Random Motorway Madness

sonysnob

May 24th, 2005, 04:25 AM

The U.S. Beats Europe in highways hands down plus I like "whistling" concrete much better than asphalt.

I agree that the US has more 'impressive' freeway to freeway interchanges then Europe does, however as far as freeway condition goes, Europe wins hands down. I haven't extensively traveled many European Countries, though have never traveled along a European Freeway that is anywhere near the deplorable condition that some some northeastern US freeways are in.

I'd recommend a jaunt around Michigan to see some of the bumpier US interstates around.

Cheers!

elmwood

May 24th, 2005, 05:42 AM

A few thoughts on why European limited access highways seem better than their US counterparts:

* Europeans countries, in general, have a milder climate than the US and Canada. Freeze-thaw cycles and frost heave aren't as much of a problem in Europe as in NA.

* High gasoline taxes in Europe are often earmarked towards road construction and maintenance. In the US, revenue from gasoline taxes are usually lumped in the general fund.

* European countries, as a whole, started building expressways later than the US, learned from its mistakes, and improved on things such as signage and pavement markings.

* Roads in the US are usually built by private construction companies -- those that won the construction contract by submitting the lowest cost bid. Sometimes, you get what you pay for, even with standards in place; roads may get poured without a proper inspection of the subgrade, for instance.

* European countries have stricter roadside beauty legislation than the US Visual clutter from billboards and high-rise business signs is a problem in much of the US, especially Southern states. Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and Missouri are the worst, IMHO.

http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data/504/medium/1amarillo_05.jpg

Add some Georgia-style double-decker billboards and 150' tall Cracker Barrel signs to those otherwise pretty European highway scenes, and you'll probably not think they were so hot.

Let's make that Euro-road look a bit more like what you'd see outside of Atlanta.

http://img170.echo.cx/img170/6963/euro6mt.jpg

* Large states with a very low population (New Mexico, Wymoning, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, etc) have to pay for maintenance of their roads. Let's look at Wyoming: 5.04 people per square mile (just a bit above Mongolia, at 4.6 per square mile). 914 miles (about 1,500 kilometers) of Interstate -- all of it grade-separated and limited access, excepting the freakish I-180 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-180_wy.html) -- serves a population of 493,782 residents - just a little more than Luxembourg (462,690). Don't forget that Wyoming has perhaps the harshest climate in the US; frigid cold (-30C and lower) in the winter, broiling (35C and higher) in the summer.

Think Luxembourg could afford to maintain 1,500 km of four lane dual carriageway limited access highway at Autobahn standards with a climate where temperatures vary about 70 degrees celsius between winter and summer? Wyoming does. Somehow.

sbarn

May 24th, 2005, 08:40 AM

Yeah men!
This is the intersection between the A-3 motorway (Madrid-Valencia) and the M-50 circunvalation motorway in Madrid. It has 28 structures in 3 different levels, one of Europe's biggest (as it's said in the Spanish Ministry of Fomento page).
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/M-50A-3.jpg

I think the U.S. wins hands down when it comes to interchanges--

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/kvue_com_files/freeway2.jpg

When it comes to freeway surface quality, I think Europe is superior. Keep in mind however, that there are many freeways/highways outside of the northeast and the midwest... I think the most impressive freeways in the U.S. are in the south and west.

DiggerD21

May 24th, 2005, 09:16 AM

But you have to remember, the US highway system dates back to Truman and started in the 1950s with Eisenhower and only "finished" in the 1990s.

The first german "Autobahn" (freeway) was built in 1921 (the Avus in Berlin). The first german Autobahn with a certain standard was built in 1932 - one year before Hitler came to power - between Cologne and Bonn (it is today the A 555). In the 30's the Nazis built an extensive freeway network.

rantanamo

May 24th, 2005, 10:32 AM

zergcerebrates

May 24th, 2005, 11:17 AM

European highways are better than American ones. Theres nothing special going on with American freeways besides its just big and with tons of overpasses which actually kinda distracting and destroys the ambience of the city. European highways are very smooth since they use asphalt. Here in Los Angeles we use concrete on most of our highways and in other States too which the ride can be quite harsh and its never as smooth as asphalt roads. To me the smoothness of the ride is more important than the looks of the freeway, on some LA freeways you can actually crack a rim take 710,10,and 110 freeways for example and after all these years they never really repave or repair the freeways its just horrible.

rantanamo

May 24th, 2005, 11:37 AM

There's nothing special about the European Highways shows. There are many American highways that use asphalt as well. It is an environment and climate choice that many places simply would be foolish to choose one for just smoothness or for the sake of looks. Besides a well maintained highway will be smooth regardless of material, and there are concrete types that are flexible and smooth just like asphalt. Its all about what your DOT chooses to implement. Some states and Tolling authorities are much, much better at this.

To me, proper design and safety are more important than smoothness. The geometric design and safety features of the European highways shown are downright scary. With the amount of comparative driving in the US, there would be probably twice as many fatalities with some of those road designs. There is so much wrong and scary in some of those pics that I don't know where to start.

Having said that, this is nothing more than another generalizing post. You cannot group all highways in Europe vs all those in America. There are highways in the US that go through beautiful countryside, many times even more spectacular than pics shown here, and there are super urban highways built to suit there environment and many of great aesthetic just like I'm sure you'll find in Europe. What one can say is that driving IS living in the US and the highways reflect that need. It is almost a joke to compare modern urban expressways of the U.S. to the poorly designed 50s style highways shown in many of these pics. How does an entity get away with some of those on ramp and exit angles. How do they get away with large exposed light poles. I remember seeing a video of two CLKs racing and one flipping into the base of 2 or 3 light poles. Absolutely crazy!!!

rocky

May 24th, 2005, 11:38 AM

rantanamo

May 24th, 2005, 11:40 AM

That was done in Boston with the Big Dig. I believe Seattle and Portland have done so, as will Dallas with Woodall Rodgers Freeway.

FM 2258

May 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM

mlm

May 24th, 2005, 03:08 PM

Okay so some people think the American are way better and some the European. It's actually kind of a stupid comparison, since there are so many different ways highwyas are made in Europe (and maybe in the States too).

I agree with some Americans that the Spanish "junction" shown here looks extremly weird, and you would never find anything like that in many other European countries. I can't say I'm a huge fan of these huge junctions you in the Stetes too though. Many of them are impressive yes, but pretty they aren't. In the States I've mostly driven on highways in Georgia and Florida, and here in Europe in Denmark and Germany. To me the big difference is still the way the highways are "build into the enviroment" (and of course the extra number of lanes on the big US ones, which we don't really need). These huge pillar stacs are real eyesores to me, why not ret to make it look good?

Here's an example of how it's done in Denmark, this is the newest cloverleaf junction here. This is just before it was opened, today there are grass and plants all over the ground:

http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/imageblob/image.asp?type=image&id=75938

I know there's a lot of these in other European countries too, but atleast here you would never just see a bunch of pillars with roads upon them. I'm yet to see an American junction that are not just "placed on top of the ground". But be more than welcome to prove me wrong, I have of course not seen all US highway junctions.

To me, proper design and safety are more important than smoothness. The geometric design and safety features of the European highways shown are downright scary. With the amount of comparative driving in the US, there would be probably twice as many fatalities with some of those road designs. There is so much wrong and scary in some of those pics that I don't know where to start.Again, most of the examples shown here are surely not "typical" European. Things like that would never be allowed in my part of the world. I'll bet you that onramps, quality of the road and things like that are more safe here them on most US highways. Atleast the ones I've drivin on.

I know Denmark is not that large, and we don't have many thousand km's of highway, which of course makes it easier to keep in a quite good condition. So I guess you can considder this post "Dansih vs. US Highways" only, I wont/can't defend the other Europeans highways...

CityHai

May 24th, 2005, 04:49 PM

Germany

Still U/C

http://img187.echo.cx/img187/4765/autobahn13an.th.jpg (http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=autobahn13an.jpg)

http://img187.echo.cx/img187/5420/autobahn33en.th.jpg (http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=autobahn33en.jpg)

Ready for Traffic

http://img187.echo.cx/img187/185/autobahn26en.th.jpg (http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=autobahn26en.jpg)

Typical German highway in use

http://img187.echo.cx/img187/2408/autobahn46hx.th.jpg (http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=autobahn46hx.jpg)

http://img187.echo.cx/img187/2710/autobahn56hp.th.jpg (http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=autobahn56hp.jpg)

http://www.autobahn-online.de

edubejar

May 24th, 2005, 05:40 PM

FM 2258

May 24th, 2005, 05:51 PM

Okay so some people think the American are way better and some the European. It's actually kind of a stupid comparison, since there are so many different ways highwyas are made in Europe (and maybe in the States too).

I agree with some Americans that the Spanish "junction" shown here looks extremly weird, and you would never find anything like that in many other European countries. I can't say I'm a huge fan of these huge junctions you in the Stetes too though. Many of them are impressive yes, but pretty they aren't. In the States I've mostly driven on highways in Georgia and Florida, and here in Europe in Denmark and Germany. To me the big difference is still the way the highways are "build into the enviroment" (and of course the extra number of lanes on the big US ones, which we don't really need). These huge pillar stacs are real eyesores to me, why not ret to make it look good?

Here's an example of how it's done in Denmark, this is the newest cloverleaf junction here. This is just before it was opened, today there are grass and plants all over the ground:

http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/imageblob/image.asp?type=image&id=75938

I know there's a lot of these in other European countries too, but atleast here you would never just see a bunch of pillars with roads upon them. I'm yet to see an American junction that are not just "placed on top of the ground". But be more than welcome to prove me wrong, I have of course not seen all US highway junctions.

Again, most of the examples shown here are surely not "typical" European. Things like that would never be allowed in my part of the world. I'll bet you that onramps, quality of the road and things like that are more safe here them on most US highways. Atleast the ones I've drivin on.

I know Denmark is not that large, and we don't have many thousand km's of highway, which of course makes it easier to keep in a quite good condition. So I guess you can considder this post "Dansih vs. US Highways" only, I wont/can't defend the other Europeans highways...

Cloverleafs are an outdated form of freeway intersection in my opinion since you have to slow down to a crawl then try to accelerate back to freeway speed while others are again slowing down to a crawl for an exit. They look cool from the air but that's about it.

I would agree that they're OK for freeway intersections outside of the city where traffic is low.

EarlyBird

May 24th, 2005, 05:55 PM

A lot of the highways being shown wouldn't be allowed in some U.S. cities or states. Some of those roads are downright scary and have outdated safety designs and really poor geometrics.

How about a real modern properly designed highway complete with barrier, sufficient shoulder, super visual lighting properly placed away from traffic and correct geometrics for safer entrance/exit.

US highways wouldn't be allowed in the UK as they would be considered unsafe. High barriers cause obstruction of view on on/off ramps, leading to increased casualties, concrete surfaces increase the braking distance over asphalt and the concrete crash barriers were considered harardous here as they cause vehicles to either bounce off or flip over them due to their rigidity. The British metal crash barriers were designed to give by a few feet so that the vehicle (trucks included) would be guided along by them rather than go straight over the top or bounce off into someone else's lane. Also, any raised division in the road (either on or off) requires many metres of zig-zagged "warning" zone to alert the driver. All these safety features are missing from US roads, hence higher casualty figures.

mlm

May 24th, 2005, 06:15 PM

Cloverleafs are an outdated form of freeway intersection in my opinion since you have to slow down to a crawl then try to accelerate back to freeway speed while others are again slowing down to a crawl for an exit. They look cool from the air but that's about it.

I would agree that they're OK for freeway intersections outside of the city where traffic is low.My point wasn't really if cloverleafs are good or bad, it was rather to show an example of how new highways here are build into the enviroment, rather than just placed in stacks on top of each other, making them much more pleasant looking (IMO). And this goes for all new on/off ramps, bridgecrossings an so on here (Still talking about Denmark only). Of course this gets more difficult and expensive the wieder the highway is.

DrJoe

May 24th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Talk about unsafe, look at this autostrada pic from the first page...this is pretty brutal, what is a little 3 foot wide curb going to do.

http://www.stradeeautostrade.it/articoli/2004/quattro/16-19%20osservatorio%20anas%204/foto/foto2.jpg

salvius

May 24th, 2005, 07:14 PM

rantanamo

May 24th, 2005, 11:54 PM

US highways wouldn't be allowed in the UK as they would be considered unsafe. High barriers cause obstruction of view on on/off ramps, leading to increased casualties, concrete surfaces increase the braking distance over asphalt and the concrete crash barriers were considered harardous here as they cause vehicles to either bounce off or flip over them due to their rigidity. The British metal crash barriers were designed to give by a few feet so that the vehicle (trucks included) would be guided along by them rather than go straight over the top or bounce off into someone else's lane. Also, any raised division in the road (either on or off) requires many metres of zig-zagged "warning" zone to alert the driver. All these safety features are missing from US roads, hence higher casualty figures.

That's ridiculous. The barriers are not high and view obstructive. The metal barriers are absolutely destructive to car occupants and actually increase the speed of the car destruction. Especially if you are talking about Armaco, which is more destructive than even grouped steel tension cable. That's why this is replaced when possible in the U.S. and replace with collecting concave conrete barrier, which is actually made to keep cars from going over or bouncing too far off. Their shape actually guides the car, and most importantly on high flyovers and bridges, prevents breakthroughs not only from direct action, but as well as being the correct size and shape to actually seize a car on top.

There are warning zones on US highways. Put a tire on the outer stripe and you will understand. At splits such as on and off ramps there are also warning lights, reflectors, signage and at last water filled tanks inside of true shock obsorbant crash barriers that not only rely on the way and crumpling, but has a high tension collapseable structure.

On the myth of asphalt having a shorter breaking zone. Not true. I used to collect data for the NHTSA. There are some interesting findings on asphalt vs concrete. Both have advantages and disadvantages. On an F1 tire, yes concrete is more slippery, but not on yours. Neither is super advantageous when it comes to accidents. Example: Concrete is more dust prone, while asphalt is more prone to weepers(water seeps) and oil seperation causing low viscosity on the road surface. Concrete is more prone to chipping, while asphalt is more prone to warping and true potholes. The higher count of accidents in the U.S. is a percentage capacity, miles driven and time on the road issue. People in the U.S. drive almost everywhere. Most drive everywhere and that simply puts us at more danger.

LtBk

May 25th, 2005, 12:09 AM

rantanamo

May 25th, 2005, 12:10 AM

I gotta give credit to European highways...not only did many of them have to be built in already-built areas, often densely congested, but many had to be built underground or at very low levels as to disturb as little as possible the existent environment. Many of course, were built in rural areas, as was the case here in the US, where it is much easier to build.

One thing I certainly appreciate about European highways is how clean they tend to be compared to American ones. When I say clean, I am referring to automobile (ESPECIALLY tires) and cargo debris. Perhaps due to the much larger distances (a very big country and state can have its disadvantages!!!), you tend to see so many more cars break down here where I live, tires blow up, and cargo at back of truck pick-ups fall out. I cannot stress out how often I see dangerous debris and cargo on our Texas highways, and how I've almost had to dodge stupid "pick-up" truck drivers with cargo that would fall-out all of the sudden at 70 mph.

@Rantanamo
Perhaps you are a civil engineer specialized in highway construction, in which case I would respect your observations on highway geometrics etc, but you have to admit we US drivers are some of the most clumsy drivers in the world...you probably are right...we probably could not drive in European highways, much less dense European streets, where you have to make very fast choices as to where to turn, exit, enter etc. Remember, overall, European distances tend to be much shorter, and this is reflected in the need to be very fast and alert in Europe.

Just a former NTHSA collector. Patterns were very obvious in our data, and is why many changes to highway design has taken place. Many deaths in the past were totally preventable and why I speak on the safety of highways. There are many dangerous rural highways in the US as well. It usually comes down to cost, age or lack of data when a road is unsafe. Keeping a nice, pretty surface is only a small part of safety.

I wouldn't say U.S. drivers are bad. I would say that we are cheap. Many, many, many. Did I say many? Many accidents in the U.S. are caused by lack of car maintenance. Lack of tire pressure causing flats and easy punctures. Just buying cheap tires. Lack of oil change causing stalls. Lack of brake fluid from leaks or not replacing it, bad brake pads or just cheap ones, etc. Dirty fuel pumps causing stalls. Dry transmissions causing slow shifts. Plus the additions of many more large shipping semis on our highways are all barriers to safety more so than driver skill or speed. This was especially bad before the latest round of large shipping truck safety standards were put into place. Semis from Mexico were causing many accidents in border states from lack of maintenance. Lots of parts falling off. All of the above equal danger more than a road itself could ever do.

Newer and renovated highways are designed with great safety and modern features. It is we, that make them dangerous. Again, I think the European highways look pretty. I'm an F1 fan and I love the look of nicely ground asphalt surfaces and their contrast with the bright safety painted lines. That doesn't make them designed safely though. Remember, the US is the land of lawsuits and car accidents. Municipalities and state and national organizations do not want liability, therefore this is an element that is pretty much built out of the highways and byways.

LtBk

May 25th, 2005, 12:14 AM

Not all American drivers are bad but a great number of them don't seem to
belong on the roads or freeways. Good examples are retards doing 50 mph on left lane in 75 mph zone and not moving over. One of things i like about European drivers is that they move over when a faster car aproaches them.

Jonesy55

May 25th, 2005, 12:24 AM

the US highways have the clearest direction boards in the world, along with a well marked road, rain or shine.

I can't say i've noticed this, compared to the UK for example I didn't think US roads were better. In fact some US interstates don't actually tell you whch towns/cities you're heading towards, they just give the road number.

rantanamo

May 25th, 2005, 12:25 AM

Its probably true that many drivers are bad in the U.S. or filled with road rage and a "king of the road" sense of entitlement that causes its share of accidents as well., but a huge percentage of accidents come from other things I mentioend above. One thing I failed to mention were the large number of "sleepy" accidents. Sleep people. Get a room or pull over and rest.

- European drivers are better because of stricter rules.
- American drivers drive more, drive longer distances and for whatever reason are cheap and tend to come in a more variety of ages. We recommended max age as well as 18 year old lower age limit many times.

Jonesy55

May 25th, 2005, 12:27 AM

One thing I failed to mention were the large number of "sleepy" accidents. Sleep people. Get a room or pull over and rest.

Do you think that might be because people in the US work longer hours with less holidays :dunno:

sonysnob

May 25th, 2005, 06:01 AM

I can't say i've noticed this, compared to the UK for example I didn't think US roads were better. In fact some US interstates don't actually tell you whch towns/cities you're heading towards, they just give the road number.

I think this is due to cultural differences more than anything. In North America, freeway signage usually shows the route number, a cardinal direction, and one (or sometimes two) control cities. The route number tends to be the most prodominant and usefull info to North Americans, whereas the destinatination(s) seems to be the most usefull information to Europeans.

Personally, I prefer following numbers as apposed to cities, but then again, thats what I am used to as a North American.

Cheers!

FM 2258

May 25th, 2005, 06:43 AM

I think this is due to cultural differences more than anything. In North America, freeway signage usually shows the route number, a cardinal direction, and one (or sometimes two) control cities. The route number tends to be the most prodominant and usefull numbers to North Americans, whereas the destinatination(s) seems to be the most usefull information to Europeans.

Personally, I prefer following numbers as apposed to cities, but then again, thats what I am used to as a North American.

Cheers!

Very true. I think that's also why we have more "interesting" highway signage than other countries. Canada seems to use route signage like the U.S.

Jonesy55

May 25th, 2005, 02:45 PM

I think this is due to cultural differences more than anything. In North America, freeway signage usually shows the route number, a cardinal direction, and one (or sometimes two) control cities. The route number tends to be the most prodominant and usefull info to North Americans, whereas the destinatination(s) seems to be the most usefull information to Europeans.

Personally, I prefer following numbers as apposed to cities, but then again, thats what I am used to as a North American.

Cheers!

I think it's fine if you know the area and which roads go where but for tourists and people who don't know the area very well it's much more difficult to remember a load of road numbers to get where you want to go rather than just following the signs.

sonysnob

May 25th, 2005, 04:30 PM

I think it's fine if you know the area and which roads go where but for tourists and people who don't know the area very well it's much more difficult to remember a load of road numbers to get where you want to go rather than just following the signs.

Perhaps, though I found the opposite. North Americans are used to following the numbers. For travelers heading from Michigan to Florida for example, they just Follow I-75, it is irrelevant to them which cities they pass through along the way, therefore the 75 designation is the most important piece of information. Same goes for most tourists and travelers, when they plan there trip, (as most people do), they pull out the map, and generally just follow a number. I find it odd in Europe (particularly Germany) where signage sometimes only makes reference to communities, and not the route number, since I am accustomed (and like) following route numbers.

I alluded to earlier, I really don't think there is a better way of signing guide signage, both the Eurpean and N/A systems both work well for there respective travelers.

Cheers!

Der wahre Heino

May 25th, 2005, 10:52 PM

I find it odd in Europe (particularly Germany) where signage sometimes only makes reference to communities, and not the route number

Signs in Germany always display both route number plus destination

http://home.att.net/~texhwyman/g_imgs/overheads2.jpg

DrJoe

May 25th, 2005, 10:57 PM

Thats kind of cluttered looking though.

lindenthaler

May 25th, 2005, 11:05 PM

Thats kind of cluttered looking though.

Don't talk about things you dont know

This blue sign shows german autobahn number (in that case if u conitues driving u will stay at A1, if u go right u ll get on A28)

Some german roads are part of transeuropean highway system, so they have 2 signs, German number and European number (If u go right u ll be on A28 and E22)

And that number with yellow background shows which road you should follow to reach shown bundestraße (interstate) (If u go right after some driving you ll approach to exit that leads to B322)

damn simple

by the way

http://www.stradeeautostrade.it/articoli/2004/quattro/16-19%20osservatorio%20anas%204/foto/foto2.jpg

That is not highway to european standards, it is highest an expressway in italy,

that s what autostrada looks like (like every standard eur. highway)

http://www.fruga.net/CH/jpg/autostrada.jpg

DrJoe

May 25th, 2005, 11:29 PM

hmmm ok, whatever. I drive maybe the most impressive piece of highway infrastructure in the world like every week so maybe it takes more to please me.

lindenthaler

May 25th, 2005, 11:31 PM

hmmm ok, whatever. I drive maybe the most impressive piece of highway infrastructure in the world like every week so maybe it takes more to please me.

Maybe yes, for you, but most europeans dont care how is impressive route, it s just important that the road is qualitative functional and fast, no matters if it has 2 or 10 lanes.

DrJoe

May 25th, 2005, 11:38 PM

Ok well there is also that to go along with the huge freeways, in the city its 12-18 lanes and outside it looks like all the stuff you post.

In the city
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/401_cl_rouge_west.jpg

Out of the city.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v339/drjoe12/401/403_cl_longwoodsroad_west.jpg

http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_401_images/401_cl_456_east.jpg

lindenthaler

May 25th, 2005, 11:41 PM

Hey, i really dont care HOW MANY LANES IT HAS ! :) I allready wrote it s important to get fast, and for most european highways it enoughs to have 2+1 security lane per direction do get fast and secure. Why do u think german highways don't have speed limit ? Highways which are much narrower and have less lanes than US ?

DrJoe

May 25th, 2005, 11:47 PM

Yes and im saying only in the cities is there that many lanes, everywhere else it looks like the same crap in Europe. BTW this is Canada(specifically Ontario) im talking about, not the US.

sonysnob

May 26th, 2005, 08:17 AM

Signs in Germany always display both route number plus destination

http://home.att.net/~texhwyman/g_imgs/overheads2.jpg

Hrmmm, I am obviously mistaken then. I do recall seeing guide singage in Europe with only destinations and not numbers, but it must have been in another country.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Cheers!

acela

May 27th, 2005, 07:47 AM

Actually not all European highways are that quality.It depends of the fundings of the government of the highway projects.If you look at the UK motorway is way out in terms of quality compare to other european countries and the US.This is because the government allocate small budgets on motorway projects compare to i say Germany.Besides that a toll highway is very useful in order a good/quality highway is produced like the Autoroute in France,Autopistas or Autostrade.So it's not a matter of continent actually.Its a matter of budget.You can build quality highway but you have think about the consequences such maintenance,the extra money for the highway project can be directed to other useful fundings such education or where ever the gov wants to allocate it.Allocation of the money have to be balanced depends of the need,time or economic situatiion,if not you will be in trouble that's all.

eusebius

May 27th, 2005, 07:59 AM

and adorable people we Nederlanders are, we give directions in its own language, so on A15 etc it reads Kleve rather than Kleef (Nederlands); Köln rather than Keulen
Oh, those NL, it's asfalt heaven!

DetoX

May 28th, 2005, 01:11 PM

Some pics of European roads:

http://www.reinhard-weis.de/wahlkreis/bilder/bahn-autobahn.JPG

http://www.bmvbw.de/Bild/original_20794/Lkw-auf-der-Autobahn.jpg

http://progn.org/photos/2002-10-Dev_Towo_in_SLF/saalfelder-autobahn.jpeg

http://graphics.worldweb.com/PhotoImages/France/GA_0004.jpg

I think it doesn`t depend on money .. because both US and EU has it. US it bigger, and have less people than EU so it is easier to keep good quality of roads in the EU.

Hmm, what are speed limits in the US?

CharlieP

May 28th, 2005, 01:32 PM

http://img91.echo.cx/img91/8743/motorway11fz.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img272.echo.cx/img272/2558/motorway25wz.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Random Motorway Madness

How sad am I for recognising both junctions instantly? :)

eddyk

May 28th, 2005, 06:29 PM

What I really noticed in that pic (top) is that it looks like a post to the left of the Junction is either iced up or dryin out!

GNU

May 29th, 2005, 02:03 PM

sonysnob

May 29th, 2005, 05:28 PM

actually the german autobahn is much better than their american counterpart.The thickness off the cement is twice as big on the autobahn than on the highways in america.
this surely makes the autobahn more expensive to built, but it is therefore more durable.All autobahns arent flat,but are higher to the middle of the road and are getting flatter to the outside lanes.This is done to prevent rain water flooding the street.This method might probably set a limit to the number of lanes.As far as I know the most lanes in Germany can be found around Frankfurt with 6 on each side or something like that.
also most american highways are featuring cement barriers in the middle,whilst there are mainly steel barriers used in germany.

Sloping from the centre of the road outwards is called the crown of the road (at least where I am from). I would be very shocked if any modern road juristiction built roads without a crown these days.

Steel baricades were at one time in favour in North America, but are generally not being used anymore, as concrete barriers are becoming dominant. Steel barriers are typically designed so that the supports snap out away from the cushon when a vehicle strikes the barrier. This unfortunately results in vehicles often being deflected back into driving lanes along a freeway (at least, this is what was the case in North America). For this reason, steel barriers are no longer that common along north american freeways.

There are many designs of concrete barriers, the one I am most familiar with is called 'Ontario Tallwall' or just 'tallwall' for short. This barrier is designed to deflect vehicles up along the barrier, where the barrier cushons there impact, and stops the vehicle in the shoulder/emergency lane and doesn't deflect it into traffic. From a safety standpoint, concrete has been proven much safer then steel on north american highways.

Cheers!

GNU

May 29th, 2005, 08:39 PM

tahk

May 29th, 2005, 08:55 PM

The thing is that I love asphalt highways and here in the US it's not very used in the Highways unfortunately.

:? so what do you use? concrete?

sonysnob

May 29th, 2005, 08:58 PM

Thats intersting!Actually I had not the slightest idea how you call sloped highways in your place,but you got what I meant.considering the steel barrier Im pretty sure its the more sofistcated option,since the german government is starting to built concrete barriers similar to the ones used in the states,due to a shortage of money.
So the concrete version is actually the cheaper solution.Now I dont know the differencies between both of them in case of a crash,but I would have thought that the steel barrier absorbes more of the impact energy compared to the concrete one.That snap back effect that you mention probably differs in the different desgns of the barrier.
Also the speed limit is generally higher in Germany than in the States.I guess that also has to be taken into account.Probably concrete barriers are enough for the standard highway.

Judging from what i have seen and heard about German Autobhans, I wouldn't think that the German government would be installing concrete barriers if they were a reduction in safety. I would bet however, that concrete barriers are more cost effective, since they don't need to be replaced if one gets hit.

There is a great website that lists the differences between the different types of concrete barriers used across north america, but i can't seem to recall the URL.

Once again, I know that Ontario is replacing all of its old steel barriers with concrete because concrete is both more cost effective and actually safer.

Most concrete barriers are designed with a slope on them that when vehicles hit the barrier, it prepels them up the side, this deflects all the crash energy up, and actually is very safe for both the vehicles occupants and other motorists (since the crashed vehicle is less likely to enter the driving lanes again).

Of course, personally, I like a wide grassed or treed median separating the dual carriageways, not only is it very safe, but I find it much nicer to look at then a pile of steel or concrete.

Cheers!

DrJoe

May 29th, 2005, 09:36 PM

Recently completed cement barrier near me. You can see its needed here because this part of the 401 is like a rollercoaster.
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_401_images/401_cl_476_east.jpg

sony, you seem to run the site where im getting these pictures from, do you mind me using them???

centralized pandemonium

May 30th, 2005, 04:01 AM

Coming back to the original question, does anyone seriously think that 401 is a good highway. Would someone like to drive there during the rush hours. I for one, would not.

salvius

May 30th, 2005, 04:12 AM

^ the highway is over capacity and will remain to be so... It is an international (particularily US) trade hub, in addition to being a commuter line for the outer suburbs. Overall, not a good place to be. There's simply nothing that can be done about this.

But that's, in fact, not the original question. The original question was whether European highways are better than US ones? Considering the mind boggling network size, and the overall breadth (which I have already outlined) of the US network, it's just not a real competition.

Justme

May 30th, 2005, 10:37 AM

Reading this interesting thread, I would agree that it seems the American motorway systems do employ more spectacular interchanges.

However, whilst thinking about that, it also occured to me that European motorways may have more spectacular viaducts, bridges and tunnels.

In this was, one counters the other to balance them out.

Also, it is clear that the U.S. has more km of motorway, being larger, but I would suspect that the EU country's are at least as dense as the U.S. in motorway networks - although Urban area's in the U.S. have more motorways in the central area (this is compensated by larger urban rail in urban centers in Europe)

I can't say one is better than the other, both parts of the world have great networks, in some area's like the U.S. they may be wider and have more spectacular interchanges, however, this is compensated by in Europe with some area's like Germany with no speed limits, and many other parts with amazing tunnels and viaducts (i.e. all the nations surrounding the Alps)

Stratosphere 2020

June 1st, 2005, 04:50 AM

Not all countries in Europe including western Europe have better highways than the US. I found the highway in parts of Belgium rundown. Certain states in the US do have well maintained highways. Many highways in and around Houston metro I found to be bumpy to very bumpy.

rL428

June 1st, 2005, 07:21 AM

Ok this one is a little different, I don't know about you guys but one of my fav things to do is get in the car, take the top down and just have some fun on the road. However, there's not that many cool roads around here... there's plenty, they just aren't very interesting.

So what cities have really nice long roads with nice scenery?
I hear they film a lot of car commercials somewhere in California, there's a lot of twisties right in front of the ocean.
I don't know about Denver and the other cities around the Rockies, never been out there but I hear the natural scenery gets really nice in the fall, not sure if there's any good roads along the mountains though.

Any others?

superchan7

June 1st, 2005, 07:26 AM

California's road quality is not good. Nevada has nice roads, but CA probably has the more attractive scenery by far.

rt_0891

June 1st, 2005, 07:38 AM

PCH 1 is Amazing!

Pretty much every freeway/highway running around the Bay Area is amazing. Many parts of LA-SD is amazing too. The mountain routes to Yosemite were beautiful.

IchO

June 1st, 2005, 11:36 AM

401 - Metro Toronto HighWay.
+ Trans Candian Way.

Xabi

June 1st, 2005, 06:08 PM

http://www.dogusinsaat.com.tr/site/projeler/images/Image11662_b.jpg

This is an environmental atrocity!!!! :sleepy:

Xabi

June 1st, 2005, 06:40 PM

Some pics of the Basque A-8 highway (built and opened between 1968 and 1976).

Photos taken in my city:

http://usuarios.lycos.es/xabierpagola3/aritzbatalde3.jpg

http://usuarios.lycos.es/xabierpagola3/aritzbatalde5.jpg

Photos taken in Donostia-San Sebastian:

http://usuarios.lycos.es/xabierpagola4/illumbe_66.jpg

http://usuarios.lycos.es/xabierpagola4/illumbe_65.jpg

Justme

June 1st, 2005, 06:42 PM

This is an environmental atrocity!!!! :sleepy:

Ah yes. The poor mans tunnel, who needs a roof on a tunnel mate, when I can build you one cheaper without.

KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

June 1st, 2005, 07:21 PM

This is the biggest Athenian motorway:

Doukissis Plakentias

http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/alfa_omega/19058/234696/0/%F4%EF+%E2%E7%EC%E1.gif

http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/alfa_omega/19058/263678/0/10MayAtOdosDoukPlaken_high.jpg

http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/alfa_omega/19058/342109/0/RoadDoukPlakentias1_h.jpg

http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/alfa_omega/19058/342115/0/RoadDoukPlakentias2_h.jpg

Sexas

June 1st, 2005, 09:22 PM

It will be Boston or Houston after the whole 'fix up" thing done.

Conexionz

June 1st, 2005, 11:27 PM

Indian highways

Mumbai downtown
http://www.elinversionista.tv/negocios/images/highways%20copy.jpg
Mumbai-Pune highway
http://abhishekgupta.com/pic/Dallas%20Highways.jpg
Calcutta downtown
http://www.scvresources.com/highways/east_la_photo_240.jpg

KIWIKAAS

June 2nd, 2005, 06:44 PM

I dont agree at all with the title of this thread.
Europe is home to probably some of the most technologically adavnced motorways/freeways but is also home to some of the least.
Its a very relative concept in Europe as to which country has beter roads or not. Some European countries employ great technologiy to their road building and traffic management. Others not at all. There a plenty of examples of substandard freeways in Europe.
Also, one must take account of the general state of highways and roads. In most European countries, once you leave the freeway its a mess. Substandard capacity and marking. This has nothing to do with old city centres, its also the case in many 20th century neighbourhoods.

Many of the pictures posted on this thread of European freeways are very substandard by American standards.

The German Autobahns arent particularly good examples of freeway construction (slow on and off-ramps for instance and skinny shoulder lanes). If you want to see wrecks being cleaned up then Germany is a good place to go.

rantanamo

June 2nd, 2005, 08:03 PM

After the 'fix up', I'd vote for Dallas.

lokinyc

June 2nd, 2005, 08:25 PM

Definitely Atlanta and Georgia. The USDoT backs me up on this one, too.

czm3

June 3rd, 2005, 01:58 AM

It will be Boston or Houston after the whole 'fix up" thing done.

Unfortunately, Boston is not a good place for car enthusiasts. The roads are lousy, and the drivers, worse.

California has awesome roads. Everything from large freeways, to super twisties leading through the canyons and mountains. If twisties are what you are looking for, try Arizona, southern Utah, and the Texas hill country.

For us on the east coast, anywhere in the mountains whether it is the Catskills in NY, the White mountains in NH or the smokies in VA, NC and TN.

Basically, I like roads anywhere rural with a lot of topography.

schreiwalker

June 3rd, 2005, 02:13 AM

well it has to be a place without too much sprawl, cause otherwise you're stuck in traffic for 2 hours trying to get anywhere. so that rules out DC, ATL, LA, and most of the southern belt of cities.

For large cities I'd say the best drives are near Seattle or Portland. especially portland. in portland you can go down the columbia river gorge highway (with stunning 200 foot waterfalls), go out to mount hood, mount st. helens, go down to the pacific coast, go down the willamette valley farmlands. basically, its AMAZING. its like it was built for exactly what you're looking for.

San Francisco is cool too, but there is also probably too much sprawl.

Pittsburgh, PA has some beautiful topography around it, especially during fall, but its all quaint stuff, whereas portland is majestic stuff.

VansTripp

June 3rd, 2005, 02:35 AM

Boston, after big dig is done but its will longer time to complete as since 1990.

909

June 4th, 2005, 07:14 PM

I'm always suprised how people see size as a form of quality. And all those pictures are nice, but they don't tell the whole story.

Many of the pictures posted on this thread of European freeways are very substandard by American standards.
What do you mean with substandard?

If you want to see wrecks being cleaned up then Germany is a good place to go.
Not true, the Autobahn is relative safe, for example: France has more people killed in traffic than Germany, despite the different in population (and speed).
If you want to see wrecks, then you have to leave the freeways. The most accidents happens outside the freeways.

dubaiflo

June 4th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Some middle east highway pictures, in particular dubai.

http://www.arrakeen.ch/dubai/208%20%20city%20highway.jpg http://www.japet.jp/nihonjin/images/dubai/kurashi/du-highway.jpg
http://www.gavinsblog.com/mt/archives/Sheikh%20Zayed%20Road.JPG

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u44/bmcmorrow/upload/33646161.wien018.JPG

what i like on the UAE highways is that they are always landscaped, with flowers, grass, tress, plants, statues, but i did not find a good photo.

elliott

June 4th, 2005, 10:00 PM

What i dont understand is why some people on here think huge junctions like this

http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/alfa_omega/19058/263678/0/10MayAtOdosDoukPlaken_high.jpg

are a good thing. I know what i'd rather have a small road/motorway/highway with a railway adjoined.

To be honest id rather there wasnt such a thing as motorways but thats outta the question for now.

LtBk

June 5th, 2005, 02:42 AM

What's wrong with freeways? There are advantages you know and its hell of lot better than regular roads.

ttownfeen

June 5th, 2005, 05:35 AM

This is totally OT. Maybe it's because I just saw Revenge of the Sith last night, but those pictures Dubai remind me a lot of The Capital City, Coruscant(sp?).

Andrew

June 6th, 2005, 04:24 PM

What is the speed limit on American highways/freeways (whatever you call them)? I thought it was 60mph. Surely the number on these signs isn't the speed limit?
http://home.jtan.com/~ptunner/es/img/es106.jpg

People here seem to love their huge roads a lot, shame because they're very unsustainble - they take up vast ammounts of land, junctions like those above cut cities into pieces and make the pedestrian environment very uninviting. The over use of the car causes all manners of health problems and contributes to global warming. I don't think they're anything to brag about. The Europeans have got more of the right idea with their use of high speed rail as a viable alternative to roads.

DarkLite

June 6th, 2005, 05:01 PM

IMO european highways are great!

Puce86

June 6th, 2005, 05:32 PM

BlaZ

June 6th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Here some more pictures from dutch highways.

4x4 lanes.

http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/galerie/cs02.jpg

2x5 lanes

http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/galerie/cs01.jpg

pretty special one, 30 km long dike

http://billeder.dybdahl.dk/Europatur/web/thumbs-640x480/P0004110.jpg

Arpels

June 6th, 2005, 06:18 PM

Gooshhhhhhhhhhh :eek: they could use some trees or plants to guive another aspect Xabi!!

Arpels

June 6th, 2005, 06:33 PM

some highways close to Oporto Portugal:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aleck1/estrada.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aleck1/noolivazemeis.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aleck1/nodefrancos.jpg

el tico

June 6th, 2005, 07:05 PM

txRNGr

June 7th, 2005, 11:05 PM

this whole thread on "why european highways are better than American" is redundant from the start. first of all, the US pioneers in road technology whether that be for safety or connectiveness. any logical person can conclude this by understanding the volume of drivers that are in the United States. If we were comparing Mass-Transit then, of course, Europe would win. anyone can build a two lane highway or a cloverleaf intersection, hell India managed to do this. the true measure of superiority comes from innovation in the road systems, not out-dated clover-leaf, round-about, or spegettti interchanges. yes there are some bumpy roads in the US, but i know Europe has its fair shair of bumpy roads. If we really want to compare freeways and highways, we should take the best of the best from each side and compare. Im sure everyone will realize that by the functionality and innovation of many US freeways that the United States is superior in its system. The new interchange of US-75 and I-635 in dallas, texas (shown on the first page of this thread) has over five miles of bridges, is a five level interchange with the tallest level reaching 12-stories, and can handle 500,000 cars per day. any "pretty" and "cute" freeway Europe wants to throw at the US(and Canada for that matter) will loose based off innovation and the ability to handle such a large traffic load. Im sure everyone can agree that the mass-transit systems of the United States seems "cute" and lacks the ability to handle the volume of passengers the European systems can, which makes the European systems superior. But highways as they are today were born in the United States. We have more miles, we have more capacity, we handle traffic better...get over it.

Xabi

June 7th, 2005, 11:23 PM

Gooshhhhhhhhhhh :eek: they could use some trees or plants to guive another aspect Xabi!!

What? :| :| :| :|

Carretero

June 8th, 2005, 02:14 AM

And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)

http://www.sercal.es/images/centroE.jpg

As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.

txRNGr

June 8th, 2005, 03:11 AM

And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)

http://www.sercal.es/images/centroE.jpg

As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.

Please, there are 16 4-level interchanges and 1 5-level interchange in the Dallas area alone(not including Fort Worth area to the west which makes up the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area). In fact, many of these 4-level interchanges are scheduled to be reconstructed into 5-level interchanges withing the next 10 years. These 17 large freeway interchanges do not include the countless other 2 and 3-level interchanges that are scattered throughout this area as well. The fact is that most of these interchanges were built in the 1970s or earlier. Grand freeways have been a part of an American's way of life for almost fourty years or longer. Europe's simple clover-leaf and 3 to 4-level interchanges are boring and have been seen time and time again. Texas has begun, on a state-wide scale, to even integrate patterns and symbols casted into the concrete along with a variety of paint schemes into these interchanges and freeways to better fit the surrounding environment and leave a less intrusive image. Like i said, Europe can have its low capacity clover-leaf and 4-6 lane freeways, Americans are years beyond you.

PotatoGuy

June 8th, 2005, 03:54 AM

Los Angeles

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/harborfwydtwn70.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/bridge/105_110.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/072101-710-105.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/5-101-10-60.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/110-10-k.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/tv101-5.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/5_14.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/wst5_14.jpg

Orange County

http://image.globexplorer.com/gexservlets/gex?encrypt=eXRtPCwwMDYvOTk4Njg4Njg3Myd4dG08MjIvNjk5MTUxNDU3OSd5bXM8LDAwNi85NzQ0NzI0MzU2J3htczwyMi82NjA5MTgyMjAyJ3RoZTwwMjYzOSdoaTwyNzEnaHY8NTQxJ21yPDUnYmxlPGhsYGZkJ2hlPDMwMjMxMTE5MTAnYHFxaGU8MTMxMDExVid1cjwwMDA5MDgxOTg3OTQy

http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/5at55_1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/5s-133s.jpg

(this pic is atleast 10 years old)
http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/orangecrush.jpg

Inland Empire

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/15_91_2.jpg

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/15-10-2.jpg

http://image.globexplorer.com/gexservlets/gex?encrypt=eXRtPCwwMDYvNDQwNzI5MDQ5NCd4dG08MjIvOTk0NTg5MTQwJ3ltczwsMDA2LzQ1MDg4MzIyMzUneG1zPDIyLzk2ODExMzIyNjQndGhlPDAyNjM5J2hpPDI3MSdodjw1NDEnbXI8NSdibGU8aGxgZmQnaGU8MzAyMzExMTkxMCdgcXFoZTwxMzEwMTFWJ3VyPDAwMDkwODA0NTExOTY=

txRNGr

June 8th, 2005, 03:58 AM

exactly, there are complex and advanced freeways and interchanges across the United States' urban areas. thanks for sharing Potato Guy. California, with its tight-knit cities and extensive freeway system (LA) is a prime example where freeways and interchanges had and continue to require innovation.

PotatoGuy

June 8th, 2005, 04:08 AM

i think europes highways are better due to there youth

Athens:

http://img264.echo.cx/img264/4126/10mayatodosotep0kk.jpg

http://img263.echo.cx/img263/8523/10mayatodosrafinap4ja.jpg

http://img261.echo.cx/img261/2933/10mayatodoskantzasp7vx.jpg

Just because they're newer or prettier or w/e does not mean they are better, in fact it really has nothing to do with that. what should matter is how advanced the freeways/highways are and their capacity and such, aesthetics should have little to do with it. Allthough I will say that most new highways in Europe do look prettier than americans but it is mainly because they're newer and aren't as heavily used.

PotatoGuy

June 8th, 2005, 04:41 AM

if we compare rural highways then the US isnt doing that bad. The reasons I can give for the condition of US highways/freeways being in the condition in which they are is that the US has thousands of more miles of highway than any european highway (therefore the money is much more scattered) and european highways are newer, most US highways were built during the 60's and 70's.

But if we compare rural highways, then the US isn't doing that bad.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/images/rural.jpg

(kinda looks european)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/eihd/images/us23.jpg

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/eihd/images/ir287.jpg

http://www.empirestateroads.com/photos/steuben/cr9.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2004/12/041219183141.jpg

DrJoe

June 8th, 2005, 05:28 AM

LtBk

June 8th, 2005, 06:10 AM

Its not the freeway quality i'm worried about, it's the skill of drivers that uses them. It seems many Americans don't know how to drive on freeways, causing all kinds of problems, compared to European drivers.

txRNGr

June 8th, 2005, 10:06 AM

Justme

June 8th, 2005, 11:12 AM

txRNGr, I don't disagree that the American interchanges are larger and more impressive than the European ones. As I mentioned before, I believe in this area, the U.S. highways are superior. However, I also believe that the European highways win out on their viaducts and bridges, which are equally impressive and on a larger scale than North American ones.

As for the size of the U.S. highway system being larger, that is true, but then the European highway system is far denser.

Looking at figures from the CIA world fact book:

European Union:
Area: 3,976,372km²
Total highways (paved): 4,161,381km
Total Expressways: 56,704km

United States:
Area: 9,161,923km²
Total highways (paved): 4,180,053km
Total Expressways: 74,406km

It is clear from the above, that the EU, despite being less than half the land area (2.3x smaller), it has nearly the same total length of highway as the U.S. and a more dense expressway network.

So, in my opinion, this makes both American and European highways equal. The U.S. has wider expressways in cities, with larger and more impressive interchanges. The EU has a more dense network (where some parts have unlimited speed limits) and more impressive tunnel and viaducts.

Here is a quick show of photo's of some viaducts in Europe. They are not chosen by how great they are, just a quick serach, there will no doubt be far more impressive constructions out there. Of cause, I won't put photo's of the tunnels, but there are just so many and some are very very long.

http://www.mcuniverse.com/album24/1778_sg_viaduct.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0007.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0008.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0011.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0012.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0025.jpg
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/jpg/6257_3021_1859/IMG0024.jpg
http://www.aasens.com/images/61_041214_millau_bridge_hmed_5a.jpg
http://monitor.admin.musc.edu/~cfs/bridge/millau_viaduct.jpghttp://www.duoh.com/cms/images/uploads/millau_viaduct.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/popups/media/DAN-Foster17.jpg
http://grad.ch/images/Switzerland/traffic/highway_VD.jpg
http://www.isl.uni-karlsruhe.de/vrl/ResEng/images/highway_vevey.jpg

Ted Ward

June 8th, 2005, 03:09 PM

One of the things I like about the U.K network is the electronic signage that tells you things like journey times - upcoming obstructions etc etc. You can also go to sites such as NADICS.org.uk and see live webcam pics from motorways if you wish.

That also brings me on to my next point - the U.K motorway network is covered by an extensive c.c.t.v network - pull over on to the hard shoulder and there will likely be a police car pulling up behind you within five minutes.

Moving on - no one has posted pictures of those 'double decker' freeways that you get in america I dont know if they are unique to america but you dont see them in europe.

Also maybe someone here can help I have heard that in america there are roads where the direction of traffic lanes can be changed i.e say there was a six lane highway in the morning it could be 4 lanes heading into the city and two out then in the afternoon four lanes heading out and two in - does anyone have any idea what I am talking about. (Someone told me they have lanes that can change direction but Ive not been able to read anything about it)

Finally there is a surprising number of road enthusiast websites on the internet (I am surprised there is any) this site is good for pictures and links. http://www.cbrd.co.uk/links/

Justme

June 8th, 2005, 03:23 PM

Also maybe someone here can help I have heard that in america there are roads where the direction of traffic lanes can be changed i.e say there was a six lane highway in the morning it could be 4 lanes heading into the city and two out then in the afternoon four lanes heading out and two in - does anyone have any idea what I am talking about. (Someone told me they have lanes that can change direction but Ive not been able to read anything about it)

Where I come from, these are called zipper barriers, and they can be changed with the use of a machine. They are found in many parts of the world.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Zipper_I95_JRB_2.jpg

Elmo

June 8th, 2005, 08:55 PM

^ That looks VERY costly. Every day you have to move the barrier twice and it looks like 3 people are necessary to use the machine.

LtBk

June 8th, 2005, 09:16 PM

txRNGr

June 8th, 2005, 10:13 PM

LtBK: like i said before, this thread is a debate over European and American highways, not which land mass breeds better drivers...the ability of the drivers on the highways is irrelevent.

Justme: i will agree with you that Europe has some superior brigdes and tunnels(English Channel tunnel) and those pictures you posted are very impressive, the architecture looks delicate and strong at the same time, excellent. couldn't expect anything less from the continent that pioneered the first grand-scale bridges in the world. my argument is based around the functionality of thses freeways. thanks for posting those facts from the CIA website. they do prove that the European highway network must be, overall, more dense.

Ted Ward: in the United States we call it Intelligent Transporation Systems(ITS). although it doesnt sound like it might be as extensive as a nation-wide system like the UK, many US cities have or are putting these systems of dynamic message signs and closed circuit tv throughout their network where there can be a fast response time to taffic incidents and improve congestion. you can view live pics of the Dallas-Fort Worth system here http://dfwtraffic.dot.state.tx.us/ thanks for sharing that site with us Ted Ward, its very interesting to see the differences around the world. there is a site dedicated to Texas Freeways at http://www.texasfreeway.com/ it has historical and present maps and pics along with future plans for the freeways in Texas (just in case anyone gets bored). although i dont have any pictures of "double-deck" freeways, Austin, TX has a short span of a double deck on I-35. they found this type of freeway to be very unpleasant. they simply built 4 new lanes over 4 existing lanes. the old freeway is still in its original state with short on, off ramps and horrible geometrics. furthermore, its an eyesore for the surrounding community as well as being very confusing for those who are simply driving though. using this information, Texas decided to sink the US-75 freeway in dallas in a trench rather than just build on top. the result is a beautiful freeway with great capacity, good geometrics for all ramps and minimum impact on the surrounding community...we learned from our mistakes

djm19

June 8th, 2005, 10:37 PM

a lot of american freeways are old and heavily used. combine the two and it can only mean deterioration.

rocky

June 8th, 2005, 10:42 PM

the americans, despite being less that the europeans, have a bigger land with harder climatic conditions

so its good that they can have such highways

BlaZ

June 9th, 2005, 01:49 AM

Looking at figures from the CIA world fact book:

United States:
Population = 295,734,134
Area: 9,161,923km²
Total highways (paved): 4,180,053km
Total Expressways: 74,406km

So i looked a bit more into the figures.

Germany:
Population = 82,431,390 = 27,8%
Area: 349,223 sq km = 3,7%
Total highways (paved): 230,735km = 5,5%
Total Expressways: 11,515km = 15,5%

Netherlands:
Population = 16,407,491 = 5,54%
Area: 33,883 sq km = 0,36%
Total highways (paved): 104,850km = 2,48%
Total Expressways: 2,235km = 3%

Europe has a much denser network. But well thats simply logical as it has more population on less space.
Per inhabitant the USA has more km of expressway and roads all together.
I'd like to see some stats of densely populated US states. I think they have denser networks then any european country. Pretty sure even.

Here some statistics proving European roads are safer generally.

http://www.factbook.net/images/HMC_deaths_per_mv.gif

Quite strange if you ask me. American roads are much wider and speedlimits are higher in most european countries. Any comments on this ?

PotatoGuy

June 9th, 2005, 02:22 AM

txRNGr

June 9th, 2005, 03:02 AM

a lot of american freeways are old and heavily used. combine the two and it can only mean deterioration.

thats a strange comment...im failing to see your point. there is such a thing as maintenance and reconstruction. im sure even in europe these concepts are used :| no one can honestly think that the US builds roads and then leaves them to deteriorate. there are, of course, safety regulations to prevent this. anyways, i dont feel like challenging this argument anymore until it is clairified.

txRNGr

June 9th, 2005, 03:08 AM

So i looked a bit more into the figures.

Germany:
Population = 82,431,390 = 27,8%
Area: 349,223 sq km = 3,7%
Total highways (paved): 230,735km = 5,5%
Total Expressways: 11,515km = 15,5%

Netherlands:
Population = 16,407,491 = 5,54%
Area: 33,883 sq km = 0,36%
Total highways (paved): 104,850km = 2,48%
Total Expressways: 2,235km = 3%

Europe has a much denser network. But well thats simply logical as it has more population on less space.
Per inhabitant the USA has more km of expressway and roads all together.
I'd like to see some stats of densely populated US states. I think they have denser networks then any european country. Pretty sure even.

Here some statistics proving European roads are safer generally.

http://www.factbook.net/images/HMC_deaths_per_mv.gif

Quite strange if you ask me. American roads are much wider and speedlimits are higher in most european countries. Any comments on this ?

:sleepy: i like to think that Americans feel they are all NASCAR drivers and tend to have more fun in their cars...of course we arent all NASCAR drivers and tend to make some mistakes from time to time. based on these statistics, European roads are more dangerous than the United States. the US is fourth behind...can you guess it? yes! 3 European countries. :doh: your agrument has no standing. :hahaha:

czm3

June 9th, 2005, 04:19 AM

:sleepy: i like to think that Americans feel they are all NASCAR drivers and tend to have more fun in their cars...of course we arent all NASCAR drivers and tend to make some mistakes from time to time. based on these statistics, European roads are more dangerous than the United States. the US is fourth behind...can you guess it? yes! 3 European countries. :doh: your agrument has no standing. :hahaha:

US roads are definitely safer than European ones. Also, while some US highways are in horrible condition, a lot of them are in great condition.

The fact the the US accident rates are so high is because US cars are lousy and Americans just simply dont know how to drive.

Ted Ward

June 9th, 2005, 05:10 PM

I've also heard it (the death rate) is high because alot of americans refuse to wear seatbelts.

Gherkin

June 9th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Roads in the UK are safer than the US, but not as big, so are often congested. The quality of the roads however, is superb!

Some UK motorways:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/Spaghetti_Junction.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/m6toll.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/motrway.jpghttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/AW_East_anglia70.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/motorway.jpghttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/motrway.jpg

aatbloke

June 9th, 2005, 08:10 PM

Money isn't the problem at all. The US spends huge amounts on infrastructure each year, and just got through passing a $300 billion transportation bill to revamp some of the old highways built in the 1950's, like the ones Jonesy mentioned "in the South," although I though I-10 was in excellent condition, except near New Orleans!

Lee, money is the problem. The trouble with the US is the way everything is funded in such piecemeal fashion; this includes roads too, which are either funded locally, or by the state, or at federal level. Ohio is typical of this - you can exit a reasonably-maintained stretch of interstate and immediately onto a road funded locally which is more akin to the surface of the moon.

In the UK, the reverse is true; county councils waste money on maintenance each spring simply to spend the money on order to get their alloted quota of cash from central goverhment for the following fiscal year. Consequently, it's often the case that perfectly good kerbstones are torn up and replaced just for the sake of it.

aatbloke

June 9th, 2005, 08:16 PM

US browbeats Europe when it comes to highways. The surface quality is obviously worse -- considering the coverage, weather, the lane width, the number of lanes, etc. this is not a big surprise. On the other hand, the US highways have the clearest direction boards in the world, along with a well marked road, rain or shine. The lanes are luxiriously wide, the interchanges forgiving, and the traffic separation extremely generous. The emergency lanes are infinetely wider and more common -- a real factor in safety. The highway network, on top of all this, is humangous. In terms of connectivity, it is unparalleled.

Basically, it's not a competition.

You must be joking? US lane markings are appalling, and you only have to drive into Canada to see the difference. Even at urban intersections, more often than not you need to "see where the line is in your mind" as many locals say. Off the interstates, many US highways are also very poorly signposted...many servicemen I know who are based in the UK and Germany say the same thing when making comparisons.

FM 2258

June 10th, 2005, 07:03 AM

Please, there are 16 4-level interchanges and 1 5-level interchange in the Dallas area alone(not including Fort Worth area to the west which makes up the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area). In fact, many of these 4-level interchanges are scheduled to be reconstructed into 5-level interchanges withing the next 10 years. These 17 large freeway interchanges do not include the countless other 2 and 3-level interchanges that are scattered throughout this area as well. The fact is that most of these interchanges were built in the 1970s or earlier. Grand freeways have been a part of an American's way of life for almost fourty years or longer. Europe's simple clover-leaf and 3 to 4-level interchanges are boring and have been seen time and time again. Texas has begun, on a state-wide scale, to even integrate patterns and symbols casted into the concrete along with a variety of paint schemes into these interchanges and freeways to better fit the surrounding environment and leave a less intrusive image. Like i said, Europe can have its low capacity clover-leaf and 4-6 lane freeways, Americans are years beyond you.

I agree, Texas has some of the best freeway interchanges in the world. On top of that Texas uses frontage roads extensively which makes the freeway double as an expressway and a local road. I can't wait to see the IH 635/US75, TX121/IH35E and the Bush/IH35E interchanges completed. Those are gonna look so fucking cool and they have frontage road connections too!!!

Also locally we have our TX45/IH 35, US183 and FM620-TX45 and the US290/TX71 and IH 35 interchanges to be completed in Austin.

aatbloke

June 10th, 2005, 07:37 PM

what facts do you have to back such a statement. do you just conclude that because someone is born and raised in Europe that they are a better driver. furthermore, Americans drive much more than Europeans which would lead someone to conclude that Americans are the more expirenced driver. this argument seems to be just another attempt to distract the thread from the original purpose which is to debate whether European or American Highways are better. again, dispite the ability of the average American driver, the United States(and Canada for that matter) has more innovative Freeways. No one can seem to attack this postition head on so they dance around it with claims such as "Americans don't know how to drive on freeways" which is arrogant and ignorant(two words that are overly-used on this forum).

While many US freeways are wide, many are only two-lane roads in rural areas. In major conurbations they do become impressive. However, in my experience of driving in the States I see far less lane discipline than I do on European motorways.

Many Americans seem to think that because European countries are smaller, people in turn do less mileage. In the UK, the average mileage per annum (according to Inland Revenue guidelines) is considered to be 12-18,000 miles per annum. This is on a par with Ohio and Pennsylvania for many motorists. I myself commute similar distances to work in the US as I did in the UK. Where the US does differ is the amount of people who take long road trips for vacations. While many Europeans do this too between countries, they will usually fly because it is far cheaper to do so within Europe, and because of greater amounts of annual leave (typically 5-6 weeks per year) they'll often vacation far from home.

I personally think US driving standards are shocking, particularly in the southern states. Not that they're brilliant in Europe, but lack of lane discipline and courtesy to other motorists is more than evident.

txRNGr

June 10th, 2005, 10:22 PM

I personally think US driving standards are shocking, particularly in the southern states. Not that they're brilliant in Europe, but lack of lane discipline and courtesy to other motorists is more than evident.

its called offensive driving...its fun, you should try it

Justme

June 10th, 2005, 10:24 PM

^ the Italians are pretty good at it too ;)

Jonesy55

June 10th, 2005, 10:32 PM

based on these statistics, European roads are more dangerous than the United States. the US is fourth behind...can you guess it? yes! 3 European countries. :doh: your agrument has no standing. :hahaha:

Er, yes but there are another 16 European countries including all of the big ones which are safer than the US. If you took a European average death rate it would be much lower than the US.

Are American cars really that crap and unsafe? If they are why do people buy them?

LtBk

June 10th, 2005, 10:49 PM

^ the Italians are pretty good at it too ;)

I thought Italians have good lane discipline

txRNGr

June 10th, 2005, 11:21 PM

^ the Italians are pretty good at it too ;)

haha ohh man i bet they are...i can just imagine ferraris weaving and racing down freeways, now that would be awesome!

Jonesy55

June 10th, 2005, 11:31 PM

haha ohh man i bet they are...i can just imagine ferraris weaving and racing down freeways, now that would be awesome!

You see a few ferraris but it's mostly small Fiats overtaking on blind bends etc, driving in Italy can be a pain because of the drivers. :ohno:

aatbloke

June 11th, 2005, 02:45 AM

its called offensive driving...its fun, you should try it

You pay a price for that fun - US car insurance rates are absolutely astronomical.

czm3

June 11th, 2005, 04:57 AM

Boston, after big dig is done but its will longer time to complete as since 1990.

Sorry, but as a Bostonian I ask how the rehabilitation of 8 miles of interstate could make Boston a great place to drive?

Between speed limits, traffic, and construction, no US city is fun to drive in. Then again, what do you guys consider a fun road? In my opinion, it isnt one located in any urban area. Afterall, it is difficult to consistantly and safely push your car to the limit. Country highways, here I come.

EdZed

June 11th, 2005, 05:15 AM

For Scenery
Beartooth Hwy. (MT Hwy 212)
http://www.photodump.com/direct/Ed_14/beartooth_vw_lg.jpg
Going To The Sun Road
http://www.photodump.com/direct/Ed_14/going_to_the_sun_road.jpg

The one time I went to Houston the stacks there are amazing I forget what highways though. Also I-70 west of Denver is pretty sweet through that one canyon.

txRNGr

June 11th, 2005, 09:00 AM

^^ dude, first of all it was a joke; and second of all, the United State's economic system isnt as socialist as Europe's is, so we pay alittle bit more for alot more quality.

Jonesy55

June 11th, 2005, 04:58 PM

^^ How is your car insurance 'better quality' than ours?

andrewSQ347

June 11th, 2005, 05:21 PM

^^ How is your car insurance 'better quality' than ours?
yeah , and better for who most probably it's better for the Insurance companies :bash:

aatbloke

June 11th, 2005, 06:34 PM

^^ dude, first of all it was a joke; and second of all, the United State's economic system isnt as socialist as Europe's is, so we pay alittle bit more for alot more quality.

"Dude" - clearly you've never set foot in Europe. You have a very rose-coloured idea, obviously. Here's an example of great quality US insurance - I switched to my wife's health insurance plan and made a trip to the doctor for an update on an existing medical condition. The new insurance company declined to pay on the basis that it wasn't a new medical condition!!

I have an old 86 Ford Bronco truck as a weekend plaything. I love it. It's been everywhere with me: France, the UK, and I shipped it over to the States. Given that in the UK I had to insure it through a specialist insurer because it was not an officially imported vehicle, I still paid less than one-third in the UK for insurance in premiums than I do in the States for it, plus I had less than half the insurance excess (deductable) on any claims while in the UK compared to the US. Furthermore, the US coverage isn't anything like as extensive (no replacement emergency vehicle coverage included unlike the UK).

EarlyBird

June 12th, 2005, 03:04 AM

txRNGr

June 13th, 2005, 12:04 AM

"Dude" - clearly you've never set foot in Europe. You have a very rose-coloured idea, obviously. Here's an example of great quality US insurance - I switched to my wife's health insurance plan and made a trip to the doctor for an update on an existing medical condition. The new insurance company declined to pay on the basis that it wasn't a new medical condition!!

I have an old 86 Ford Bronco truck as a weekend plaything. I love it. It's been everywhere with me: France, the UK, and I shipped it over to the States. Given that in the UK I had to insure it through a specialist insurer because it was not an officially imported vehicle, I still paid less than one-third in the UK for insurance in premiums than I do in the States for it, plus I had less than half the insurance excess (deductable) on any claims while in the UK compared to the US. Furthermore, the US coverage isn't anything like as extensive (no replacement emergency vehicle coverage included unlike the UK).

i have no idea what a "rose-coloured idea" is and im not going to get into a never-ending argument about economic systems or your one expirence with an insurance company in the United States. i have my beliefs based on my expierences half-way around the world and you have your own beliefs based on your own expierences. i do not know how we got to arguing about insurance rates on a highway thread. furthermore, i am tired of being bashed for my pride in my country by "European Elitists" who base arguments off opinions i cannot and am tired of trying to understand. i have discovered that this forum is filled with empty arguments that are almost always based off pure opinion seldom having factual evidence. i am done with this endless bitching cycle. have fun living in Europe because i am very happy living in the US...im out forever.

aatbloke

June 13th, 2005, 01:16 AM

i have no idea what a "rose-coloured idea" is and im not going to get into a never-ending argument about economic systems or your one expirence with an insurance company in the United States. i have my beliefs based on my expierences half-way around the world and you have your own beliefs based on your own expierences. i do not know how we got to arguing about insurance rates on a highway thread. furthermore, i am tired of being bashed for my pride in my country by "European Elitists" who base arguments off opinions i cannot and am tired of trying to understand. i have discovered that this forum is filled with empty arguments that are almost always based off pure opinion seldom having factual evidence. i am done with this endless bitching cycle. have fun living in Europe because i am very happy living in the US...im out forever.

Good grief, what insecurity. Those experiences are with several insurance companies - but that's the state of the insurance industry in the US. I use examples to back up my arguments, simple as that. Can you at least cite any examples to back up your argument? Given that you don't know the phrase "rose-coloured" I'm curious as to how old you really are and therefore if your experiences of "living half-way around the world" are indeed true.

Sorry pal, most people can deal with their countries having cons and well as pros, but you cannot....and the only empty arguments come from those like yourself who make claims based on how they think the world works with little clue as to the reality. You yourself haven't stated one iota of factual evidence (quote) yet you cry down those who do. That's why you're "out forever".

aatbloke

June 13th, 2005, 01:24 AM

My personal opinion is that the reason the US highways aren't as good is because they are much more crowded. Why? Because US public transport is severely lacking.

http://www.aidan.co.uk/lg/ManPiccTracks2Trains1Y01.jpg

US highways are nothing like as crowded as they are in the UK and continental Europe, except for the major conurbations. For example, the Pennsylvania turnpike around Pittsburgh handles roughly one-tenth of the traffic that the M6 does around Birmingham.

Unlike the UK, urban bus services in the US are not deregulated. My experience of the service in Pittsburgh is that service performs well, but it just isn't very extensive.

eomer

June 13th, 2005, 07:47 AM

US Higways are very different than European ones. In US, most higways are in subburban area and are very crowed. The Insterstate Network is safe and not crowed: it's because US citizen use more often planes than European.

Ionizer

June 15th, 2005, 05:44 AM

Europe is small compared to the continental US.... American highways are this way since 50 years ago...

So?

Justme

June 15th, 2005, 04:20 PM

Europe is small compared to the continental US.... American highways are this way since 50 years ago...

So?

Actually, Europe is larger then the U.S. including Alaska. Although most of the population is on the western side. Then again, the bulk of the U.S. population is on the Eastern side.

Europe 10,600,00km² link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe)
United States (including Alaska) 9,631,418km² link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states)

909

June 16th, 2005, 04:51 AM

aatbloke

June 16th, 2005, 05:21 AM

Only problem with Europe is defining it's borders. Europa is not a continent, but it's like India a sub-continent and with that a part of Eurasia. The borders of Europe are not political or truely physical, but psycholical and in some cases cultural (as refering to your link). ;)
And to be honest, i think that in this case it's better to compare the US with the Europian Union.

What on earth are you talking about? Europe is a continent. Europe and most of Asia sit on the Eurasian tectonic plate. Officially, Europe's eastern border runs the length of the Ural Mountains. India is a country and part of the continent of Asia; it's known as the Indian subcontinent simply because it sits on a small tectonic plate which it shares with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The European Union is not a country - it's basically a glorified trading bloc (as it used to be when it was the EEC) except that it has a parliament of its own along with a taxation system and of course a common currency used by most of its member states. Whatsmore, the biggest country in Europe -being the European part of Russia - is not in the EU, nor are many other countries.

I think you should seriously look at taking one or two geography lessons. This might help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tectonic_plates.png

909

June 16th, 2005, 02:33 PM

I am not an expert, that's true. But this discussion depends on the used definitions:

What on earth are you talking about? Europe is a continent. Europe and most of Asia sit on the Eurasian tectonic plate. Officially, Europe's eastern border runs the length of the Ural Mountains.
Europe isn't geological a continent:

Geologically, the surface of Earth consists of many tectonic plates. Some of them are continental plates, largely covered by thick, relatively light metamorphic and sedimentary rock such as granite which floats on the Earth's mantle, and much of which is visible as dry land; and the rest are oceanic plates, consisting of a thin basaltic layer of solidified mantle, and covered by a sea punctuated with basaltic volcanos. There are six large continental plates, which give the following geologically recognized continents, from the largest to the smallest:

Eurasia mostly on the Eurasian Plate
Africa on the African Plate
North America mostly on the North American Plate
South America on the South American Plate
Antarctica on the Antarctic Plate
Australia on the Australian Plate

(...)

Because of the perceived cultural differences by the inhabitants, it is conventional to subdivide Eurasia into Europe and Asia. They are more appropriately called regions, and neither is a geological or geographical continent. In the same manner, historians may subdivide Africa-Eurasia into Eurasia-North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.

These definitions give the following alternate models:

7 regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia.
6 regions: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.
5 continents: Eurasia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.
4 continents: Africa-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia.
The 7-region model is usually taught in the United States and Canada, while the geological 6-continent model is taught in East Asia. In Europe and Latin America including the United Kingdom and Mexico, they teach the 6-region model, which is shown in the Olympic Games flag as five rings, excluding Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
Europe

Europe is geologically and geographically a peninsula, forming the westernmost part of Eurasia. It is conventionally considered a continent, which, in this case, is more of a cultural distinction than a geographic one. It is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, and to the east by the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea (for more detailed description see Geography of Europe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
Geography of Europe

Geographically, Europe is a part of the larger landmass known as Eurasia. The Ural Mountains in Russia form Europe's eastern boundary with Asia. The southeast boundary with Asia is not universally defined, with either the Ural or Emba rivers serving as possible boundaries, continuing with the Caspian Sea, and either the Kuma and Manych rivers or the Caucasus mountains as possibilities, and onto the Black Sea; the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles conclude the Asian boundary. The Mediterranean Sea to the south separates Europe from Africa. The western boundary is the Atlantic Ocean, but Iceland, much farther away than the nearest points of Africa and Asia, is also included in Europe. There is ongoing debate on the true location of the geographical centre of Europe.

The idea of a European "continent" is not universally held. Some non-European geographical texts refer to a Eurasian Continent, or to a European "sub-continent", given that "Europe" is not surrounded by sea and is, in any case, much more a cultural than a geographically definable area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Europe
Subcontinent

A subcontinent is a large part of a continent. There is no agreement on what constitutes a subcontinent. Generally, however, a subcontinent is split from the rest of a continent by something like a mountain range or by tectonic plates. The phrase the Subcontinent, used on its own in English, commonly means the Indian subcontinent.

Geological/geographical subcontinents

In plate tectonics, a small continental plate connected to a larger continental plate can be called a subcontinent. In this sense, the Indian subcontinent on the India Plate and the Arabian subcontinent on the Arabian Plate are recognized. The latter is not commonly called a subcontinent geographically because of lack of a geographical border and a variety in climate. Europe is just a peninsula since it is on the Eurasian Plate.

In geography, Europe is occasionally described as a subcontinent of Eurasia for its vast area. Likewise, the smallest continent Australia and the largest island Greenland are sometimes called subcontinents.

North America and South America are thought to be the two subcontinents of the continent of the Americas in some cases, because they are connected by an isthmus. Africa and Eurasia are sometimes considered to form the continent of Africa-Eurasia for the same reason. However, the Americas and Africa-Eurasia are usually called supercontinents, composed of continents.

Cultural subcontinents

The term the Indian subcontinent is used also culturally and politically. It includes India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and usually other South Asian countries too. The region has wide geographical variations like desert, plateau, rainforest, mountains and a myriad of languages, races and religions.

Sometimes subregions of continents are dubbed subcontinents because their culture is so different from the rest of the continent, such as Central America and the Middle East.

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

And that's what i was talking about in my previous reply: "Only problem with Europe is defining it's borders. Europa is not a continent, but it's like India a sub-continent and with that a part of Eurasia. The borders of Europe are not political or truely physical, but psycholical and in some cases cultural."
And it also depends on which defenition is used for continent.

India is a country and part of the continent of Asia; it's known as the Indian subcontinent simply because it sits on a small tectonic plate which it shares with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And India is a subcontinent:

Indian subcontinent

The Indian subcontinent is the peninsular region of South Asia, which includes India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, usually also Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and some disputed territory currently controlled by China, and sometimes Myanmar. Geographically, the region is bound by the Himalaya to the north and east, and the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal to the south. The Hindu Kush mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan/Iran are usually considered the westernmost edge of the subcontinent. It is also known as the Indo-Pak subcontinent, primarily in Pakistan. Being the only region in the world that is commonly described as a subcontinent, it is often simply called the Subcontinent. The term South Asia is often used synonymously with the term Subcontinent, although technically South Asia refers more specifically to a political entity (the various countries that make up the Subcontinent), while the Subcontinent signifies a geographical area.

Geologically, this region is a subcontinent because it rests on a tectonic plate of its own, the India Plate, separate from the rest of Eurasia and was once a small continent before colliding with the Eurasian Plate and giving birth to the Himalayan range and the Tibetan plateau. Even now the India Plate continues to move northward with the result that the Himalaya are growing taller by a few centimetres each decade. In addition, the region is also home to an astounding variety of geographical features that are typical of much larger continents, such as glaciers, rainforests, valleys, deserts, and grasslands in an area about half the size of the United States.

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

The European Union is not a country - it's basically a glorified trading bloc (as it used to be when it was the EEC) except that it has a parliament of its own along with a taxation system and of course a common currency used by most of its member states. Whatsmore, the biggest country in Europe -being the European part of Russia - is not in the EU, nor are many other countries.

I think you should seriously look at taking one or two geography lessons. This might help you:

I never talked about the EU as a country, that's something you made up. But when we are comparing highways in the US with those in Europe, i think it's better to compare the US with the EU and nog with Europe. That's what i was talking about, but i should have been more clear about that. My mistake. ;)

And talking about geography lessons, it looks like we can follow lessons together... :jk:

Justme

June 16th, 2005, 03:52 PM

909 is quite correct. Europe is not a geographical continent, but a "cultural" continent.

However, it can fully be described as a continent, as it was European's that defined the world's continents in the beginning (well, actually our Egyption friends first used the term - but in a far more limited way). Originally, continents were based on a very loose cultural division (and geographical land mass), the term predates understanding of tectonic plates.

After the discovery of tectonic plates, continents were revised and Europe, although technically part of the Asian continent, remained.

There are plenty of other discrepencies when discussing continents. Australia, usually defined as a single continent, is often technically viewed as part of the Indian - Australian plate.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/fig37.gif

or

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/images/lithosphere/tectonics/Platet1.jpg

Likewise, New Zealand, which is in two seperate tectonic plates, is usually defined as part of the Oceana continent, or Australian/Pacific continent. (It can get quite confusing)

One very important thing to remember, is that different country's teach different definitions of Continents. Some, like the U.S. and Canada use a 7 continent world, while others (generally the rest of the planet), teach a 6 continent world (although the 6 continents can again vary depending on country)

As all of them are technically incorrect (and don't follow the tectonic plates) then none of them are "wrong".

Either way, the U.S and Europe (and most other country's) define a set of either 6 or 7 continents that includes Europe as a continent. So, one can definately say, Europe is a continent. However, it is true that it is not a geograhical continent as it is on the same plate as the rest of Asia.

But then there are plenty of other example's where geographical reality differs from continental description. India (on the same plate as Australia), New Zealand (on two seperate plates), Mexico (again on two plates) etc etc.

As for the 2nd point. Europe's border is pretty well defined these day's, although there are small flucuations with the exact area. However, these flucuations don't vary greatly.

I would also agree with you that the United States should be compared more with the EU than with Europe. The EU is a single economic and political region (although the recent new comers have yet to fully amalgamate into the union). The freedoms of travel, living, work, trade etc within the union, is not dissimilar to that of a single country, certainly closer than anything else.

Anyway, thanks for the information you posted about continents! :cheers:

Arpels

June 16th, 2005, 03:59 PM

Actually, Europe is larger then the U.S. including Alaska. Although most of the population is on the western side. Then again, the bulk of the U.S. population is on the Eastern side.

Europe 10,600,00km² link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe)
United States (including Alaska) 9,631,418km² link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states)
correcto, people normaly onli count the west part and forguet part of Russia!!

Justme

June 16th, 2005, 04:05 PM

correcto, people normaly onli count the west part and forguet part of Russia!!

Well, I don't know about where you live, but here people count European Russia, and EVERY encyclopedia and EVERY atlas includes European Russia.

If there are people who don't include European Russia that you know, then quite simply, those people are wrong - they should pick up at Atlas.

I suppose it's like many American's I've met consider Hawaii part of North America, when it is not. It's a mistake and you'll never find any Atlas or encylopedia or any geography lecturer that will claim it as such.

Arpels

June 16th, 2005, 04:18 PM

of course I count Russia as Europe but the position of thys country between too continents make some confusion to certain minds, the same apenns with caucasos and part of Turkey, some times political or cultural situation is a fact to people dont includ thys areas in Europe map but as you said the best thing to do is look the atlas because the borders are very well define there.

aatbloke

June 16th, 2005, 07:41 PM

I am not an expert, that's true. But this discussion depends on the used definitions:

Europe isn't geological a continent:

And that's what i was talking about in my previous reply: "Only problem with Europe is defining it's borders. Europa is not a continent, but it's like India a sub-continent and with that a part of Eurasia. The borders of Europe are not political or truely physical, but psycholical and in some cases cultural."
And it also depends on which defenition is used for continent.

And India is a subcontinent:

I never talked about the EU as a country, that's something you made up. But when we are comparing highways in the US with those in Europe, i think it's better to compare the US with the EU and nog with Europe. That's what i was talking about, but i should have been more clear about that. My mistake. ;)

And talking about geography lessons, it looks like we can follow lessons together... :jk:

Europe is a continent in its own right. Look at any atlas. Take any geography class. Eurasia is a landmass, not a continent, although (for the most part) it shares a tectonic plate. It seems you now agree with me that the Indian subcontinent not only includes India but Pakistan and Bangladesh...which sit on a tectonic plate of their own.

By your argument, North America isn't a continent either, given that part of Europe (the western part of Iceland) sits on the North American plate.

The seven continents of the world: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica. Primary school stuff...

aatbloke

June 16th, 2005, 07:46 PM

909 is quite correct. Europe is not a geographical continent, but a "cultural" continent.

Anyway, thanks for the information you posted about continents! :cheers:

It is geographically a continent. However, like other continents, it isn't a geological continent in it's own right.

Arpels

June 16th, 2005, 07:48 PM

correct geographically is a continent acording to man division.

909

June 16th, 2005, 08:52 PM

Europe is a continent in its own right. Look at any atlas. Take any geography class. Eurasia is a landmass, not a continent, although (for the most part) it shares a tectonic plate. It seems you now agree with me that the Indian subcontinent not only includes India but Pakistan and Bangladesh...which sit on a tectonic plate of their own.

By your argument, North America isn't a continent either, given that part of Europe (the western part of Iceland) sits on the North American plate.

The seven continents of the world: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica. Primary school stuff...
Still some sources leave room for more than one defenition of 'continent' and the question if Eurasia is one continent or a landmass which holds more than one continent.
I'm not suggesting that you are wrong in your replies, but there is no reason to assume there is only one defenition for continent. You have learned that there are seven continents, while some learn other:

Eurasia is the landmass composed of the continents of Europe and Asia. It can be considered a supercontinent, part of a supercontinent of Africa-Eurasia, or simply a continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia
Europe is geologically and geographically a peninsula, forming the westernmost part of Eurasia. It is conventionally considered a continent, which, in this case, is more of a cultural distinction than a geographic one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
Asia is the central and eastern part of the continent of Eurasia, defined by subtracting the European peninsula from Eurasia. Geologically and geographically, however, Asia is not considered a continent or a subcontinent.

The exact boundaries are vaguely defined, especially between Asia and Europe: the demarcation between Asia and Africa is the isthmus of Suez. The boundary between Asia and Europe runs via the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus, the Black Sea, the ridges of the Caucasus (according to others, through the Kuma-Manych Depression), the Caspian Sea, the Ural River (according to others, the Emba River) and the Ural Mountains to Novaya Zemlya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
A continent (Latin continere, "to hold together") is a large continuous mass of land on the planet Earth.

There is no single standard for what defines a continent, and therefore various cultures and sciences have different lists of what are considered to be continents. In general, a continent must be large in area, consist of non-submerged land, and have geologically significant borders. While some consider that there are as few as four or five continents, the most commonly used counts are six or seven.

Two of the largest disagreements in listing continents are whether Europe and Asia should be considered separately or combined into Eurasia, and whether North America and South America should be considered separately or combined into America. A few geographers have also suggested grouping Europe, Asia, and Africa into a continent of Eurafrasia (see Africa-Eurasia).

The seven continent model is taught in the United States, while the six continent (combined Eurasia) model is also taught in North America. The five continent (combined Americas, no Antartica) model is commonly taught in Europe and South America including United Kingdom and Mexico. The continents of the "five continents" model (as shown by the five Olympic Games flag rings) are speculated to be the five permamently populated continents (viewing Antarctica as only temporarily populated, and all the Americas as one).

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Continent
In the end, it's just a matter of used defenitions. And again, if you are talking about taking a geography class you would have known this... ;)

eomer

June 16th, 2005, 09:00 PM

It is geographically a continent. However, like other continents, it isn't a geological continent in it's own right.
If Europe is considered as a continent, North and South America must be considered as two separated continents too. There are 7 continents.

But distinction is more cultural than geological, that's sure.

Justme

June 17th, 2005, 12:10 AM

Guys, 909 is correct in saying that continents, and their definition, are open to differences based on cultural acceptance.

There are 7 continents, if you live in that part of the world that teaches "7" continents. But other country's teach different definitions.

All of them are technically "wrong", as the maps show, if continents were based purely on tectonic plates as they are supposed to be, then we would have different continents.

aatbloke

June 17th, 2005, 05:17 AM

Still some sources leave room for more than one defenition of 'continent' and the question if Eurasia is one continent or a landmass which holds more than one continent.
I'm not suggesting that you are wrong in your replies, but there is no reason to assume there is only one defenition for continent. You have learned that there are seven continents, while some learn other:

In the end, it's just a matter of used defenitions. And again, if you are talking about taking a geography class you would have known this... ;)

I honestly don't know where you drum this from. In the UK, geography has always been taught with seven continents, not five as you state. I would therefore say you did not take geography in the UK school curriculum.

I've listed the seven in an earlier post - mind you, that was the world thirty years ago. Clearly, given what you say schools somewhere in the world are adopting different methods these days. It's little wonder the world's so screwed up.

Seriously - define "cultural" definition. I'm fully aware that continents geographically don't share the geological tectonic plates. Who on earth seriously terms "Eurasia" in a real-world application? What defines a European person from an American or an Asian? Europe is a continent, all said and done. If I'm to qualify that by stating that it is a geographical continent in this pedantic day and age, then so be it.

Going back to what you said about highways, there is no EU-wide standard in place unlike the US Interstate system, so I'm not sure why you'd compare on this basis - unless you're comparing areas of similar size. I would compare France with the US, or the UK with the US when it comes to road infrastructure. Traffic density for example is a major player; the US has 21 times the length of road network that the UK has, yet it has just eight times as many cars on the road.

Perhaps you've been reading too much George Orwell, with his supercontinents of Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia battling it out for supremacy...

Mike19

June 25th, 2005, 06:23 PM

The reason Europe has more advanced highways is because the American interstates were built in the 1950´s. In contrast Europe´s wer built much later. Spain which has one of the most advacned highway systems in europe began building their highwyas system in the 1990´s and they just recently finished. Of course Spain´s highways of the 1990´s are going to be far more advanced than US highways of the 1950´s. And they look better and in better condition because of the numbers drivers so USA 300 million ppl. Spain 40 million. Obviosuly not all those ppl ahve cars or drive on the highway but there are many many many more ppl driving on highways here than in europe and that all those tires wear on the concrete.

And lets put the final nail in the coffin about who are the better drivers. If the highway systems are sooooo bad bad here and sooooo much better in europe, then why are three european countries ahead of us in fatalities. And we are followed closely by others. Its because europeans,with their advanced and safe systems are worse drivers than americans. I spend every summer in europe and i live in Miami, and trust me ppl drive like shit down here. but i would say that witht eh exception of the UK, most drivers in europe are much more aggresive than here.

But i dont want to sound like a european hater, both countries have their pros and cons. European mass transit is 50000000000000000 times better than ours. and were are jsut now starting to realize that more lanes and more highways onyl means more cars and more congestion. In the states, we are now starting to invest more on public transportation. Following Europes lead, jsut like europe followed our lead on highways.

EarlyBird

June 25th, 2005, 09:46 PM

The reason Europe has more advanced highways is because the American interstates were built in the 1950´s. In contrast Europe´s wer built much later.
Erm... the UK's motorway system was started at the same time as the US interstates.

Nodder

June 25th, 2005, 09:52 PM

If I recall it right, the first highway was the AVUS in Berlin-Germany, which was opened back in 1921. Later in 1933, Hitler started building a big german autobahn network.

Giorgio

June 25th, 2005, 09:54 PM

I thought this thread was dead ages ago...

Mike19

June 25th, 2005, 09:57 PM

Erm... the UK's motorway system was started at the same time as the US interstates.

i think i mentioned uk´s exception, but maybe i didnt clear it up. Germany too built them earlier, but as for mot of europe, they built much later

Caliguy2005

August 5th, 2005, 11:51 PM

Freeway Quality and Design depends on what state your in here in The U.S....here in the Western U.S,California probably has the least maintained and ugliest freeways i've ever seen...California has freeways that look worn out,trashy and very 1950's compared to the neighboring states which look better maintained,cleaner,attractive and more modern...

California is the Richest State in America,but you wouldn't know it from driving on our freeways....

I'm sure that some European Highways are better than American Highways or Vice Versa.

MainDiish

August 6th, 2005, 12:12 AM

Do you all really think that European Highways are better? Looks can really be decieving...

chiccoplease

August 6th, 2005, 03:51 PM

I think American highways are crap because when it comes to construction in that country, everything is done half-heartedly. A new road is finished -- 1 year later it looks like it's been out there for decades. In this aspect I don't see much difference between the US and Russia.

nick_taylor

August 6th, 2005, 04:36 PM

300kph Eurostar test train (running at over 350kph) next to the M2
http://www.ctrl.co.uk/photos/contractLarge.asp?ID=4139

Spaghetti Junction - probably the most complex junction in Europe, definately the UK. Combines 2 motorways, an A-Road, a roundabout, various local roads, a railway line and two canals.
http://hitite.adlibsoft.com/.%5Cexamples%5Ccd0039%5CNMR_18175_06.jpg

Then again do I really care about road transport? Its inefficient and not the way forward except in loosely populated areas. I prefer public transport and practically every country in Europe trashes the US in that category. The 401 by the way is one of the worst scars on the face of the planet, I'd rather have cancer than have that in my city.

TO_Joe

August 6th, 2005, 05:53 PM

Some of my observations:

1. There are big variations of quality within each "system". There are some well-designed highways that are a pleasure to drive on in the US, and there are some incredibly crappy and dangerous ones. Likewise in Europe.

2. There is no free lunch. You get what you pay for. If you want high pavement / signage / markings / safety standards, then you have to pay for it (construction and maintenance). If you want to sensitive be to the environment and integrate it into the surrounding areas, you may need designs / routes that will not be the cheapest.

Sounds obvious but this point is often lost because highways are a collective good and you don't pay for it individually. This is where ideologies can creep in and muddy things up. The frequent comments about "low taxes" or "socialist systems" reflect how ideology can muddy up the obvious.

3. There is a difference in design objectives between the US and Europe. The US system is designed so that it serves a car-centric society where everyone can drive and reach their destinations. In Europe, highways are designed as an augmentation to a rail / mass transit system.

So in the US, standards are set to minimally-acceptable so that everyone can get a license and go anywhere. This is why driver training and examination is not emphasized in the US -- you can see it just by the minimum number of training hours required, the examination standards, etc. The upside is that virtually anyone can get a license. The downside is, unsurprisingly, you get crappy drivers. Compare the US regulations in general (they do vary by state, I know, but take it as a whole) with the European ones in general (they vary by country).

In keeping with the go-anywhere design objective, the US emphasizes building more new roads into new areas and suburbs rather than maintenance. So you get crumbling pot-holed existing roads.

4. Climate of course is a big factor on cost. The climate is harsher in the Northern US and Canada -- particularly the freeze / thaw cycles that crack asphalt and concrete. Even southern US faces problems with the heat and buckling. Harsh climates puts a lot of stress on the roads.

And population density and geography has an effect on design and affordability. Why spend millions on paving a road that is travelled on by only a few dozen cars per week.

5. Of course political systems and existing political realities make changes changes difficult. That is why I use the term systems -- it feeds on itself.

US has chosen "free" highways (not toll-collecting) in general, to pursue low gas tax (in keeping with the car-centric go-anywhere objective), dedicated and protected highway construction funds (particularly the Interstate funds) whereas in other countries highway construction needs to compete with other government priorities from general revenues, use of direct referendums to decide on highway upgrades (by authorizing bond raising on the ballot) in many states or local counties, etc.

Many people have profited and are continuing to profit from this system -- oil companies, car companies, land developers, construction companies, and even retailers. There wouldn't be Wal-Marts and Big Box stores like Home Depot without a car society built with lots of highways and everyone being licensed to drive.

Just think about how many powerful interests you have to fight to change that.

And the society became conditioned this way. The frequent mentions about the car is part of the "American Dream" shows how much of this attitude has been manufactured through decades. Think about it this way: if Otto Daimler and Henry Ford did not come up with the modern car for the masses, then does that mean America will cease to exist and that there will be no "American Dream"? Of course not. It is conditioning.

Then the politicians of course will take this reality and use it to their advantage to gain power. That's why the emphasis on building new roads -- everyone likes to be at sexy ribbon-cutting ceremonies and no one likes to allocate budgets to boring old maintenance that have no political value.

And if you start putting tolls on the highways -- hell, just try to charge for parking in suburban malls in the US -- riots will break out.

Contrast this social attitude to Japan or other countries where you expect to pay toll on highways, pay exorbitant fees for parking, pay a lot of money for gas, etc..

6. The problem is that some negative effects such as pollution, ecosystem damage (like building roads that cut off animal migration paths and resulting in roadkill, etc.) have no obvious concentrated, organized and motivated constituencies like builders and car companies. Everyone is adversely affected but no one person or group can own or takes "responsibility" for it.

For the free-enterprise ideology crowd, note that there is no "market" for this even though there are negative effects. This is clearly an example of market failure that needs to be addressed by some other mechanism -- regulations or creation of artificial market mechanisms like carbon-emission trading, etc. to solve this problem. To ignore it and sweep it under the rug is clearly disingenuous.

It is interesting to note that highway safety (death and personal injuries) does have a powerful constituent. It is not so much the highway users themselves (who are either unaware or don't think too much about the risks of a good or bad highway or sharing the road with good or bad drivers), or traffic engineers and transport departments, but it is the insurance companies who want to limit their payouts. That is what drives the highway safety lobby ultimately. Other with their own political agenda tap in -- such as drunk-driver campaigns (which is motivated by an underlying moralism rather than public safety) or law enforcement and municipalities (since traffic ticket fines go into the city or department's revenues).

7. Finally, and perhaps the most important point is that engineering techniques are not an issue at all. Highways have been designed and studied to death -- construction methods, costs, maintenability traffic flow, human factors, and there are global best practice standards that everyone uses or has access to them. This ain't some new technology like nanotechnology.

Caliguy2005

August 6th, 2005, 11:55 PM

That's not the case everywhere here...there are some states that use very high quality products when constructing their highways and are very well maintained.i wish i could say the same for California...

California is a beautiful state,but our freeways are not and i blame it on our lousy state government.
I think American highways are crap because when it comes to construction in that country, everything is done half-heartedly. A new road is finished -- 1 year later it looks like it's been out there for decades. In this aspect I don't see much difference between the US and Russia.

chiccoplease

August 7th, 2005, 04:40 PM

California has a real excuse, though -- the density of cars and the landscape are untypical for the US. However, when you drive over potholes in the lightly populated North of America, especially in Upstate NY, you really wonder why the standards are so low.

Jaye101

August 9th, 2005, 07:19 AM

The 401 by the way is one of the worst scars on the face of the planet, I'd rather have cancer than have that in my city.

Well, it's the only highway that goes east west straight through the city, Toronto decided they rather widen it than build an extention of another highway. I can count how many Highways are in my city, its 5, can u? probably not.

Nobdy hates the 401 cause its massive, because if they did ANYTHING to reduce capacity, there could be an outburst of severe traffic EVERYWHERE.

Justme

August 9th, 2005, 08:48 AM

Well, it's the only highway that goes east west straight through the city, Toronto decided they rather widen it than build an extention of another highway. I can count how many Highways are in my city, its 5, can u? probably not.

If you're talking about full freeway conditions (and major links, not just short connecting freeway's) I believe there are at least 7 in the inner part of Frankfurt's metro (Rhein Main), there will be more in the full Rhein Main.

Jaye101

August 9th, 2005, 09:22 AM

I remember I tried to count how many were Chicago, I almost went crazy.

PotatoGuy

August 10th, 2005, 02:13 AM

I thought this thread was dead ages ago...

haha, same here

addisonwesley

August 10th, 2005, 05:05 AM

I didn't notice any difference. I think most of the US highways are more a lot safer though.

zonie

August 10th, 2005, 01:35 PM

I'm not sure if this really hasn't been mentioned after 10 pages, but I didn't see it in my skim over this thread:

The US has some of the biggest and heaviest vehicles using its roads, such as SUVs, pick-ups, tractors, and semis (seemingly in higher frequency than other countries that rely more on smaller trucks and trains). Not sure how a big a factor that is on road wear though.

LtBk

August 10th, 2005, 04:46 PM

I didn't notice any difference. I think most of the US highways are more a lot safer though.

That's because most Americans drive slow and defensively.

addisonwesley

August 10th, 2005, 06:50 PM

"That's because most Americans drive slow and defensively" - there's nothing wrong with driving defensively, it helps to prevents collisions. In Canada, new drivers are also taught to drive defensively. It's not like there's some big race, that's the kind of thinking that causes accidents (that and drinking).

andysimo123

August 10th, 2005, 07:01 PM

The reason US highways are so crap is that they only lay on average 12inchs on concrete as Germany and other European Highways lay on average 40+ inchs. It means Germanys etc dont crack during temp changes and US ones do.

great prairie

August 10th, 2005, 11:27 PM

andysimo123

August 10th, 2005, 11:47 PM

Nope I was watching a program on the worlds highways. It was saying that Germany's highways have to be a really good quality or they wouldnt be able to handle the high speeds which people travel at and also they need them to last longer. As for the US highways the speeds aint as high so they dont lay as much down. Basicly the faster the highway the better the road.

streetscapeer

August 11th, 2005, 04:15 AM

I like complexity, I like massive chaos, ordered chaos to be more specific. That's basically what a city is. And I like transport systems (freeway systems) for the reasons). In terms oh highways, the US is better than Europe, imo. Each city has a complex network of transport, and there's a certain feel, a buzz, you get when you're on a busy highway within a big complex of highways, each having their own personality, all transporting hundreds of thousands of people a day (as miles and miles of the city pass you by)

Think of car chase scene on The Matrix Reloaded and then imagine that on multiple (10+) highways within the city.

I think size does make a difference as some people here have denied. Travel on Atlanta's I-75 (which has something like 8 lanes for each direction) and you'll certainly be "moved." It was very impressive when I saw it. A massive highway feeding into an elaborate interchange (there are plenty in each US city) that joins major arterials, city streets, and sometimes even 2 other major expressways. It's quite exhilarating, imo. In many metros you can drive for an hour and constantly be surrounded by a sea of cars, "There are like million cars on the road" is the feeling you get. "Where are all these people going."

American highways in general have to endure this kind of wear and tear day in, and day out ....

Seattle

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/DowntownSeattle056.jpg

Cincinnatti

http://mie.bpcdn.us/unusualfire2/75.jpeg I-75
http://mie.bpcdn.us/unusualfire2/71.jpeg I-71

Chicago

http://www.photo-mark.com/webpix/ds/ChicagoTraffic.jpg

http://www.teresco.org/pics/alaska-20010606-30/rff/07/P6070167.JPG

http://www.teresco.org/pics/alaska-20010606-30/rff/07/P6070168.JPG

http://www.auntminnie.com/images/content_images/nws_rad/2004_02_16_12_35_48_706.jpg

http://www.natesviolin.com/gallery/chicago/athome/2003/summer/images/post-firework%20traffic.jpg

wow... traffic in 1959...Did Europe have this?? http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/img/media/xl/272.jpg