daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 12th, 2010, 05:38 PM   #101
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,614
Likes (Received): 19406

I-5 doesn't serve any large cities between Los Angeles and Stockton. CA-99 does; Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and eventually Sacramento.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 12th, 2010, 08:00 PM   #102
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddard Stark View Post
thanks! do you have any idea if there are other long routes in the US with 6 lanes? maybe in the northeast where so many big cities are aligned in one route?

anyway as I said before please consider a logical route and a perfectly continous route...small holes in the route means...no route
After an hour or so of Googlesurfing (yes, surely some SSCers would've known this without having to look)...

Except for a few short streches through interchanges, I-95 is at least three lanes in each direction from the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg, VA to the southern end of I-495 in Wilmington, DE. At Wilmington, neither I-95 nor the I-495 bypass are truly 2x3 for their entire length; I-95 drops to 2x2 for a short distance near central Wilmington, and I-495 is 2x2 for a bit longer at the returns to I-95 than it might've been strictly for operational reasons, though I'd personally give credit for continuity. North of Wilmington, I-95 remains 2x3 or wider until exit 40 north of Philadelphia.

So far that's 287 miles.

However... there is no way to pass through the Philadelphia area on 2x3 motorways, even discounting short stretches at interchanges. This is because of:
  • The early decision to parallel the New Jersey Turnpike with the free I-295. While north of Cherry Hill both routes are 2x3, south of the connection to the Commodore Barry Bridge two 2x2 motorways are apparently still sufficient for the traffic.
  • Lack of connections between the New Jersey Turnpike and other motorways. If there were an interchange at I-295 and the I-276 section of the turnpike, a not-terribly-illogical route could be cobbled together.
  • Lack of traffic? Could it be? Well... without an I-295-I-276 interchange, you could still access the NJT from I-295 via I-195. But I-195 is only 2x2, presumably due to lack of traffic.
  • I suppose I must mention the failure to build the Trenton-New Brunwick stretch of I-95. Even so, part of I-95 in Pennsylvania is still only 2x2, so even if the missing section of I-95 existed, the 2x3 conundrum might not be solved.

There's a project to connect I-95 to the current I-276 and reroute I-95 along the turnpikes: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/home.htm

Notrth of Philly, the longest logical 2x3 route ends not in Boston, but at I-91 and I-291 in Springfield, MA, another 180 miles or so away.

Last edited by Tom 958; March 12th, 2010 at 08:00 PM. Reason: added link
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 12:54 AM   #103
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by GENIUS LOCI View Post
I think anything rural in Netherland would be considered as urban in France anyway
Yeah, that was exactly my thought too. The Netherlands is basically a big giant city. Whereas south of Beaune is really REALLY countryside, as in dead, boring, cows, nothing happening.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 12:56 AM   #104
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,614
Likes (Received): 19406

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
Whereas south of Beaune is really REALLY countryside, as in dead, boring, cows, nothing happening.
View off A1:
[IMG]http://i39.************/2yyqk43.jpg[/IMG]
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 01:28 AM   #105
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

If Metropolitan France (the European part of France) had the same population density as the Netherlands (491.5 inh/kmē), there would be 267 million inhabitants in Metropolitan France. Just imagine.

The Netherlands did a great job at packing people in some small areas though, and limiting urban sprawl, thus preserving some green, countryside-looking areas, despite the super high density of the country. In Flanders, on the other hand, they screwed big time, and their country is now a big uncontrolled urban sprawl, despite having a lower density than the Netherlands overall.

If Metropolitan France had the mind-boggling population of 267 million, I wonder whether it would have gone the Dutch way or the Flemish way. My feeling is probably some areas of France would look like the Tokyo-Kobe megalopolis in Japan, with densities around 1,000 inh/kmē, while other areas away from the main urban regions (e.g. Cantal, Hautes-Alpes, Lozčre) would have remained more rural despite the huge population of 267 million overall.

We may find out in about 5 centuries.

PS: How many people lived in the current territory of the Netherlands back in 1801? Do you know? I couldn't find a number.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 02:02 AM   #106
Qaabus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 4

Roughly 2 million in 1795. (1880463 + Limburg)
Qaabus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 04:18 PM   #107
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaabus View Post
Roughly 2 million in 1795. (1880463 + Limburg)
Interesting. With your figure I could actually find the 1795 census of the Batavian Republic. Limburg was indeed not part of the Batavian Republic, but you also forgot Zeelandic Flanders which was not part of the Batavian Republic either (it was annexed by the French Republic). Based on the results of the 1830 census and the growth rates between 1795 and 1830 I estimate that the population of the current territory of the Netherlands (incl. Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders) was approx. 2,060,000 inhabitants in 1795.

Now the reason why I asked this was because I was curious what was the population density of the Netherlands around 1800 compared to France. France was at the time the most populated country in Europe, and its density was quite high compared to other European countries (whereas now, due to the stagnation of the French population in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, France is a relatively empty country in Western Europe, with a large empty countryside). So I was curious how high was the population density of the Netherlands at the time compared to France.

In 1795, according to what I could find online, I estimate the land area of the Netherlands (incl. Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders) was 32,000 kmē, unless someone can come with a better estimate. That means in 1795 the population density of the Netherlands was approx. 64 inh/kmē.

Now, at the 1801 French census, the first modern census held in France, the population density of Metropolitan France within its current 2010 borders was 54.5 inh/kmē. So the population density in France was at the time almost as high as in the Netherlands. Many areas of France were actually denser than the Netherlands at the time. For example Normandy had a density of 86 inh/kmē in 1801. Its territory is slightly smaller than the Netherlands (29,907 kmē), but it had more inhabitants than the Netherlands at the time (2,575,745 inh. in 1801). It tells you something about the decline of French provinces when a province like Normandy, then more populated than the Netherlands, and which would have felt more densely populated to the traveler than the Netherlands, has now only 3.3 million inhabitants, whereas the Netherlands have 16.6 million inhabitants.

If it had grown like the Netherlands in the past two centuries, Normandy would have about 20 million inhabitants today. I can't even imagine how it would look like. I guess it helps to understand why the Normans were able to conquer England and dominate that country for several centuries.

Even more populated than Normandy, the Nord-Pas de Calais had a population density of 114 inh/kmē in 1801, almost twice the population density of the Netherlands at the time. In fact I believe Nord-Pas de Calais and the historical Belgian Flanders (i.e. the provinces of East and West Flanders) were the most densely populated areas in Europe at the time. The Nord department itself had a density of 146 inh/kmē, which must have appeared as monstrously high to the travelers at the time. Holland was of course more densely populated than the rest of the Netherlands, but I don't a have population density figure for Holland proper (I don't know if the borders of South and North Holland have changed between 1795 and 2010, perhaps the Dutch forumers could tell us; also I don't know how much land Holland has reclaimed in the past 200 years).

In total, out of the 96 departments of Metropolitan France, 25 had a population density higher than the Netherlands in 1801. Even the Picardie, this boringly empty region that people cross between Lille and Paris, had a population density higher than the Netherlands in 1801, with 67 inh/kmē.

In other words, for road nuts, if the French provinces had grown at the same rate as say England, the Benelux and West Germany, today you'd probably have a super dense urban region stretching from Amsterdam to Cherbourg and Rennes (the high density areas at the time extended until Eastern Brittany, incl. the densely populated departments of Manche, Ille-et-Vilaine and Côtes-d'Armor), with a road and motorway network as dense as in the Benelux extending to Nord-Pas de Calais, Picardie, Île-de-France, Normandy, and Eastern Brittany. It's hard to imagine in one's head how this would look. A very different Europe for sure.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 04:33 PM   #108
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,614
Likes (Received): 19406

Quote:
In 1795, according to what I could find online, I estimate the land area of the Netherlands (incl. Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders) was 32,000 kmē, unless someone can come with a better estimate. That means in 1795 the population density of the Netherlands was approx. 64 inh/kmē.
I think the area was less, remember back in the 18th century large areas of what is now the Randstad were lakes. and the Flevoland province didn't exist, as well as some other areas which are now polders.

Nowadays, after significant land reclamation projects, the surface area of the Netherlands is only 34,000 kmē if you don't count water (which is 18% of the Dutch area).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 04:39 PM   #109
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think the area was less, remember back in the 18th century large areas of what is now the Randstad were lakes. and the Flevoland province didn't exist, as well as some other areas which are now polders.

Nowadays, after significant land reclamation projects, the surface area of the Netherlands is only 34,000 kmē if you don't count water (which is 18% of the Dutch area).
According to various sources online, at the end of the 19th century, the land area of the Netherlands was 32,800 kmē. I assumed land reclamations of 800 kmē from 1795 to the end of the 19th century. If it was more than that, do you have sources?
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 04:43 PM   #110
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,614
Likes (Received): 19406

According to wikipedia about 7,000 kmē of land was added due to reclamation.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 05:07 PM   #111
[email protected]
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
If Metropolitan France had the mind-boggling population of 267 million, I wonder whether it would have gone the Dutch way or the Flemish way.
More likely the latter I guess. Look at how new developments sprout here and there in the dynamic regions.
M@rtoc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 05:41 PM   #112
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
According to wikipedia about 7,000 kmē of land was added due to reclamation.
Yes, but that's since the Middle Ages. I believe most of it had already been reclaimed by 1795 (the largest reclamations of land occured in the 16th and 17th centuries). Since you read Dutch, what about you find a Dutch source with precise figures? I wasn't able to find one, but I'm sure there is one somewhere, giving the numbers for each century.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 05:49 PM   #113
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
More likely the latter I guess. Look at how new developments sprout here and there in the dynamic regions.
I'm not so sure. French urban developments have been sprawling precisely because France has a low density. If France had 267 million inhabitants, it would already have had 100 million inhabitants by 1900, all living in dense cities and dense suburbs, because there were no cars at the time. Then with the continuing population increase in the 20th century, it's quite possible that French authorities would have adopted policies of strict control of urban development as in the Netherlands, to prevent all the countryside from being engulfed by urbanization. I would imagine that by the beginning of the 20th century there would have been vocal calls for the protection of the countryside and the establishment of green belts everywhere, as happened in England. The strange thing is why this didn't happen in Flanders.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #114
Professor L Gee
Fan of skylines, highways
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Newport News, VA (hometown); Raleigh, NC (current)
Posts: 257
Likes (Received): 21

You beat me to it.

Though somehow I forgot that I-95 drops to 2x2 in Wilmington... and I've driven it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
After an hour or so of Googlesurfing (yes, surely some SSCers would've known this without having to look)...

Except for a few short streches through interchanges, I-95 is at least three lanes in each direction from the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg, VA to the southern end of I-495 in Wilmington, DE. At Wilmington, neither I-95 nor the I-495 bypass are truly 2x3 for their entire length; I-95 drops to 2x2 for a short distance near central Wilmington, and I-495 is 2x2 for a bit longer at the returns to I-95 than it might've been strictly for operational reasons, though I'd personally give credit for continuity. North of Wilmington, I-95 remains 2x3 or wider until exit 40 north of Philadelphia.

So far that's 287 miles.

However... there is no way to pass through the Philadelphia area on 2x3 motorways, even discounting short stretches at interchanges. This is because of:
  • The early decision to parallel the New Jersey Turnpike with the free I-295. While north of Cherry Hill both routes are 2x3, south of the connection to the Commodore Barry Bridge two 2x2 motorways are apparently still sufficient for the traffic.
  • Lack of connections between the New Jersey Turnpike and other motorways. If there were an interchange at I-295 and the I-276 section of the turnpike, a not-terribly-illogical route could be cobbled together.
  • Lack of traffic? Could it be? Well... without an I-295-I-276 interchange, you could still access the NJT from I-295 via I-195. But I-195 is only 2x2, presumably due to lack of traffic.
  • I suppose I must mention the failure to build the Trenton-New Brunwick stretch of I-95. Even so, part of I-95 in Pennsylvania is still only 2x2, so even if the missing section of I-95 existed, the 2x3 conundrum might not be solved.

There's a project to connect I-95 to the current I-276 and reroute I-95 along the turnpikes: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/home.htm

Notrth of Philly, the longest logical 2x3 route ends not in Boston, but at I-91 and I-291 in Springfield, MA, another 180 miles or so away.
Professor L Gee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 12:29 AM   #115
aswnl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: near Amsterdam (NL)
Posts: 932
Likes (Received): 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
I believe most of it had already been reclaimed by 1795 (the largest reclamations of land occured in the 16th and 17th centuries).
Not true.
In 1846 the Anna Paulownapolder (50 km2) was reclaimed, in 1852 the Haarlemmermeer (170 km2), in 1874 the IJpolders (55 km2), in 1929 the Wieringermeerpolder (206 km2), in 1940 the Noordoostpolder (460 km2), in 1958 Oostelijk Flevoland (540 km2) and in 1968 Zuidelijk Flevoland (430 km2). That together is quite a big area... - approx. 2000 km2.

Last edited by aswnl; March 16th, 2010 at 12:44 AM.
aswnl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 05:44 AM   #116
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,049
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by aswnl View Post
In 1846 the Anna Paulownapolder (50 km2) was reclaimed, in 1852 the Haarlemmermeer (170 km2), in 1874 the IJpolders (55 km2)
So that's only 275 kmē reclaimed between 1795 and the end of the 19th century then, which is less than what I had estimated, not more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aswnl View Post
That together is quite a big area... - approx. 2000 km2.
That would mean a land area of 31,845 kmē in 1795. Not far from what I had estimated. That means a population density of 65 inh/kmē in 1795.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 04:27 PM   #117
GENIUS LOCI
No More Italian Mod
 
GENIUS LOCI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Milano
Posts: 35,321
Likes (Received): 11129

Erm... what about 2X3 lanes motorways?
__________________
URBANFILE
GENIUS LOCI no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2010, 09:59 AM   #118
Nima-Farid
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shiraz-Abadeh
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 13

Tehran-Tabriz Freeway in Iran in 2x3 about 600 km
Nima-Farid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2010, 01:53 PM   #119
CNGL
Leudimin
 
CNGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Huesca
Posts: 7,459
Likes (Received): 1936

Spanish A-6/AP-6 is planned to have 2x3 or 2x4 lanes between Madrid and Benavente. That is 263 kilometres. But I believe AP-7 from French A9 kmpost 280.5 (i.e. F/E border) to Salou is longer, and it will have 2x3 or more all the way.
__________________
Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non nunquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem - Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum, from which placeholder text is derived.
CNGL está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2010, 01:58 PM   #120
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,614
Likes (Received): 19406

If the French also widen the southernmost section of A9 to 2x3, you'll have 2x3 from Nîmes to Salou.

However, the longest 2x3 section is the A1 in Algeria at 1250 km.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium