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 September 15th, 2011, 01:06 PM   #161
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
That looks totally awesome if not for the style of the buildings. The Spui would also do well with some motorways out there, and so would an IJmuiden-Centraal Station expressway.
No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.

An IJmuiden - Centraal Station expressway would actually not have ruined too much, as the area was more or less wasteland at the time when plans for such a road were made. Part of the 1960s redevelopment plans was also to move Central Station to an area South of the city centre.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs

Last edited by -Pino-; September 15th, 2011 at 04:24 PM. Reason: typo
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 15th, 2011, 02:28 PM   #162
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,536
Likes (Received): 21244

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of some many buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.
You wrote like I was proposing to pave or build over ALL Amsterdam canals, I just needed one to provide easy access to downtown (plus better traffic flow in the streets of Oud Zuid and Joordan areas). Anyway: the worst problem of Amsterdam is not lack of freeways, but lack of affordable parking lots (underground or course). € 42 to park the car for a day... too much. Seriously, € 42 is far more than what I spend in fuel to go and come back from Tilburg to Amsterdam (125km each way).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 04:24 PM   #163
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

Access to downtown does not mean "a freeway right through downtown". A freeway that more or less follows the current s100, as it was planned in the days, already forms an extremely good access to downtown. In other words, you have just confirmed that you only look at concrete for the sake of the concrete.

With respect to parking lots in Amsterdam, it is not a capacity problem but a pricing problem. Anything new they might build in town will be priced at EUR 42 per day too. It all boils down to the policy that day visitors are supposed to park at the edge of town and take a suburban train from there. Those edge-of-town parking lots are priced accordingly. Like the policy or not, the problem is not about a lack of adequate infrastructure.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 04:45 PM   #164
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,245
Likes (Received): 781

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmn42 View Post
....If you're talking about Queens Boulevard, I would definitely agree. Unfortunately, there's a subway line under there, so I'm not sure how feasible it is....
He's talking about Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia. New York is not the world, you know. :-P
__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 04:53 PM   #165
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,245
Likes (Received): 781

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
No, it looks awesome if not for the presence of buildings. Irrespective of what those buildings look like. It completely ruins town. But then again, if you think motorways over the Spui, you clearly do not care about the town but only about the concrete.

An IJmuiden - Centraal Station expressway would actually not have ruined too much, as the area was more or less wasteland at the time when plans for such a road were made. Part of the 1960s redevelopment plans was also to move Central Station to an area South of the city centre.
I'm rusty on Amsterdam: remind me where the Spui is?
__________________
I didn't vote for him....

DRIVEN IN BEEN IN:
AL CA CT DE DC FL GA ID IL IN KY ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NH NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD TN UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ---
AB BC MB NB NS ON PE QC SK ---
A B CH D F GB I L NL
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 06:44 PM   #166
dmn42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-275westcoastfl View Post
Actually there is a way to improve cross-Manhattan traffic but I'd imagine it would be pretty expensive though not impossible. What if they were to were to build underground interchanges at the Holland Tunnel and bore a tunnel to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel in addition to adding some capacity to connect to the tunnel. The tunnel would be maybe 1.5 miles which isn't bad but I imagine that connecting to existing tunnels and anything related would be expensive. In addition you would have to add capacity to I-278 which would be expensive as well. The good thing is you would have uninterrupted highway going across lower Manhattan with no exits except maybe adding an exit near the batt-brooklyn tunnel but that wouldn't be necessary as you could take I-278 and connect to the Brooklyn Bridge to get to lower Manhattan. Another way is maybe adding an interchange around Liberty Park in Jersey and making a tunnel from there to connect with the Battery Tunnel or into lower Manhattan and back to Battery tunnel.
It wouldn't really be across Lower Manhattan though - the east side would be left out. In addition, I'm not sure either the Holland Tunnel or the Battery Tunnel could handle the extra capacity (unless we're talking about additional tubes, which I'm all in favor of, especially on the NY-NJ side). You can expand I-278 all you want, but the tunnels end up being choke points.

Plus, since it's pretty much just as easy to get from that part of Brooklyn to New Jersey by going over the Verazzano, I'm not too concerned about a new link there. A cross-Manhattan tunnel in the Midtown area would serve the East Side as well, connect Queens to New Jersey, and if you combined it with an upgrade to Route 17 in New Jersey, would give people a reason not to drive up to the GWB to get to northern Jersey and thus reduce congestion on the West Side Highway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?


(this is the area concerned)
Wow, that is hideous. Completely shutting out the waterfront from one side of the canal. What a disaster that would have been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Anyway: the worst problem of Amsterdam is not lack of freeways, but lack of affordable parking lots (underground or course). € 42 to park the car for a day... too much. Seriously, € 42 is far more than what I spend in fuel to go and come back from Tilburg to Amsterdam (125km each way).
The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.
dmn42 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 06:49 PM   #167
strandeed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 654
Likes (Received): 108

my city Newcastle has NO motorways, but is host to the busiest dual carriageway in the country

The congestion was so bad they decided to slap a 50mph limit on it... which has done bugger all.

strandeed no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 06:59 PM   #168
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,536
Likes (Received): 21244

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmn42 View Post
Wow, that is hideous. Completely shutting out the waterfront from one side of the canal. What a disaster that would have been.
This is one of the more than 30 large canals in Amsterdam. It's not in the inner core of the city (from 16th-17th Century). It's not the oldest, or the more picturesque. Just yet-another-wide-canal-so-what in the city, could have been easily given a better use in one of its banks to a concrete maze of elevated lanes It would be an addition to the area, I think, it would give it a modern appearance, they would build high(er) office towers behind the freeway overlooking it and the canal.

Quote:
The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.
Amsterdam has something like 14.000 park-and-ride spaces IIRC, and they could easily add more by stacking garages in stations near freeways. P+R costs less than € 10/day and return tickets on subway, tram or bus are free. There are three inconveniences, though, the first of those particularly serious:

- if you are staying late (say, you went for a long dinner, music concert in the Melkweg, a party, a date, whatever), there are no subways or trams running back to P+R. You need to take night buses, whose coverage of the city is limited. So if you might stay later than planned (main reason for some to take cars to Amsterdam instead of a train), you might need to add a taxi fare to the P+R.

- you can't easily get access to your car during your stay (I use my car as a sort-of depot if I'm doing different things in the city, instead of carrying bags all day around).

- at peak times, subways and trams and buses are packed with commuters and all the comfort I (or any driver) gave ourselves by driving instead of taking a national train from our original destinations to Amsterdam is lost travelling standing and stumbling upon people or up to 25 minutes 'till downtown.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2011, 07:19 PM   #169
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,612
Likes (Received): 19400

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmn42 View Post
The solution to that is to make sure that there's lots of parking at train or bus stations on the outside of the city where people can leave their cars and take public transport the rest of the way. Cheaper to build them out there due to greater availability of land, and it doesn't lead to massive congestion in the city center.
That's a popular idea, and implemented often. However, this mainly appeals to incidental visitors. The traffic P+R's reduce is so incredibly marginal compared to all traffic. Nearly all motorway exits in the Netherlands have a carpool parking or a P+R or both. I know of motorways that have P+R/carpool parking capacity along a 50 kilometer distance that is comparable to 10 minutes worth of traffic (about 2,200 parking spots). Near large cities P+R capacity is higher, but so are traffic volumes. It's a nice addition, but one shouldn't expect it to solve traffic or parking problems.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 12:14 AM   #170
michael_siberia
Trzecie pokolenie akowców
 
michael_siberia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wungiel
Posts: 30,334
Likes (Received): 25732

Quote:
Most of the autobahns in today's Poland teritory was cancelled
2 of 5. Berlin-Wrocław-Gliwice highway is continuously dual carriageway road from Berlin. Only 70 km of this route doesn't fulfill the freeway standard. Szczecin-Gdansk freeway is planned in the other corridor, at the seaside (bigger potential traffic). Rest of them was really cancelled. Berlin-Warsaw freeway is done or U/C (openings in 2011 and 2012).

Quote:
If someone says that a price of the oil (in not so much affluent, former communist country) of a say $ 1,7 per litre forces to abadon cars, I'll be laughing on the floor....
Yes, it's truth that many drivers abandoned their cars. I suppose that traffic on S86 was 25% lower than in 2010 (spring '11). In our country 5 PLN (ca. 1,7 USD) for 1 litre of fuel is a psychological barrier.
michael_siberia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 01:32 AM   #171
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17037

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
He's talking about Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia. New York is not the world, you know. :-P
Roosevelt Boulevard will have a subway under it one day , it just needs funding. So burying a Freeway under there is out of the question.....
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 01:38 AM   #172
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 127

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Just yet-another-wide-canal-so-what in the city, could have been easily given a better use in one of its banks to a concrete maze of elevated lanes. It would be an addition to the area, I think, it would give it a modern appearance, they would build high(er) office towers behind the freeway overlooking it and the canal.
While it is certainly not a pittoresque canal, the canal is part of the so-called "Staande Mastroute", the only waterway from Amsterdam to the South-West that has a high clearance. Not very apt for your concrete maze.

An addition to the area? Only if you get wet dreams when you see concrete. More office space is definitely not needed. Existing areas along existing freeways offer more office space than the city actually needs. And as residential area next to a freeway is bound to fail (people with actual experience in having freeways in the backyard never seem to have wet dreams of projects like these), building more freeways in Amsterdam only leads to more urban wasteland.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 05:29 AM   #173
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Roosevelt Boulevard will have a subway under it one day , it just needs funding. So burying a Freeway under there is out of the question.....
Not entirely true. The Boulevard is, above all else, wide. Like really really wide. Sinking the limited-access portion where the express lanes currently are is technically feasible and retains the median for other purposes. Where the Boulevard shrinks to its narrowest--I'm particularly thinking about the Cottman intersection here--and the existing infrastructure doesn't leave adequate median space, the fixed guideway line can simply be elevated over grade as the existing express lanes sink under it.

The broader point can be made: while expressways to the core of the city are a bad idea, there are particular cases in urbanized area where they are not, due to externalities such as clear (not oblique) safety hazards, existing easements, etc. A sub-point I may add is that there seems to be a region x distance from the city center where the built environment thins from urban to suburban density. Paris' Boulevard Périphérique is in that zone, which is why it works so well as a city border. As such, the innermost ring needs to be built at that gradation, where the City and suburbs meet in terms of density, and no other expressway allowed further into the city core beyond it.

Of course in the United States, we royally screwed that up, and are still paying the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?


(this is the area concerned)
No.

Last edited by hammersklavier; September 16th, 2011 at 05:46 AM.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 10:38 PM   #174
Nima-Farid
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shiraz-Abadeh
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
But I did find an impression of what residential areas would look like under the plan. So this is Nima-Farid's dream for towns throughout the World. Would you want to live there?
It is not my dream to cover for example historical Manhattan buildings with wide areas filled with cars and why shouold I care about other cities? Don't they have their own residents? I saw articles about some cities and I found this disscusion intresting.
Nima-Farid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2011, 10:54 PM   #175
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,612
Likes (Received): 19400

Interestingly, Japan appears to have few, if any, canceled expressways. It's truly amazing what they've built there for such a relatively small land area. All flat areas are urbanized and all non-urbanized areas are mountainous.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2011, 12:38 AM   #176
Nima-Farid
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shiraz-Abadeh
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 13

And in Iran I've never heard of a cancelled Freeway/Expressway project
Nima-Farid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2011, 04:14 AM   #177
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
That looks totally awesome if not for the style of the buildings. The Spui would also do well with some motorways out there, and so would an IJmuiden-Centraal Station expressway.

Brilliant.
Are you insane? Most of those buildings would have become vacant eyesores, home to squatters and drug addicts, if that concrete monstrosity had been built. No one wants to live next to such a noisy, dirty structure.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2011, 04:17 AM   #178
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nima-Farid View Post
In most of Western cities there were lots of expressways and freeways planned after WWII but because of their spoiled democracy most of them were cancelled.
These cities were Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Paris and much more.
You are a twisted little turd. DEMOCRACY is the most important component of any society- the right of the people to make their voices heard and have a say in their city, state, country.

There are good reasons why those freeways were cancelled- because they would have incontrovertibly destroyed those cities to make it easier for rich white people to get to and from the core.

The cities you listed are bustling, growing, and vibrant BECAUSE their citizens rejected these proposed ribbons of destruction.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2011, 04:24 AM   #179
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
They should have done that in the 1970s, when the city was in decay and real estate in Lower Manhattan was dirty cheap. Indeed, they should have done with together with the project of the original WTC. Parts of Manhattan were like a war zone, very third World, Times Square was full of hookers, drug dealers, strip shows, illegal products... perfect opportunity missed: build a freeway, and tip off decadent and rotten areas.
And constructing freeways through these "rotten areas" would have made them permanently so. Instead, Manhattan has seen a resurgence in development and revitalization that would have been impossible had your concrete ribbons of destruction been built.

Thank God you have no power.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud

Last edited by hoosier; September 17th, 2011 at 04:32 AM.
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2011, 04:31 AM   #180
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
There is enough coal and uranium out there to run a lot of cars on electricity. And 2nd generation biofuels with HIGH (rather than low) yield per energy input unit. Surely, it will make some agricultural prices rise, but so be it. Developed countries can afford that.
You are advocating for policies that will increase food prices in the U.S. when 1/6 of its people live in poverty. You are so ******* clueless it's not even funny.

Mining uranium and coal destroys the surface of the planet- the combustion of coal for energy is a main contributor to global warming and releases hundreds of toxins into the air that jeopardize public health. Uranium is RADIOACTIVE and there are limited quantities of it.

Jesus, do you consider REALITY at all when you come up with this crap? Are the concepts of practicality and environmental destruction completely foreign to you?
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   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 05:43 AM.


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