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 June 7th, 2008, 05:48 PM   #2381
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

^ Yeah, that's stupid. It might prevent it from skyrocketing, but it won't reduce it for sure.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 7th, 2008, 05:56 PM   #2382
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Apparantly, people think when there is a 6 lane freeway instead on a 4 lane freeway, people commute to work 3 times a day or something

It is true traffic increases if a road widens, that's because more people coming back from surface streets, where they used to avoid traffic jams. It's better to include those traffic patterns in widening studies, so you won't get surprised when the traffic increases more than you expected.

A major issue is that they keep adding suburbs along key freeways. That way, you have a nearly endless increase of traffic and congestion. Spreading out work-locations is the best way to keep traffic calm, and it seems to me some metro's in the US did that pretty well, creating office parks into suburban area's. It's only not so nice for most people on SSC, since highrise becomes less clustered into one area, but into multiple area's. Check around Atlanta for instance.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2008, 07:49 PM   #2383
Bori427
Registered User
 
Bori427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mayagüez, Puerto Rico
Posts: 13,297
Likes (Received): 1808

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyunltd View Post
That attitude is the reason your country is by far the most hated on Earth.

European highways, ChrisZwolle or Alex will confirm, are far better and more efficient than American highways (I include Canada as well). Why not use this opportunity (of learning from them) in order to have better highways.
Serlly,why don't they learn from the States?
Bori427 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2008, 08:48 PM   #2384
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

I-80 at the IL/IN border

[IMG]http://i31.************/x22h04.jpg[/IMG]
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2008, 09:08 PM   #2385
xzmattzx
Philly sports fan
 
xzmattzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Posts: 15,646
Likes (Received): 4268

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Von Königsberg View Post
To me, a German autobahn with narrow grass median and a metal guard-rail looks very good from an aesthetical point of view. Wide grass medians without a crash barrier are not safe because it would be very easy to cross this median and collide with oncoming traffic. Such collisions are not uncommon in the USA. On the other hand, metal guard-rails may not be strong enough to prevent head-on collisions. To really ensure the separation of the opposite traffics, a concrete barrier should be built. Yes, it looks ugly and boring, but it is by far the most efficient method in preventing head-on collisions.
I believe that the reason that some stretches of road don't have guardrails is to prevent bouncing back into the lanes of traffic, which would then become an accident involving multiple cars if there is traffic. If someone goes off the road, the safest thing to do is to utilize the wide open area and put pressure on the brakes until you slow down. Turning back into your lane, or bouncing back into your lane or even past your lane, can sometimes result in the car barrell-rolling. Obviously, there are some stretches of road where it is not safe to use the median in case of an emergency, and so guardrails are used. Most of the time, a combination of guard rails and wide medians are used to protect the other side of traffic completely.
xzmattzx está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2008, 03:19 AM   #2386
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 15,506
Likes (Received): 19142

Can we stop discussing which median is more aesthetic? What kind of argumnet is it to say "wide median looks ugly" Everyone have different taste. Some like it wide and others prefer narrow median, the same with color of road signs. Some people like it green some like it blue. If we start arguing which color of signs is more aesthetic this forum will be looking like kindergarten.

Going back to median:
I prefer wide median because you don't get headlights from opposite traffic straight in my face.
You get less distraction from oncoming traffic
It is actually much more difficult to cross wide median than many people think. Especially those who never drove in US. In the middle of the wide median there is usually quite deep dip. You go first down from your carriageway and then you have to go up to reach to opposite carriageway. It can happens that some car cross it but equally it might happens in Europe with standard crash barriers. I've seen in TV accidents when truck went through crash barriers into oncoming traffic.
With wide median trucks just overturn but don't reach other carriageway.
Wide median also eliminate risk of hitting car going in the same direction.
When there are crash barriers and car hit them in small angle barriers actually bounce car back into road causing danger situation.
I think main reason why we use them in Europe is just geography, specifically density of population. It is just impossible to take so much space for roads like let say in Wyoming. Crash barriers are only sensible solution.
But why do you think they should use them in US? For example I-15 from LA to Las Vegas goes mostly through desert. It is just cheaper to keep wide median than build 500km of crash barriers and then take care of them, protect from corrosion etc. What is the point? Aesthetics?
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2008, 03:28 AM   #2387
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Mayors Ask Congress to Help Fix U.S. Infrastructure

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Big-city mayors told Congress on Thursday that they are overwhelmed by the infrastructure needs of their regions and cannot maintain well-functioning water systems, roads and rail networks without more federal help.

On July 19, 2007, an underground steam pipe exploded in New York, sending residents running for cover.

"We're having a quiet collapse of prosperity," said Kansas City, Missouri, Mayor Mark Funkhouser, one of four mayors to testify before the Senate Banking Committee about the state of the nation's infrastructure, which they agreed was poor and getting worse.

They blamed much of the decay on shortsighted thinking by local, state and federal officials.

The issue of the country's deteriorating transportation systems came under scrutiny last year with the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota that killed 13 people. Although experts believe that a poor design led to that collapse, the mayors sounded an alarm about decay throughout the system and its long-term effects on the U.S economy.

Senators on the panel were largely supportive of the mayors' complaints, but one, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, reminded them, "at the end of the day, we've got to figure out how to pay for this stuff."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to abandon the tradition of earmark spending, in which individual lawmakers often deliver dollops of taxpayer money to small local projects that don't provide much help for the long-term needs of their districts.

"We're as guilty as anybody," Bloomberg admitted. "We ask for money for things that are totally local, and why the federal government does it, I don't know. They shouldn't be doing it, although we will continue to ask as long as they are giving it out. Our senators have the obligation to bring home the bacon like everybody else does. ... Seems to me the Senate should get together and say together, 'We're not going to do it anymore.' "

The American Society of Engineers estimates that bringing the nation's transportation and resources networks up to a properly functional level would require $1.6 trillion and five years of work. Still, the mayors say, even that wouldn't accommodate the new strains placed on roads in coming years.

Funkhouser said municipalities like Kansas City are unable to meet infrastructure needs on their own. Kansas City has a $6 billion backlog of needed improvements to roads, highways and the city's outdated sewer system. The scale of massive projects such as expanding access to the Interstate 435 and I-70 interchange or linking the downtown "loop" with the urban Crossroads neighborhood to the south requires more help from the federal government, he said.

John Peyton, the mayor of Jacksonville, Florida, said that a bigger port under construction in his city will add a half-million trucks to surrounding roads, which aren't ready for them.

"Our existing level of transportation infrastructure simply cannot handle this kind of shift in trade from the West Coast to the East Coast as it is today. We will need new roads and rail," Peyton said.

Atlanta, Georgia, Mayor Shirley Franklin said she is still struggling to fix her city's water and sewer systems after decades of neglect by her predecessors. The issue became more urgent as the South suffers from a long-running drought pitting state against state in battles for water supplies.

To answer such demands, Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, are pushing a bill to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would raise money for major national projects by issuing up to $60 billion in tax credit bonds, which could then be leveraged into greater funding.

Dodd, the committee's chairman, said he would bring the bill before the panel next month, but it's unclear whether it would get a vote on the Senate floor this year.

Funkhouser called the bill a good concept for funding large construction projects.

"With this proposed legislation, the federal government can begin to address infrastructure not as a budgetary cost but as an investment," he said.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2008, 08:36 PM   #2388
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
Apparantly, people think when there is a 6 lane freeway instead on a 4 lane freeway, people commute to work 3 times a day or something
They won't go to work more often, but they may choose the car instead of the train (if there is one), or go the the new mega-mall across the metro instead of the big, but slightly less impressive mall a few blocks away...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
A major issue is that they keep adding suburbs along key freeways. That way, you have a nearly endless increase of traffic and congestion. Spreading out work-locations is the best way to keep traffic calm, and it seems to me some metro's in the US did that pretty well, creating office parks into suburban area's. It's only not so nice for most people on SSC, since highrise becomes less clustered into one area, but into multiple area's. Check around Atlanta for instance.
You gotta be kidding. Spreading out work places is the best way of increasing car traffic, as people usually change jobs more often than house. In addition it makes it impossible create an efficient PT system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
Usually the pavement is better, though American freeways have a capacity that's better adjusted to reality, especially in the midwest. In Europe, they always though not adding capacity reduces traffic. We now know how that turned out.
Far less car use than the US? I am in favour of making safe and efficient roads between the cities, but in huge urban areas, there is not doubt that PT is the solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
Can we stop discussing which median is more aesthetic? What kind of argumnet is it to say "wide median looks ugly" Everyone have different taste. Some like it wide and others prefer narrow median, the same with color of road signs. Some people like it green some like it blue. If we start arguing which color of signs is more aesthetic this forum will be looking like kindergarten.

Going back to median:
I prefer wide median because you don't get headlights from opposite traffic straight in my face.
You get less distraction from oncoming traffic
It is actually much more difficult to cross wide median than many people think. Especially those who never drove in US. In the middle of the wide median there is usually quite deep dip. You go first down from your carriageway and then you have to go up to reach to opposite carriageway. It can happens that some car cross it but equally it might happens in Europe with standard crash barriers. I've seen in TV accidents when truck went through crash barriers into oncoming traffic.
With wide median trucks just overturn but don't reach other carriageway.
Wide median also eliminate risk of hitting car going in the same direction.
When there are crash barriers and car hit them in small angle barriers actually bounce car back into road causing danger situation.
I think main reason why we use them in Europe is just geography, specifically density of population. It is just impossible to take so much space for roads like let say in Wyoming. Crash barriers are only sensible solution.
But why do you think they should use them in US? For example I-15 from LA to Las Vegas goes mostly through desert. It is just cheaper to keep wide median than build 500km of crash barriers and then take care of them, protect from corrosion etc. What is the point? Aesthetics?
For the motorist, a wide median is probably a good thing, but for the society as a whole, it is not. At the country side this area could have been used for farming in a world that is increasingly starved. Even where farming is not possible, i.e. in a forest, at the mountains or in a desert, a wide median is bad since it creates a double barrier for wildlife that is much more difficult to cross, even if there were wild life tunnels etc. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, you get two scars in the landscape instead of one.
In most places, a wide median need quite a lot of maintenance (lawn mowing etc) and is probably more expensive to keep up than a crash barrier/guard rail. The only place I believe wide "medians" can fit is in steep terrain, where it sometimes is much easier to make two roads at different heights than one wide one, or where you know that traffic will increase and and expansion is needed soon (China should probably make more wide medians).
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 12:44 AM   #2389
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
They won't go to work more often, but they may choose the car instead of the train (if there is one), or go the the new mega-mall across the metro instead of the big, but slightly less impressive mall a few blocks away...
I'm not talking about malls here, they have nothing to do with the fact if you widen freeways or not. That's a whole other lifestyle. In the Netherlands, all buses are on a total strike for 2 weeks, meaning they don't drive at all. No single effect on traffic jams. Public Transportation vs road traffic is such a large scale difference, the first one can never be a solution to road traffic issues. The growth of the traffic in the last 2 decades alone was more than 2.5 times the total volume of public transportation transported today. In many cases, but not to all, public transportation is not a good way to reduce traffic jams. Only in very dense cities, like Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong or New York, they can make a difference, but traffic is jammed there as well.

Quote:
You gotta be kidding. Spreading out work places is the best way of increasing car traffic, as people usually change jobs more often than house. In addition it makes it impossible create an efficient PT system.
Spreading work locations creates a situation where there are less dense flows to one job location, and more lighter flows to multiple locations, which ease the traffic jams. I don't see why these would be less efficient to PT. Instead of zero passenger returndrives, you have more passengers both ways. That means less train cars have to be operated, which is cheaper.

Quote:
Far less car use than the US? I am in favour of making safe and efficient roads between the cities, but in huge urban areas, there is not doubt that PT is the solution.
In many countries, the car usage is indeed lower, but not that much. The total mileage in California, for instance, is only 20% higher than in the Netherlands, (compared). Unless the city is very dense, there is no way PT is a good solution to all traffic problems. You can see that very good in New York. In Manhattan, 75% of the households does not own a car, and uses PT as their main transportation mode. However, outside the densest area's of New York, it's overwhelmingly suburban in nature, still creating heavy road traffic in and around New York.

So that's also why PT doesn't work in the lower density huge urban areas like Houston or Los Angeles. It's not dense enough. And that's why it does work in Manhattan, Tokyo or Hong Kong. It's dense enough.

Everything stands or falls with the way an urban area or country is build. There is no such thing as calling Public Transportation or the car THE solution in all situations.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 02:25 AM   #2390
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

PT has never been advertised as a way to decrease road traffic, only as an alternative to it. If you did, then why would anyone use the train?
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 02:57 AM   #2391
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 15,506
Likes (Received): 19142

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
For the motorist, a wide median is probably a good thing, but for the society as a whole, it is not. At the country side this area could have been used for farming in a world that is increasingly starved.
It won't make difference.
Land occupied by roads and railways is very small proportion of surface of most of the countries. (exception might be Singapore or Vatican) Of that surface wide median takes even less.
Quote:
Even where farming is not possible, i.e. in a forest, at the mountains or in a desert, a wide median is bad since it creates a double barrier for wildlife that is much more difficult to cross, even if there were wild life tunnels etc.
I disagree. Wide median makes crossing easier for animals because they can cross one carriageway at the time. Especially when the median is really wide and forrested
Quote:
In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, you get two scars in the landscape instead of one.
It is another aesthetic argument. I like roads, if they are well done they are aesthetic.
Quote:
In most places, a wide median need quite a lot of maintenance (lawn mowing etc) and is probably more expensive to keep up than a crash barrier/guard rail.
Wide median doesn't need lawn mowing, they have to do it just at the edge of carriageways. In the middle even trees might grow and often do.
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 07:15 AM   #2392
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
They won't go to work more often, but they may choose the car instead of the train (if there is one), or go the the new mega-mall across the metro instead of the big, but slightly less impressive mall a few blocks away...

You gotta be kidding. Spreading out work places is the best way of increasing car traffic, as people usually change jobs more often than house. In addition it makes it impossible create an efficient PT system.

Far less car use than the US? I am in favour of making safe and efficient roads between the cities, but in huge urban areas, there is not doubt that PT is the solution.

For the motorist, a wide median is probably a good thing, but for the society as a whole, it is not. At the country side this area could have been used for farming in a world that is increasingly starved. Even where farming is not possible, i.e. in a forest, at the mountains or in a desert, a wide median is bad since it creates a double barrier for wildlife that is much more difficult to cross, even if there were wild life tunnels etc. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, you get two scars in the landscape instead of one.
In most places, a wide median need quite a lot of maintenance (lawn mowing etc) and is probably more expensive to keep up than a crash barrier/guard rail. The only place I believe wide "medians" can fit is in steep terrain, where it sometimes is much easier to make two roads at different heights than one wide one, or where you know that traffic will increase and and expansion is needed soon (China should probably make more wide medians).
stop trying to act like you know anything about the United States, every one of your arguments are flawed, especially the one about spreading out work places.
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 07:18 AM   #2393
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
In most places, a wide median need quite a lot of maintenance (lawn mowing etc) and is probably more expensive to keep up than a crash barrier/guard rail.
and you completely forgot the most of the US's interstates travel through very sparse places. The midwest doesnt have a whole lot of traffic, neither does much of the southwest. Would you rather spend the money to build barriers for hundreds of miles or just widen the road to prevent a crash?

Think about it
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 09:14 AM   #2394
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

I agree with most of the posts above, but it wouldn't hurt to think about making american highways more efficient. For saving nature, indeed, but also for saving costs. Not just wide medians, but also double emergency lanes, em lanes on 2-lane highways, unnecessary wide roads with too few traffic, etc.
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 11:09 AM   #2395
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,408
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
I agree with most of the posts above, but it wouldn't hurt to think about making american highways more efficient. For saving nature, indeed, but also for saving costs. Not just wide medians, but also double emergency lanes, em lanes on 2-lane highways, unnecessary wide roads with too few traffic, etc.
theres not a dire need to make it more efficient. Remember, we drive everywhere, we know what were doing. we might have the most efficient highways in the world. Im not saying that everywhere else has it wrong but im pretty sure that for a country of our size we have the driving thing down pretty well. What we have works for us. We dont really have wide roads with little traffic, if anything it seems most of our roads are too small. If youre on a freeway through the city theres likely up to 5 lanes going each way, in the middle of farmland theres 2 lanes in each direction. Many of our roads have double emergency lanes. Until you actually live here and experience things on a day to day basis you cant really make a judgment. Having the largest highway system in the world means that things happen a little differently here. You just cant say "we need to make a change", its not that simple.
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 11:35 AM   #2396
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
I agree with most of the posts above, but it wouldn't hurt to think about making american highways more efficient. For saving nature, indeed, but also for saving costs. Not just wide medians, but also double emergency lanes, em lanes on 2-lane highways, unnecessary wide roads with too few traffic, etc.
It's not like the Americans have a lack of space... It's one of the least densely populated countries in the world. There are still area's about the size of Poland without Interstate Highways.

And even without Alaska, the US is still gigantic, spanning a distance that's equal from London to Siberia.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2008, 02:25 PM   #2397
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044
we might have the most efficient highways in the world.
Then tell me, what is your exact definition of 'efficient'? I would say an efficient highway is one that is built for driving high speeds safely, but at the same time for low costs and with small effects for the environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044
We dont really have wide roads with little traffic, if anything it seems most of our roads are too small.
I think that's just relative to what you're used to. If you'd drive here, I think you will faster think it's busy here as an average european would do. Not because the amount of traffic would be higher here, but because you're not used to narrow roads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044
Until you actually live here and experience things on a day to day basis you cant really make a judgment. Having the largest highway system in the world means that things happen a little differently here. You just cant say "we need to make a change", its not that simple.
I didn't say you need to make a change. Every country has its own infrastructure and there are always positive and negative things to say about it. Why not be open and learn from each other?
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2008, 09:49 PM   #2398
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

After traveling to France and Britain, and writing a report on the Autobahn, I have to agree that the American infrastructure is really wasteful. Look at California and Texas. There are mega concrete rivers plowing through cities.

There is no need for a 12-lane highway. The more lanes you build, the more congestion there is going to be. And American drivers need to be trained on how to streamline traffic flow. Use a little lanes as possible (in other words, keep right except to pass). That will help eliminate the excessive merging in and out that causes slowdowns and congestion.

Btw, does anyone know the cost to maintain the U.S. highway infrastructure per year? I watched a video and it said, after currency conversion, it takes $4.5 billion USD to maintain 7500 miles of the Autobahn per year. That's $600,000 USD per mile, per year.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2008, 10:11 PM   #2399
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Quote:
There is no need for a 12-lane highway. The more lanes you build, the more congestion there is going to be.
Don't let yourself get carried away by this kind of statements from the green parties.

Generally, the amount of traffic is generated by the amount of people living in a certain area. In the Netherlands 4 - 7 car trips are generated by a typical suburban home per day. (one way each). In general, congestion takes place because too many people want to commute to work on too few capacity. It is true that adding more lanes increases traffic, because generally, the rushhour is now too long for most people, they'd rather leave somewhat later, but don't do that now because of congestion.

Adding lanes does not increase the number of car trips, however, traffic volumes can increase because of changed traffic patterns. The actual number of car trip increases with the growth of population, and spatial changes.

Lines like "easing the congestion by adding more lanes is like trying to loose obesity by loosening the belt" are bad comparisons.

Do you keep that tiny T-shirt if you grows? No, you replace it with one that fits better to your current size. That's also how it works with roadways.

However, I have to agree that Texan freeways are just plain ugly, especially in Houston.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2008, 10:29 PM   #2400
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,591
Likes (Received): 19378

Some Houston pics:

I-45 near downtown


US 59 near Downtown


US 59 just south of Downtown


This is the Houston uglyness; massive freeway with frontage roads and huge industrial parks with MEGA parking lots. Besides that, there is a lot of undeveloped land in Houston, adding to unnecessary large driving distances, thus adding to congestion.
[IMG]http://i25.************/mae1jq.jpg[/IMG]
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
america, california, highway, highways, interstate, los angeles, united states, urban

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 04:51 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