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 January 14th, 2011, 02:01 AM   #6361
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

This must be an unused alternative. The maps and text that I find all say it'll be ten lanes (presumably with auxilliary lanes between interchanges), not 3+2+2+3. I don't see how that would've worked, anyway, with the left-sideramps at the I-40/44/240 interchange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I dunno... as a pro-transit type, maybe this project should bother me, but it doesn't. I think Oklahoma City will be better off once it's done, and I don't see that any alternative would've been better.

I wish there were better maps, though. And if it were up to me, I'd leave the existing I-40 at-grade section as it is-- just do the "boulevard" where the viaduct is now.

Hey, I have an idea: number the old route/new boulevard as Business Route I-40 and name it "Green Forty Boulevard."

Last edited by Tom 958; January 15th, 2011 at 04:23 PM.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 15th, 2011, 02:44 AM   #6362
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53462

I-40/I-275/Chapman Highway Interchange, Knoxville, Tennessee


image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vfr_photography/
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2011, 09:02 PM   #6363
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

I-44-I-235 interchange reconstruction, Oklahoma City (now I'm on an Oklahoma City kick ):


From http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-high...rticle/3527488


Quote:
It could be another decade before daily traffic gridlock at one of Oklahoma City's busiest highway interchanges gets any better.

A rebuilding project at the Interstate 235 and Interstate 44 interchange in north Oklahoma City that begins next year could potentially last up to 10 years because much of it remains unfunded, state Transportation Department officials said Tuesday.

“We're looking at ways of speeding that up,” state Transportation Department Director Gary Ridley said.

Either way, Oklahoma City metro-area commuters are sure to spend more time hung up in highway traffic in 2011 because of that project and another major highway project beginning next year.

In the second half of 2011, the Transportation Department will begin the first phase of the $150 million rebuild of the deteriorating I-235 and I-44 interchange.

Ridley said the project, which will require several phases, is a priority because traffic problems continue to worsen at the interchange.

Bidding for the $24.8 million first phase of the interchange rebuild will begin early next year, and construction should be under way in the summer, department spokeswoman Brenda Perry said.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2011, 09:06 PM   #6364
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

OKC is one of the least congested metropolitan areas in the United States. Traffic volumes are not very high as well. I-235 tops out at 80,000 vehicles, I-44 at 120,000 vehicles.

However, there are a few outdated interchanges in the area, like the one in your post, which is currently a cloverleaf that doesn't even feature a C/D lane for I-235. The I-40/I-44 interchange west of downtown is also a pretty unusual configuration, which are usually called "malfunction junctions" (like the one in Birmingham, AL).
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011, 09:54 PM   #6365
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
I dunno... as a pro-transit type, maybe this project should bother me, but it doesn't. I think Oklahoma City will be better off once it's done, and I don't see that any alternative would've been better.
Don't worry - you can be bothered by this just fine! All those rail lines they demolished were state-owned. As in, the only infrastructure requirement for regional rail would be upgrading the rails. No dealing with a private railroad for track usage rights, and no clearing of right-of-way in the center of the city. Now, all that is gone.

There's plenty for transit advocates to be frustrated about with this project.
ADCS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2011, 01:01 PM   #6366
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area will grow from 6 to 9 million inhabitants in the next 20 years. To accomodate this incredible growth, large-scale projects are needed, but funding is scarce. Hence, they will rely on managed HOV lanes (a.k.a. HOT-lanes, toll lanes or CEO lanes).

In the DFW area, the number of lane miles will grow from 4,397 in 2007 to 8,569 lane miles in 2009. The toll share will grow from 11 to 30%.

image hosted on flickr

DFW projects by Chriszwolle, on Flickr
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2011, 05:01 PM   #6367
fredcalif
Registered User
 
fredcalif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Valley of the sun, AZ
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 1112

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area will grow from 6 to 9 million inhabitants in the next 20 years. To accomodate this incredible growth, large-scale projects are needed, but funding is scarce. Hence, they will rely on managed HOV lanes (a.k.a. HOT-lanes, toll lanes or CEO lanes).

In the DFW area, the number of lane miles will grow from 4,397 in 2007 to 8,569 lane miles in 2009. The toll share will grow from 11 to 30%.

image hosted on flickr

DFW projects by Chriszwolle, on Flickr

I think by then DFW will have the largest system after LA
Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta will also have very large freeway system.

the Phoenix system is growing like crazy
fredcalif no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2011, 06:56 PM   #6368
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADCS View Post
Don't worry - you can be bothered by this just fine! All those rail lines they demolished were state-owned. As in, the only infrastructure requirement for regional rail would be upgrading the rails. No dealing with a private railroad for track usage rights, and no clearing of right-of-way in the center of the city. Now, all that is gone.

There's plenty for transit advocates to be frustrated about with this project.
IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2011, 07:07 PM   #6369
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredcalif View Post
I think by then DFW will have the largest system after LA

Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta will also have very large freeway system.

the Phoenix system is growing like crazy
I don't know about DFW being second, the NYC metropolitan expressway and parkway system is HUGE in terms of network miles, but not as much in lane-miles. Los Angeles is already one of the lowest on the list when comparing lane miles to population, so DFW will definitely be leading. DFW has also been growing faster than Houston in the past decade. However, nearly all DFW growth has been concentrated north of Dallas. This means some north-south and east-west freeways in that area are quite congested while other sections of the metropolitan area are relatively uncongested.

I don't think Atlanta will have a very large freeway system. Maybe in terms of lane-miles (Atlanta's freeways tend to be very wide), but the network is quite limited and the much-needed second beltway doesn't seem to gain ground yet.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2011, 07:09 PM   #6370
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.
I doubt thats true , our system carries 6 million ppl daily.....and the New Haven line carries 130,000+ daily along the I-95 corridor in CT. It keeps going up too...
__________________
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 January 21st, 2011, 10:49 PM   #6371
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
... and the much-needed totally unnecessary second beltway doesn't seem to gain ground yet.
There- fixed that for ya. It never will gain ground, either-- it's dead.

Back in the late '90's the Atlanta Regional Commision did an in-depth study of building the Outer Loop or various segments of it. IIRC there were seven or eight alternatives. To make along story short, the study essentially found that the less of it we built, the better off we'd be.

Nonetheless, the project came back to life in the runup to the 2002 governor's election so as the Northern Arc from GA 316 to I-75 North. At that point I'd been an activist for enough years to get burned out (especially after the conservative Republicans I'd been working with fell off a cliff emotionally and politically after 9-11), but I still summoned the energy to work my butt off one more to help kill the Northern Arc. I really thought that right wingers wouldn't get it, that all most wanted was an uncongested playground for their pickup trucks and SUV's, but... as it turned out, oppostion was massive across the political spectrum.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2011, 11:26 PM   #6372
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Totally unnecessary? There are many suburbs that are 10 -15 miles outside the Perimeter (probably well over 2 million people). You need to connect those like in Houston. The reason I-285 is so congested is that all through and regional traffic that doesn't follow a straight line through the metro area needs to use I-285, and with the increasing importance of sub centers of metro Atlanta along I-285, you don't want to mix it with local and commuter traffic.

The alternative is to widen I-285 to 12 - 14 lanes. There is a complete lack of an integrated road system outside the Perimeter. There are many 4-lane highways, but all are loaded with traffic lights.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2011, 11:53 PM   #6373
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Totally unnecessary? There are many suburbs that are 10 -15 miles outside the Perimeter (probably well over 2 million people). You need to connect those like in Houston.
Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?

Note, as I explained before, that opposition was massive even among those who would supposedly benefit,and even though most of these people are pro-car and anti-transit.

Quote:
The reason I-285 is so congested is that all through and regional traffic that doesn't follow a straight line through the metro area needs to use I-285, and with the increasing importance of sub centers of metro Atlanta along I-285, you don't want to mix it with local and commuter traffic.
No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.

One of the leaders of the Northern Arc opposition was a trucking company executive who found that according to his company's routing software, the Northern Arc would be virtually useless to truckers.

Quote:
The alternative is to widen I-285 to 12 - 14 lanes. There is a complete lack of an integrated road system outside the Perimeter. There are many 4-lane highways, but all are loaded with traffic lights.
Odd that no such thing has ever made it far enough to be placed, even as an alternative, in the region's transportation model. Why do you think that is? As someone who was very close to the process for several key years, I'll tell you why: because everyone-- even its advocates-- knows that it's a bad idea that'd get slaughtered were it to be subjected to technical analysis.

Calming down a bit:

The real problem is that there's no system for funding an adequate arterial network in suburban/exurban Atlanta. There could be-- state law allows local governments to impose impact fees on new developments to pay for infrastructure as it becomes needed. A few jurisdictions actually do it, Alpharetta being the prime example. However, most don't-- in fact, Gwinnett adopted an impact fee ordinance in 1992, then repealed it before it was ever enforced, because... sprawl developers put the politicians in office, and campaign contributions are a lot cheaper than impact fees for them.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 12:05 AM   #6374
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?
Has not building roads ever stopped urban sprawl? No. Look at Los Angeles, where the metro population grew by 8 million after highway construction ceased in the 1970's. Not accomodating this growth only makes things worse.

Quote:
No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.
I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and I am specifically not talking about through traffic only (like Chattanooga - Savannah or Montgomery - Charlotte), but also include regional traffic. You think 2 million people in the first 20 miles outside the Perimeter don't have other travel needs other than downtown-bound routes? This will make up the majority of the traffic outside the Perimeter, perfectly suited for a second beltway. Based on the large amount of population around the corridor for a second beltway, it is perfectly justified.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 12:22 AM   #6375
Rail Claimore
Registered User
 
Rail Claimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,152
Likes (Received): 14

Tom, widening I-285 to 12-14 lanes would be a bad idea? Then why is Revive 285 going forward? That's a stretch of freeway that was getting close to 300K vehicles per day before the recession took away a lot of that traffic.

I agree with you to some extent though, I don't think an Outer Perimeter or Northern Arc where it was proposed was completely necessary. But Atlanta's lack of freeway route miles and its sub-par (but getting better) arterial network are two reasons why Atlanta will not be one of the top 4 or 5 largest metropolitan areas in the country. That and there's just not enough water that can be legally withdrawn as well from the area watersheds. Whether all this is good or bad depends on how one perceives growth. One reads that slower growth = higher quality of life all the time, but that's not necessarily true if you don't have an economy that's producing and keeping high-paying jobs, which Atlanta is not doing now... but could do again in the near future.

I think Atlanta would have benefited from having a Northern Arc built closer in, a freeway connecting Marietta, Alpharetta, and Lawrenceville. It would have been the Atlanta equivalent to Dallas' Bush Turnpike. Granted, it's obviously too late to entertain that idea, but it's not too late to build overpasses and feeder roads along key arterials in the north suburbs... sort of like what they did with Peachtree Industrial Blvd a few miles north of 285, only on a smaller scale (have two lanes each way going over key intersections). I think a number of projects like that would do more than anything else to alleviate congestion in the northern suburbs.

Chris, I don't think you can compare Atlanta to Houston in regards toward their respective attitudes toward freeway/tollway building. Houston is actually less sprawled than Atlanta for a number of reasons: smaller lot sizes, land-use restrictions such as wetlands protection all around the metro area, and a strong central city that uses its extensive extraterritorial jurisdiction to control development up to 30 miles out in some areas. The city has multiple beltways (and will have a third soon) simply because the traffic levels in the area warranted their construction and there was ROW largely preserved for building such infrastructure. They're being very smart in building their outer beltway by planning and constructing it segment at a time as they become viable toll projects. Another key difference is that Houston is not very trepidatious about growth and becoming a gargantuan-sized metro area.
Rail Claimore no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 01:35 AM   #6376
AUchamps
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
Why? So sprawl developers can more easily market their exurban developments, which, by the way were vastly overbuilt even after the Northern Arc was killed?

Note, as I explained before, that opposition was massive even among those who would supposedly benefit,and even though most of these people are pro-car and anti-transit.



No, it isn't. The amount of traffic that passes through metro Atlanta is neglible, like 12,000 vpd on I-75, 7000 vpd between I-75 North and I-85south, and less in all other directions. You don't know what you're talking about.

One of the leaders of the Northern Arc opposition was a trucking company executive who found that according to his company's routing software, the Northern Arc would be virtually useless to truckers.



Odd that no such thing has ever made it far enough to be placed, even as an alternative, in the region's transportation model. Why do you think that is? As someone who was very close to the process for several key years, I'll tell you why: because everyone-- even its advocates-- knows that it's a bad idea that'd get slaughtered were it to be subjected to technical analysis.

Calming down a bit:

The real problem is that there's no system for funding an adequate arterial network in suburban/exurban Atlanta. There could be-- state law allows local governments to impose impact fees on new developments to pay for infrastructure as it becomes needed. A few jurisdictions actually do it, Alpharetta being the prime example. However, most don't-- in fact, Gwinnett adopted an impact fee ordinance in 1992, then repealed it before it was ever enforced, because... sprawl developers put the politicians in office, and campaign contributions are a lot cheaper than impact fees for them.
Well I hope you're happy. All those "bad old developers" lost their shirts in the Financial Meltdown and will be down for the count for the foreseeable future. I know developers(large and small), and they are good, honest people just like you and me. Is it so wrong that they want to buy up land, put down houses and stores, and make money from that? We all want to make money, to be successful, to succeed. A lot of people have failed in the last 3 years and maybe that makes you happy that "developers" got hit the worst but I'm not gleeful about it at all.
__________________
But what is Strumatic, we have to define what Strumatic is, a word that refers to the experience of driving/travelling on a superior motorway called Struma motorway or to the ultimative psychedelic road experience only possible on brand new roads and most effective when there´s snow outside so that the shiny crashbarriers shine even more and reflect the snow and the asphalt looks even better. I must think of it´s best definition first. -Radi Click
AUchamps no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 02:29 PM   #6377
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Well, this is fun!

Rail Claimore: that's a fine post. As to Revive 285, well... we'll see. In five years they've managed to whittle down the number of build alternatives from seven to three, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything will get built. There was also that proposal for toll roadways along I-75 North-- haven't heard anything much about that lately, either. Really, while it's hardly news that transportation in Atlanta is underfunded, I don't understand where the money we do spend goes.

As you pointed out, Atlanta is in an odd place as far as its continued development goes. After decades of rapid population growth, we've never managed to break into the ranks of top-tier cities-- the cost of living and doing business here has increased, but the value of doing so hasn't, and we seem to be on the way to becoming Kansas City on steroids. It may be that a truly massive program of roadbuilding could take us back to where we were a decade or two ago, but... maybe not. And should we even want that? It's clear,for better or worse, that the political will to do such a thing doesn't exist, and with most of the state's socioeconomic indicators stuck firmly on the bottom tier nationally (our unofficial state motto is, "Thank God for Mississippi!"), transportation is far from the only issue we face.

I suppose I should point out at this point: It's clear to me that transit isn't the answer, either. The decision was made years ago not to expend the heavy rail system since we can't afford to operate the network we have now. Since the recession, transit has more or less imploded, with MARTA scrapping a whole bunch of bus routes and cutting rail service to four trains per hour (OK, eight on the overlap sections, but still...) and Clayton County's transit system being discontinued altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle
Has not building roads ever stopped urban sprawl? No.
Ah, the uber-familiar plaint of the sprawl apologist. I've been told that far too many times to count, mostly by people with a vested interest in the status quo. Answer me this: if roads are irrelevant to the promotion of sprawl, then why are sprawl developers so interested and getting them built (as long as it's not at their expense)?

Having said that, I really should give you a break. As a Dutchman, you've already seen one alternative for our future, and I can hardly blame you for not being impressed. Plenty of rail, even in combination with the Dutch enthusiasm for cycling and a degree of planning that the US will never come close to attaining, is not enough to yield a reasonably congestion-free transportation network, and it must be really irritating to hear people insist that it will. I don't, BTW. However, to me that means that we'd do better to set more realistic goals, not pursue something that we'll never be able to attain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AUChamps
Well I hope you're happy. All those "bad old developers" lost their shirts in the Financial Meltdown and will be down for the count for the foreseeable future. I know developers(large and small), and they are good, honest people just like you and me. Is it so wrong that they want to buy up land, put down houses and stores, and make money from that? We all want to make money, to be successful, to succeed. A lot of people have failed in the last 3 years and maybe that makes you happy that "developers" got hit the worst but I'm not gleeful about it at all.
Where did you get the idea that I'm "gleeful" about any of this? Waste of societal resources on a massive scale is cause for alarm, not glee. I'll also point out: overbuilding itself is sideways to the issue of spawl versus sustainability, caused by a vast oversupply of capital that led, as usual, to a bubble economy that was destined to collaspe catastrophically, as it always does. Developers of all stripes have lost their shirts.

You'd have no way of knowing this, but: I work in the residential construction industry. Amazingly, I still have a job, but work is really hard to come by. I suppose that a lot of people think that going back to the status quo ante is the solution, but I think it's about time we tried something different.

Perhaps you're thinking that I'm some intown hippie pseudointellectual who has no comprehension of the needs of suburban residents. I'm not. I live here, which is firmly in the suburbs. My home is on an axis between my wife's suburban workplace (she loves her job, BTW) and Atlanta's major construction markets. Still, as a construction guy, my workplace could be almost anywhere. Others people have the option of living closer to their workplace-- I don't. I'm more at the mercy of traffic congestion that most people are. And there's very little scope for expanding transit service in such a way that it would be personally useful to me or my family.

Last edited by Tom 958; January 22nd, 2011 at 02:42 PM.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 08:37 PM   #6378
nerdly_dood
Possibly Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 951
Likes (Received): 42

Roads aren't necessary for sprawl, but they sure do make it easier.
__________________
A government's primary duty is to protect and advance the three most fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights imply the additional right to prudently guarded stupidity.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor there saw themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. -John Steinbeck
nerdly_dood no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 09:01 PM   #6379
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,199
Likes (Received): 766

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
IT would cost gazillions and wouldn't solve traffic problems. There is not a single passenger railway system that has significantly alleviated congestions in US or in Europe for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
I doubt thats true , our system carries 6 million ppl daily.....and the New Haven line carries 130,000+ daily along the I-95 corridor in CT. It keeps going up too...
A medium-low busy railway with 4 tph (trains per hour) per direction with 1.000 passengers each nearly equals in one hour a 2x2 motorway considering that most commuters travel alone, one in each car.

The example I love most is Milano-Seregno railway which carries around 35.000 passenger a day increasing from 13.000 without any new infrastructure - new capacity obtained much cheaper than any road widening.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 09:13 PM   #6380
grownman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

I also think that in the near future if the demographic grows continues, Many southern Cities such as Dallas,H-town,LA will need more highways and projects
grownman 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 09:55 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