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 April 3rd, 2014, 02:02 AM   #9541
Natomasken
Registered User
 
Natomasken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: La Center, Washington
Posts: 140
Likes (Received): 40

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
They didn't really put an "I" in front of 595, did they?
__________________
Places I've driven:
North America: All US states except AK, ND, and SD; Canadian provinces of AB, BC, ON, and QC
Europe: AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, FR, HU (barely and by mistake); IT, LI, LU, NL, NO, SE, SK, and UK
Australia: ACT, NSW, VIC
Roadnerd over 40 years!
Natomasken no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 3rd, 2014, 10:04 AM   #9542
Jim856796
Registered User
 
Jim856796's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 8,954
Likes (Received): 847

An Interstate Highway sign that says "Interstate I-595"? Redundant.
__________________
I honestly think all development projects must be sustainable and futureproof.

You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.
Jim856796 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2014, 05:02 PM   #9543
CNGL
Leudimin
 
CNGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Huesca
Posts: 7,447
Likes (Received): 1931

That I-I-595 sign must be from the Department of Redundancy Department they have on AARoads .
__________________
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2014, 05:51 PM   #9544
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,543

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNGL View Post
That I-I-595 sign must be from the Department of Redundancy Department they have on AARoads .
I thought Alanland Oblast-named all its shields?
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2014, 06:08 AM   #9545
xzmattzx
Philly sports fan
 
xzmattzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Posts: 15,645
Likes (Received): 4266

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
That segment opened on Oktober 8, 2013.
It was my first time on it. I think I'm the only person on SSC that really travels on that highway, so I had been posting pictures of the updates. The southbound lanes opened last summer, but you probably know the exact day.

I'll enjoy the time savings, but will miss the little bit of scenery along the route.
xzmattzx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2014, 09:24 PM   #9546
myosh_tino
Registered User
 
myosh_tino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 115
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I thought Alanland Oblast-named all its shields?
Hmmm... Alanland invades and doesn't invade Skyscraper City... not good!

Last edited by myosh_tino; April 4th, 2014 at 09:48 PM.
myosh_tino no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2014, 09:44 PM   #9547
CNGL
Leudimin
 
CNGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Huesca
Posts: 7,447
Likes (Received): 1931

Quote:
Originally Posted by myosh_tino View Post
Hmmm... Alanland invades and doesn't invade Skyscraper City... not good!
FTFY.

To those who don't know it, Alanland is a recurring meme in the AARoads forum, much like Póvoa de Varzim or the Struma motorway here, and like those it was coined by a troll. In that country anything is and isn't at the same time. Goats appear to dominate (and to be absent from) the country. A really weird thing, anyway.
__________________
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 10:00 PM   #9548
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Interesting data on I-345. Some groups have proposed tearing down I-345 as it would have little impact on traffic. Data shows why this is a bad idea.

First; the hypothetical I-345 removal is not your average stub ramp removal like the Embarcadero in San Francisco or the Park Freeway in Milwaukee. The traffic volume is very high, over 200,000 vehicles per day. You cannot just dump that kind of traffic on surface streets unless you want to create a monster traffic corridor much wider than the current freeway (example: Avenida 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires, or those Moscow inner city ring roads).

Second; claiming that tearing down 345 would have no significant impact on travel times reveals how little people know about transportation. Most of these groups view road traffic like transit; with a strong focus on to-and-from CBD patterns. However, modern day road traffic is not like that.

This graph shows that actually almost no traffic on I-345 has an origin or destination in the Dallas CBD (within the freeway loop), so it's not just a bunch of motorists who will have to exit a mile earlier than today.


Not to mention that tearing down I-345 would not only create extreme problems on the existing corridor (such as the Gardiner proposal in Toronto), it would also create a large flow of traffic on alternate freeways like I-30, 35E and Spur 366. These are all freeways already operating at a poor level of service. Dumping another 100,000 or so vehicles on it will prove to be disastrous.

In reality, proposals to tear down I-345 are so unrealistic they should not be taken serious. I don't think anyone at TxDOT or even the Dallas city council would take it serious, but the media apparently does.
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

I-275westcoastfl, Bori427 liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 02:40 AM   #9549
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,960
Likes (Received): 680

Now I admit I am generally a fan of interurban and suburban highways, I am absolutely NOT a fan of urban ones. Urban Freeways destroyed America's cities(And even Toronto for several decades, the last of the parking lots are only now starting to disappear 50 years after the construction of the Gardiner). Just thought I would get that out there as a bit of a preface haha.

I can see a bit of an issue with tearing down the entire I-345 absolutely, especially considering the next ring road is generally ~15km away. What I don't see a major problem with is ripping down at least one section. Why must it completely surround downtown on all 4 sides? surrounding it on 3 of the 4 sides wouldn't cause too much traffic havoc but would certianly reconnect downtown to at least some of the surrounding neighbourhoods. You could deck over the highway between highway 75 and 77 and then rip down the portion between 75 and I-35 for example. That would completely open up Downtown Dallas from its isolated condition that it is currently in without providing a complete disaster in terms of traffic.


As for the Gardiner, that is a completely different Highway the vast majority of the traffic using that ends downtown and has viable transit options that the drivers can switch to, especially in the coming years as the big expansions in commuter rail start to open. Unlike Dallas, which as far as I know doesn't have relatively that many jobs downtown and doesn't even have commuter rail. (only 28% of people commuting into Toronto drive, less than 1% use the part of the Gardiner proposed to be torn down, and that 1% accounts for 80% of the traffic on that road) Its not like that traffic will have nowhere to go, there will be a large urban boulevard put in its place and there will be plenty of transit options to replace 80% of those trips. Never mind the fact that it is extremely overbuilt currently anyway, a 8 lane highway with a single 4 lane highway feeding into it on ones side and 6 lane highway leading out from it on the other.

Dallas's problems lie in the fact that they built their suburban highway network based on a hub around downtown, completely destroying their downtown in the process. Toronto's suburban traffic is based on the 401, a highway 10km north of the city.

Dallas is in a tough situation, they now realize the folly of building the I-345 so close to downtown, but I agree that there is no easy solution and whatever they come up with will be painful, especially how car reliant the entire built form of the city is.

and as always, you have to remember factors such as induced demand.

Last edited by Innsertnamehere; April 9th, 2014 at 02:47 AM.
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 02:53 AM   #9550
sonysnob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 963
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNGL View Post
FTFY.

To those who don't know it, Alanland is a recurring meme in the AARoads forum, much like Póvoa de Varzim or the Struma motorway here, and like those it was coined by a troll. In that country anything is and isn't at the same time. Goats appear to dominate (and to be absent from) the country. A really weird thing, anyway.
Alanland is one of those things that should stay on AAroads if you ask me... I always found it kind of dumb.
__________________
Asphaltplanet.ca

ChrisZwolle liked this post
sonysnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 03:14 AM   #9551
sonysnob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 963
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Now I admit I am generally a fan of interurban and suburban highways, I am absolutely NOT a fan of urban ones. Urban Freeways destroyed America's cities(And even Toronto for several decades, the last of the parking lots are only now starting to disappear 50 years after the construction of the Gardiner). Just thought I would get that out there as a bit of a preface haha.

I can see a bit of an issue with tearing down the entire I-345 absolutely, especially considering the next ring road is generally ~15km away. What I don't see a major problem with is ripping down at least one section. Why must it completely surround downtown on all 4 sides? surrounding it on 3 of the 4 sides wouldn't cause too much traffic havoc but would certianly reconnect downtown to at least some of the surrounding neighbourhoods. You could deck over the highway between highway 75 and 77 and then rip down the portion between 75 and I-35 for example. That would completely open up Downtown Dallas from its isolated condition that it is currently in without providing a complete disaster in terms of traffic.


As for the Gardiner, that is a completely different Highway the vast majority of the traffic using that ends downtown and has viable transit options that the drivers can switch to, especially in the coming years as the big expansions in commuter rail start to open. Unlike Dallas, which as far as I know doesn't have relatively that many jobs downtown and doesn't even have commuter rail. (only 28% of people commuting into Toronto drive, less than 1% use the part of the Gardiner proposed to be torn down, and that 1% accounts for 80% of the traffic on that road) Its not like that traffic will have nowhere to go, there will be a large urban boulevard put in its place and there will be plenty of transit options to replace 80% of those trips. Never mind the fact that it is extremely overbuilt currently anyway, a 8 lane highway with a single 4 lane highway feeding into it on ones side and 6 lane highway leading out from it on the other.

Dallas's problems lie in the fact that they built their suburban highway network based on a hub around downtown, completely destroying their downtown in the process. Toronto's suburban traffic is based on the 401, a highway 10km north of the city.

Dallas is in a tough situation, they now realize the folly of building the I-345 so close to downtown, but I agree that there is no easy solution and whatever they come up with will be painful, especially how car reliant the entire built form of the city is.

and as always, you have to remember factors such as induced demand.
I am not in the camp that doesn't believe interurban highways destroyed US cities. For several decades there was a concerted effort by government agencies to redevelop existing US cities as less dense spaces, building urban highways may have been a factor in that effort, but it wasn't the be all and end all. Particularly in the US, there are also some pretty strong social reasons why people left the city, including crime rates and locally funded school zones. Blaming all of this on highway construction is convenient, but is a simplistic approach to understand why urban areas became blighted.

Also, the idea of induced demand as a concept is used with way too much prevalence by anti-highway folks. I don't disagree with the concept, but it fails to address the concept of latent demand, and that for almost all transportation service other than demand into a central business district, the displaced highway users are typically just displaced to less efficient roadways from the highway network.

Dallas does have a small commuter rail network. In addition to DART, the Trinity Railway Express carries passengers between Downtown Dallas and Downtown Fort Worth. From what I understand (which I grant isn't that much) it hasn't been that successful.
__________________
Asphaltplanet.ca
sonysnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 03:30 AM   #9552
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,960
Likes (Received): 680

induced demand usually only becomes an issue if you have a large transit system paralleling the road system as trips are leached from that. Situations like Dallas are unlikely to have too much of induced demand (beyond some off peak trips moving to peak trips when new capacity is added and vice versa when it is removed) as almost 100% of movement is by car. Situations like the Gardiner are heavily based off of induced demand as most of those trips can easily be accommodated by transit.

Urban freeways were obviously only part of a major issue, but they certainly caused major damage. White flight may have still occurred, but not likely on the scale that was seen as the flight would have been more limited to be closer to the central city to account for the lack of easy highway access. It was an enabler, at least. Urban highways also create parking demand, and with zoning laws in the 1960's that encouraged land owners to tear down existing structures and to replace them with parking lots that destroyed so many cities its not really funny. Entire cities got almost completely destroyed to fit that parking in. Toronto for example, which wasn't nearly as badly hit as most US cities (and has recovered extremely well since) lost probably close to 90% of its building stock in the oldest neighbourhood in the city. (a large chunk of which was actually done by the government)
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 03:53 AM   #9553
sonysnob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 963
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
induced demand usually only becomes an issue if you have a large transit system paralleling the road system as trips are leached from that. Situations like Dallas are unlikely to have too much of induced demand (beyond some off peak trips moving to peak trips when new capacity is added and vice versa when it is removed) as almost 100% of movement is by car. Situations like the Gardiner are heavily based off of induced demand as most of those trips can easily be accommodated by transit.
But just because a trip can be accommodated by transit, doesn't mean that it always should. I am not in the camp where I think people should be vilified because they want to drive to their destination. I realize that that camp does exist, but as is evidenced by the congestion that exists on both the DVP and the Gardiner (as well as a lot of other Toronto area freeways) transit isn't the be all and end all for a lot of people, even if their trip could theoretically be accommodated by it.
__________________
Asphaltplanet.ca
sonysnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 03:55 AM   #9554
Kanadzie
Registered User
 
Kanadzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,373
Likes (Received): 746

Is there really any "spare" capacity on the Lakeshore GO line? It seems a worse congestion hell than the QEW-Gardiner, maybe the induced demand is working backwards...
Kanadzie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 04:43 AM   #9555
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,960
Likes (Received): 680

we are going a little off topic here I think, mods can feel free to move the convo to the Canada thread.

A lot of those trips take the highway as it is more convenient today, many of them could easily transfer with maybe 5 minutes in difference in terms of commuting times. highways will always be congested, they are seen as the "#1 choice" for transportation but have serious side affects that leave them less than desired (health effects from suburban lifestyles and pollution, sprawl, etc.)

as for capacity, there is plenty of space. There are 2 or 3 GO lines that would take the load, as well as the TTC, which can manage it. As I said, even if 100% of those trips (which nowhere near that many will) converted to transit trips, you would be looking at 1% of trips into downtown being transferred to transit. In reality you are looking at maybe 0.3 percent conversion to transit, minuscule and probably roughly equal to a few more people on every GO train that is carrying 1,500 in the first place. you would be looking at an annual 2.5% transit growth rate (More for GO) to 2.7% instead for a single year.

also, most of the trips would transfer to either Stouffville GO, lakeshore east (which isn't nearly as busy as lakeshore west) and the TTC. By the looks of it the Gardiner is going to be rebuilt as a 4 lane elevated freeway hugging the rail corridor now anyway, providing a much less disruptive presence to the urban environment while maintaining the connection. (even at some absurd cost that would likely never pass a cost benefit ratio)

Dallas as I have said is in a different situation as the transportation network is so car focused compared to Toronto that there are no real realistic ways of eliminating those trips, especially considering the setup of the highway network.

anyways, move these last few posts please!

Last edited by Innsertnamehere; April 9th, 2014 at 04:49 AM.
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 10:39 AM   #9556
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Like most downtown areas in the U.S., the adjacent areas used to be industrial in character. I-345 (unsigned by the way) was routed across decayed industrial areas. As recent as 20 years ago there were almost no housing developments near it.

A removal is not an option here. There's way too much traffic. Many European countries don't even have freeways with this kind of traffic volume, for example in the UK only one motorway reaches up to 200,000 vehicles per day. If you recalculate the amount of vehicles to the amount of passengers, this little stretch of I-345 moves more than twice as many people as the 85 mile light rail system in greater Dallas (DART).

A teardown is only possible if they would replace with an alternate route, for example a tunnel. But that would be expensive and the state or city will not be able to pay for it. Tolling could be an option but would create a diversion of traffic to other - already saturated - routes and would be highly unpopular, especially because 345 is mostly used by commuters from the poorer southern side of Dallas.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 11:44 AM   #9557
KIWIKAAS
Registered User
 
KIWIKAAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Hague
Posts: 4,520
Likes (Received): 750

I think it's worthy looking into it.
It's shocking to see how hemmed in by freeways downtown Dallas is.
For the downtown area to become attractive for expansion and to increase it's residential share something has to give.
Demolishing the 75 would open up a whole new area that potentially could create a development corridor from downtown to the hospital precinct.
KIWIKAAS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 01:02 PM   #9558
sponge_bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,949
Likes (Received): 2199

Many Urban Interstates followed old railway alignments into already decaying areas of railway stockyards and low rent housing that were close to city centres, in other words the downtown went from cut off by railways to cut off by motorways and the area the alignment went through was crap 40 or 50 years ago anyway.

The US cities themselves had grown up along the railways in many cases.

But to a European it is amazing to see how they punch right through cities in a straight line and fixing them to go around is no small task. The North South interstate through Denver is the one that sticks in my mind for some reason.
sponge_bob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 01:08 PM   #9559
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Much of the housing developments east of I-345 were built on what was a rail yard until the 1990s.

The Gardiner Expressway is an example of a "barrier" while there is a wide rail corridor next to it. Another example is St. Louis, where I-64 "cuts" through the city while there is a huge rail yard next to it, with partially elevated railroads.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 01:26 PM   #9560
KIWIKAAS
Registered User
 
KIWIKAAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Hague
Posts: 4,520
Likes (Received): 750

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Much of the housing developments east of I-345 were built on what was a rail yard until the 1990s.
So demolishing the I345 would fit in well with the renewal trend going on in that area?
KIWIKAAS 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 03:33 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