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 28th, 2008, 01:44 AM   #1621
Jalisquillo20
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 0

USA is the master country, is the best country in the world
Jalisquillo20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 28th, 2008, 02:35 AM   #1622
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3707

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalisquillo20 View Post
USA is the master country, is the best country in the world
Sounds like you fallen to the US propaganda machine.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 02:36 AM   #1623
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

maybe he just got laid by an American chick?
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 03:52 AM   #1624
DrJoe
Registered Idiot
 
DrJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,671
Likes (Received): 8

I love how I didn't make this thread but I'm listed as the thread starter. Must have been merged.
__________________
*
DrJoe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 04:14 PM   #1625
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoe View Post
I love how I didn't make this thread but I'm listed as the thread starter. Must have been merged.
No, there was some nasty porn left after those first photos disappeared, so they just erased them.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 05:03 PM   #1626
Nephasto
Enlightened user
 
Nephasto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Porto
Posts: 5,802
Likes (Received): 71

They erased porn?! Evil moderators!!!
__________________
Long live rail freight!!
Nephasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 05:18 PM   #1627
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

^ It was nasty anyway.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 07:08 PM   #1628
Nephasto
Enlightened user
 
Nephasto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Porto
Posts: 5,802
Likes (Received): 71

__________________
Long live rail freight!!
Nephasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 09:29 PM   #1629
Chicagoago
Registered User
 
Chicagoago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,707
Likes (Received): 1451

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
But, still, it would've been better to put the exits on the left and the entrances on the right. Left-hand entrances suck, and that was known fifty years ago.
Yeah, that would have made more sense. I think the idea might have been that most traffic on the road was going downtown - since there are bypasses of the city for those just passing through.

Traffic already on the highway would tend to stay towards the right - since they're exiting the highway. Traffic entering would tend to be towards the left, where the entrances are. I guess they thought you'd have the same basic traffic counts, but people would be exiting off the highway and entering on different sides at a high volume.

At least they managed to tear out some of those entraces/exits when they rebuilt the whole thing a few years ago. It's actually not too bad at rush hour cause the traffic moves so slow you can merge in pretty easily. When there's no traffic people tend to get out of that left lane since they know there will be cars entering every 300M. The worst time to enter the highway is when traffic is light enough to be moving very fast, but busy enough that people are fully utilizing all 5 lanes. Then it can be quite difficult to merge into fast moving traffic with those limited sight lines and very short entrance ramps.

It was hard to design this since the loop was already so established and dense when the road was built. You don't want to have all that expressway traffic just entering 1 or 2 streets near the loop, cause they'd be overwhelmed. At the same time, you don't want to knock down huge blocks of buildings to create a few very large, high volume intersections.

All I know is - if you can fly through that stretch of road without seriously slowing down, you feel like you've just witnessed a miracle.
Chicagoago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2008, 09:38 PM   #1630
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

Maybe another problem is, that the next bypass 15 miles to the east is (Interstate 294). That's quite a distance in this dense and vast urban area in Chicago. There are easily a couple of million people living between the two corridors, giving high pressure on the existing I-90/I-94 overlap, while the 294 is tolled, and people tend to avoid tolled expressways.

And the downtown of Chicago has a huge business center, while the suburbs are not very dense, and wide spread-out, making public transportation to the city inefficient compared to the car, so many people take the car instead of the train, lightrail, metro or buses.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 05:19 AM   #1631
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3707

Some of suburbs are dense though.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 06:09 AM   #1632
Jalisquillo20
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 0

edit

Last edited by Jalisquillo20; January 29th, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason: porq si
Jalisquillo20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 08:22 PM   #1633
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,174
Likes (Received): 10394

Interesting op-ed piece that I found from my local newspaper.

As of 2008, Connecticut and Long Island, NY, although pretty much opposite from each other on the Long Island Sound, are not connected by any kind of bridge. There are ferries, but for the majority of us here who want to go to Long Island, you have to drive through New York City.

Sounds like a no-brainer, although it seems private-money would be the only way for this to be built. The price tag is too prohibitive for the state of NY or CT, and both states are lessening dependence on highways.

A rail link would be nice too.

Link: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,5754936.story

Quote:
A Long Island Sound Tunnel?

January 29, 2008
A businessman's proposal to build the world's longest highway tunnel under the western end of Long Island Sound is breathtakingly ambitious. It also flies in the face of sensible transportation policy.

Developer Vincent Polimeni says his privately financed $10 billion tunnel would extend for 16 to 18 miles, linking Oyster Bay on Long Island and Rye, N.Y. It would consist of two tubes carrying three lanes of traffic, plus a central tunnel for maintenance, emergency ventilation and egress.

Mr. Polimeni says the project would alleviate traffic congestion by giving an estimated 80,000 motorists traveling between Long Island and New England an alternative to New York City's crowded highways. Giving motorists a shorter route will also reduce air pollution, he says.

Arguing that another highway will cut air pollution is a little like saying that a drink is the answer to an alcoholic's craving. Even if it's true for the short term, the long-term consequences are likely to be a disaster.

If the last half-century of highway building has taught us anything, it's that new highways mean more traffic — and pollution.

Mr. Polimeni also seems to overlook the effects this tunnel would have on local roads in Oyster Bay and Rye, many of which are already congested. So much so that the mayor of Rye recently predicted that Mr. Polimeni's tunnel would render that town's roads "nonfunctional."

More and improved mass transit — trains, ferries and buses — is the best answer to the region's transportation challenges, not more highways. It's also the best way to reduce air pollution.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 08:46 PM   #1634
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

I see some misunderstandings and incorrectness in this article.

First of all, do new highways support more people to drive, or do we just forget the fact of population growth? It's easy to argue that the new highways may have lead to an increase of traffic, but they also "forget" to mention the population growth. In 1950, the United States had only 140 million inhabitants, while we are now facing over 300 million Americans. Ofcourse this also have led to an increase of traffic, not only because they have constructed more highways. Imagine the traffic jams if there were even lesser highways.

Quote:
More and improved mass transit — trains, ferries and buses — is the best answer to the region's transportation challenges, not more highways. It's also the best way to reduce air pollution.
Also, the first reaction of anti car/highway parties, though no single traffic jam had been shortened by investing in public transportation. This might be a bit different in New York, but it's unrealistic to think Public Transportation is THE solution for traffic jams. It is often a matter of different transportation demands, and only efficient in high density cities (like New York City proper excluding Staten Island). I don't say we shouldn't invest in mass transit, but it's too simplistic to think this will be an actual solution for transportation demands and traffic jams.

Third of all, i agree on the article that they also should investigate the connecting road network to this proposed tunnel. It happens often, that with new spatial developments, only the direct area is investigated, while the effects are usual on a larger area. Also, i think they really have to investigate if there is really such a great transportation demand between Long Island and New England that justifies such an expensive tunnel. Especially if this tunnel will be on the more rural eastern Long Island, it wouldn't attract enough traffic to make this investment cost-efficient.

I think the 10 billion budget can be better spend on the New York road network, especially in New York City itself, where a lot of expressways are outdated.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 09:31 PM   #1635
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

AADT:

George Washington Bridge 296.900
Lincoln Tunnel 120.800
Holland Tunnel 93.300
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel 52.400
Brooklyn Bridge 145.000
Manhattan Bridge 80.000
Williamsburg Bridge 110.000
Queens-Midtown Tunnel 83.900
Queensboro Bridge 192.000
Henry Hudson Bridge 68.800
Madison Avenue Bridge 48.400
Third Avenue Bridge 50.200
Harlem River Lift Bridge 95.600
Macombs Dam Bridge 40.100
University Heights Bridge 45.000
Broadway Bridge 35.700

Total: 1.558.100

(*1,2)
Number of passengers: ~1,9 million.

The above figures illustrates that Mass transit might be prominent within New York City, it is not to the suburban areas on Long Island, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York (state).

Also, these numbers are harder to be serviced by mass transit, because they are more spreadout over the area than New York City proper. Trying to capture enough people to mass transit so traffic jams will decrease will be prohibitively expensive.

I'll stick with my argument that Public Transportation can only be sufficient for transportation demands in densely populated areas;

Manhattan
Bronx
Queens
Brooklyn

(Staten Island is not dense enough, and relatively far away)

aswell as some New Jersey suburbs like those between the Hackensack and Hudson rivers.

Trying to serve the other suburbs will be so expensive, the costs do not justify the results.

In my opinion, current problems are threefold;
* mass construction of low density suburbs (Urban Sprawl)
* at the same time, the wish that these residents travel with mass transit
* with the result that highways will not be widened, and traffic jams will be worsened

There are some solutions;
* prohibit mass construction of urban sprawl
* be realistic and widen the roads in reference to the spatial developments and population growth
* spread working locations over more locations within the cities. Clustering of office buildings can only work out if there are no sprawling suburbs, traffic-wise, otherwise it attracts too much car-traffic.
* stimulate the use of mass transit when efficient, stimulating mass transit at all times shows the lack of realism.
* Accept the fact that private transportation will be more efficient in 90% of the times, whether we are talking about fossil energy powered cars now, or other types of power in the future.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 10:02 PM   #1636
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

Snoqualmie pass is closed due to avalanche danger

lot of sections of the I-80 in Wyoming are also closed

Midday I-80:

[IMG]http://i31.************/2pzir6a.jpg[/IMG]
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2008, 11:56 PM   #1637
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,174
Likes (Received): 10394

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriszwolle View Post
Also, i think they really have to investigate if there is really such a great transportation demand between Long Island and New England that justifies such an expensive tunnel. Especially if this tunnel will be on the more rural eastern Long Island, it wouldn't attract enough traffic to make this investment cost-efficient.
Actually, the project, if it ever happened, would connect the Western part of Long Island, to Westchester County (and Connecticut). Although there isn't much interaction between the two areas, because of a lack of a connector and they all are just suburbs, it would help people in Long Island be able to get out of the island without going through NYC traffic. There could be more economic trade and interaction too. Long Island feels a lot farther away than it is.

In retrospect, a tunnel or a bridge should have been done decades ago, during the age of construction, but all the projects to connect Long Island to Connecticut or Westchester were shot down. NIMBYs were incredibly high then too. Now, it will be prohibitively expensive either way...this is an area with some of the highest land values in the entire US.

I agree with you, there should still be maintenance of the highways in New York, and the US in particular. New York's highways are in horrible shape. I believe that the only Interstate in the entire city that is actually up to Interstate standards is I-295 in Queens, which is in a more suburban area of the city. The infrastructure here, whether road, rail, PT, whatever...is in need of renovation.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 12:00 AM   #1638
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,595
Likes (Received): 19389

What about a causeway, or is the Long Island Sound too deep?
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 12:15 AM   #1639
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,174
Likes (Received): 10394

I don't think so...the area where the tunnel was proposed isn't too far from where the LI sound narrows into the East River.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 12:21 AM   #1640
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,174
Likes (Received): 10394

As a point of reference, I'll just post the entire Wikipedia page on this failed project.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Crossing

Quote:
Long Island Crossing

The Long Island Crossing was a proposal to span the Long Island Sound and connect New York's Long Island with Connecticut and/or Rhode Island. The purpose was to provide access between Long Island and points north that would bypass New York City.

A variety of bridge routes were proposed:

1. A bridge connecting Mamaroneck in Westchester County, New York, with Sands Point on Long Island. This bridge would lead to a possible spur of Bronx-White Plains Expressway[citation needed] onto Long Island via the unbuilt Western Nassau Expressway in Nassau County.

2. A bridge connecting Rye in Westchester County, New York, with Oyster Bay on Long Island. This bridge would be an extension of Interstate 287 onto Long Island via the existing Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway in Nassau County.

3. A second bridge connecting Rye to the City of Glen Cove on Long Island. This bridge would have connected to the Glen Cove Arterial Highway on Long Island.

4. A bridge connecting Asharoken, New York to either Stamford, or Norwalk, Connecticut. This bridge would have connected to the unbuilt Babylon-Northport Expressway in Western Suffolk County. In Norwalk, it would have led to the already upgraded U.S. Route 7, while in Stamford, it would more than likely have connected to the unbuilt Pound Ridge-Stamford Expressway, and lead back into New York.

5. A bridge and possible dam connecting Poquott, New York to Bridgeport, Connecticut. This bridge would have connected the unbuilt Suffolk County Road 110 (A.O. Smith Turnpike) to CT 8-25.

6. A bridge connecting either New Haven, Connecticut or East Haven, Connecticut, with Shoreham, New York, on Long Island. This bridge would be an extension of Interstate 91 which would continue through Long Island via the already existing William Floyd Parkway.

7. A bridge connecting Riverhead, New York with Guilford, Connecticut. This bridge would have connected at an alternate extension of Interstate 495 to Exit 59 on the Connecticut Turnpike.

8. A bridge connecting Old Saybrook, Connecticut with East Marion, New York. This bridge would have connected the east end of the Long Island Expressway with CT 9 near Interstate 95 in Connecticut.

9. A causeway and bridge connecting Orient Point, New York, with Rhode Island along a series of islands between the North Fork of Long Island and an eastern terminus at Interstate 95 in Rhode Island.

All nine ideas were discussed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but all were canceled. Some were reconsidered during the 1990s, but the New York State Department of Transportation backed away from the idea in belief that it would not relieve congestion. Long Islanders seem to favor a bridge but New Englanders are not very supportive of the idea, claiming that it would benefit Long Island at their expense.
Hmmm...maybe this subject is more suited in the Bridge forum.
Xusein 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 02:13 PM.


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

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

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

tech management by Sysprosium