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.


View Poll Results: So?
EU 388 79.51%
USA 100 20.49%
Voters: 488. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old July 14th, 2010, 12:42 AM   #1041
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Well, Our area is twice as big as Europe, and Interstate Highway's length is huge. I think area and ratio to the length of road needed to cover a certain plays a factor.

Nope. All those countries aren't nearly as sparsely populated as some of the most sparsely spots in the US. Look at No. and So. Dakota. They have like 1 interstate going through them and they are about the size of the average European country. Sorry, I'm not buying into this one.
'Your area' is bigger, but your population and road density per capita is much lower. We could have seen that Austria, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, Spain, Norway, France and Denmark are having more km paved highway per capita and that the only European countries with a greater length of motorways per capita are Austria and Luxembourg. As I said before, a low population density doesn't explain much about the quality and condition of the roads. You don't have to buy this one, but you can't use population density as a main argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Lack of speed limits would be impractical on your average US urban freeway.
Well, what does that say about the difference between the roadsystems?

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
LOL. Again using one collaspe to degrade a whole system, like it doesn't happen happen any where else and that the European's system is so perfect accidents like that can't happen to them. That makes me lol.
If you did read the article in the link than you would have known that this wasn't a single incident. A study by the American Society of Civil Engineers You can read the report here. The study concludes that 'an astonishing 66 percent of California’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 68 percent of its urban interstates are congested. Of the state’s bridges, 30 percent are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. According to the report card, “California spends $2 billion less each year on highway maintenance and rehabilitation than is needed.”

The nation’s infrastructure has worsened since 2005, the report concludes. “US surface transportation and aviation systems declined over the past four years, with aviation and transit dropping from a D+ to D, and roads dropping from a D to a nearly failing D-,” it says. “Showing no significant improvement since the last report, the nation’s bridges, public parks and recreation, and rail remained at a grade of C, while dams, hazardous waste, and schools remained at a grade of D, and drinking water and waste water remained at a grade of D-. Just one category—energy—improved since 2005, raised its grade from D to D+.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Funny. Every picture of this interchange the highway looks as bad as any America highway.
Funny, as bad as any American highway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Not only that, you missed the point entirely anyway. I'm not saying bigger is better, I'm saying can Europe build a freeway that big and maintain it to your fancy standards. No they can't.
Suggesting that Europeans can't build and maintan a "big and fancy" freeway while many reports show that the Amerinca infrastructure is crumbling is quite ironic. It seems like you're the one who's missing the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
EDIT: Also, I would like to add, 320,000 vehicles a day on one interchange? Pshh. We have that many cars going down 1 freeway. Please.
Just above you claim "I'm not saying bigger is better", so what is your point?
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
909 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 14th, 2010, 12:50 AM   #1042
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
motorway densities are not really good indicators. For example, countries with a large geographical area with cities spread out quite far across the country, will have a higher amount of freeway mileage per capita, for example the United States, Spain and China. Countries where the population is mostly limited to a small area do not need as much long-distance freeways, significantyl reducing freeway mileage (for example: Canada, Sweden, Finland).
In other words: statistics about densities and lengths are like bikinis, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. And therefore those claims about the lack of density in are not valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
More interesting is the freeway lane mileage. The Texas Transport Institute once did some research on that, surprisingly perhaps to some, Los Angeles has one of the lowest lane miles per capita in all of the US, while it has the legacy of a freeway walhalla, but the opposite is rather true.

Many people consider Los Angeles and New York the opposite poles in freeways, while they are actually closest together of any major US metropolitan area in freeway lane mileage per capita
LA is also one of the densest urban area's of the US.
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
909 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 12:55 AM   #1043
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

ChrisZwolle, thanks for your incite. The problem with Los Angeles is NIMBY's. Sadly most of major connections in the freeway system that need to be made are where rich folks live. Alot of our planned freeways have been dropped due to people worried about there their fancy-ass homes. Since the more wealthy side of people live in these areas, they can afford good lawyers and literally stall a road project for decades. The funny thing is, they complain about building a freeway, then we try a build a light rail, they still complain about that. Then they have the nerve to come back a year later and complain about overcrowed streets and worry about their children getting hit. Some cities even complain over just adding lane to an existing freeway....Christ.
State of the Union no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 01:25 AM   #1044
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by 909 View Post
'Your area' is bigger, but your population and road density per capita is much lower. We could have seen that Austria, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, Spain, Norway, France and Denmark are having more km paved highway per capita and that the only European countries with a greater length of motorways per capita are Austria and Luxembourg. As I said before, a low population density doesn't explain much about the quality and condition of the roads. You don't have to buy this one, but you can't use population density as a main argument.

Actually it does. I would love to see try and repave EVERY SINGLE stretch of interstate in the ENTIRE US every 2 years to keep it looking like your European Motorways. Plus, it was you that came up with Population density. My main argument was that we have to worry about an area twice as big as Europe. Fail.


Well, what does that say about the difference between the roadsystems?

It says that Comparing a six lane-max autobahn with a US urban Freeway that has twice much vpd = fail.


If you did read the article in the link than you would have known that this wasn't a single incident. A study by the American Society of Civil Engineers You can read the report here. The study concludes that 'an astonishing 66 percent of California’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 68 percent of its urban interstates are congested. Of the state’s bridges, 30 percent are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. According to the report card, “California spends $2 billion less each year on highway maintenance and rehabilitation than is needed.”

The nation’s infrastructure has worsened since 2005, the report concludes. “US surface transportation and aviation systems declined over the past four years, with aviation and transit dropping from a D+ to D, and roads dropping from a D to a nearly failing D-,” it says. “Showing no significant improvement since the last report, the nation’s bridges, public parks and recreation, and rail remained at a grade of C, while dams, hazardous waste, and schools remained at a grade of D, and drinking water and waste water remained at a grade of D-. Just one category—energy—improved since 2005, raised its grade from D to D+.'

1) Our economy is in the $hit hole.

2) connecting into number 1, We can't repave every stretch of freeway every 2 years to keep it looking pretty. We have to split the budget between Highway expansion and maintenance....not a good position.

3) connecting into the argument about density and area and number 2, it's impossible to babysit and repave every stretch of freeway every 2 years like Europe can.



Funny, as bad as any American highway?

You know what's ever funnier? Did I ever say that maintenance wise America is better? I don't think any American on this forum is denying that in that regard, Europeans win. However, doesn't mean overall that our roads are inferior. Please.


Suggesting that Europeans can't build and maintan a "big and fancy" freeway while many reports show that the Amerinca infrastructure is crumbling is quite ironic. It seems like you're the one who's missing the point.

No, you are still missing point(damn, how many times can you miss the point one thread?) you just need to make yourself feel better. I still stand by my point, if Europe was in the same position I doubt they could pull off any better. Though, of course you are going to say Europeans can because you are Europeans and all that right? Nope. Also, since I'm the one who made the point in first place, and you missed the point, how am I missing point? Good try though.


Just above you claim "I'm not saying bigger is better", so what is your point?

You trying to compare the vpd of a single interchange vpd(an interchange represents the vpd pf 2 or more different freeways) that is comparable to one freeway in the US. If that's one freeway, image one interchange here in the US. That's a big difference and not valid in this argument. Again, you missed the point. ($hit, I think I might have to copy and paste "you missed the point")
10char
State of the Union no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 01:25 AM   #1045
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
I think a major difference is the vastness of American urban areas. For example, Dallas is a metropolitan area of 6.5 million inhabitants, only a few European metropolises can match that. Many freeways in the United States are inside the urban area, and not rarely immediately around the central business district, while such things are very rare in Europe, where motorways tend to run somewhat further outside the city, thus having lower traffic volumes.
That is intersting, but doesn't explain everything. For example, the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area encompasses 9,286 square miles (24,100 km2) of total area. For example, the Ruhr area in only 4435 km² for 5,2 million people, our own Randstad is home to 7,1 million people in apr. 8300 km2. Bust even more than here, most jobs, companies and economics in Dallas are located not in the CBD, but in the suburbs. Therefore it is interesting to see that a greater vastness, lower density and a distribution of busines and living should result in bigger freeways. Well, that not entirely convincing, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Another difference in Europe, for example in Germany or France, is the amount of expressways and semi-expressways. If you compare, for example Frankfurt, with, say, Atlanta, you'll see Frankfurt has much more short freeways distributing traffic than Atlanta, where all traffic is combined on only a few major freeways, demanding much larger interchanges.
Perhaps it would be interesting to compare those regions via maps. Note, these are not entirely on scale. There is a small difference in scale which makes Frankfurt (below) looks bigger and Atlanta (above) smaller. But let's focus on the network of motorways, which are in red:





Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
For example, the 4 east-west Autobahns of the Ruhr valley have a combined traffic volume of around 350,000 vehicles per day. In the US, that traffic would've been distributed over one or two freeways.
When looking at the maps of Frankfurt and Atlanta we can see exaclty same as you are saying, the traffic in the European counterpart is distributed over more freeways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
This design is also featured in New York City, where most expressways are six lanes. For example, the Long Island Expressways and parkways carry a combined traffic volume of around 350,000 vehicles per day, rather similar to the Interstate 10 in West Los Angeles. The have more or less the same function. Because these expressways in New York each have lower traffic volumes around 80,000 - 150,000 vpd, they require less massive interchanges than the Los Angeles freeways which have 250,000 - 300,000 each.

So to sum up
* urban vs non-urban freeways
* combined traffic or distributed traffic.

The effect of transit is there, but not as much as generally thought. I think it'll save you maybe 10% of the traffic, shaving off one lane or a HOV lane.
Thanks for the great explanation!
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
909 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 01:32 AM   #1046
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,582
Likes (Received): 19370

Quote:
For example, the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area encompasses 9,286 square miles (24,100 km2) of total area.
The problem is statistics on metropolitan areas in the United States are skewed. For example, over 70% of the DFW official MSA is undeveloped.

For example within the 12-county DFW MSA, at least 7 are mainly rural in nature, but are included in the MSA area.

Google Earth printscreen to show two (out of 7) example counties which are included in the DFW MSA, but are predominantly rural.
[IMG]http://i25.************/335gmef.jpg[/IMG]
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora  
Old July 14th, 2010, 02:07 AM   #1047
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 15,495
Likes (Received): 19136

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The problem is statistics on metropolitan areas in the United States are skewed. For example, over 70% of the DFW official MSA is undeveloped.
That's why, for such comparisons you do guys, it is better to use urbanized areas rather than metropolitan areas.
Dallas - Forth Worth - Arlington urban area covers about 3650 square kilometers (year 2000)

Here are some stats:
http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm
geogregor está en línea ahora  
Old July 14th, 2010, 02:08 AM   #1048
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Actually it does. I would love to see try and repave EVERY SINGLE stretch of interstate in the ENTIRE US every 2 years to keep it looking like your European Motorways.Plus, it was you that came up with Population density.

My main argument was that we have to worry about an area twice as big as Europe. Fail.
Exactly, and we made it clear that not only area is important. Quite ironic that you uses the words "damn, how many times can you miss the point one thread?" while I have to repeat myself: we could have seen that Austria, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, Spain, Norway, France and Denmark are having more km paved highway per capita and that the only European countries with a greater length of motorways per capita are Austria and Luxembourg. As I said before, a low population density doesn't explain much about the quality and condition of the roads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
It says that Comparing a six lane-max autobahn with a US urban Freeway that has twice much vpd = fail.
Once again it seems like your the one who is failing, therefore I will rephrase my question again: what does it says about the quality of the road, the surface, noisereduction, environmental impact, the amount of traffic and the users? What does your own words "lack of speed limits would be impractical on your average US urban freeway" suggest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
1) Our economy is in the $hit hole.
More economies are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
2) connecting into number 1, We can't repave every stretch of freeway every 2 years to keep it looking pretty. We have to split the budget between Highway expansion and maintenance....not a good position.
Agree, but more countries are suffering from the same. A few pages ago, I posted some pictures of the Autobahn near the Dutch border. I recommend to see them for yourself. America is not the only country with these kind of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
3) connecting into the argument about density and area and number 2, it's impossible to babysit and repave every stretch of freeway every 2 years like Europe can.
Like said above, other countries have also their problems. And connecting into the argument about density and area and number, one word: Minneapolis. An urban area, not a sparsely populated area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
You know what's ever funnier? Did I ever say that maintenance wise America is better? I don't think any American on this forum is denying that in that regard, Europeans win. However, doesn't mean overall that our roads are inferior. Please.
Once again i shall repeat myself: I am not implying that European roads are better than American, or vicaversa. I have seen some excellent roads here, but also some very worse ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
No, you are still missing point(damn, how many times can you miss the point one thread?) you just need to make yourself feel better.
My hapiness is not related to the quality of roads, but judging by your angriness i doubt if you could say the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
I still stand by my point, if Europe was in the same position I doubt they could pull off any better.
Well, comparing the current state of infrastructure I wonder how is in the position to doubt. To be honest, i believe not only Europe but also America could do so much better. But that's something political.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Though, of course you are going to say Europeans can because you are Europeans and all that right? Nope.
Indeed, nope. Once again: I am not implying that European roads are better than American, or vicaversa. I have seen some excellent roads here, but also some very worse ones. A few pages ago, I posted some pictures of the Autobahn near the Dutch border. I recommend to see them for yourself. America is not the only country with these kind of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Also, since I'm the one who made the point in first place, and you missed the point, how am I missing point? Good try though.
Since you are not able to understand you own logic, let's go back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Not only that, you missed the point entirely anyway. I'm not saying bigger is better, I'm saying can Europe build a freeway that big and maintain it to your fancy standards. No they can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909 View Post
Suggesting that Europeans can't build and maintan a "big and fancy" freeway while many reports show that the Amerinca infrastructure is crumbling is quite ironic. It seems like you're the one who's missing the point.
So, it's clear that you suggested that "Europeans can't build a freeway that big and maintain it to your fancy standards" while we all could have read that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909 View Post
If you did read the article in the link than you would have known that this wasn't a single incident. A study by the American Society of Civil Engineers You can read the report here. The study concludes that 'an astonishing 66 percent of California’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 68 percent of its urban interstates are congested. Of the state’s bridges, 30 percent are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. According to the report card, “California spends $2 billion less each year on highway maintenance and rehabilitation than is needed.”

The nation’s infrastructure has worsened since 2005, the report concludes. “US surface transportation and aviation systems declined over the past four years, with aviation and transit dropping from a D+ to D, and roads dropping from a D to a nearly failing D-,” it says. “Showing no significant improvement since the last report, the nation’s bridges, public parks and recreation, and rail remained at a grade of C, while dams, hazardous waste, and schools remained at a grade of D, and drinking water and waste water remained at a grade of D-. Just one category—energy—improved since 2005, raised its grade from D to D+.'
The only person who is missing the point is you. So i ask you, according to the report made by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who isn't able to maintain the infrastructure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
You trying to compare the vpd of a single interchange vpd(an interchange represents the vpd pf 2 or more different freeways) that is comparable to one freeway in the US. If that's one freeway, image one interchange here in the US. That's a big difference and not valid in this argument. Again, you missed the point. ($hit, I think I might have to copy and paste "you missed the point")
No, once again you are missing the point, like in the comment below and the underscripted part above. Both posts claim to have something bigger. Well that's fine with me, but those comments also proof that you like these facts to show off. That is also fine with me, but quantity doesn't equal quality. Read your comments below and ask yourself: if you "not saying bigger is better", so what is your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
I'm not saying bigger is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
If that's one freeway, image one interchange here in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Also, I would like to add, 320,000 vehicles a day on one interchange? Pshh. We have that many cars going down 1 freeway. Please.
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Last edited by 909; July 14th, 2010 at 02:46 AM.
909 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 02:10 AM   #1049
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,199
Likes (Received): 766

Quote:
Originally Posted by 909 View Post
Perhaps it would be interesting to compare those regions via maps. Note, these are not entirely on scale. There is a small difference in scale which makes Frankfurt (below) looks bigger and Atlanta (above) smaller. But let's focus on the network of motorways, which are in red:
From Google Maps I see that Atlanta has single family homes even near the centre, something in Europe can be found only far away from the city centres. That's the famous American urban sprawl...which makes cities much more car-dependant than in Europe, where even small cities have quite big buildings with up to a dozen of apartments.

Beside motorway width, another big difference is that American motorways have very few tunnels compared to Europe where today they build tunnels even in flat terrain. Just compare the USA with Austria or Switzerland. But even if some peaks of the Alps are higher than the summits of the Contiguous United States we have no main roads as high as the Interstate 70 (but at 3400m/11200ft here there is snow and glaciers year-round).
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 02:30 AM   #1050
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
That's why, for such comparisons you do guys, it is better to use urbanized areas rather than metropolitan areas.
Dallas - Forth Worth - Arlington urban area covers about 3650 square kilometers (year 2000)

Here are some stats:
http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm
You are right, that's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
The problem is statistics on metropolitan areas in the United States are skewed. For example, over 70% of the DFW official MSA is undeveloped.

For example within the 12-county DFW MSA, at least 7 are mainly rural in nature, but are included in the MSA area.
That doesn't change what i said, for example, the Ruhr area isn't entirely urban either, neither is the Randstad.

But let's change the numbers: For example, the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan Dallas–Fort Worth urban area encompasses 9,286 square miles (24,100 km2) 3959 km2 of total area which is home to 5,62 million people, the population density is 1400 per km2.
For example, the Ruhr area in only 4435 km² for 5,2 million people 3.5 million people in an area of 1680,71 km2.* The density is aprx. 2000 per km2.
Our own Randstad is home to 7,1 million people in apr. 8300 km2. But even more than here, most jobs, companies and economics in Dallas are located not in the CBD, but in the suburbs. Therefore it is interesting to see that a greater vastness, lower density and a distribution of busines and living should result in bigger freeways. Well, that not entirely convincing, isn't it? Therefore we can say that not only the density and sprawl of an urban area is important, but also the distribution of freeways in that area.
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Last edited by 909; July 14th, 2010 at 03:04 AM.
909 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 02:38 AM   #1051
909
-
 
909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
From Google Maps I see that Atlanta has single family homes even near the centre, something in Europe can be found only far away from the city centres. That's the famous American urban sprawl...which makes cities much more car-dependant than in Europe, where even small cities have quite big buildings with up to a dozen of apartments.
Indeed, it seems like sprawl in combination of the freeway distribution is the main reason for those impressive wide freeways and intersections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
Beside motorway width, another big difference is that American motorways have very few tunnels compared to Europe where today they build tunnels even in flat terrain. Just compare the USA with Austria or Switzerland. But even if some peaks of the Alps are higher than the summits of the Contiguous United States we have no main roads as high as the Interstate 70 (but at 3400m/11200ft here there is snow and glaciers year-round).
That is interesting, especially because those circumstances are making construction and maintenance ever more demanding, complex and expensive. But hey, we all know us Europeans can't build and maintan a "big and fancy" projects.
__________________
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Last edited by 909; July 14th, 2010 at 03:06 AM.
909 no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 06:39 AM   #1052
Xpressway
Experto
 
Xpressway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 4043

So which highway is the best highway on earth based on:

1- functionality (eg: best interchanges, ramps, etc...)
2- quality of the construction materials
3- safety of the highway.?

Let's not consider beauty of the highway.
__________________
"Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated."

Thomas Sowell
Xpressway no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 08:37 AM   #1053
Haljackey
Registered User
 
Haljackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 703
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpressway View Post
So which highway is the best highway on earth based on:

1- functionality (eg: best interchanges, ramps, etc...)
2- quality of the construction materials
3- safety of the highway.?

Let's not consider beauty of the highway.
Now that is a tough question to answer.

Especially when you include things like AADT, volume, design, lighting, curves, grades, location, traffic patterns, etc.

By landscape do you just mean the scenery or the urban/rural landscape? How about other physical and human geographical landscapes such as proximity to other highways?
Haljackey no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 05:32 PM   #1054
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Nope. All those countries aren't nearly as sparsely populated as some of the most sparsely spots in the US. Look at No. and So. Dakota. They have like 1 interstate going through them and they are about the size of the average European country. Sorry, I'm not buying into this one.
Your statement would hold water, if there were several freeways crossing a sparsely populated US state (I'm not speaking of the Dakotas, which both have two Interstates crossing them each). But following your own logic, maintaining a single freeway shouldn't be that hard (unless a state is really sparsely populated).
Verso no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 08:36 PM   #1055
Xpressway
Experto
 
Xpressway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 4043

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haljackey View Post
Now that is a tough question to answer.

Especially when you include things like AADT, volume, design, lighting, curves, grades, location, traffic patterns, etc.

By landscape do you just mean the scenery or the urban/rural landscape? How about other physical and human geographical landscapes such as proximity to other highways?
I understand it must be complicated, but what do you think would be a state of the art highway by considering functionality, capacity and safety standard?
__________________
"Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated."

Thomas Sowell

Last edited by Xpressway; July 14th, 2010 at 08:54 PM.
Xpressway no está en línea  
Old July 14th, 2010, 09:48 PM   #1056
nerdly_dood
Possibly Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 951
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpressway View Post
I understand it must be complicated, but what do you think would be a state of the art highway by considering functionality, capacity and safety standard?
No matter how state-of-the-art a highway is, they all require maintenance, and maintenance costs money. Virginia's DOT (aka VDOT) hardly has enough money to maintain what they already have, let alone upgrade.

Something tells me I said that already...
__________________
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  
Old July 14th, 2010, 10:05 PM   #1057
Xpressway
Experto
 
Xpressway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 4043

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdly_dood View Post
No matter how state-of-the-art a highway is, they all require maintenance, and maintenance costs money. Virginia's DOT (aka VDOT) hardly has enough money to maintain what they already have, let alone upgrade.

Something tells me I said that already...
Then you can't consider Virginia's highways to be state of the art...
__________________
"Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated."

Thomas Sowell
Xpressway no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2010, 02:38 PM   #1058
Spikespiegel
Used Registrant
 
Spikespiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 411
Likes (Received): 27

I must admit that the US Motorways are way more impresive than our (Europe) counterparts, when it comes to size and volume. I do, however, prefer the European motorways.

Firstly, one must realise the importance of the European public transport systems, to understand why the European motorways aren't as wide as the American counterparts.

Then, one must understand the European environmental policies to learn why the European motorways are built as they are.

European motorways have less lanes than American ones because of better railway service. European motorways very rarely goes through city centers, as most city centers predates the car by a few centuries. This means that a large quantity of the people commuting in and out of the city will use bicycles, trains or busses. This is also the reason why Europe hasn't had the need for big interchanges like the ones you will experience in the US, especially in Texas. Most European motorways rather handle the inter-city traffic.

Whereas the US has developed on basis of the car, Europe has developed on basis of the train. Where America proudly shows their elevated highways, and big stacks, Europeans are appaled by the sight of these "monstrosities". We would rather try and hide our motorways out of sight.

Even when driving through the suburbs of Copenhagen, you will rarely realise that you are actually driving in the city. The reason is that large green belts surround the motorways, and where there haven't been enough room for green belts, green hills have been constructed around the motorway to shield it from sight.
Even our interchanges are hidden away (for an example, go to Google Earth, and find the "Primary Route 21"/"O4" interchange just east of Taastrup).

As for the quality of the roads, I bet it varies a lot from country to country. Just 5 years ago, we had terrible road surfaces here, mainly because the government was saving up money for the big motorway extensions. When most extensions had been finalised, a major overhaul of all Danish motorways began, and I must say that the new surface is top notch. Someone, somewhere mentioned our funny emergency lane asphalt. It's a very rough type of Asphalt, that degrades easily, and thus you aren't allowed to drive on it even when the road is congested. The reason it has been made as it is, is that it decreases the braking length by a large margin.

As for other safety features, I agree that the american concrete barriers are safer than the European steel ones. I don't find our motorway marking or signage as being insufficient. European motorways tend to be more curvy and run through more varied terrain than the American highways. The reason for this is safety. A driver spending several hours on motorways, doing a constant 130 km/h is likely to get sleepy eventually. By constantly being in curves, and with the environment around the motorway constantly changing, you make the driver more aware, and it gives a better feeling of prgress, than if you had been doing the same speed in a straight line through a never-changing landscape.

Also, I once drove on a concrete motorway in Germany. I drove on it for a few kilometres, then I turned off it to take a normal rural road instead. The whistling and constant "bump, bump, bump" was just unbearable to me.
Spikespiegel no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2010, 06:22 PM   #1059
SeanT
DK/H
 
SeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: DK-Bjæverskov
Posts: 791
Likes (Received): 63

you say concret-motorways with bump,bump,bump, yes it´s true but the new constructions which have been taking place in several european countries are concret-motorways with excellent quality.
SeanT no está en línea  
Old July 15th, 2010, 06:34 PM   #1060
nerdly_dood
Possibly Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 951
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpressway View Post
Then you can't consider Virginia's highways to be state of the art...
I didn't say they were. (Well, one of them is, kinda.... US-460 bypass around Blacksburg and Christiansburg, but it was built when they had money)
__________________
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

Last edited by nerdly_dood; July 15th, 2010 at 06:40 PM.
nerdly_dood no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:28 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