[DK] Danish Motorways • Motorveje i Danmark

[ChrisZwolle]

There are several ways to express the modal split and caution should be used in comparing them. Many include "trips" or "journeys", which usually results in walking having a high share. Many U.S. statistics cover only the commute (to and from work), which constitutes only about a third of all trips on an average motorway. Other statistics express the modal split by passenger kilometers, which results in a higher share of train and car, but far lower of bicycle and walking.

[jsfox]

Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle

There are several ways to express the modal split ...

You read my mind. I was going to ask what Nikolaj's reference was based on. I believe my numbers are from a 2010 Eurostat study and was based on commutes and traffic counts on a number of roads.

Flierfy, I think my numbers included only EU15 (or 27), US, and Canada (they came from a traffic engineer friend). He did note that Paris indicates a much lower auto share (16% if IIRC) but that number has apparently been questioned by a number of traffic engineers, not sure why.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by jsfox

Flierfy, I think my numbers included only EU15 (or 27), US, and Canada (they came from a traffic engineer friend). He did note that Paris indicates a much lower auto share (16% if IIRC) but that number has apparently been questioned by a number of traffic engineers, not sure why.

If your stats exclude a significant part of the world then you shouldn't use the phrase 'of any major city in the world'.

[Nikolaj]

Originally Posted by jsfox

You read my mind. I was going to ask what Nikolaj's reference was based on. I believe my numbers are from a 2010 Eurostat study and was based on commutes and traffic counts on a number of roads.

Flierfy, I think my numbers included only EU15 (or 27), US, and Canada (they came from a traffic engineer friend). He did note that Paris indicates a much lower auto share (16% if IIRC) but that number has apparently been questioned by a number of traffic engineers, not sure why.

I am not sure on which the numbers for other cities are based, but the number for Copenhagen is based on a comprehensive and continuous study, where the exact transport habits of people residing in Denmark is mapped (TU -Data). This database includes more 150.000 trips and is updated on a yearly base. The modal split for Copenhagen is based on number of trips/journeys, and as Chris has noted this tend to exagerate the numbers for pedestrians and cyclists and under-estimate the numbers for cars.

An example is the number for all of Denmark, where car use makes up 57% of all trips/journeys but 74 % when measured in kilometres, and likewise walking and bicycling each makes up 17 % respectively of all trips/journeys but only 2 % and 4% respectively when measured in kilometres.

http://www.dtu.dk/upload/institutter...pport_2011.pdf

[jsfox]

Originally Posted by flierfy

If your stats exclude a significant part of the world then you shouldn't use the phrase 'of any major city in the world'.

Agree. I thought this was worldwide

[jsfox]

The report Nikolaj references includes some charts of vertical and horizontal distance travelled. I assume this is not elevation?

[jsfox]

Back to my original post on this thread (though I'd still like to get the statistical stuff sorted)... An issue that we are facing in the Mpls / St Paul (MN, USA) is that we can never build enough roads for traffic. Like other cities across the U.S., if you build it, they will come, ...and come, ...and keep coming. We've concluded that we'll never build our way out of congestion (and we're not even top 10 in the U.S.) And then there's the problem of increasing numbers of cyclists increasingly clogging many of the streets.

One thing we're wondering is to what extent Copenhagen has it figured out (one of the least congested cities (in the world according to TomTo. There seems, not too surprisingly, a decent correlation between lower modal share of auto's (regardless of which of these numbers we use for Copenhagen) and lower congestion (with a few exceptions like Paris). If so, what then? More public xsport? More cyclists? Get people to live closer to work? Promote telecommuting? Is lower modal share of auto's not it and we need to do better with lane discipline (which we need to do anyway, I go nuts every time I return from Europe)?

[ChrisZwolle]

Originally Posted by jsfox

Back to my original post on this thread (though I'd still like to get the statistical stuff sorted)... An issue that we are facing in the Mpls / St Paul (MN, USA) is that we can never build enough roads for traffic. Like other cities across the U.S., if you build it, they will come, ...and come, ...and keep coming. We've concluded that we'll never build our way out of congestion (and we're not even top 10 in the U.S.)

It's called population growth. Where does this strange idea comes from that infrastructure doesn't have to grow when population grows? If a city has one bus line with a population of 10,000, it needs more bus lines if its population reaches 100,000 or 1,000,000. It's the same with roads.

[Fender56]

The replacement/reneval of the A11 highway between Tønder and Korskroen (E20), will be a 1+2 highway in the future according to the pre-study form Vejdirektoratet.:



Link to the full report.:

http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/DA/vej...ort425_net.pdf

[ChrisZwolle]

Smart solution. A full motorway cannot be justified with such traffic volumes.

[ChrisZwolle]

Primærrute 19 in København flyover.


residential street in the city center.


Unexpected 3-lane flyover in northern Frederiksberg. I wonder what they planned here, it just connects to urban streets.

[metacatfry]

Last one is called Bispeengbuen, it's a legacy of planning from the sixties, where they envisioned more 'motorway-like' city roads. It still works as a high capacity feeder/distributor for hillerødmotorvejen.

I don't know much about it though.

[ChrisZwolle]

Ah, Danish wikipedia has an article about it:
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispeengbuen

It opened on 31 August 1972.

[metacatfry]

Originally Posted by jsfox

An issue that we are facing in the Mpls / St Paul (MN, USA) is that we can never build enough roads for traffic. Like other cities across the U.S., if you build it, they will come, ...and come, ...and keep coming. We've concluded that we'll never build our way out of congestion

I think most professional traffic engineers understand that you need to keep moving to stand still, the alternative is sliding backwards. The world and cities in particular are continually growing in population and wealth, as well as in the demands of their populations in terms of mobility. Copenhagen has the same problems as everywhere else, I think the reason it seems more successful at dealing with congestion is a series of factors, some of which have been mentioned. I'll add to those now:

Post war, we got a relatively well thought out and executed master plan for large scale city growth called the 'Fingerplan', that laid out areas for the city to grow and how to cater for medium distance transport via a mix of commuter rail and motorways.

In the inner city, a historical legacy of very wide avenues and boulevards has provided the space to have three different transport forms running alongside each other on the same level, namely motor traffic, bicycles and pedestrians. I haven't actually gotten the numbers for this but just looking at a satellite picture of Copenhagen there seems to be greater than usual amount of space given over to roads as opposed to buildings.

Zoning is also a factor, I think. The big commuter traffic streams mostly run without crossing each other when they run on surface streets.

And finally, I think the traffic authorities are quite proud of the signaling system design, where they use best practice methods to sift traffic along. I remember seeing a good page about how the system is set up, with different programs at different times, but I can't find it.

Personally I think we have been treading water a bit the last decades and the greater Copenhagen area is in danger of losing the race against growing congestion.

[RV]

Could anyone show a map with planned motorways of Copenhagen back in the 60's?

[jsfox]

Originally Posted by metacatfry

I think most professional traffic engineers understand that you need to keep moving to stand still, the alternative is sliding backwards.

The question though is what is the best way to keep moving. What we have traditionally been doing, in the U.S. anyway, is not working and is increasingly not an option. We are out of land (and $'s) for more infrastructure and have one of the highest fatality and injury rates in the developed world.

I've thought that a lot could be solved through better driving, in particular lane discipline (keep right except to pass - something few Americans understand), but also getting up to speed before merging, and higher speed limits (so slower drivers will 'have permission' to drive the same speed as everyone else). However, traffic engineers (I'm on a commission looking at metro area xportation thanks to my constant complaining) keep telling me that these will have only minor impact. It'd make highways a bit more efficient and a lot safer, but not enough to make up for the capacity needed. There is also a parking problem (each car requires 2.1 private and 5.4 public parking spaces) that is a related project.

So now we're looking at a 'get rid of the idiots' plan to free up the existing driving and parking space. Get more people to use public xport, walk, and bike more. The problem here is that this takes budget away from highway expansion projects and sometimes takes lanes away from roads to be converted to bike/ped lanes. Worth it? That's what we're trying to determine.

[ChrisZwolle]

Originally Posted by jsfox

The problem here is that this takes budget away from highway expansion projects (...) Worth it? That's what we're trying to determine.

That's the whole problem, a public transport passenger mile/kilometer is significantly more expensive than a highway passenger mile/kilometer. There is a new lightrail in Austin that has - if I remember correctly - a fare of $ 2.50, and requires an additional $ 19.00 of taxpayers money just to pay for the operational costs. That means those travelers pay just over 10% of the operational costs, not to mention initial investment to build the infrastructure in the first place. From an economic point of view, that's a no-go.

This is not so much of a problem in countries like Denmark because motorists pay much more taxes than is spent on the highway system, so there is funding for other projects as well. But I don't think Americans are willing to pay $ 8.00 per gallon on fuel, an additional $ 20,000 tax to purchase a new car, plus a monthly road tax.

[kosimodo]

wishing it was $ 20000!!!!!

[metacatfry]

It is easier to fund a transport system based on private vehicle transportation. As long as people consider their cars as their own and public vehicles 'someone elses' they are willing to pour many more resources into it. I'm not entirely sure a car based system is cheaper if you take into account ALL costs, including costs associated with keeping the vehicle park running, and the land costs of storing them (All those parking spaces!). Just think of all those mechanics and the resource and manpower cost associated with the car factories. Anyways, I'm talking out of my arse since I don't have numbers.

[Nikolaj]

Originally Posted by jsfox

The report Nikolaj references includes some charts of vertical and horizontal distance travelled. I assume this is not elevation?

Funny, but it doesn't mention vertical and horizontal distance travelled. The charts are either adding vertically (to 100 %) based on purpose of journey or vertically based on mode of transport.