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 July 3rd, 2012, 04:33 PM   #1701
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Boy View Post
Love The TEXAS STYLE. BIGGER MIGHTIER AND MORE IMPRESSIVE INTERCHANGES THATS HOW ALL STATES SHOULD BUILD
No need to shout....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredcalif View Post

TEXAS rocks, that is the way all states Should be
[Rolleyes]
Some states have old, densely-built cities that people actually like living in. The amount of people that would have to be displaced in Philadelphia, or New York, or Boston, or Chicago for one of those Texas-style monstrosities - not to mention the absolutely astronomical eminent-domain costs to taxpayers - would seem to discourage that sort of thing. And they're not necessary.
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 3rd, 2012, 04:39 PM   #1702
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,587
Likes (Received): 19376

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
And they're not necessary.
It always strikes me how many stacks have flyovers with just a single lane. In most other countries they would've been a regular turbine connector. On the other hand most of Texas's stack interchanges are built in undeveloped land and are relatively cheap.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 07:43 PM   #1703
fredcalif
Registered User
 
fredcalif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Valley of the sun, AZ
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 1112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
No need to shout....



[Rolleyes]
Some states have old, densely-built cities that people actually like living in. The amount of people that would have to be displaced in Philadelphia, or New York, or Boston, or Chicago for one of those Texas-style monstrosities - not to mention the absolutely astronomical eminent-domain costs to taxpayers - would seem to discourage that sort of thing. And they're not necessary.
We love them here in Arizona too, that is why we are building the Gateway freeway, the 303 Loop as we speak. South mountain 802 and 801 freeways coming soon.

NY, NJ and other freeways across the country are falling apart.
It is so nice to drive on good pavement and good freways
I rather pay to drive on something good than pay to cross those new york Tunnels are old and ugly. they need to be rebuild entirely.


Last edited by fredcalif; July 3rd, 2012 at 07:43 PM. Reason: grammar
fredcalif no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 07:58 PM   #1704
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Well, I'd rather not have my neighborhood razed for infrastructure of marginal benefit. (The long-since-canceled South Street Expressway in Philadelphia, which would parallel, a mile away, an existing freeway that general does fine outside of rush hours, is a favorite of out-of-town roadgeeks who don't give a f--- about the beautiful, economically healthy neighborhoods it would destroy, at taxpayer expense.) If it's all the same to you, I mean. Swedes and Arizonians (and Iranians) issuing blanket statements about what "all states" "should" do can get a bit irritating. But as long as locals' opinions carry some weight....
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 08:07 PM   #1705
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,587
Likes (Received): 19376

Philadelphia does have one of the smallest freeway systems of the U.S. though, when population is compared to freeway lane miles. Especially the Schuylkill would've been much better as an eight-laner.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 08:19 PM   #1706
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

Most freeways built west of the Mississippi were so on empty land. Some fast-growing cities like Houston, Phoenix and Denver did the right thing reserving ROW for freeways way before they became feasible to build.

Sometimes, razing neighborhood for building freeways/highways/convention centers/stadiums is good if the place is sufficiently ridden with crime, drugs, decay... but that is, today, only a minority of cases of large-scale demolition or consolidated urban areas for new infrastructure in US.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 08:28 PM   #1707
Penn's Woods
Deadpan Snarker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,241
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Philadelphia does have one of the smallest freeway systems of the U.S. though, when population is compared to freeway lane miles. Especially the Schuylkill would've been much better as an eight-laner.
The problem with the Schuylkill is, I don't know where they put the increased capacity. The stretch between US 1 and I-476 in particular, I've read, is sort of on the side of a cliff and physically can't be widened. I wonder if there's another corridor that can be used.

Unrelated: just read this in the local paper - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...d_bridges.html
Penn's Woods no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2012, 11:40 PM   #1708
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
The problem with the Schuylkill is, I don't know where they put the increased capacity. The stretch between US 1 and I-476 in particular, I've read, is sort of on the side of a cliff and physically can't be widened. I wonder if there's another corridor that can be used.

Unrelated: just read this in the local paper - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...d_bridges.html
Yup, there just isn't any space. It becomes even more difficult when the massive railroad viaducts that the Schuylkill crosses beneath are taken into account.

Texas' stacks are useful in part because of the ever-present frontage roads throughout the state. These also allow for temporary interchanges between the frontage roads to be built before high-speed connections are needed.
ADCS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 03:09 AM   #1709
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 536

There needs to be a balance. Texas style freeways and interchanges are overkill - as I said before - absolutely ridiculous. East Coast (and California for that matter) are more established and huge freeways would require a lot of valuable land being lost. In Texas that obviously doesn't matter much but elsewhere, local populations and governments would NEVER allow such monstrosities - it means the permanent loss of property taxes and increased environmental, social and of course, maintenance costs. Not to mention it would be political suicide.

San Francisco is putting the 101 through two tunnels in the Presidio and LA is looking at completing the 710 with a tunnel. Seattle of course is building their freeway tunnel. Let's put a useful transportation tool (but one of the most destructive things to the city fabric) and put it underground - THAT's what I'm talking about.
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 04:25 AM   #1710
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchernin View Post
There needs to be a balance. Texas style freeways and interchanges are overkill - as I said before - absolutely ridiculous. East Coast (and California for that matter) are more established and huge freeways would require a lot of valuable land being lost. In Texas that obviously doesn't matter much but elsewhere, local populations and governments would NEVER allow such monstrosities - it means the permanent loss of property taxes and increased environmental, social and of course, maintenance costs. Not to mention it would be political suicide.

San Francisco is putting the 101 through two tunnels in the Presidio and LA is looking at completing the 710 with a tunnel. Seattle of course is building their freeway tunnel. Let's put a useful transportation tool (but one of the most destructive things to the city fabric) and put it underground - THAT's what I'm talking about.
Well after the Big Dig debacle , Underground Highway projects have been put on hold although Capping highways is gaining steam. Hopefully by 2050 all the Urban Freeways become history replaced with wide boulevards and green space. Lucky huge highways like that outside of Texas aren't popular , so its rare for them to get built. They usually get NIMBYed to death...which is good....Monsters like that should never be built , because after a few years they seem to become obsolete to all the lanes filling up which seems to always happen in Texas. You could build a 50 lane monster and it would be obsolete in 2 years in Texas.... I'm sure they'll be banging there heads in 20 years saying why did we waste so much land.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 05:30 AM   #1711
VoltAmps
Registered User
 
VoltAmps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 171
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Well after the Big Dig debacle , Underground Highway projects have been put on hold although Capping highways is gaining steam. Hopefully by 2050 all the Urban Freeways become history replaced with wide boulevards and green space. Lucky huge highways like that outside of Texas aren't popular , so its rare for them to get built. They usually get NIMBYed to death...which is good....Monsters like that should never be built , because after a few years they seem to become obsolete to all the lanes filling up which seems to always happen in Texas. You could build a 50 lane monster and it would be obsolete in 2 years in Texas.... I'm sure they'll be banging there heads in 20 years saying why did we waste so much land.
As the population grows, so do America's highways. Sorry to burst your bubble
VoltAmps no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 06:39 AM   #1712
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,175
Likes (Received): 1673

Those massive interchanges are not in or anywhere near traditional urban cities, so you guys are arguing over nothing. The only time where that might be true are the awful plans for Louisville's new river bridge.

Also I am not a highway engineer, but I always assumed one advantage of those towering interchanges was that they can sit on top of an existing interchange that needs to be expanded. US 281 and 1604 in San Antonio is a good example, so is 281 and I-410. In San Antonio there are a couple expanded freeways where additional lanes were built as two viaducts above the existing road with support columns between the main lanes and frontage roads. Those viaducts then fork off to form the connectors of a stack interchange.

Last edited by zaphod; July 4th, 2012 at 07:13 AM.
zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 07:11 AM   #1713
bmanx06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Philadelphia does have one of the smallest freeway systems of the U.S. though, when population is compared to freeway lane miles. Especially the Schuylkill would've been much better as an eight-laner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn's Woods View Post
The problem with the Schuylkill is, I don't know where they put the increased capacity. The stretch between US 1 and I-476 in particular, I've read, is sort of on the side of a cliff and physically can't be widened. I wonder if there's another corridor that can be used.

Unrelated: just read this in the local paper - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...d_bridges.html
I agree - the Schulykill would have been much better with 8 lanes, but seems limited by topography from US 1 to I-476. Not to mention its ancient design falls well below current standards.

It seems that US-1 in the NE part of the city could be easily transformed to a freeway, notwithstanding funding. The Roosevelt Expwy gives way to a dual carriageway with at-grade junctions (some of which constitute the most dangerous intersections in the US). Plenty of space to reconfigure the inner lanes with grade-separated junctions.
bmanx06 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 07:12 AM   #1714
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoltAmps View Post
As the population grows, so do America's highways. Sorry to burst your bubble
Generation Y doesn't drive as much as the older Generation , were using more Transit and Alt modes of Transportation so your theory goes out the window about needing more highways to handle the growth in the population. Car usage continues to go down . down 10% since 2000.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section

Last edited by Nexis; July 4th, 2012 at 07:52 AM.
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 10:49 AM   #1715
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,587
Likes (Received): 19376

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Car usage continues to go down . down 10% since 2000.
Nonsense. VMT went up 6.7% between 2000 and 2011, and that includes the high unemployment we have today.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinform...l/tvt/history/
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 12:03 PM   #1716
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21231

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchernin View Post
San Francisco is putting the 101 through two tunnels in the Presidio and LA is looking at completing the 710 with a tunnel. Seattle of course is building their freeway tunnel. Let's put a useful transportation tool (but one of the most destructive things to the city fabric) and put it underground - THAT's what I'm talking about.
Any linear infrastructure will interfere with "urban fabric", from high-voltage power transmission lines to railway massive yards.

Indeed, rail yards in many US cities are much more disruptive to the "continuity of the urban tissue" than any 5-stack road interchange (which you can walk under, if it all highway lanes are elevated.

Moreover, there is an unhealthy obsession of making cities a continuum of local roads as if it were a big deal that, like rivers, mountains or forests, some infrastructure is going to interrupt this continuity and create pockets.

Finally, people exaggerate the amount the land taken by urban development in US. Less than 4% of the 9,3 million km² of US land area is built-up environment (cities, industries, all rural infrastructure like rails, roads, pipelines, military build-up areas etc). US could double its build-up area and it would be still very low by any developed country standard.

National and state parks, wilderness areas and natural monuments and preserve areas reach almost 8%, which is double the area taken up by development.

So there is too much unwarranted whining about the "OMG we're building everywhere and killing the environment".

Even in a place like New York State, there is just so much unused, undeveloped and unspoiled land upstate... so there is no need to bitch about couple trees torn down in the Hudson Valley for some project, for instance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #1717
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 15,500
Likes (Received): 19137

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Generation Y doesn't drive as much as the older Generation , were using more Transit and Alt modes of Transportation so your theory goes out the window about needing more highways to handle the growth in the population. Car usage continues to go down . down 10% since 2000.
Could you explain what you mean by the "generation Y"? Another hippie media concept?
And, as Chris pointed out, your statement about car usage dropping by 10% is simply false.
I honestly support public transport and rail projects. But only when they are sensible and not ideological pipe dreams.
I use public transport every day myself.
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 02:27 PM   #1718
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,547

Gen Y was a hippie media concept for the generation after Gen X. The name "Millennials" or "The Millennial Generation" is now far more used by demographers to describe this group who were under 18 at the turn of Y2K, but Gen Y has sadly stuck in the media.

I think a large problem is massively high auto insurance for younger drivers and the rising cost of lessons to do the more-difficult tests.
sotonsi está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 02:47 PM   #1719
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,587
Likes (Received): 19376

I also think the poor housing market is a temporary setback for prospective first buyers. A one year estimate does not mean the age of suburbs are over. The methodology of the news has also been questioned.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #1720
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
For Generation Y, Learning To Drive Is No Longer A Rite Of Passage


* A former rite of passage becomes a chore for some

* Slack economy, environmental concerns help push a trend

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - To Shoshana Gurian-Sherman, driving seemed like a huge hassle.

"Part of it was laziness," the 23-year-old Minneapolis resident recalled. "I didn't really want to put in the effort to learn how to drive ... I knew how to ride the buses, so it was not necessary.

"And the other thing was, it was just scary, the idea of being in charge of a vehicle that potentially could kill me or other people," Gurian-Sherman said.

She eventually got her license at 18, two years later than she could have, after her parents threatened not to pay for college if she did not learn to drive, a skill they considered to be important.

In her reluctance to drive or own a car, Gurian-Sherman is typical of a certain segment of Generation Y, the coveted marketing demographic encompassing the 80 million U.S. residents between the ages of 16 and 34.

Bigger than the post-World War Two baby-boom generation but without the middle-class expansion that drove the earlier group's consumer habits, Generation Y includes an increasing number of people for whom driving is less an American rite of passage than an unnecessary chore.

"That moment of realizing that you're a grown-up - for my generation, that was when you got your driver's license or car," said Tony Dudzik, a senior policy analyst of the Frontier Group, a California-based think tank that has studied this phenomenon. "For young people now, that moment comes when you get your first cellphone."

U.S. residents started driving less around the turn of the 21st century, and young people have propelled this trend, according to the federal government's National Household Travel Survey.

From 2001 to 2009, the average annual number of vehicle-miles traveled by people ages 16-34 dropped 23 percent, from 10,300 to 7,900, the survey found. Gen Y-ers, also known as Millennials, tend to ride bicycles, take public transit and rely on virtual media.

More than a quarter of Millennials - 26 percent - lacked a driver's license in 2010, up 5 percentage points from 2000, the Federal Highway Administration reported.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1641117.html
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
united states

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 08:49 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