# Best Highways (EU vs USA)



## gronier

*Why European Highways are much better than American ones??*

It is true that my country has the widest and longest highway system in the whole world. But to tell you the truth, the overall quality of the highway system is really bad, the pavement in in bad condition, and an urgent renovation is needed right now!!!!
Here in Skyscrapercity I have seen many pictures of European highways and they look much better than American Highways, because they are well maintained and it should be a pleasure to drive in highways like those, and not in the old American interstate System, because their glory days I think are over while other countries like the European ones are rebuilding their highways and making a country much richer look like underdeveloped.
The thing is that I love asphalt highways and here in the US it's not very used in the Highways unfortunately.

I really hope the Congress passes the Highway Bill that would rebuild all the Highway System and give this great nation the highways that it deserves!!.


----------



## Facial

Well, the thing is all about design and policy. I, for one, know that the German Autobahn is twice as thick as the average American freeway.


----------



## gronier

I would love to have highways like this ones in the Midwest (jut look at the quality of the pavement!!):

I just simply love the Autostrada!!

































Spain:


----------



## earthJoker

Not all european highways look like that. But I think the new ones are builded on a very high quality level.


----------



## Jonesy55

Well, Americans don't pay as much tax as us, so I guess the things that are paid for out of tax money are sometimes going to have to make do with second best.

I found that some of the US highways were in quite bad condition when I visited, especially in the south. In terms of infrastructure generally, Americans seem to want something that works ok at minimum cost even if it's not perfect and may look a bit scruffy while many European countries seem happy to pay the extra money for a premium product.

The US is also much less densely populated so they probably have more 'road miles per taxpayer' so this must stretch funding too.


----------



## eddyk

Im with Jonesy....makes sense











US Unpaved Highways 2,213,550 km
UK Unpaved Highways 0 km
GER Unpaved Highways 0km

Dont have time to check the rest of Europe...

I got those numbers off here http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/


----------



## mlm

Another thing that makes many European highways look good, is the fact that many places here the new roads are very well intergrated in the landscape. Atleast here in Denmark, they would never make an "elevated highway" on some pillars, but instead move tons of sand to make it look "good". I know this ain't the case for ALL highways in Europe, but in general I agree that many looks better than their American counterparts.


----------



## Lee

Money isn't the problem at all. The US spends huge amounts on infrastructure each year, and just got through passing a $300 billion transportation bill to revamp some of the old highways built in the 1950's, like the ones Jonesy mentioned "in the South," although I though I-10 was in excellent condition, except near New Orleans!


----------



## Jonesy55

Lee said:


> Money isn't the problem at all. The US spends huge amounts on infrastructure each year, and just got through passing a $300 billion transportation bill to revamp some of the old highways built in the 1950's, like the ones Jonesy mentioned "in the South," although I though I-10 was in excellent condition, except near New Orleans!


Apart from roads in the middle of nowhere a hundred miles from the nearest town which I can understand not being maintained very well, the worst one I remember was the interstate going right across tennessee from knoxville through to nashville then memphis. It wasn't full of potholes or anything but it was made of loads of concrete slabs lying next to each other so when you drive on it you get a 'bump.. bump.. bump.. bump' every twenty metres or so when you drive over the join, very annoying.


----------



## Giorgio

i think europes highways are better due to there youth 

Athens:


----------



## oogabooga

Giorgos69 said:


> i think europes highways are better due to there youth
> 
> Athens:


That last one looks like the highway ramp from simcity 4


----------



## Giorgio

> That last one looks like the highway ramp from simcity 4


lol. very funny.....your too true...too bad sim city 4 is broken


----------



## spyguy

Jonesy55 said:


> It wasn't full of potholes or anything but it was made of loads of concrete slabs lying next to each other so when you drive on it you get a 'bump.. bump.. bump.. bump' every twenty metres or so when you drive over the join, very annoying.


Wait, was the whole thing made of concrete or just some parts? If it's only a few parts then that's most likely a rumble strip which is meant to alert sleepy drivers of things like toll booths and merging lanes.

But you have to remember, the US highway system dates back to Truman and started in the 1950s with Eisenhower and only "finished" in the 1990s. The problem is that you can't expect America to fix all the roadways at once, for obvious reasons like money and traffic problems. So once construction finishes on a highway, they move to the next few highways and by that time the first highway needs to be repaved or fixed. It's a constant battle, especially on high volume highways.

The main obstacle is money of course. Every state has its problems with paying for the highway system. Americans (generally) hate the word "tax" and so states have to think of creative ways to pay for highway projects.

So overall I think it's unrealistic to think that every highway could be in tip-top shape. :bash:


----------



## Giorgio

Highways can look messy IMO Freeways however cant...


----------



## Guest

spyguy999 said:


> Wait, was the whole thing made of concrete or just some parts? If it's only a few parts then that's most likely a rumble strip which is meant to alert sleepy drivers of things like toll booths and merging lanes.


Over here these "rumble strips" are made using the same stuff used to paint the road lines. They're painted yellow and get closer as you get nearer to the junction. I too, though, have noticed the way many US highways are made using blocks of concrete that bump when you cross the join.



spyguy999 said:


> But you have to remember, the US highway system dates back to Truman and started in the 1950s with Eisenhower and only "finished" in the 1990s. The problem is that you can't expect America to fix all the roadways at once, for obvious reasons like money and traffic problems. So once construction finishes on a highway, they move to the next few highways and by that time the first highway needs to be repaved or fixed. It's a constant battle, especially on high volume highways.


The UK motorway network was started in the 1950s too. New ones are built when the demand is there. I think our entire network is now paved with tarmac so you can't use the excuse of time and money. It's a constant battle to maintain them over here too, especially on London's ring road which is the busiest in the world.


----------



## CharlieP

EarlyBird said:


> Over here these "rumble strips" are made using the same stuff used to paint the road lines. They're painted yellow and get closer as you get nearer to the junction. I too, though, have noticed the way many US highways are made using blocks of concrete that bump when you cross the join.
> 
> The UK motorway network was started in the 1950s too. New ones are built when the demand is there. I think our entire network is now paved with tarmac so you can't use the excuse of time and money. It's a constant battle to maintain them over here too, especially on London's ring road which is the busiest in the world.


We have motorways made of concrete in the UK too - I remember the M11 being a good example a few years ago of the bump... bump... bump... syndrome, though I think it's been resurfaced in the last five years as I drove down to Chelmsford on Boxing Day and don't remember it being concrete blocks...


----------



## DrJoe

I think it depends on the state. Like Texas probably has better freeways than most of Europe.

Look at this construction for instance, this alone probably blows Europe out of the water.



























Styled pillars


----------



## eddyk

The pillars are great....nothing else special though!


----------



## DrJoe

Nothing else special?? Show me a stack this big anywhere in Europe, this is just Texas too, doesnt even take into account the rest of the US.


----------



## lindenthaler

^^ Not it doesn't, junctions in europe are just simpler and better integrated in cities.

Even of those roads you posted, is noticable that road isn't "monolith". I mean you can see these line on road that has to do with conrete. Most highways in Europe are "monolith", (you ve feeling they were built simply with one movement, you cannt notice lanes that were added later)
Poland:

















Greece:









And German


























Indeed, a lot of them are new, but even old highways get renovated so they almost looks like new too


----------



## DrJoe

Ok well there is also that to go along with the huge freeways, in the city its 12-18 lanes and outside it looks like all the stuff you post.

In the city









Out of the city.


----------



## lindenthaler

Hey, i really dont care HOW MANY LANES IT HAS !  I allready wrote it s important to get fast, and for most european highways it enoughs to have 2+1 security lane per direction do get fast and secure. Why do u think german highways don't have speed limit ? Highways which are much narrower and have less lanes than US ?


----------



## DrJoe

Yes and im saying only in the cities is there that many lanes, everywhere else it looks like the same crap in Europe. BTW this is Canada(specifically Ontario) im talking about, not the US.


----------



## sonysnob

Der wahre Heino said:


> Signs in Germany always display both route number plus destination


Hrmmm, I am obviously mistaken then. I do recall seeing guide singage in Europe with only destinations and not numbers, but it must have been in another country.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Cheers!


----------



## acela

Actually not all European highways are that quality.It depends of the fundings of the government of the highway projects.If you look at the UK motorway is way out in terms of quality compare to other european countries and the US.This is because the government allocate small budgets on motorway projects compare to i say Germany.Besides that a toll highway is very useful in order a good/quality highway is produced like the Autoroute in France,Autopistas or Autostrade.So it's not a matter of continent actually.Its a matter of budget.You can build quality highway but you have think about the consequences such maintenance,the extra money for the highway project can be directed to other useful fundings such education or where ever the gov wants to allocate it.Allocation of the money have to be balanced depends of the need,time or economic situatiion,if not you will be in trouble that's all.


----------



## eusebius

and adorable people we Nederlanders are, we give directions in its own language, so on A15 etc it reads Kleve rather than Kleef (Nederlands); Köln rather than Keulen
Oh, those NL, it's asfalt heaven!


----------



## DetoX

Some pics of European roads:






































I think it doesn`t depend on money .. because both US and EU has it. US it bigger, and have less people than EU so it is easier to keep good quality of roads in the EU. 

Hmm, what are speed limits in the US?


----------



## CharlieP

eddyk said:


> Random Motorway Madness


How sad am I for recognising both junctions instantly?


----------



## eddyk

What I really noticed in that pic (top) is that it looks like a post to the left of the Junction is either iced up or dryin out!


----------



## GNU

actually the german autobahn is much better than their american counterpart.The thickness off the cement is twice as big on the autobahn than on the highways in america.
this surely makes the autobahn more expensive to built, but it is therefore more durable.All autobahns arent flat,but are higher to the middle of the road and are getting flatter to the outside lanes.This is done to prevent rain water flooding the street.This method might probably set a limit to the number of lanes.As far as I know the most lanes in Germany can be found around Frankfurt with 6 on each side or something like that.
also most american highways are featuring cement barriers in the middle,whilst there are mainly steel barriers used in germany.


----------



## sonysnob

Checker said:


> actually the german autobahn is much better than their american counterpart.The thickness off the cement is twice as big on the autobahn than on the highways in america.
> this surely makes the autobahn more expensive to built, but it is therefore more durable.All autobahns arent flat,but are higher to the middle of the road and are getting flatter to the outside lanes.This is done to prevent rain water flooding the street.This method might probably set a limit to the number of lanes.As far as I know the most lanes in Germany can be found around Frankfurt with 6 on each side or something like that.
> also most american highways are featuring cement barriers in the middle,whilst there are mainly steel barriers used in germany.


Sloping from the centre of the road outwards is called the crown of the road (at least where I am from). I would be very shocked if any modern road juristiction built roads without a crown these days.

Steel baricades were at one time in favour in North America, but are generally not being used anymore, as concrete barriers are becoming dominant. Steel barriers are typically designed so that the supports snap out away from the cushon when a vehicle strikes the barrier. This unfortunately results in vehicles often being deflected back into driving lanes along a freeway (at least, this is what was the case in North America). For this reason, steel barriers are no longer that common along north american freeways. 

There are many designs of concrete barriers, the one I am most familiar with is called 'Ontario Tallwall' or just 'tallwall' for short. This barrier is designed to deflect vehicles up along the barrier, where the barrier cushons there impact, and stops the vehicle in the shoulder/emergency lane and doesn't deflect it into traffic. From a safety standpoint, concrete has been proven much safer then steel on north american highways.

Cheers!


----------



## GNU

Thats intersting!Actually I had not the slightest idea how you call sloped highways in your place,but you got what I meant.considering the steel barrier Im pretty sure its the more sofistcated option,since the german government is starting to built concrete barriers similar to the ones used in the states,due to a shortage of money.
So the concrete version is actually the cheaper solution.Now I dont know the differencies between both of them in case of a crash,but I would have thought that the steel barrier absorbes more of the impact energy compared to the concrete one.That snap back effect that you mention probably differs in the different desgns of the barrier.
Also the speed limit is generally higher in Germany than in the States.I guess that also has to be taken into account.Probably concrete barriers are enough for the standard highway.


----------



## tahk

gronier said:


> The thing is that I love asphalt highways and here in the US it's not very used in the Highways unfortunately.


 :? so what do you use? concrete?


----------



## sonysnob

Checker said:


> Thats intersting!Actually I had not the slightest idea how you call sloped highways in your place,but you got what I meant.considering the steel barrier Im pretty sure its the more sofistcated option,since the german government is starting to built concrete barriers similar to the ones used in the states,due to a shortage of money.
> So the concrete version is actually the cheaper solution.Now I dont know the differencies between both of them in case of a crash,but I would have thought that the steel barrier absorbes more of the impact energy compared to the concrete one.That snap back effect that you mention probably differs in the different desgns of the barrier.
> Also the speed limit is generally higher in Germany than in the States.I guess that also has to be taken into account.Probably concrete barriers are enough for the standard highway.


Judging from what i have seen and heard about German Autobhans, I wouldn't think that the German government would be installing concrete barriers if they were a reduction in safety. I would bet however, that concrete barriers are more cost effective, since they don't need to be replaced if one gets hit.

There is a great website that lists the differences between the different types of concrete barriers used across north america, but i can't seem to recall the URL.

Once again, I know that Ontario is replacing all of its old steel barriers with concrete because concrete is both more cost effective and actually safer.

Most concrete barriers are designed with a slope on them that when vehicles hit the barrier, it prepels them up the side, this deflects all the crash energy up, and actually is very safe for both the vehicles occupants and other motorists (since the crashed vehicle is less likely to enter the driving lanes again).

Of course, personally, I like a wide grassed or treed median separating the dual carriageways, not only is it very safe, but I find it much nicer to look at then a pile of steel or concrete.

Cheers!


----------



## DrJoe

Recently completed cement barrier near me. You can see its needed here because this part of the 401 is like a rollercoaster.









sony, you seem to run the site where im getting these pictures from, do you mind me using them???


----------



## centralized pandemonium

Coming back to the original question, does anyone seriously think that 401 is a good highway. Would someone like to drive there during the rush hours. I for one, would not.


----------



## salvius

^ the highway is over capacity and will remain to be so... It is an international (particularily US) trade hub, in addition to being a commuter line for the outer suburbs. Overall, not a good place to be. There's simply nothing that can be done about this.

But that's, in fact, not the original question. The original question was whether European highways are better than US ones? Considering the mind boggling network size, and the overall breadth (which I have already outlined) of the US network, it's just not a real competition.


----------



## Justme

Reading this interesting thread, I would agree that it seems the American motorway systems do employ more spectacular interchanges.

However, whilst thinking about that, it also occured to me that European motorways may have more spectacular viaducts, bridges and tunnels.

In this was, one counters the other to balance them out.

Also, it is clear that the U.S. has more km of motorway, being larger, but I would suspect that the EU country's are at least as dense as the U.S. in motorway networks - although Urban area's in the U.S. have more motorways in the central area (this is compensated by larger urban rail in urban centers in Europe)

I can't say one is better than the other, both parts of the world have great networks, in some area's like the U.S. they may be wider and have more spectacular interchanges, however, this is compensated by in Europe with some area's like Germany with no speed limits, and many other parts with amazing tunnels and viaducts (i.e. all the nations surrounding the Alps)


----------



## Stratosphere 2020

Not all countries in Europe including western Europe have better highways than the US. I found the highway in parts of Belgium rundown. Certain states in the US do have well maintained highways. Many highways in and around Houston metro I found to be bumpy to very bumpy.


----------



## rL428

Ok this one is a little different, I don't know about you guys but one of my fav things to do is get in the car, take the top down and just have some fun on the road. However, there's not that many cool roads around here... there's plenty, they just aren't very interesting.

So what cities have really nice long roads with nice scenery?
I hear they film a lot of car commercials somewhere in California, there's a lot of twisties right in front of the ocean.
I don't know about Denver and the other cities around the Rockies, never been out there but I hear the natural scenery gets really nice in the fall, not sure if there's any good roads along the mountains though.

Any others?


----------



## superchan7

California's road quality is not good. Nevada has nice roads, but CA probably has the more attractive scenery by far.


----------



## rt_0891

PCH 1 is Amazing! 

Pretty much every freeway/highway running around the Bay Area is amazing. Many parts of LA-SD is amazing too. The mountain routes to Yosemite were beautiful.


----------



## IchO

401 - Metro Toronto HighWay.
+ Trans Candian Way.


----------



## Xabi

falconi said:


>


This is an environmental atrocity!!!! :sleepy:


----------



## Xabi

Some pics of the Basque A-8 highway (built and opened between 1968 and 1976).

Photos taken in my city:




















Photos taken in Donostia-San Sebastian:


----------



## Justme

Xabi said:


> This is an environmental atrocity!!!! :sleepy:


Ah yes. The poor mans tunnel, who needs a roof on a tunnel mate, when I can build you one cheaper without.


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

This is the biggest Athenian motorway:

Doukissis Plakentias


----------



## Sexas

It will be Boston or Houston after the whole 'fix up" thing done.


----------



## Conexionz

Indian highways

Mumbai downtown








Mumbai-Pune highway








Calcutta downtown


----------



## KIWIKAAS

I dont agree at all with the title of this thread.
Europe is home to probably some of the most technologically adavnced motorways/freeways but is also home to some of the least.
Its a very relative concept in Europe as to which country has beter roads or not. Some European countries employ great technologiy to their road building and traffic management. Others not at all. There a plenty of examples of substandard freeways in Europe.
Also, one must take account of the general state of highways and roads. In most European countries, once you leave the freeway its a mess. Substandard capacity and marking. This has nothing to do with old city centres, its also the case in many 20th century neighbourhoods. 

Many of the pictures posted on this thread of European freeways are very substandard by American standards.

The German Autobahns arent particularly good examples of freeway construction (slow on and off-ramps for instance and skinny shoulder lanes). If you want to see wrecks being cleaned up then Germany is a good place to go.


----------



## rantanamo

After the 'fix up', I'd vote for Dallas.


----------



## lokinyc

Definitely Atlanta and Georgia. The USDoT backs me up on this one, too.


----------



## czm3

Sexas said:


> It will be Boston or Houston after the whole 'fix up" thing done.


Unfortunately, Boston is not a good place for car enthusiasts. The roads are lousy, and the drivers, worse.

California has awesome roads. Everything from large freeways, to super twisties leading through the canyons and mountains. If twisties are what you are looking for, try Arizona, southern Utah, and the Texas hill country.

For us on the east coast, anywhere in the mountains whether it is the Catskills in NY, the White mountains in NH or the smokies in VA, NC and TN.

Basically, I like roads anywhere rural with a lot of topography.


----------



## schreiwalker

well it has to be a place without too much sprawl, cause otherwise you're stuck in traffic for 2 hours trying to get anywhere. so that rules out DC, ATL, LA, and most of the southern belt of cities. 

For large cities I'd say the best drives are near Seattle or Portland. especially portland. in portland you can go down the columbia river gorge highway (with stunning 200 foot waterfalls), go out to mount hood, mount st. helens, go down to the pacific coast, go down the willamette valley farmlands. basically, its AMAZING. its like it was built for exactly what you're looking for.

San Francisco is cool too, but there is also probably too much sprawl. 

Pittsburgh, PA has some beautiful topography around it, especially during fall, but its all quaint stuff, whereas portland is majestic stuff.


----------



## VansTripp

Boston, after big dig is done but its will longer time to complete as since 1990.


----------



## 909

I'm always suprised how people see size as a form of quality. And all those pictures are nice, but they don't tell the whole story.



> Many of the pictures posted on this thread of European freeways are very substandard by American standards.


What do you mean with substandard? 



> If you want to see wrecks being cleaned up then Germany is a good place to go.


Not true, the Autobahn is relative safe, for example: France has more people killed in traffic than Germany, despite the different in population (and speed).
If you want to see wrecks, then you have to leave the freeways. The most accidents happens outside the freeways.


----------



## dubaiflo

Some middle east highway pictures, in particular dubai.


































what i like on the UAE highways is that they are always landscaped, with flowers, grass, tress, plants, statues, but i did not find a good photo.


----------



## elliott

What i dont understand is why some people on here think huge junctions like this










are a good thing. I know what i'd rather have a small road/motorway/highway with a railway adjoined. 

To be honest id rather there wasnt such a thing as motorways but thats outta the question for now.


----------



## LtBk

What's wrong with freeways? There are advantages you know and its hell of lot better than regular roads.


----------



## ttownfeen

This is totally OT. Maybe it's because I just saw Revenge of the Sith last night, but those pictures Dubai remind me a lot of The Capital City, Coruscant(sp?).


----------



## Andrew

What is the speed limit on American highways/freeways (whatever you call them)? I thought it was 60mph. Surely the number on these signs isn't the speed limit?









People here seem to love their huge roads a lot, shame because they're very unsustainble - they take up vast ammounts of land, junctions like those above cut cities into pieces and make the pedestrian environment very uninviting. The over use of the car causes all manners of health problems and contributes to global warming. I don't think they're anything to brag about. The Europeans have got more of the right idea with their use of high speed rail as a viable alternative to roads.


----------



## DarkLite

IMO european highways are great!


----------



## Puce86

Andrew said:


> What is the speed limit on American highways/freeways (whatever you call them)? I thought it was 60mph. Surely the number on these signs isn't the speed limit?




This is a spanish motorway, so the speed limit is shown in Km/h, not in mph


----------



## BlaZ

Here some more pictures from dutch highways.

4x4 lanes.










2x5 lanes










pretty special one, 30 km long dike


----------



## Arpels

Gooshhhhhhhhhhh  they could use some trees or plants to guive another aspect Xabi!!


----------



## Arpels

some highways close to Oporto Portugal:


----------



## Guest

Andrew said:


> What is the speed limit on American highways/freeways (whatever you call them)? I thought it was 60mph. Surely the number on these signs isn't the speed limit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People here seem to love their huge roads a lot, shame because they're very unsustainble - they take up vast ammounts of land, junctions like those above cut cities into pieces and make the pedestrian environment very uninviting. The over use of the car causes all manners of health problems and contributes to global warming. I don't think they're anything to brag about. The Europeans have got more of the right idea with their use of high speed rail as a viable alternative to roads.



???

That picture is not at all in the US!

Continental American road signs are not like the ones in Europe, the speed limit signs are in a rectangular shape.


----------



## txRNGr

this whole thread on "why european highways are better than American" is redundant from the start. first of all, the US pioneers in road technology whether that be for safety or connectiveness. any logical person can conclude this by understanding the volume of drivers that are in the United States. If we were comparing Mass-Transit then, of course, Europe would win. anyone can build a two lane highway or a cloverleaf intersection, hell India managed to do this. the true measure of superiority comes from innovation in the road systems, not out-dated clover-leaf, round-about, or spegettti interchanges. yes there are some bumpy roads in the US, but i know Europe has its fair shair of bumpy roads. If we really want to compare freeways and highways, we should take the best of the best from each side and compare. Im sure everyone will realize that by the functionality and innovation of many US freeways that the United States is superior in its system. The new interchange of US-75 and I-635 in dallas, texas (shown on the first page of this thread) has over five miles of bridges, is a five level interchange with the tallest level reaching 12-stories, and can handle *500,000 cars per day.* any "pretty" and "cute" freeway Europe wants to throw at the US(and Canada for that matter) will loose based off innovation and the ability to handle such a large traffic load. Im sure everyone can agree that the mass-transit systems of the United States seems "cute" and lacks the ability to handle the volume of passengers the European systems can, which makes the European systems superior. But highways as they are today were born in the United States. We have more miles, we have more capacity, we handle traffic better...get over it.


----------



## Xabi

Arpels said:


> Gooshhhhhhhhhhh  they could use some trees or plants to guive another aspect Xabi!!


What? :| :| :| :|


----------



## Carretero

And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)










As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.


----------



## txRNGr

Carretero said:


> And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.


Please, there are 16 4-level interchanges and 1 5-level interchange in the Dallas area alone(not including Fort Worth area to the west which makes up the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area). In fact, many of these 4-level interchanges are scheduled to be reconstructed into 5-level interchanges withing the next 10 years. These 17 large freeway interchanges do not include the countless other 2 and 3-level interchanges that are scattered throughout this area as well. The fact is that most of these interchanges were built in the 1970s or earlier. Grand freeways have been a part of an American's way of life for almost fourty years or longer. Europe's simple clover-leaf and 3 to 4-level interchanges are boring and have been seen time and time again. Texas has begun, on a state-wide scale, to even integrate patterns and symbols casted into the concrete along with a variety of paint schemes into these interchanges and freeways to better fit the surrounding environment and leave a less intrusive image. Like i said, Europe can have its low capacity clover-leaf and 4-6 lane freeways, Americans are years beyond you.


----------



## PotatoGuy

*LA interchanges..*

Los Angeles









































































Orange County 




























(this pic is atleast 10 years old) 









Inland Empire


----------



## txRNGr

exactly, there are complex and advanced freeways and interchanges across the United States' urban areas. thanks for sharing Potato Guy. California, with its tight-knit cities and extensive freeway system (LA) is a prime example where freeways and interchanges had and continue to require innovation.


----------



## PotatoGuy

.::Giorgos::. said:


> i think europes highways are better due to there youth
> 
> Athens:


Just because they're newer or prettier or w/e does not mean they are better, in fact it really has nothing to do with that. what should matter is how advanced the freeways/highways are and their capacity and such, aesthetics should have little to do with it. Allthough I will say that most new highways in Europe do look prettier than americans but it is mainly because they're newer and aren't as heavily used.


----------



## PotatoGuy

if we compare rural highways then the US isnt doing that bad. The reasons I can give for the condition of US highways/freeways being in the condition in which they are is that the US has thousands of more miles of highway than any european highway (therefore the money is much more scattered) and european highways are newer, most US highways were built during the 60's and 70's.

But if we compare rural highways, then the US isn't doing that bad. 










(kinda looks european)


----------



## DrJoe

Carretero said:


> And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.


This thing is downright average.


----------



## LtBk

Its not the freeway quality i'm worried about, it's the skill of drivers that uses them. It seems many Americans don't know how to drive on freeways, causing all kinds of problems, compared to European drivers.


----------



## txRNGr

what facts do you have to back such a statement. do you just conclude that because someone is born and raised in Europe that they are a better driver. furthermore, Americans drive much more than Europeans which would lead someone to conclude that Americans are the more expirenced driver. this argument seems to be just another attempt to distract the thread from the original purpose which is to debate whether European or American Highways are better. again, dispite the ability of the average American driver, the United States(and Canada for that matter) has more innovative Freeways. No one can seem to attack this postition head on so they dance around it with claims such as "Americans don't know how to drive on freeways" which is arrogant and ignorant(two words that are overly-used on this forum).


----------



## Justme

txRNGr, I don't disagree that the American interchanges are larger and more impressive than the European ones. As I mentioned before, I believe in this area, the U.S. highways are superior. However, I also believe that the European highways win out on their viaducts and bridges, which are equally impressive and on a larger scale than North American ones.

As for the size of the U.S. highway system being larger, that is true, but then the European highway system is far denser.

Looking at figures from the CIA world fact book:

European Union:
Area: 3,976,372km²
Total highways (paved): 4,161,381km
Total Expressways: 56,704km

United States:
Area: 9,161,923km²
Total highways (paved): 4,180,053km
Total Expressways: 74,406km

It is clear from the above, that the EU, despite being less than half the land area (2.3x smaller), it has nearly the same total length of highway as the U.S. and a more dense expressway network.

So, in my opinion, this makes both American and European highways equal. The U.S. has wider expressways in cities, with larger and more impressive interchanges. The EU has a more dense network (where some parts have unlimited speed limits) and more impressive tunnel and viaducts.

Here is a quick show of photo's of some viaducts in Europe. They are not chosen by how great they are, just a quick serach, there will no doubt be far more impressive constructions out there. Of cause, I won't put photo's of the tunnels, but there are just so many and some are very very long.


----------



## Ted Ward

One of the things I like about the U.K network is the electronic signage that tells you things like journey times - upcoming obstructions etc etc. You can also go to sites such as NADICS.org.uk and see live webcam pics from motorways if you wish.

That also brings me on to my next point - the U.K motorway network is covered by an extensive c.c.t.v network - pull over on to the hard shoulder and there will likely be a police car pulling up behind you within five minutes. 

Moving on - no one has posted pictures of those 'double decker' freeways that you get in america I dont know if they are unique to america but you dont see them in europe. 

Also maybe someone here can help I have heard that in america there are roads where the direction of traffic lanes can be changed i.e say there was a six lane highway in the morning it could be 4 lanes heading into the city and two out then in the afternoon four lanes heading out and two in - does anyone have any idea what I am talking about. (Someone told me they have lanes that can change direction but Ive not been able to read anything about it) 

Finally there is a surprising number of road enthusiast websites on the internet (I am surprised there is any) this site is good for pictures and links. http://www.cbrd.co.uk/links/


----------



## TO_Joe

*A Matter of Choice*

Some of my observations:

1. There are big variations of quality within each "system". There are some well-designed highways that are a pleasure to drive on in the US, and there are some incredibly crappy and dangerous ones. Likewise in Europe.

2. There is no free lunch. You get what you pay for. If you want high pavement / signage / markings / safety standards, then you have to pay for it (construction and maintenance). If you want to sensitive be to the environment and integrate it into the surrounding areas, you may need designs / routes that will not be the cheapest. 

Sounds obvious but this point is often lost because highways are a collective good and you don't pay for it individually. This is where ideologies can creep in and muddy things up. The frequent comments about "low taxes" or "socialist systems" reflect how ideology can muddy up the obvious.

3. There is a difference in design objectives between the US and Europe. The US system is designed so that it serves a car-centric society where everyone can drive and reach their destinations. In Europe, highways are designed as an augmentation to a rail / mass transit system.

So in the US, standards are set to minimally-acceptable so that everyone can get a license and go anywhere. This is why driver training and examination is not emphasized in the US -- you can see it just by the minimum number of training hours required, the examination standards, etc. The upside is that virtually anyone can get a license. The downside is, unsurprisingly, you get crappy drivers. Compare the US regulations in general (they do vary by state, I know, but take it as a whole) with the European ones in general (they vary by country).

In keeping with the go-anywhere design objective, the US emphasizes building more new roads into new areas and suburbs rather than maintenance. So you get crumbling pot-holed existing roads. 

4. Climate of course is a big factor on cost. The climate is harsher in the Northern US and Canada -- particularly the freeze / thaw cycles that crack asphalt and concrete. Even southern US faces problems with the heat and buckling. Harsh climates puts a lot of stress on the roads.

And population density and geography has an effect on design and affordability. Why spend millions on paving a road that is travelled on by only a few dozen cars per week.

5. Of course political systems and existing political realities make changes changes difficult. That is why I use the term systems -- it feeds on itself. 

US has chosen "free" highways (not toll-collecting) in general, to pursue low gas tax (in keeping with the car-centric go-anywhere objective), dedicated and protected highway construction funds (particularly the Interstate funds) whereas in other countries highway construction needs to compete with other government priorities from general revenues, use of direct referendums to decide on highway upgrades (by authorizing bond raising on the ballot) in many states or local counties, etc.

Many people have profited and are continuing to profit from this system -- oil companies, car companies, land developers, construction companies, and even retailers. There wouldn't be Wal-Marts and Big Box stores like Home Depot without a car society built with lots of highways and everyone being licensed to drive.

Just think about how many powerful interests you have to fight to change that. 

And the society became conditioned this way. The frequent mentions about the car is part of the "American Dream" shows how much of this attitude has been manufactured through decades. Think about it this way: if Otto Daimler and Henry Ford did not come up with the modern car for the masses, then does that mean America will cease to exist and that there will be no "American Dream"? Of course not. It is conditioning.

Then the politicians of course will take this reality and use it to their advantage to gain power. That's why the emphasis on building new roads -- everyone likes to be at sexy ribbon-cutting ceremonies and no one likes to allocate budgets to boring old maintenance that have no political value. 

And if you start putting tolls on the highways -- hell, just try to charge for parking in suburban malls in the US -- riots will break out.

Contrast this social attitude to Japan or other countries where you expect to pay toll on highways, pay exorbitant fees for parking, pay a lot of money for gas, etc..

6. The problem is that some negative effects such as pollution, ecosystem damage (like building roads that cut off animal migration paths and resulting in roadkill, etc.) have no obvious concentrated, organized and motivated constituencies like builders and car companies. Everyone is adversely affected but no one person or group can own or takes "responsibility" for it. 

For the free-enterprise ideology crowd, note that there is no "market" for this even though there are negative effects. This is clearly an example of market failure that needs to be addressed by some other mechanism -- regulations or creation of artificial market mechanisms like carbon-emission trading, etc. to solve this problem. To ignore it and sweep it under the rug is clearly disingenuous.

It is interesting to note that highway safety (death and personal injuries) does have a powerful constituent. It is not so much the highway users themselves (who are either unaware or don't think too much about the risks of a good or bad highway or sharing the road with good or bad drivers), or traffic engineers and transport departments, but it is the insurance companies who want to limit their payouts. That is what drives the highway safety lobby ultimately. Other with their own political agenda tap in -- such as drunk-driver campaigns (which is motivated by an underlying moralism rather than public safety) or law enforcement and municipalities (since traffic ticket fines go into the city or department's revenues).

7. Finally, and perhaps the most important point is that engineering techniques are not an issue at all. Highways have been designed and studied to death -- construction methods, costs, maintenability traffic flow, human factors, and there are global best practice standards that everyone uses or has access to them. This ain't some new technology like nanotechnology.


----------



## Caliguy2005

That's not the case everywhere here...there are some states that use very high quality products when constructing their highways and are very well maintained.i wish i could say the same for California...

California is a beautiful state,but our freeways are not and i blame it on our lousy state government.


chiccoplease said:


> I think American highways are crap because when it comes to construction in that country, everything is done half-heartedly. A new road is finished -- 1 year later it looks like it's been out there for decades. In this aspect I don't see much difference between the US and Russia.


----------



## chiccoplease

California has a real excuse, though -- the density of cars and the landscape are untypical for the US. However, when you drive over potholes in the lightly populated North of America, especially in Upstate NY, you really wonder why the standards are so low.


----------



## Jaye101

nick-taylor said:


> The 401 by the way is one of the worst scars on the face of the planet, I'd rather have cancer than have that in my city.


Well, it's the only highway that goes east west straight through the city, Toronto decided they rather widen it than build an extention of another highway. I can count how many Highways are in my city, its 5, can u? probably not. 

Nobdy hates the 401 cause its massive, because if they did ANYTHING to reduce capacity, there could be an outburst of severe traffic EVERYWHERE.


----------



## Justme

JayeTheOnly said:


> Well, it's the only highway that goes east west straight through the city, Toronto decided they rather widen it than build an extention of another highway. I can count how many Highways are in my city, its 5, can u? probably not.


If you're talking about full freeway conditions (and major links, not just short connecting freeway's) I believe there are at least 7 in the inner part of Frankfurt's metro (Rhein Main), there will be more in the full Rhein Main.


----------



## Jaye101

I remember I tried to count how many were Chicago, I almost went crazy.


----------



## PotatoGuy

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> I thought this thread was dead ages ago...


haha, same here


----------



## addisonwesley

I didn't notice any difference. I think most of the US highways are more a lot safer though.


----------



## zonie

I'm not sure if this really hasn't been mentioned after 10 pages, but I didn't see it in my skim over this thread:

*The US has some of the biggest and heaviest vehicles using its roads*, such as SUVs, pick-ups, tractors, and semis (seemingly in higher frequency than other countries that rely more on smaller trucks and trains). Not sure how a big a factor that is on road wear though.


----------



## LtBk

addisonwesley said:


> I didn't notice any difference. I think most of the US highways are more a lot safer though.


That's because most Americans drive slow and defensively.


----------



## addisonwesley

"That's because most Americans drive slow and defensively" - there's nothing wrong with driving defensively, it helps to prevents collisions. In Canada, new drivers are also taught to drive defensively. It's not like there's some big race, that's the kind of thinking that causes accidents (that and drinking).


----------



## andysimo123

The reason US highways are so crap is that they only lay on average 12inchs on concrete as Germany and other European Highways lay on average 40+ inchs. It means Germanys etc dont crack during temp changes and US ones do.


----------



## great prairie

andysimo123 said:


> The reason US highways are so crap is that they only lay on average 12inchs on concrete as Germany and other European Highways lay on average 40+ inchs. It means Germanys etc dont crack during temp changes and US ones do.



???? do you have source for all of america?


----------



## andysimo123

Nope I was watching a program on the worlds highways. It was saying that Germany's highways have to be a really good quality or they wouldnt be able to handle the high speeds which people travel at and also they need them to last longer. As for the US highways the speeds aint as high so they dont lay as much down. Basicly the faster the highway the better the road.


----------



## streetscapeer

I like complexity, I like massive chaos, ordered chaos to be more specific. That's basically what a city is. And I like transport systems (freeway systems) for the reasons). In terms oh highways, the US is better than Europe, imo. Each city has a complex network of transport, and there's a certain feel, a buzz, you get when you're on a busy highway within a big complex of highways, each having their own personality, all transporting hundreds of thousands of people a day (as miles and miles of the city pass you by) 

Think of car chase scene on The Matrix Reloaded and then imagine that on multiple (10+) highways within the city. 

I think size does make a difference as some people here have denied. Travel on Atlanta's I-75 (which has something like 8 lanes for each direction) and you'll certainly be "moved." It was very impressive when I saw it. A massive highway feeding into an elaborate interchange (there are plenty in each US city) that joins major arterials, city streets, and sometimes even 2 other major expressways. It's quite exhilarating, imo. In many metros you can drive for an hour and constantly be surrounded by a sea of cars, "There are like million cars on the road" is the feeling you get. "Where are *all* these people going." 


American highways in general have to endure this kind of wear and tear day in, and day out ....

Seattle










Cincinnatti








I-75







I-71


Chicago


















































*wow... traffic in 1959...Did Europe have this?? *


----------



## rantanamo

Another typical "X in Europe is better" post. No different than the sports arena or vs forums.


----------



## Justme

rantanamo said:


> Another typical "X in Europe is better" post. No different than the sports arena or vs forums.


funny you say that, as many Americans seem to be doing the same from their side here. "X in America is better".

Looks to me like both sides have the same atitude.


----------



## Minato ku

you re forget France The Autoroute system in France consists largely of toll roads, except around large cities. It is a network of 12,000 km worth of highways








electronic panel in the rural highway

















*Paris peripherique freeways*
traffic in 2002: between 1.1 and 1.2 million vehicles per day: 89% light vehicles, 7% trucks, 4% motorb
road 
total length: 35.04 km (21.8 miles) 
surface: 1,380,000 m² 
bridges, exchangers, surroundings 
156 off on- and off-ramps, total of 54 km and 380,000 m² 
6 exchangers, 44 access points 
300,000 m² service pavement 































the europeen busiest freeway


----------



## sequoias

1.2 million vehicles a day? :eek2: That's too many on a highway like that!? Unless it was congested 24/7.


----------



## Liam-Manchester

I don't agree that European highways are 'much better than American ones'. I think this statement is too general, as they vary greatly between each country in Europe. I do think that the road surfaces are better in Europe, I find the primarily concrete road surfaces in the US very noisy, I have travelled a lot on them in the US and it's difficult to hear someone talking to you or something on the radio. However, the standard of drivers is generally much higher in the US than most European countries, with the exception of the UK, meaning that the highways in the US are generally safer than European ones, with the drivers driving at lower speeds than in Europe. The drivers in France, Italy and Spain are particularly careless on highways, and the severe lack of patience is also a problem. This is not the case in the US, where the drivers are more courteous and drive with more care than these European countries. I would say that the US is just behind the UK in driving standards, and a long way ahead of most of Europe. On top of this, the highways across most of Europe (with the exception of the UK) are extremely narrow in general, as demonstrated by many of the pictures, leading to a less comfortable driving experience, whereas in the US the lanes are wider. Overall I feel much safer on US highways than on ones in mainland Europe.


----------



## Ning

Liam-Manchester said:


> I don't agree that European highways are 'much better than American ones'. I think this statement is too general, as they vary greatly between each country in Europe. I do think that the road surfaces are better in Europe, I find the primarily concrete road surfaces in the US very noisy, I have travelled a lot on them in the US and it's difficult to hear someone talking to you or something on the radio. However, the standard of drivers is generally much higher in the US than most European countries, with the exception of the UK, meaning that the highways in the US are generally safer than European ones, with the drivers driving at lower speeds than in Europe. The drivers in France, Italy and Spain are particularly careless on highways, and the severe lack of patience is also a problem. This is not the case in the US, where the drivers are more courteous and drive with more care than these European countries. I would say that the US is just behind the UK in driving standards, and a long way ahead of most of Europe. On top of this, the highways across most of Europe (with the exception of the UK) are extremely narrow in general, as demonstrated by many of the pictures, leading to a less comfortable driving experience, whereas in the US the lanes are wider. Overall I feel much safer on US highways than on ones in mainland Europe.


Oh come'on give us a break with the whole "UK is better than the whole Europe & USA" bullshit. You've obviously never drived in Europe.
I'm getting tried of typical British felling "the whole Europe sucks except us, the mighty Brits".


----------



## Justme

^ That's taking his comments are bit too seriously Ning. You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder with Britain


----------



## streetscapeer

Those were some good pics of that Paris highway?

I got the feeling that the *quality* of the freeways in Europe were better than the US (in general of course)


but in terms of elaborate-ness, complexity and connectivity in the cities...the US. undeniably


----------



## great prairie

Justme said:


> Looks to me like both sides have the same atitude.


WE DIDN"T START THE THREAD YOU FUCKING MORON

Why European Highways are much better than American ones?? 
Why European Highways are much better than American ones?? 

Why European Highways are much better than American ones??


----------



## Ning

great prairie said:


> WE DIDN"T START THE THREAD YOU FUCKING MORON


ROFL


----------



## Accura4Matalan

Liam-Manchester said:


> The drivers in France, Italy and Spain are particularly careless on highways, and the severe lack of patience is also a problem..


I agree with that.


----------



## DrJoe

rantanamo said:


> Another typical "X in Europe is better" post. No different than the sports arena or vs forums.


Oh so true.


----------



## sbarn

aatbloke said:


> US highways are nothing like as crowded as they are in the UK and continental Europe, except for the major conurbations. For example, the Pennsylvania turnpike around Pittsburgh handles roughly one-tenth of the traffic that the M6 does around Birmingham.
> 
> Unlike the UK, urban bus services in the US are not deregulated. My experience of the service in Pittsburgh is that service performs well, but it just isn't very extensive.


I know you're a brit living in the U.S... but sometimes I question whether you've left Ohio since you've lived in here. I'd say many American highways are much busier than those in the UK. Just look to places like LA, Houston, or Atlanta... even Toronto and you'll understand.

BTW, for those interested in seeing pix of highways around the U.S., here are some great websites:

http://www.aaroads.com/

...which will take you to these regional sections:

http://www.westcoastroads.com/sitemap.html
http://www.rockymountainroads.com/sitemap.html
http://www.southeastroads.com/sitemap.html
http://www.northeastroads.com/sitemap.html
http://www.lonestarroads.com/sitemap.html
http://www.aaroadtrips.com/sitemap.html
http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/sitemap.htm
http://www.interstate-guide.com/sitemap.html

Another great one is:

http://www.texasfreeway.com/


----------



## sbarn

This interchange being built in Dallas is reeeeediculous... 

Impressive... yes. A good thing... probably not.










































...puking slightly as I post these...


----------



## sbarn

Here are some pix of a typical Los Angeles freeway...


----------



## sbarn

...


----------



## sbarn

... trying not to kill everyones computer...


----------



## sbarn

Carretero said:


> And what do you think about this spanish interchange? (located at Madrid)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, it has 4 levels, like biggest american interchanges.


Here is an interesting comparison... here is an interchange in California:


----------



## streetscapeer

^


----------



## Accura4Matalan

They're both ugly...


----------



## streetscapeer

*a slice of the bay area*











huge corridors












nothing like it


----------



## streetscapeer

Accura_Preston said:


> They're both ugly...



I think they're beautiful...like any huge feat of civil enginnering!


----------



## great prairie

sbarn said:


> This interchange being built in Dallas is reeeeediculous...
> 
> Impressive... yes. A good thing... probably not.


here is picture of what it looked like before 

http://www.texasfreeway.com/Dallas/photos/north_dallas_aerial/images/635_at_75_best_hres.jpg <-- big picture this was a very needed improvement.

the interchange has it's own website http://www.dallashighfive.org/ it is actually about a year ahead of schedule

oh also this is the beginning of reconstruction on 635, interchanges modeled after this are planned at I-35E/635 and I-30/635. They will probably be bigger due to being major interstates.


----------



## streetscapeer

*WOW*

now that's what I'm talkin' about


----------



## LtBk

Those highway exchanges are amazing yes, but it will do little in solving traffic congestion.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Chicago right? Awful piece of fwy infrastructure.


----------



## SkyView

mlm said:


> /\ You know some people do not actually like to see their cities filled with these massive gray concrete pillars. I would at any time rather have one of these well intergrated cloverleafs that you hate so much. Or even better, build it underground if it's in a city.
> 
> I've driven through some of these huge stacks in the states, and they are surely impressive. None European highways can compete with that in, ehhh "impressiveness" (?). But pretty they ain't...atleast not in my book.


May I ask you a question ?
Would you like to build skyscrapers into the ground as well, or is this another story ?
And FYI, those concrete pillars of the Dallas High 5 are anything but gray.


----------



## great prairie

OettingerCroat said:


> its a wonderful source called CIA.gov. and don't complain how its inaccurate, trust me, ITS ACCURATE.


I agree it is accurate but does it describe quality?


----------



## EarlyBird

great prairie said:


> I agree it is accurate but does it describe quality?


Quality? Think about this then. A large proportion of the US figure is *completely unpaved*, whereas for the UK the unpaved sections add up to a grand total of 0km.


----------



## streetscapeer

EarlyBird said:


> Quality? Think about this then. A large proportion of the US figure is *completely unpaved*, whereas for the UK the unpaved sections add up to a grand total of 0km.



Why does it matter how many miles of highway there are, the US is a much less dense country.


----------



## streetscapeer

KIWIKAAS said:


> Chicago right? Awful piece of fwy infrastructure.




yup...the dan ryan expressway, I believe.


----------



## TO_Joe

*Tremendous Urban Waste // Back To The Point*



SkyView said:


> May I ask you a question ?
> Would you like to build skyscrapers into the ground as well, or is this another story ?
> And FYI, those concrete pillars of the Dallas High 5 are anything but gray.


First, an aside.

What strikes me from all these pictures is that urban highways seem to be just a tremendous waste of space and resources -- never mind the pollution and the hidden resource consumption from the production of the cars, concrete, etc. in the factories. Some of the highways in the picture take up hundreds of acres of land -- and that doesn't include all the parking lots, arterial and secondary roads.

What is wrong with taking convenient, well-designed transit and walking from one place to another? Keep to a minimum roads and highways in urban areas for delivery trucks, ambulances, taxis, and other critical uses. Besides, people can interact with each other on the streets rather than being isolated from each other in a bubble of private space fortified by a metal shell.

In rural areas, cars make sense. Intercity highways help to make freight transport cheaper and more flexible than rail. You can still own cars and leave them at the edge of the city -- take a train to a parking lot at the edge of the city so you can go drive around the country and camp with it if you want to.


Now, back to the point:

There are now 13 pages to this thread and while there are some good insights, many of the discussions have been is just flag waving crap between Europe and America, and in one case, Europe vs. the UK, etc. All kinds of factoids are thrown around, much of it out of context and outright irrevelant.

Part of the problem is the title of the thread itself -- "better than". The question is better than what? Pavement surface for a smooth ride, neater markings, better signage, easier driver navigation, better safety, better night driving (remarkable no one talked about the difference between driving at night in Europe vs. driving at night in the US -- and there is a difference), better land coverage, shorter travel times, investment / maintenance dollar productivity...the list of criteria goes on. So we end up talking apples and oranges.

And from my point of view as a third party outsider, it is funny from the cultural differences (and biases) that get reflected in the discussions. Some of the Americans invariably show how "great" they are by showing how BIG their highways are -- number of lanes on Seattle I-5 or Los Angeles I-10, that high speed North Dallas interchange , while the European photos invariably show how neat the markings and signage and the deliberately designed integration with the surrounding landscape is.

No wonder we can't agree on anything -- it is cultural afterall.

BTW, I've driven on that US75 up to Richardson and Plano from downtown Dallas many times. I can only comment that when I was driving it, it was a frustrating nightmare because of all the construction. Nevertheless, I kept flooring it through the construction curves like everyone else in Dallas whenever I could -- it's a fun slalom. I have yet to drive on it when it's fully finished -- then I will be able to comment on how good it is from a user's perspective (as well as having numbers to measure the engineering goal of processing # cars / hour). While I have no reason to believe that it won't perform as advertised, I do remember driving on I-35 in Austin and I wasn't too thrilled about the high speed off ramps onto the service roads to the roadside commercial plazas -- cars coming off I-35 at over 50 - 60 miles per hour merge with cars that are just turning out of the plaza at 10 mph. I was still in Austin when the local TV crew highlighted the problem showing the accident rate -- particularly I-35 and Mopac area. So it remains to be seen.


----------



## streetscapeer

TO_Joe said:


> First, an aside.
> 
> What strikes me from all these pictures is that urban highways seem to be just a tremendous waste of space and resources -- never mind the pollution and the hidden resource consumption from the production of the cars, concrete, etc. in the factories. Some of the highways in the picture take up hundreds of acres of land -- and that doesn't include all the parking lots, arterial and secondary roads.
> 
> What is wrong with taking convenient, well-designed transit and walking from one place to another? Keep to a minimum roads and highways in urban areas for delivery trucks, ambulances, taxis, and other critical uses. Besides, people can interact with each other on the streets rather than being isolated from each other in a bubble of private space fortified by a metal shell.
> 
> In rural areas, cars make sense. Intercity highways help to make freight transport cheaper and more flexible than rail. You can still own cars and leave them at the edge of the city -- take a train to a parking lot at the edge of the city so you can go drive around the country and camp with it if you want to.


I think everyone realizes this, but I still can't deny that I love driving on city highways, it's quite joyful. 



> Now, back to the point:
> 
> There are now 13 pages to this thread and while there are some good insights, many of the discussions have been is just flag waving crap between Europe and America, and in one case, Europe vs. the UK, etc. All kinds of factoids are thrown around, much of it out of context and outright irrevelant.
> 
> Part of the problem is the title of the thread itself -- "better than". The question is better than what? Pavement surface for a smooth ride, neater markings, better signage, easier driver navigation, better safety, better night driving (remarkable no one talked about the difference between driving at night in Europe vs. driving at night in the US -- and there is a difference), better land coverage, shorter travel times, investment / maintenance dollar productivity...the list of criteria goes on. So we end up talking apples and oranges.
> 
> And from my point of view as a third party outsider, it is funny from the cultural differences (and biases) that get reflected in the discussions. Some of the Americans invariably show how "great" they are by showing how BIG their highways are -- number of lanes on Seattle I-5 or Los Angeles I-10, that high speed North Dallas interchange , while the European photos invariably show how neat the markings and signage and the deliberately designed integration with the surrounding landscape is.


very good points.


----------



## goschio

OettingerCroat said:


> its a wonderful source called CIA.gov. and don't complain how its inaccurate, trust me, ITS ACCURATE.


lol

The problem is, that they included this kind of roads:


















So 1000 km of this road counts as much as 1000 km of that road:


















They are all considered as highways in the statistics. This means that the statistic does not give the true capacity of a countries highway network.


----------



## OettingerCroat

great prairie said:


> I agree it is accurate but does it describe quality?


uh, no, im not even talking about quality. im commenting to that guy titeness, who made a completely false comment, which i very clearly proved innacurate a few posts ago.

but just fyi, european roads are of better quality too buddy. if u can drive over a gap in the UNPAVED concrete every 5-10 meters, your road is a turd. and thats what the roads are in america. i've lived here all my life, so i have every right to make this comment.


----------



## OettingerCroat

goschio said:


> lol
> 
> The problem is, that they included this kind of roads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 1000 km of this road counts as much as 1000 km of that road:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are all considered as highways in the statistics. This means that the statistic does not give the true capacity of a countries highway network.


if both the US and European statistics included these roads, then the amounts rose evenly and the numbers remain unchanged.

and if you have any clue of what the general definiton of highway is, it means all of the main traffic arteries of the country. No secondary roads. only motorways and primary non-motorway routes. so that road you showed me in your first pic aren't included.


----------



## great prairie

OettingerCroat said:


> but just fyi, european roads are of better quality too buddy. if u can drive over a gap in the UNPAVED concrete every 5-10 meters, your road is a turd. and thats what the roads are in america. i've lived here all my life, so i have every right to make this comment.


I have too and your dead wrong.


----------



## OettingerCroat

OK, explain to me WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THEM. HEIGHT SURE AINT A REASON ITS BETTER.

you measure if its good by how many times you come home with a sore back and chipped teeth from the piece-of-shit roads you've been driving on.

have you ever even driven around Germany or Holland, and seen what a road is? roads aren't tall. roads are _smooth_


----------



## great prairie

> if u can drive over a gap in the UNPAVED concrete every 5-10 meters, your road is a turd. and *thats what the roads are in america*


this is where you're dead wrong


----------



## OettingerCroat

ok fine. thats what NEARLY ALL the roads are in america. here in SF, i shouldn't need to worry about breaking a wheel on my car becuase my commute to work takes over 15000 gaps in the concrete.

THATS JUST THE WAY FREEWAYS ARE BUILT IN AMERICA. they are made from concrete slabs 10-12" thick, placed one after the other. about 75% of these roads have NO pavement. originally, the roads were great, but now, through schorching summers and freezing winters, the roads deformed, the gaps widenned, and the roads are turds.


----------



## mlm

TO_Joe said:


> First, an aside.
> What strikes me.......So it remains to be seen.


Well written TO_Joe. I think that sums up most of this thread very well.

@ SkyView: No of course I don't. I love skyscrapers. But I don't like the look of huge stacks inside cities, to me that just doesn't do it.


----------



## OettingerCroat

i agree with you 100%


----------



## MSPSCO3113

What do you guys think of this interchange? Its supposed to handle 270,000 cars per day when completed. Not Texas sized but sufficient I think.


----------



## goschio

OettingerCroat said:


> if both the US and European statistics included these roads, then the amounts rose evenly and the numbers remain unchanged.
> 
> *and if you have any clue of what the general definiton of highway is, it means all of the main traffic arteries of the country.* No secondary roads. only motorways and primary non-motorway routes. so that road you showed me in your first pic aren't included.


Thats exactly the problem! CIA just took the numbers from the national statistics and called them "highway". And in germany for example nobody uses the term "highway" because there is no definition for that.

The official infrastructure rundown for roads in Germany reads like that:

motorway = 11 800 km (Autobahn) - paid by the federal government
federal roads = 41 200 km (Bundesstrasse) - paid by the federal government
state roads = 86 800 km (Landstrasse) - paid by the state governemnt
district roads = 91 000 km (Kreisstrasse) - paid by the discrtict administration
total = 230 800 km

Those are political definitions. And the difference between included in the "highway" list or not depends on political issues and not so much on capacity. There are community roads (not included in the german "highway" list) which have the capacity of a motorway.

And a district road (Kreisstrasse) can be realy little like that. And yes, its included in the german "highway" statistic.









What I want to say with that is, that those numbers presented at CIA.com are in no way comparable because every country has its own statistics about that topic and CIA just copies and pastes that.


----------



## goschio

Between, here are some more german highways aka kreisstrasse:


----------



## great prairie

OettingerCroat said:


> ok fine. thats what NEARLY ALL the roads are in america. here in SF, i shouldn't need to worry about breaking a wheel on my car becuase my commute to work takes over 15000 gaps in the concrete.
> 
> THATS JUST THE WAY FREEWAYS ARE BUILT IN AMERICA. they are made from concrete slabs 10-12" thick, placed one after the other. about 75% of these roads have NO pavement. originally, the roads were great, but now, through schorching summers and freezing winters, the roads deformed, the gaps widenned, and the roads are turds.



I have never had any of these problems (a broken wheel??). where did you get 75%, do you have a link that tells me how FREEWAYS ARE BUILT IN AMERICA. I mean all of it because that is what you claimed.

roads without PAVEMENT!!!! what the hell kinda state is california.


----------



## sbarn

OettingerCroat said:


> ok fine. thats what NEARLY ALL the roads are in america. here in SF, i shouldn't need to worry about breaking a wheel on my car becuase my commute to work takes over 15000 gaps in the concrete.
> 
> THATS JUST THE WAY FREEWAYS ARE BUILT IN AMERICA. they are made from concrete slabs 10-12" thick, placed one after the other. about 75% of these roads have NO pavement. originally, the roads were great, but now, through schorching summers and freezing winters, the roads deformed, the gaps widenned, and the roads are turds.


Break your wheel in SF? Are you kidding me? What are you doing, running your car into the center divider? Haha! 

*I agree with you that many countries have higher surface quality than American roads. * However, you make it sound like driving in the US is treacherous, which is stretching the truth. Also, as I stated early, *road quality in the U.S. can vary greatly from state to state!!*

75% of the roads in the *U.S. ARE NOT CONCRETE*... I'd like to see you prove that statistic. I bet this less then a third of the roads in the U.S. have concrete surfaces... think about all the rural interstates across the U.S. which are asphalt. Most of the freeways in the Bay Area (I grew up there and visit often from my current home of NYC) are being replaced with asphalt. Some examples of Bay Area roads:

I-880


























Entrance to the Bay Bridge









I-680
Here's some concrete:








Now asphalt:

















U.S. 101

















I-280

















I-580

















U.S. 24
















Interested in more Bay Area... I got these photos from here:
http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/sanfrancisco.html


----------



## sbarn

BTW... just for the record:

I think this interchange in Dallas is hideous:










Facinating... but hideous. I'll take NYC, London, or Paris over a city with this anyday! Sorry Dallas, just my opinion. :cheers:


----------



## OettingerCroat

highway 280 and highway 101 are in terrible quality man.... and the only freeway i know here in the bay thats paved is Highway 13, which is a BEAUTIFUL freeway. its is the only freeway in the bay that is paved from start to finish.

also 24 and 580 are really bad.... dude don't you see all the gaps in the road? then my bestest best friends at CalTrans just pour tar in between the cracks? and did you see the left breakdown lane? its (honestly, no joke) about 80% tar. but the road itself isn't. towards the caldecott tunnel the roads REALLY look depressing...

ok, im sorry, about 33% of the roads are unpaved.... jeez, hope this MUCH MORE MODEST number makes you feel better. 

*Highways:*
total: 6,393,603 km 
paved: 4,180,053 km (including 74,406 km of expressways) 
unpaved: 2,213,550 km (2003)

and i wouldn't be dissing the place where i was born and lived my whole life for no reason. the roads are in really bad condition man.... but do you have some pics from Highway 13? that road is so damn beautiful... its seriously immaculate, in 100% perfect condition.

but you'll probably agree that the bay area got a large amount of those unpaved roads...


----------



## sbarn

OettingerCroat said:


> highway 280 and highway 101 are in terrible quality man.... and the only freeway i know here in the bay thats paved is Highway 13, which is a BEAUTIFUL freeway. its is the only freeway in the bay that is paved from start to finish.
> 
> also 24 and 580 are really bad.... dude don't you see all the gaps in the road? then my bestest best friends at CalTrans just pour tar in between the cracks? and did you see the left breakdown lane? its (honestly, no joke) about 80% tar. but the road itself isn't. towards the caldecott tunnel the roads REALLY look depressing...


Terrible quality... really?? Here are some pix of 280 (I grew up right near this highway), I wouldn't say it is in "terrible" quality:


----------



## OettingerCroat

ok, now im not arguing with u, just saying. see all those rifts in the second picture? it causes constant bouncing in your car, man. the road may not have cracked yet, but it still rides very unstably.

highway 24




































highway 101


----------



## sbarn

^^ You didn't need to go to so much work to prove your point. I totally agree certain sections of Bay Area freeways could use a good repaving job. Many of the freeways in the Bay Area were constructed in the late 1960s and 1970s and have never been repaved since their construction. I have to mention that I've noticed many highways being repaved with asphalt, rather than being reconstructed with concrete. Those concrete freeways will become obsolete in the Bay Area (save overpasses and flyovers) in I bet 10 years...

This isn't always the case though, in Colorado they are replacing asphalt with concrete:

I-25 North of Denver in 2002:









I-25 North of Denver in 2005:









Roads in Colorado suck, IMO--you may be dissatisifed with the ones in the Bay Area, but I sure missed them when I lived in Denver. Anyway--I guess I'm going to go back to my point of the higher quality of road surfaces in many places in Europe... I'll take some tar patches and bumps in the road over having to pay at least 10 bucks in tolls like you would in Europe.


----------



## DetoX

> Terrible quality... really?? Here are some pix of 280 (I grew up right near this highway), I wouldn't say it is in "terrible" quality:


Well, I would. Just imagine single car raid in those roads 200 km/h .. I think that this car would start to jump 

I was raiding at this speed in Germany and felt no shake.


----------



## SkyView

Hey Oettinger, what's your point ?
You ever been driving on Belgian highways. Compared to most of them, these Cali ones look like a pool table.
And even when Dutch and German highways are better than Belgian, they too have numerous, with tar filled cracks.
This discussion make NO sense.


----------



## sbarn

DetoX said:


> Well, I would. Just imagine single car raid in those roads 200 km/h .. I think that this car would start to jump
> 
> I was raiding at this speed in Germany and felt no shake.


Whats a car 'raid'?? I think your misusing that word... 

Anyway, the fastest I've ever driven was on 280... 120 mi/hr ~ 200 km/hr. Shhh! :runaway: Although it was late at night so there wasn't any traffic, the road can handle high speeds quite well.

Regardless, I think to poor surface quality of U.S. roads is now getting blown out of reality... yes concrete is loader than asphalt, get over it...also some tar sealant on the road is not going to make your car crash, unless you're a terrible driver.


----------



## streetscapeer

DetoX said:


> Well, I would. Just imagine single car raid in those roads 200 km/h .. I think that this car would start to jump
> 
> I was raiding at this speed in Germany and felt no shake.




well NO ONE goes 200 km/h on CITY highways in the US, which is something Europe lacks, CITY highways!!


ok...I think everyone agrees that Europe is slightly better on road quality (in general), the US has had to build more roads the past few decades (with our low density sprawl and all) than all of Europe, which means the US has certainly had to stretch our funds moreso than European countries. Moreover, US roads are certainly bigger, to handle larger volumes of traffic, increasing the cost.

That said, there is no need for bashers to come on this thread and say that US roads are so bad that everyone's tires and axles and cars and whatever are liable to break down, that's just a ludicrous comment. They're are plenty of highways that are just as nice as the nice European ones.

And on the other hand, there are plenty of European highways that are far from immaculate (it varies by region just like the US). I've seen 'em myself.


----------



## sbarn

SkyView said:


> Hey Oettinger, what's your point ?
> You ever been driving on Belgian highways. Compared to most of them, these Cali ones look like a pool table.
> And even when Dutch and German highways are better than Belgian, they too have numerous, with tar filled cracks.
> This discussion make NO sense.


True...

France: A8









Austria: A21








A22









Just to show that tarfilled cracks are ubiquitous worldwide...


----------



## streetscapeer

*Oh no, how could anyone drive on a road in such a deplorable condition*


----------



## sbarn

^^ uke:

i agree...


----------



## OettingerCroat

yes belgian roads are in real bad shape..... i've seen em.

the highways that go through/around paris, vienna, even zagreb, are all in perfect condition. i was comparing Bay Area (SF Metro Area) motorway to city motorways in cities like those i just mentioned. hehe, you don't even wanna see US rural freeways. most are only two lanes wide, some _are_ 4 lanes wide, and some are just gravel. fine gravel, not like boulders, lol, but still just bare gravel.


----------



## gronier

European Highways Rock!! (although massachussets highways look very european)

Autobahn:


----------



## OettingerCroat

streetscapeer said:


> *Oh no, how could anyone drive on a road in such a deplorable condition*




just FYI for those who have never driven around the bay, IM SERIOUS, about 50 meters beyond the cars in this photograph, about right where the overpass is, the road goes back to concrete :rofl:


----------



## OettingerCroat

streetscapeer said:


> ok...I think everyone agrees that Europe is slightly better on road quality (in general), the US has had to build more roads the past few decades (with our low density sprawl and all) than all of Europe, which means the US has certainly had to stretch our funds moreso than European countries. Moreover, US roads are certainly bigger, to handle larger volumes of traffic, increasing the cost.


UHHHH, HELLO?!?!! ARE YOU BLIND?!?!! A few pages ago, i showed how the US spends 9 TIMES LESS THAN FRANCE ON ITS ROADS!


----------



## streetscapeer

OettingerCroat said:


> UHHHH, HELLO?!?!! ARE YOU BLIND?!?!! A few pages ago, i showed how the US spends 9 TIMES LESS THAN FRANCE ON ITS ROADS!



Ok so maybe I'm wrong, my other comments still stand though!!

and it still doesn't change the fact that you're trolling!!


----------



## streetscapeer

OettingerCroat said:


> yes belgian roads are in real bad shape..... i've seen em.
> 
> *the highways that go through/around paris, vienna, even zagreb, are all in perfect condition. i was comparing Bay Area (SF Metro Area) motorway to city motorways in cities like those i just mentioned*.


NO....You were comparing ALL of America, You made a *very general * statement




OettingerCroat said:


> *if u can drive over a gap in the UNPAVED concrete every 5-10 meters, your road is a turd. and thats what the roads are in america  *




And you don't even speak English proficiently, I doubt you know our country very well. "Your road is a turd," who says that lol. Feel free to keep bashing, though.

Here's another troll comment....has anyone said this about the lesser (not bad) roads in Europe. I think not.



OettingerCroat said:


> you measure if its good by how many times you come home with a sore back and chipped teeth from the piece-of-shit roads you've been driving on.


----------



## sbarn

OettingerCroat said:


> just FYI for those who have never driven around the bay, IM SERIOUS, about 50 meters beyond the cars in this photograph, about right where the overpass is, the road goes back to concrete :rofl:


You're right!! Look at the "treacherous" concrete... lets take them on a tour of 680, shall we??

Asphalt:
































Still asphalt...








*Recognize this photo?*








The tour continues...
































...and back to asphalt...
















Note on the left... they're rebuilding the freeway:








The Carquinez bridge (as most bridges in the U.S., its concrete):








...and back to asphalt...









Sorry about the deluge of photos... I felt my point was best proven by photographs...


----------



## KIWIKAAS

SkyView said:


> Hey Oettinger, what's your point ?
> You ever been driving on Belgian highways. Compared to most of them, these Cali ones look like a pool table.
> And even when Dutch and German highways are better than Belgian, they too have numerous, with tar filled cracks.
> This discussion make NO sense.


I totally agree. 
The worst motorways I have ever driven on were in Belgium. Although the motorway surfaces have improved in the last years I have never come across such jaw breaking holes anywhere as I have in Belgium.

For every flaw found in US highways the same can be found again in Europe.

German Autobahns arent that great.I dont know what all the fuss is about. They have sharp bend on-ramps that mean traffic entering the autobahn is offen moving very slowly. There are very few high speed on and off ramps on the german autobahn system. Considering that there is no speed limit on the autobahn the stopping shoulders are too skinny and there is little margin for driver error built into the layout. In hilly areas its a mess. Cars going 150-200 kph and trucks doing 40-50 kph. Heavy breaking and hard exceleration are the trade marks of driving on the autobahn.


----------



## great prairie

Also weather plays a big role in concrete/asphalt roads, temperature varies way more across america.

a good explaination I found on another board.



> Asphalt vs. Concrete is like Analog vs. Digital.
> 
> Asphalt is a mixture of tar and rocks. When heated, it softens, and under load, it flows. The results are ruts in the road, which you can clearly see if you drive down any Farm-To-Market road after a light rain. When the ruts get deep enough, the water they hold can become a hazard to traffic. Also, if there's a weak spot under the asphalt, it will sink in and break up, sometimes rapidly turning into a tire-jarring pothole. But when properly applied, this decay is a slow process. The occasional pothole can be filled with more asphalt to get you through until the next repaving. And repaving involves simply scraping off the top and pouring more asphalt on top.
> 
> Concrete, on the other hand, is a mixture of rock and binding agents that dries hard and stays that way. It does not melt under load. However, if the ground underneath the concrete slabs develops a weak spot, the whole slab can tip, and eventually the slab breaks up into jagged-edged blocks. Concrete also expands in the heat. Since it can't squish together like asphalt, slabs that expand into each other will crack, leading to water intrusion into the roadbase, and a weak spot as above. Repairing holes in concrete isn't easy. You have to either cut out a big area and repour the concrete, or fill the hole with... asphalt. Eventually, a concrete road with severe problems may be repaved with a layer of asphalt.
> 
> Asphalt is analog. It will develop faults over time, but it's a gradual process. Concrete is digital. It's a highly superior surface with no degradation until its failure point, at which point it must be repaired immediately. Which surface you use would depend on factors like traffic load, type of vehicle expected, and construction and repair budget.


----------



## LtBk

IMO, i'm more concerned about quality of drivers on the highways than highway pavement. Many Americans just don't know how to drive on our freeways.


----------



## sbarn

LtBk said:


> IMO, i'm more concerned about quality of drivers on the highways than highway pavement. Many Americans just don't know how to drive on our freeways.


Agreed. My #1 pet peeve... when people drive slow in the left (fast) lane. :rant:


----------



## streetscapeer

LtBk said:


> IMO, i'm more concerned about quality of drivers on the highways than highway pavement. Many Americans just don't know how to drive on our freeways.



Another *blanket statement* about an issue in which none of us have the authority to judge.


But nontheless, I don't have a problem with drivers on highways in rural areas (many people don't block the left lane), it's mainly driving in the city that's a pain.


----------



## OettingerCroat

listen, i wasn't trying to troll the thread, and apparently i was, so _i'm sorry_. i was just trying to prove a couple points. i really am sorry.

i still say that US highways, ON THE WHOLE, are worse than European ones. that's just my opinion, and this _is_ a thread to state your opinions, eh?

and whats wrong with saying "a road is a turd?" :lol: it's proper grammar. also just fyi, i know this country very well, i mean, when you live here, it's hard _not_ to.


----------



## EarlyBird

sbarn said:


> You're right!! Look at the "treacherous" concrete... lets take them on a tour of 680, shall we??


That road couldn't legally be classed as a motorway (our freeways) in the UK. In fact it wouldn't pass any UK safety tests. You don't have proper lane markings, you don't have the multi-coloured "cats eyes" to distinguish the different lanes at night, you don't have proper carriageway rumble strips, you don't have safe crash barriers (concrete ones are illegal here as they were proven to be dangerous), you don't have sufficient slip road merge zones and your road signs don't have enough detail (legally here they have to provide junction details, run-off signs and much more).


----------



## sbarn

EarlyBird said:


> That road couldn't legally be classed as a motorway (our freeways) in the UK. In fact it wouldn't pass any UK safety tests. You don't have proper lane markings, you don't have the multi-coloured "cats eyes" to distinguish the different lanes at night, you don't have proper carriageway rumble strips, you don't have safe crash barriers (concrete ones are illegal here as they were proven to be dangerous), you don't have sufficient slip road merge zones and your road signs don't have enough detail (legally here they have to provide junction details, run-off signs and much more).


^^ Yawn. Why do must some Brits always be so arrogant. Just because our Freeways don't LOOK like yours, doesn't mean they aren't unsafe. Why don't you get out of your bubble. Let me guess... they also don't meet your safety standards because we drive on the RIGHTHAND side of the road. BTW, there notice the reflectors between the lanes?? ... roads in CA are some of the safest in the US.


----------



## EarlyBird

sbarn said:


> ^^ Yawn. Why do must some Brits always so arrogant. Just because our Freeways don't LOOK like yours, doesn't mean they aren't unsafe. Why don't you get out of your bubble. Let me guess... they also don't meet your safety standards because we drive on the RIGHTHAND side of the road. BTW, there notice the reflectors between the lanes?? ... roads in CA are some of the safest in the US.


Safety tests were done in the UK. The system we have scored highest.

1. Concrete barriers vs. steel barriers - Steel barriers, unlike concrete, give by up to 4 feet, meaning that crash victims don't immediately rebound into other lanes. The barrier absorbs a lot of the impact.

2. Cats eyes - In the UK, unlike the US, the Cats Eyes (or reflectors) are colour co-ordinated to determine which lane you are in at night and change in frequency as you are approaching junctions.

3. Lane markings - Unlike the freeway you posted, UK roads all have proper "painted" road markings as well as Cats Eyes. The reason for this is that glare from the sun can make it harder to see Cats Eyes. White lines on a black surface are easier to see than, in your example, a few white dots on a light grey surface.

4. Signage - After extensive tests they determined that:
a) Junction numbers should be on signs to aid navigation and reduce accidents
b) Junctions should be marked by numbered signs to indicate how many yards you are from the junction, again to reduce sudden lane changes and so accidents
Both these are missing from your freeway.

5. Carriageway rumble strips - These are present to alert drivers when their vehicle moves out of it's lane, which again reduces accidents. These are missing from most US freeways.

6. Breakdown lanes - These must be full width lanes with full length rumble strips for safety and emergency telephones at intervals. Again, this feature isn't as advanced on US freeways.

7. Slip roads - US on ramps aren't long enough compared to those in the UK, meaning heavier vehicles struggle to get up to speed or slow down.

8. Run-off zones - Our motorways need larger run-off zones at any junctions to ensure that if a driver is forced to change lanes in an emergency they have adequate space to do so.

These are some of the main reasons UK motorways are safer than US freeways and have less accidents.


----------



## aatbloke

Sbarn needs to post pictures of motorways in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia and Maryland instead of California. Many of them are absolutely abysmal (I-90 in New York and I-76 in Ohio notably) but this has a lot to do with the temperature extremes the region faces during the year.

That said, the US government derives comparatively little income from motorists unlike Western Europe, so road maintenance is often more sporadic. Once off the motorways, things in the US can get absolutely deplorable: the roads around Youngstown, Ohio, for example are literally the worst I have ever seen. Unlike many European countries, funding for US roads away from motorways is often sourced at regional or even local level, which often results in a vast array of surface qualities.

The other aspect of US interstates I don't like is the lack of road markings to signify slip roads and cats eyes. Likewise, many ordinary roads have no markings at intersections, instead simply relying on a stop sign. Again due to the weather, in north-eastern states they are reluctant to use cats eyes because they get torn up during winter snowploughing - and the region gets far more snow than the UK does, for example (in Cleveland we had 106 inches between December and March). When you get into Ontario, the motorway markings are as different again and you'd think you were driving on a Western European highway.

There are poor roads everywhere, but generally I have far more confidence doing high-speed work on a UK motorway or French autoroute than I do a US interstate simply because of the vastly superior quality of road maintenance.


----------



## EarlyBird

Personally, I think this shows the difference in quality...

Manchester ring road:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee (now)









It's being completely reconstructed and modernized. It will be completed in 2008:


----------



## EarlyBird

My God... that's city planning at it's very worst!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

sbarn said:


> Roads in Colorado suck, IMO--you may be dissatisifed with the ones in the Bay Area, but I sure missed them when I lived in Denver.


Actually, the section of I-70 that goes through Glenwood Canyon is regarded as one of the most well-engineered highways in the country. It's also one of the most beautiful rides I've experienced anywhere.


----------



## streetscapeer

*Something tells me that Europe could do just fine with a mediocre road like this*


----------



## streetscapeer

EarlyBird said:


> My God... that's city planning at it's very worst!



I agree partially, but it's sometimes necessary in suberban America, and it's it's more beautiful than most of what Europe has to offer in terms of highway civil engineering.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

^The interchange pictured above isn't located in a suburb of Milwaukee. It's in the city of Milwaukee, about 2 miles west of downtown.


----------



## great prairie

EarlyBird said:


> My God... that's city planning at it's very worst!


hahaha you always crack me up

UK IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!


----------



## goschio

EarlyBird said:


> Personally, I think this shows the difference in quality...
> 
> Manchester ring road:


Quality seems to be good, but the UK motorway system is pretty small compared with the US or Germany. There are alot of missing pieces. You drive and then the motorway changes into a normal road until it becomes a motorway again after some miles. Thats kind of annoying when you travelling.


----------



## streetscapeer

hydrogen said:


> ^The interchange pictured above isn't located in a suburb of Milwaukee. It's in the city of Milwaukee, about 2 miles west of downtown.



I realize that, but it's there to feed all the suburbanites into downtown! That's what I meant.


----------



## Architorture

large highways are the cause of suburban growth, not the result of it...

the british roads look good....but i think the negative is flipped or something on that image......................


----------



## great prairie

Architorture said:


> large highways are the cause of suburban growth, not the result of it...


smaller highways where the cause of suburban growth and larger highways are the result of massive suburban growth


----------



## TO_Joe

hydrogen said:


> Actually, the section of I-70 that goes through Glenwood Canyon is regarded as one of the most well-engineered highways in the country. It's also one of the most beautiful rides I've experienced anywhere.



It is fun driving through that section of I-70, especially at high speeds (I've done over 100 mph through there). In a way, it reminds me of Italian or Japanese highways through mountainous terrain.

But I agree that, in general, Colorado roads suck (I also lived there awhile). Some examples:
- lack of edge markings to show steep drop offs (e.g., US36 to Boulder) -- many cars end up in the ditch at night or when it snows
- lack of protective railings in mountainous areas througout the state (e.g., Colorado 72 north of Nederland, Colorado 550)
- abrupt narrowing of roads between counties (e.g., on US36 as you drive past Sheridan and into Jefferson county)
- I-25 south of Denver even before the T-rex construction -- unnecessarily narrow and winding through the South Platte River (it is not mountainous there)
- the deadly I-70 curves between Eisenhower tunnel and down on the plain in Golden and the steep grades -- while I acknowledge the terrain difficulties, it is still mightly dangerous to come down an 8% grade for 2 miles to encounter a 90% turns going westbound 
- unnecessarily confusing interchanges / road layouts -- e.g. US6 and I-70 in Golden
- the general impression that there are no standards (or none enforced) in lane width, markings and signage -- hardly a standardized experience so it gets bewildering

Add the tough terrain, the constant snowfalls and ice, the abrupt changes in altitude, and the size of the state (it is 2/3 the size of California), the muddy backroads and the wild muddy roads and near off-roads (around Ouray or Poudre Park or behind the Rabbit Ears mountains) -- I found it a pretty wild experience overall.


----------



## streetscapeer

Architorture said:


> large highways are the cause of suburban growth, not the result of it...
> 
> the british roads look good....but i think the negative is flipped or something on that image......................


I doubt that massive interchange was there before the suburbs


----------



## nothingman

British motorways are well surfaced, but they lack exits. In an urban area, you often have to drive 2-3 miles between exits, when there should be exits every mile or so. Also, they lack lanes....so many motorways are in dire need of widening. I've actually driven on that stretch of M60 around Manchester and I have to say that Manchester is one of the few UK cities with an excellent urban motorway network. The rest seem to be lagging behind their European counterparts.


----------



## sbarn

hydrogen said:


> Actually, the section of I-70 that goes through Glenwood Canyon is regarded as one of the most well-engineered highways in the country. It's also one of the most beautiful rides I've experienced anywhere.


Hey... thanks for showing those... I was that stretch of I-70 was one of the more impressive highways in America. I didn't mean to be derogatory, I was mainly refering to the highways around Denver, etc. Compared to what I'm used to in California the roads are really abyssmal. Narrow lanes, winding, max speed of 55 mph... killing me. There are some exceptions however.


----------



## sbarn

aatbloke said:


> Sbarn needs to post pictures of motorways in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia and Maryland instead of California. Many of them are absolutely abysmal (I-90 in New York and I-76 in Ohio notably) but this has a lot to do with the temperature extremes the region faces during the year.


Um... ooookay. I'll show some, fine. I never said that there was a uniform quality of roads throughout the U.S. Go read through my posts, I you will be unable to quote such a statement. In fact you are helping me prove my point that road qualities across the U.S. vary dramatically.

Ohio: I-90

































I-80

























I could go on if you want...

Maryland: I-495








































































I-95:









































Virginia: I-95

















































I-495

























Pennsylvania: I-95

































Okay... I've had enough... there are literally thousands of these pix if you want to see them. So if you want to keep equating U.S. roads to those found in developing photos, I'll keep posting.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

edit.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

sbarn said:


> Hey... thanks for showing those... I was that stretch of I-70 was one of the more impressive highways in America. I didn't mean to be derogatory, I was mainly refering to the highways around Denver, etc. Compared to what I'm used to in California the roads are really abyssmal. Narrow lanes, winding, max speed of 55 mph... killing me. There are some exceptions however.


Glad you enjoyed. I didn't take your statements in a derogatory sense. I'm sure some of the highways in Colorado are in poor shape. Luckily, what they lack in physical quality they make up for with the beauty that surrounds them.


----------



## aatbloke

sbarn said:


> Um... ooookay. I'll show some, fine. I never said that there was a uniform quality of roads throughout the U.S. Go read through my posts, I you will be unable to quote such a statement. In fact you are helping me prove my point that road qualities across the U.S. vary dramatically.
> 
> Okay... I've had enough... there are literally thousands of these pix if you want to see them. So if you want to keep equating U.S. roads to those found in developing photos, I'll keep posting.


You can post photos. Some great pictures there of stretches that have decent paving. I've driven thousands of miles in many countries, and I'm going on my experiences. Whatsmore, those I talk to who have similar experiences say the same thing. I'd suggest you post pictures (as one example) of I-76 between Akron and Youngstown, Ohio - it's generally awful. They've just replaced one section near Ravenna and another 5-mile section west of Youngstown is being replaced with concrete. Some of the surfaces and potholes are absolutely terrible. Indeed, in the fifteen years I spent driving in the UK, I had all-round wheel balancing/alignment performed due to poor road surfaces just twice. In the US, I've had the same work done (out of necessity) ten times in five years. When my wife's family (who are American) first visited the UK - and then France - they all commented on how pristine many of the motorways were. Indeed, a French toll autoroute makes the Pennsylvania turnpike (for example) look shabby and outdated.

This isn't a dig at the US - there are perfectly understandable reasons why the vast majority of Western European motorways are of superior quality to those in much of the US (far more funding through taxation, less severe weather extremes, etc), but facts are facts no matter how many pictures you find on the internet.

There are many, many great things about the United States - but the quality of its roads isn't one of them. Even it's automotive journalists say the same thing.


----------



## streetscapeer

aatbloke said:


> You can post photos. Some great pictures there of stretches that have decent paving. I've driven thousands of miles in many countries, and I'm going on my experiences. Whatsmore, those I talk to who have similar experiences say the same thing. I'd suggest you post pictures (as one example) of I-76 between Akron and Youngstown, Ohio - it's generally awful. They've just replaced one section near Ravenna and another 5-mile section west of Youngstown is being replaced with concrete. Some of the surfaces and potholes are absolutely terrible. Indeed, in the fifteen years I spent driving in the UK, I had all-round wheel balancing/alignment performed due to poor road surfaces just twice. In the US, I've had the same work done (out of necessity) ten times in five years. When my wife's family (who are American) first visited the UK - and then France - they all commented on how pristine many of the motorways were. Indeed, a French toll autoroute makes the Pennsylvania turnpike (for example) look shabby and outdated.
> 
> This isn't a dig at the US - there are perfectly understandable reasons why the vast majority of Western European motorways are of superior quality to those in much of the US (far more funding through taxation, less severe weather extremes, etc), but facts are facts no matter how many pictures you find on the internet.
> 
> There are many, many great things about the United States - but the quality of its roads isn't one of them. Even it's automotive journalists say the same thing.



the thing is, no one said that it was the other way around, I think most of us agreed that Western European nations, in general, were superior to those of the Untied States in road quility. But of course, some bashers had to come on here to wail on the US (not you). I agree that many European roads were pristine when I drove over there, and that alot of US highways need upgrading (from my experience) but I've never driven in Ohio, so I don't know what it's like. I think the US must vary alot more in its quatlity of roadway, cuz I've lived in Virginia and upstate New York for 2 years each, and drove on highways that were as smooth as any, and only once in those 4 years did I have to get alignment on my Nissan Maxima..... we all can only speak from experience, I guess.


----------



## tritown

EarlyBird said:


> Personally, I think this shows the difference in quality...
> 
> Manchester ring road:


That is one fine piece of asphalt. If that is well representative of the UK's highways, that would be awesome.


----------



## sbarn

aatbloke said:


> You can post photos. Some great pictures there of stretches that have decent paving. I've driven thousands of miles in many countries, and I'm going on my experiences. Whatsmore, those I talk to who have similar experiences say the same thing. I'd suggest you post pictures (as one example) of I-76 between Akron and Youngstown, Ohio - it's generally awful. They've just replaced one section near Ravenna and another 5-mile section west of Youngstown is being replaced with concrete. Some of the surfaces and potholes are absolutely terrible. Indeed, in the fifteen years I spent driving in the UK, I had all-round wheel balancing/alignment performed due to poor road surfaces just twice. In the US, I've had the same work done (out of necessity) ten times in five years. When my wife's family (who are American) first visited the UK - and then France - they all commented on how pristine many of the motorways were. Indeed, a French toll autoroute makes the Pennsylvania turnpike (for example) look shabby and outdated.
> 
> This isn't a dig at the US - there are perfectly understandable reasons why the vast majority of Western European motorways are of superior quality to those in much of the US (far more funding through taxation, less severe weather extremes, etc), but facts are facts no matter how many pictures you find on the internet.
> 
> There are many, many great things about the United States - but the quality of its roads isn't one of them. Even it's automotive journalists say the same thing.


Yeah, I have no doubt that there are some terrible stretches of road in the U.S. ... apparently there are plenty in Ohio. However, be careful to generalize the United States based upon your experiences living in the upper Midwest. There is a whole wide country beyond that particular region. I'd say that the most superior highways/freeways in the U.S. are found in the sunbelt states... with some exceptions of course!


----------



## aatbloke

sbarn said:


> Yeah, I have no doubt that there are some terrible stretches of road in the U.S. ... apparently there are plenty in Ohio. However, be careful to generalize the United States based upon your experiences living in the upper Midwest. There is a whole wide country beyond that particular region. I'd say that the most superior highways/freeways in the U.S. are found in the sunbelt states... with some exceptions of course!


I've visited some 33 of the lower 48 states and found most to be rather similar, although as I've said before it can vary even within a few miles. The reasons are there and perfectly understandable. Florida had some of the most consistent good tarmac, but sadly the worst drivers.


----------



## aatbloke

tritown said:


> That is one fine piece of asphalt. If that is well representative of the UK's highways, that would be awesome.


And it really is representative. The UK does have numerous faults but it's standard of road maintenance really is second to none.

Again, much of this boils down to funding: highway maintenance is usually the responsibility of each county or metropolitan borough. Generally, if they don't spend their alloted quota from central government each fiscal year, they won't get the same budget the following year, so each spring you'll often see construction teams resurfacing perfectly good stretches of road simply to spend the money.


----------



## aatbloke

streetscapeer said:


> the thing is, no one said that it was the other way around, I think most of us agreed that Western European nations, in general, were superior to those of the Untied States in road quility. But of course, some bashers had to come on here to wail on the US (not you). I agree that many European roads were pristine when I drove over there, and that alot of US highways need upgrading (from my experience) but I've never driven in Ohio, so I don't know what it's like. I think the US must vary alot more in its quatlity of roadway, cuz I've lived in Virginia and upstate New York for 2 years each, and drove on highways that were as smooth as any, and only once in those 4 years did I have to get alignment on my Nissan Maxima..... we all can only speak from experience, I guess.


Oh I quite agree with you. EarlyBird is a notorious troller in my opinion, and I'm the same nationality as he is. You get them everywhere. If I wailed on the US, I'd first and foremost have my wife to answer to...

Like I said, it boils down to funding. In the States, state and federal governments subsidise motoring costs by not taxing it very highly, whereas in the UK, for example, it is health care which is subsidised. One way or another, they all have to make the books balance.


----------



## ♣628.finst

txRNGr said:


> its called *offensive* driving...its fun, you should try it


Here in Midwest, drivers are crazy. Though the terrain is smooth, in some states such as Iowa or Minnesota, many roads are badly maintained. Sometimes congested and too narrow for its traffic. 

Areas around Chicago-Milwaukee sucks, traffic congested.


----------



## great prairie

Much of road funding in Texas is done county by county. I have family in Lubbock and when I drive there from Dallas(5 hours~) I take SH114, you can honestly see a sign that says Entering Jacksboro county and the road quality instantly changes, good or bad. some parts are 4-lane divided highway with shoulders, some parts are 2-lane highways with no shoulder, it all depends on the county.

Interstates are much more uniform

I can't remember some of the worst counties so I just plugged one in.


----------



## algonquin

tritown said:


> That is one fine piece of asphalt.


insert joke here (too many to choose from... couldn't decide)


----------



## great prairie

:|


----------



## KIWIKAAS

The North American version of the roundabout in suburban areas is the ''4-way (sometimes more) Stop''. All traffic entering the intersection must stop. The vehicle that was first at the intersection has right of way. This has also been adopted elsewhere but with a standard right of way for traffic from the right instead of the first come, first go. Roundabouts are great but arent so good pedestrian intensive areas.


----------



## Minato ku

nick-taylor said:


> Roundabouts tend to have greater handling capacites because the traffic is constantly moving. Safety studies constantly back this up and the number of accidents and congestion have fallen at junctions where previously there were just traffic lights which were replaced by a roundabout.
> 
> I have no idea how many roundabouts there are in the UK (the first modern versions were found in the UK), there could be tens of thousands, but they are becoming increasingly favoured in the US over the traditional junctions.



in paris roundabouts are very dangerous and congesting
_ parisiens are bad driver_


----------



## sequoias

Seattle got tons of minature roundabouts at street intersections in residential area. They don't have stop signs and they go around roundabouts, not all have it. Some have it some don't have it. The roundabout islands have trees and flowers and some plants in the middle to make it look natural.


----------



## VansTripp

minato ku said:


> in paris roundabouts are very dangerous and congesting
> _ parisiens are bad driver_


Wow, It's very useless roundabout in America.


----------



## Rapid

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I drive on one of the largest highways in the world, AND the most congested one!
Yes, its the notorious 401 in the Southern Ontario area! 
Its allways congested, just like everyone's sinuses in the winter, and when your driving on it in the winter, it doesnt feel safe, it feels like your gonna slip off because of weak traction, and all of the salt used to keep ice from forming. The deposits from this salt ruines your car and promotes rusting (but i guess thats the case in most cold countries).

Speed isnt so good either. It takes me approx an hour to get to Toronto from Hamilton via 403 (QEW). Nearly the same distance, it took me 45 mins to get to Birmingham from Banbury, in the UK via M40.

BUT! I also travelled on the M1, and its does get congested at times, and when it does, its terrible.


----------



## great prairie

nick-taylor said:


> Safety studies constantly back this up and the number of accidents and congestion have fallen at junctions where previously there were just traffic lights which were replaced by a roundabout.


since you didn't supply a link I have to assume your full of bullshit...


----------



## miamicanes

I'm sorry, but no roundabout with a diameter less than a half mile could EVER safely handle the intersection of a six-lane and an eight-lane road (say, US-1 at NE 163 Street in Miami, or Pines Boulevard at S. Flamingo Road in Pembroke Pines, FL). Now, if you tunneled one, bridged the other, and used a ground-level roundabout for cars going from one road to the other it would likely work well. But I'd argue that a SPUI would ultimately work just as well and take a lot less room to build. In any case, I shudder to think how many accidents would take place at a simple at-grade roundabout for either of the two intersections I mentioned above. Can we say, "Daily Carnage" and "wholesale fatalities"?

I've heard that out west, some Interstates in places like Wyoming were built with quasi-roundabouts in areas where there's simply never going to be enough traffic to justify the cost of a full interchange. Basically, the few drivers who need to cross the interstate turn right onto it, have a mile or so to make it to the left lane, then exit to the left on a curving lane that promptly merges back into the lanes going back in the other direction, leaving him a half mile or so to make it to the right lane to exit and continue in the original direction.

Roundabouts work well in residential neighborhoods (they scare away drivers who'd otherwise take shortcuts through them) and where roads with minimal traffic meet, but they simply can't handle the sheer volume of high-speed traffic that exists at the intersections of major roads in America.


----------



## nick_taylor

great prairie said:


> since you didn't supply a link I have to assume your full of bullshit...


Its common knowledge that roundabouts are safer!


http://www.drivers.com/article/334/


_"The physical configuration of a modern roundabout, with a deflected entry and yield-at-entry, forces a driver to reduce speed during the approach, entry, and movement within the roundabout," the center says.

"This is contrary to an intersection where many drivers are encouraged by a green or yellow light to accelerate to get across the intersection quickly and to 'beat the red light' and contrary to old traffic circles where tangent approaches also encourage, or at least allow, high-speed entries."

Another important safety factor is that the only movement at an entry and an exit of a roundabout is a right turn, thus reducing the potential frequency and severity of accidents compared to accidents typically occurring during left turns and when traffic crosses an intersection in perpendicular directions.

It is thought that one-way circular intersections were invented by a French architect, Eugene Henard, in 1877. During the same period, the American architect William Eno was also proposing his plan for small circles to alleviate traffic congestion in New York City. Since the adoption of a yield-at-entry regulation in 1966 by Great Britain and in1983 by France, there has been overwhelming interest and research in roundabouts because of the simplicity of their design and operation and particularly because of their safety.

"Enthusiasm for the safety and high capacity of roundabouts has resulted in a huge increase in the number of roundabouts," the center adds. "By contrast, as growing traffic demand causes nonconforming traffic circles to fail, they are converted to other types of intersections."

In modern times, the Netherlands has experienced spectacular growth of roundabouts beginning in the late 1980s. In only six years, approximately 400 roundabouts were built. The reasons given are: a drastic reduction in serious crashes; lower driving speeds; improved pedestrian crossing facilities; elimination of traffic signals, and high capacity with more than 2,000 motor vehicles and several hundred bicycles and mopeds per hour in one-lane roundabouts.

TFHRC says the first modern roundabouts in the USA were built in the spring of 1990 in Summerlin, a rapidly growing planned community on the west side of Las Vegas. With rapid growth of the surrounding community, daily traffic has increased from very low flows to about 7,000 vehicles in the north roundabout and to about 11,000 vehicles in the south roundabout. Only four accidents have been reported at the two roundabouts over their five-year history.

The first modern roundabout on the California state highway system was installed by the city of Santa Barbara in 1992. The roundabout replaced an intersection of five two-lane streets regulated by stop signs. The old intersection averaged four accidents per year. Since installation of the roundabout, accidents have averaged 2.1 per year, with only five accidents reported in a 28-month period._


----------



## sargeantcm

Facial said:


> Well, the thing is all about design and policy. I, for one, know that the German Autobahn is twice as thick as the average American freeway.


Highway engineer speaking - Pavement thickness means absolutely nothing if the material below it is garbage.


----------



## jd_bond

American highways carry more weight than their european couterparts, don't they?


----------



## ranny fash

minato ku said:


> in paris roundabouts are very dangerous and congesting
> _ parisiens are bad driver_


LOL, what the hell is going on there?! thats ridiculous! it doesnt even make any sense. what are they all trying to do?!?


----------



## Minato ku

it s Parisian 
Parisian are very bad driver


----------



## thunder head

holy crap they'd be their for hours ripping their hair out....


----------



## er_juli

I enjoy seeing photos of american and european freeways while you discuss. ("Mine-is-bigger! discussion")


----------



## Wee-Eck

Just came back from Miami. The roads there are fantastic. The surface is as smooth as anything, it was a real pleasure driving there.


----------



## er_juli

IMO this thread would be called "Diferences between american and european highways".

What dou you think?


----------



## FM 2258

I don't know about anyone else but I love highways in the U.S. We've got the best system in the world. We have freeways that go to the heart of our big cities. We still have our old U.S. highway system that serves smaller cities and most states do a pretty good job with their state highway systems. I bet we have more road to maintain than any other country in the world. Plus we have freeways more than 2000 miles long like Interstate 10, Interstate 80 and 90. Who can beat that? I love our highway system in the U.S. and it's getting better and better.

Plus Bush signed that new transportation bill so I can't wait to see improvements start coming to life through that. Hell even Interstate 95 in Connecticut was fairly smooth when I was there a few weeks ago.


----------



## Gamble

401 toronto


----------



## Czas na Żywiec

Any highway leading west from the Front Range in Colorado, but the only other highways I've driven on have been through Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois, so Colorado by far has the nicest scenery.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

Florida has great quality roads in both scenic and quality


----------



## Azn_chi_boi

Scenic Lake Shore Drive in Chicago.


----------



## EarlyBird

Azn_chi_boi said:


>


How could anyone ruin a beach like that? It's a crime.


----------



## Nerima#

Southern California Freeways are not good.
I drove through Southen California, they have little ridges on the freeway.
My car's tires were making noise from the ridges the whole time during driving on the freeway.
The highways in NewYorkCity are bumpy.and also the lanes in the tunnel of NewYorkCity are norrow, I was having difficulty in driving through the tunnel in NewYorkCity.


----------



## sequoias

Avenue of the Giants has a great 33 mile long 2 way direction road with lots of giant trees that zig zags US 101 in North California near the coast. It's a real nice drive, also US 101 along the coast of WA with lots of forests and cliffs. I hear the scenic drive is nice in North Cascades national park in North WA Cascade mountain range, but I haven't seen it in the real life. 

There are plenty of scenic drives all over the place, so there's so much to see and little time to live.


----------



## Burnout 3

The best highway in america is The Garden State Parkway in New Jersey. it goes through newark and the coastal communites.


----------



## Æsahættr

Highway 101, that goes up and down the western seaboard of the United States.


----------



## e2ksj3

In terms of scenary, California, the hills and canyons are amazing, especially along the 15, followed by the desert. Then you have PCH which follows the coast along CA, haven't been on that drive yet, but hopefully I'll go soon, then followed by Nevada (or really anywhere out west), which offers beautiful views of the desert.

In terms of the actually highways looking pretty decent, I would have to go with Phoenix and Atlanta areas.


----------



## mtlteg

Its definately not montreal, we have horrible roads.


----------



## Republica

Azn_chi_boi said:


> Scenic Lake Shore Drive in Chicago.


I cant quite believe that this road exists. how did they allow it? Cutting off the city from the beach, shocking. It wouldnt happen here.


----------



## EastSider

^Because half the year it's a frozen lake. Not really, but you get the idea.


----------



## magestom

It is. I live in chicago.


----------



## mr_storms

Calfornia's Insterstate 280 between San Jose and San Fransisco is very nice. The part through san mateo county is very scenic as there is little developement there.
























































In sf:


----------



## Man-from-Toronto

*U.S. Interstate vs. Quebec Autoroute: More effective?*

Which highway system is more effective? 









*Autoroute of Quebec * 
The Autoroute system in the province of Quebec, Canada, is a network of expressways which operate under the same principle of controlled access as the Interstate freeway system in the United States or the 400-Series Highways in neighbouring Ontario. The Autoroutes are the backbone of Quebec's highway system, which spans more than 20,000 km of roads. The speed limit on Quebec's Autoroutes is generally 100 km/h (65 mph) in rural areas and 70-90 km/h (45-55 mph) in urban areas.

Autoroute is a French word meaning, literally, a motor road, and corresponding to the words "motorway" or "freeway" in English. It is the name used in the francophone world for highways constructed exclusively for motor traffic. Interestingly, in the 1950's, when the first autoroutes were being planned, the design documents called them autostrades, obviously from the Italian word autostrada.

Numbering system
Autoroutes are identified by blue and red shields, with the red header image representing a highway overpass. Quebec's Autoroutes are numbered from 1-99 in the case of principal routes, and from 400-999 in the case of collector routes or deviation routes designed such that truck traffic can by-pass urban areas. In the case of deviation routes, the hundreds prefix is even-numbered (e.g., 400, 600), whereas collector routes have odd-numbered prefixes (e.g., 500, 700, 900). For example, A-40 is an Autoroute, the A-640 is a deviation route, and the A-740 is a collector route linking the A-40 to other Autoroutes.

Odd-numbered Autoroutes (e.g., A-15) generally run perpendicular to the Saint Lawrence River, while the even-numbered ones (e.g., A-20, A-40) generally run parallel to it. In addition, each Autoroute has a unique name in addition to its numerical designation and it is commonplace for Autoroutes to be identified using either method (e.g., the Décarie, the 15).

History of Quebec's Autoroutes
Quebec's first Autoroute was the Autoroute des Laurentides (or Laurentian Autoroute), which opened in 1959 as a toll road. This initiative to bring freeways into Quebec was started by Maurice Duplessis, whose government saw the construction of the Laurentian Autoroute (now A-15) from Montréal to Saint-Jérôme and the first section of the Boulevard Métropolitain (A-40), which opened in 1960.

[edit]
1960's
It was the Quebec Liberal government of the 1960s that saw the construction of further Autoroutes, with a grid numbering system and the introduction of the blue and red shield. The sign is inspired by the American Interstate sign. This was especially needed in light of the fact that many visitors would be flocking to Montréal by car for Expo 67. Montréal's Décarie Autoroute (A-15) and the Louis-Hippolyte-Lafontaine Tunnel were constructed for that very reason. The Autoroute des Cantons-de-l'Est (A-10, Eastern Townships Autoroute) opened in 1964, and its continuation, A-55 between Magog and Rock Island, opened in 1967, connecting with Interstate 91. What are now the A-20 (part of the Trans-Canada Highway) and the A-15 to New York (connecting with I-87), originally built in the 40's, were upgraded to expressway standards. The A-20 also connects with Ontario Highway 401. A-40 was extended out to Berthierville, and later to Trois-Rivières in the 1970s. Others include autoroutes 25, 30 (proposed southern beltway), 31, 35 (eventually connecting to I-89), and 640 (an unfinished proposed northern beltway), creating a web around Montréal and increasing urban sprawl.

The autoroutes proved to be catastrophic for the City of Montréal. Thousands of dwellings were demolished to make way for them, which deprived the City of considerable fiscal tax revenues. The autoroutes effectively drained the very economic life out of the city, while adding a considerable burden of extraneous vehicles that contribute to the degradation of the streets while not contributing at all for their upkeep.

[edit]
1970's
The 1970s also saw the completion of the Pierre-Laporte Bridge in Québec City, connecting the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River to the north. In addition to this, the A-73 was extended to Beauce, the A-20 was extended to Rivière-du-Loup, and the Chomedey Autoroute (A-13), the A-19 and the A-440 were constructed in Laval. Autoroutes were built (two sections of A-440, and A-740) and a few more planned in the in the Québec City region, creating a dense web, which led to significant sprawl . During the 1970s, the Parti Québécois came to power, whose platform mandated an expansion of public transportation over the construction of more Autoroutes. Existing Autoroutes were extended (e.g., the A-40 was extended from Trois-Rivières to Quebec City) but no new Autoroutes were built.

The Autoroute des Laurentides (A-15, Laurentian Autoroute), the Autoroute des Cantons-de-l'Est (A-10, Eastern Townships Autoroute), the Autoroute de la Rive-Nord (A-40, North Shore Autoroute) and the A-13 were toll roads until the mid-1980s, when the toll barriers were removed and the province stopped collecting tolls from vehicles using the Autoroutes. The last toll booth was on the Champlain Bridge (A-10-15-20). It was removed later because the Champlain Bridge is federal property (see "Société des Ponts Jacques-Cartier et Champlain") and was thus not a provincial decision.

[edit]
List of Autoroutes in Quebec
[edit]
Autoroute 5
Map of Autoroute 5

Name: Autoroute de la Gatineau 
Description: From the Pont Cartier-MacDonald in Gatineau to chemin de la Rivière in Chelsea 
Length: 21 km (13 miles) 
History: First opened in 1964, from the bridge to Route 105 (Gatineau, Exit 5); last section opened in 1991, from chemin Scott to chemin de la Rivière (Chelsea, Exits 13 to 21) 
Notes: An isolated divided four-lane section of Route 366 exists in La Pêche, which is planned to be connected to the existing A-5 by the end of this decade, extending A-5 to 33 km in length. 
[edit]
Autoroute 10
Map of Autoroute 10

Name: Autoroute Bonaventure 
Description: From the A-720 (Autoroute Ville-Marie) to Île des Sœurs in Montréal 
Length: 4.1 km (2.5 miles) 
History: First opened in 1967 
Name: Autoroute des Cantons-de-l'Est 
Description: From the Champlain Bridge to Route 112 in Sherbrooke 
Length: 153.8 km (96 miles) 
History: First section (Montréal-Longueuil across the Champlain Bridge) opened in 1962. 
Notes: The easternmost section east of Sherbrooke is a Super-2. 
[edit]
Autoroute 13
Map of Autoroute 13

Name: Autoroute Chomedey 
Description: From the A-20 in Montréal to the A-640 in Boisbriand 
Length: 21.4 km (13.3 miles) 
History: First opened in 1975, it was originally to extend to Mirabel International Airport but was cancelled, and likely will never be constructed. 
[edit]
Autoroute 15
Map of Autoroute 15

Name: Autoroute 15 Sud 
Description: From the United States border at Lacolle (continues as Interstate 87 in New York) to the Turcot interchange (A-20 West) in Montréal 
Length: 62.6 km (38.9 miles) 
History: Construction of this section of the A-15 was completed in 1967 
Name: Autoroute Décarie 
Description: From the Turcot interchange to the A-40 interchange in Montréal 
Length: 7.4 km (4.6 miles) 
History: the autoroute is parallel to the Décarie boulevard (hence the name); from Côte-de-Liesse to Queen-Mary road on the south, it was built on a wide expanse of vacant land, donated to the City by the Décarie estate on the condition that only a streetcar line be established. When the streetcar system was dismantled in 1959, it was an obvious right-of-way for a highway, so the Décarie autoroute was dug there. South of Queen-Mary road, however, were a significant number of houses which were demolished. In order to avoid demolishing the Notre-Dame-de-Grâces church, the highway veers west south of Côte-Saint-Luc, and runs between Appleton and Botrel streets, all the way to Saint-Jacques street, where it spectacularly goes from below-ground to well above ground as intersects with highways 20 and 720 in the infamous Turcot Interchange (dubbed "Spaghetti Junction" by train crews operating the CN Rail Turcot Yard). Following the conversion from streetcar line to highway, the Décarie Estate unsuccessfully sued the city but was unable to prevail because they did not document their case well enough for the nevertheless sympathetic court. 
Name: Autoroute des Laurentides 
Description: From the A-40 interchange to Route 117 in Sainte-Agathe 
Length: 89.4 km (55 miles) 
History: First opened in 1958; the last section was completed in 1974 
Its three notorious curves in Laval and St-Jérôme were to ensure the expropriation of land that belonged to friends of premier Duplessis 
Notes: Route 117 continues northward as a four-lane divided expressway. It is possible that A-15 could be extended beyond Mont-Tremblant. 
[edit]
Autoroute 19
Map of Autoroute 19

Name: Autoroute Papineau 
Description: boul. Henri-Bourassa in Montréal to Autoroute 440 in Laval 
Length: 10.1 km (6.3 miles) 
History: First section was opened in 1970 (boul. H-Bourassa to boul. Lévesque), final section was completed twenty years later 
Notes: 
Most of the section in Montreal is an urban arterial (Avenue Papineau). It was originally meant to be the eastern counterpart of Autoroute-15, connecting with the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, but wisely was decided not to gut yet another swath of housing within the City of Montréal. The portion south of Autoroute-40 no longer occurs as part of A-19. 
The extension north of A-440 was not assigned to A-19 but Route 335 north of A-440 was shifted onto it from boul. des Laurentides. 
[edit]
Autoroute 20
Map of Autoroute 20 — Note: due to some route optimization (highway 20 has an urban boulevard section in Dorion, QC), the route calculator decided that taking highway 40 would be faster than staying on highway 20 all the way.

Name: Autoroute Jean-Lesage (known as the Montreal-Toronto Highway throughout the West Island) 
Description: Ontario-Quebec border at Rivière-Beaudette (continues as Highway 401 in Ontario) to rue Père Nouvel in Rimouski 
Length: 541.7 km (336 miles) - the longest Autoroute in Quebec 
History: Construction of the A-20 began in 1964. It should be noted that the A-20 is a part of the Trans-Canada Highway, from the A-25 interchange (Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine Tunnel) up to Route 185 at Rivière-du-Loup 
Notes: Autoroute 20 is composed of two separate segments. The western segment extends from the Ontario border to Saint-Georges-de-Cacouna, and the eastern segment is a bypass of Rimouski, which was extended in 2003 to Luceville. A section of this highway from Vaudreuil-Dorion eastward to the Galipeault Bridge (approximately 4 miles) is a congested arterial four lane road. It is slowly being upgraded to Autoroute standard. 
Future: There are plans to connect both segments - extending the western segment to Trois-Pistoles and eventually connecting with the Rimouski bypass, and the eastern segment will likely extend from Luceville to Mont-Joli 
This autoroute has the peculiarity of having a railroad crossing at grade in Saint-Hyacinthe, immediately east of the Boulevard Laframboise overpass. For this particular crossing, the Code de la sécurité routière du Québec has been amended to allow buses to cross this crossing without making the customary mandatory stop. Train crews are instructed in their special operating instructions to call the Sûreté du Québec police to stop the traffic before crossing the highway. 

Autoroute 25
Map of northern section of Autoroute 25 Map of southern section of Autoroute 25

Name: Autoroute 25 (or, unofficially, Autoroute de Lanaudière) 
Description: The A-25 is divided into two sections: the first section connects the A-40 to the A-20 (L.-H. Lafontaine Bridge-Tunnel) and the second runs from the A-40 interchange to Route 125 in Saint-Esprit 
Length: 49.9 km (31 miles) 
History: The first section was completed in 1967 and is a part of the Trans-Canada Highway while the second section was completed up to Saint-Esprit in 1999 
Future: There are long-term plans to extend A-25 all the way to Route 347 in Notre-Dame-de-la-Merci which would double its length to 100 km. A section of Route 125 is currently expressway-grade, which would form the northern end of A-25, connected by 30 km of new highway. No timeline is currently set. 

Autoroute 30
Name: Autoroute de l’Acier 
Description: The A-30 consists of four sections: the first detours Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, the second detours the Kahnawake reserve, the third links Saint-Constant (at the junction of the A-15) to Sorel, and the final section links the A-55 and Bécancour 
Length: 122.7 km (76 miles) 
History: 
Future: Construction will start in 2005 on a plan to link up separate segments of the route. A new alignment bypassing Saint-Constant south of Route 132 will be built, although there will be a two-kilometer overlap with A-15, and this segment will be finished by 2008. By 2009, A-30 will be linked between Châteauguay and Vaudreuil-Dorion. The existing A-30 segment around Salaberry-de-Valleyfield will be renumbered as A-530 and will connect with the new A-30 bridge of the Saint Lawrence River. When finished, A-30 will provide a southern bypass of Montréal. There are no plans to connect the third and fourth segments though. 

Autoroute 31
Map of Autoroute 31

Name: Autoroute Antonio-Barrette 
Description: A short Autoroute that follows Route 131 between the A-40 and Joliette 
Length: 14.3 km (8.9 miles) 
History: Completed in 1966 

Autoroute 35
Name: Autoroute de la Vallée-des-Forts 
Description: A short Autoroute that connects Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Iberville (now forming one city) to the A-10; it was originally known as the Autoroute de la Nouvelle-Angleterre. A-35 ends at Route 133, which continues as Interstate 89 in Vermont. 
Length: 19.2 km (11.9 miles) 
History: Completed in 1967 
Future: A-35 will be extended to finish the freeway link to I-89 via some new alignments and upgrading of certain expressway sections of Route 133. Some have also called for a northern extension to Sorel-Tracy, although there are no immediate plans for that. 
Autoroute 40
Name: Autoroute Félix-Leclerc (Autoroute Métropolitaine between A-15 in the east and boul. H.-Bourassa in Montréal in the west; Autoroute de la Rive Nord between the Rivière des Prairies and Route 341) 
Description: From the Ontario-Quebec border at Pointe-Fortune (continues as Highway 417 in Ontario) to Route 138 in Boischatel 
Length: 347.1 km (216 miles) 
History: The A-40 is a part of the Trans-Canada Highway from the Ontario border to the A-25 interchange. The first section of the Autoroute Métropolitaine opened in 1960. The Autoroute Métropolitaine was originally intended to be below-ground, like the Autoroute Décarie is. But as sewers run on a north-south axis, this would have called for expensive sewer rerouting below the excavation through inverted siphons. Thus, it was decided to build an elevated autoroute, with one notable exception in the Town of Mount Royal, to separate the residential suburb from the industrial area to the north. 
Future: It is envisioned that A-40 will be extended eastward, possibly as far east as Route 360 or even Route 362 in La Malbaie, as recreation in the Charlevoix area increases. There are no immediate plans to extend A-40, however. 

Autoroute 50
Name: Autoroute Maurice-Richard 
Description: The A-50 is not a complete route; the first segment, in the east, starts at Route 117, connects the A-15 to Lachute--this section is a simple roadway, with at-grade railway crossings (rare for a freeway). The second segment, in the west, links Hull to Masson. 
Length: 59.2 km (36.8 miles) 
History: The western section of this Autoroute was originally named the Autoroute de l’Outaouais, as it follows the path of the Rivière des Outaouais on the Quebec side. 
Future: Construction on an extension from Masson to Thurso will be complete by 2005, and by 2007, the western segment likely will extend from Thurso to Fassett. Ultimately, in the longer term, A-50 is envisioned to be completed between Fassett and Lachute, closing the gap in the freeway. Slight westward extensions are also possible, however it is unlikely to extend beyond Aylmer, and should it do so, it would most likely be a Super-2. 
Extension opened December 2004 with new exits 171 to Chemin Lépine in Buckingham and 174 to Chemin Doherty in L'Ange Gardien 

Autoroute 55
Map of Autoroute 55

Name: Autoroute Joseph-Armand Bombardier (south of Autoroute 20) and Autoroute Transquébécoise (north of Autoroute 20) 
Description: From the United States border at Stanstead (continues as Interstate 91 in Vermont) to Route 155 in Shawinigan 
Length: 247.3 km (154 miles) 
History: 
Notes: Some sections remain a Super-2, although those are currently being twinned. 

Autoroute 70
Name: Autoroute 70 (or, unofficially, Autoroute Alma-La Baie) 
Description: From Chicoutimi to Jonquiere 
Length: 17 km (10.6 miles) 
History: Completed up to Jonquiere in 2002 
Future: Autoroute 70 will be extended from Jonquiere to Alma, and eastward from Chicoutimi to La Baie 

Autoroute 73
Name: Autoroute Robert-Cliche 
Description: This Autoroute shares the Pierre-Laporte Bridge in Québec City from Lévis to Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce 
Length: 61.3 km (38.1 miles) 
History: 
Future: A short extension to Beauceville is currently under construction, and there is a proposal to extend A-73 even farther south to Saint-Georges 
Name: Autoroute Henri-IV, Autoroute Laurentienne 
Description: A short trunk route linking Québec City to Stoneham, just north of Québec City 
Length: 27 km (16.8 miles) 
History: 
Future: Long extensions are underway, which will extend A-73 farther north through the Laurentians and up to the Saguenay region along the Route 175 corridor. 

Autoroute 85
Name: Autoroute 85 (or, unofficially, Autoroute du Temiscouata) 
Description: From Riviere-du-Loup at A-20 to the New Brunswick border south of Degelis 
Length: 98 km (62 miles) once completed 
History: The newest Autoroute, officially designated in December 2005. Replacing Route 185. Part of the Trans-Canada Highway. [1] A short freeway section, less than 2 km in length, had already been constructed at A-20 but only designated as Route 185. Other freeway sections are being built (discontinously) and A-85 shields are going up on them. 
Future: Additional construction is planned to complete A-85 to the New Brunswick border to connect with New Brunswick provincial highway 2 and to fill in remaining gaps. 

Autoroute 410
Name: Autoroute 410 (or, unofficially, Autoroute de l'Université) 
Description: Short spur from the A-10 to the Université de Sherbrooke 
Length: 5.3 km (3.3 miles) 
History: Completed in 1978 
Future: Autoroute 410 is planned to connect with Route 108 just east of Lennoxville, allowing truck traffic to completely bypass the congested town. It will pass south of the town, before connecting near the experimental farm to the east. 

Autoroute 440
Name: Autoroute Laval 
Description: From the A-13 west of Laval to the A-25 on the east side of Laval. 
Length: 13.2 km (8.2 miles) 
History: Construction on this section of the A-440 was completed in 1979 
Name: Autoroute Charest, Autoroute Dufferin-Montmorency 
Description: Short spur routes in Québec City 
Length: 12.5 km (7.8 miles) 
History: 

Autoroute 520
Name: Autoroute Côte de Liesse 
Description: This route connects the A-20 and Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport to the A-40/A-15 interchange 
Length: 7.8 km (4.8 miles) 
History: Completed in 1966 

Autoroute 530 (future)
Name: Autoroute 530 (no official name yet) 
Description: This route will be the new designation of what is now A-30 bypassing Salaberry-de-Valleyfield where a new bridge across the St. Lawrence River will be constructed connection to the current A-540. 
Length: 14 km (9 miles) 
History: Currently most of the route is signed as A-30, with a short section unfinished where the A-530/A-30 interchange will be. 
Future: A-530 is expected to be completed and designated in 2009. 

Autoroute 540
Name: Autoroute 540 (or, unofficially, Autoroute Vaudreuil) 
Description: Connects the A-40 and A-20 in Vaudreuil 
Length: 4.9 km (3.1 miles) 
History: Completed in 1967, will be renumbered as an A-30 extension by 2009. 
Name: Autoroute Duplessis 
Description: Runs from the Pierre-Laporte Bridge to Route 138 in Quebec City 
Length: 5.1 km (3.2 miles) 
History: Completed in 1966 

Autoroute 573
Name: Autoroute Henri-IV 
Description: This is an extension of A-73, which runs from the A-73/A-40 interchange to Route 369 in Québec City 
Length: 7.8 km (4.8 miles) 
History: Completed up to Route 369 in 1998 

Autoroute 640
Name: Autoroute 640 (or, unofficially, Autoroute de contournement nord de Montréal) 
Description: Runs the length of the north shore of the Milles-Îles River from Saint-Joseph-du-Lac to the A-40 interchange in Charlemagne 
Length: 54.8 km (34 miles) 


Autoroute 720
Name: Autoroute Ville-Marie 
Description: This Autoroute passes under downtown Montréal through the Ville-Marie tunnel, but the length of the route runs from the Turcot interchange up to the Jacques-Cartier Bridge. The A-720 becomes an urban boulevard called "Ville-Marie" at the bridge and later merges with rue Notre-Dame. 
Length: 8.5 km (5.3 miles) 
Expansion: A planned upgrade to rue Notre-Dame will make an urban boulevard stretch from the bridge to the A-25. A future project includes upgrading rue Souligny into the A-720 at A-25, taking the load off Notre-Dame at and across the A-25. 
History: 

Autoroute 740
Name: Autoroute du Vallon 
Description: From boul. Laurier (Quebec City) to the A-40 interchange in Quebec City. 
Length: 7.4 km (4.6 miles) 
History: 

Autoroute 955
Name: Autoroute 955 (or, unofficially, Autoroute de Saint-Albert) 
Description: From Saint-Albert to the A-20 interchange in Sainte-Eulalie 
Length: 14.7 km (9.1 miles) 
History: This short section of Autoroute was destined to become part of a much longer section of freeway, as the A-55 was supposed to follow this route south towards Warwick and Richmond, as opposed to its current alignment through Drummondville; however, this was never realised, but the short route still remains. 

Autoroute 973 (unsigned)
Name: Autoroute Laurentienne (southern section) 
Description: This short route links downtown Quebec City with the A-40/A-73 interchange. It is only signed as Route 175 (the A-973 designation is only on paper). 
Length: 3.6 km (2.1 miles) 
History: Completed in 1963 

*United States Interstate * 









The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly called the Interstate Highway System, is a network of highways in the United States. The Interstate Highway System is a separate system within the larger National Highway System. With very few exceptions, Interstate highways are controlled-access freeways, allowing for safe high-speed driving when traffic permits. They are assigned a special level of funding at the federal level. Despite this federal funding, these highways are owned, designed, built and maintained by the state in which they are located, with the only exception being the federally-owned Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495).

The highways in the system are typically known as Interstate XX or I-XX; sometimes Interstate Highway XX (IH XX) or Interstate Route XX (IR XX) is used. In some areas the more generic Route XX or Highway XX is used. The system serves all major U.S. cities, and unlike its counterparts in most industrialized countries, often goes right through downtown areas rather than bypassing them. This facilitated the emergence of automobile-oriented postwar suburban development patterns, often pejoratively referred to as "urban sprawl".

The system is prominent in the daily lives of most Americans. Virtually all goods and services are delivered via the Interstate Highways at some point. Many residents of American cities use the urban segments of the system to go to and from their jobs. Most long-distance journeys (for vacation or business) of less than 300 miles (500 km) use the interstate highway system at some point.

Hawaii has several signed Interstates, but Alaska and Puerto Rico do not. The latter two do have roads designated as Interstates for funding purposes, but they are not currently or planned to be built to Interstate standards. The public controlled-access highways of Puerto Rico are the Autopistas (PR-22, PR-52, and PR-53).

The interstate system was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. It was lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and was influenced by both his experiences as a young soldier crossing the country in 1919 following the route of the Lincoln Highway, and by his appreciation of the German autobahn network.

Planning for a system of new superhighways began in the late 1930s, even before federal commitment to build the Interstate highway system came in the 1950s. Construction on the world's first public limited-access highway, the Bronx River Parkway, had begun in New York as early as 1907. By the 1920s, longer highways such as the New York City parkway system had been built as part of local or state highway systems. As automotive traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, U.S. Highway system.The General location of national system of interstate highways, including all additional routes at urban areas designated in September, 1955 maps what became the interstate system, and is informally known as the Yellow Book.

Although construction on the Interstate Highway system continues, it was officially regarded as complete in 1991 (though 1.5 miles of the original planned system remain unconstructed as of 2005 [1]). The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over twelve years; it ended up costing $114 billion, taking 35 years to complete. As of 2004, the system contains over 42,700 miles (68,500 km) of roads, all at least four lanes wide.

Standards
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has defined a set of standards that all new Interstates must meet unless a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is obtained. These standards have become stricter over the years. One almost absolute standard is the controlled access nature of the roads. Except for a few exceptions, traffic lights (and cross traffic in general) are limited to toll booths and ramp meters (metered flow control for lane merging during rush hours).


Speed limits vary according to location. By initial planning, the Interstate system was designed to provide reasonable road safety at speeds of 75 to 80 miles per hour (120 to 130 km/h) except in limited stretches (such as steep mountain passes or urban cores) where many vehicles cannot maintain such speeds. Many western states had high speed limits. Kansas, for example, had a posted limit of 80 mph (130 km/h)[2]. Some states, such as Oregon, defined the limit as whatever was "reasonable and proper", which would not be allowed today (see Montana reference below).

In 1974, the federal government enacted 55 mph (90 km/h) as a gasoline conservation measure in response to the 1973 energy crisis. After the end of the embargo this restriction was continued as a safety measure. It was very unpopular, especially in western states. The 55 mph cap was relaxed in 1987 to allow 65 mph (105 km/h) speeds on rural Interstates if the states so chose. During this interim period, some roads (such as I-335 in Kansas) were specifically designated as Interstates to take advantage of this higher speed limit.[3] Shortly thereafter, 65 mph limits were allowed on roads not numbered as interstates but which were built to interstate standards.

The 55/65 mph caps were eliminated in late 1995, fully returning speed limit control to the states.

Many states maintain several different limits. For example, in California, most interstates are limited to 55 mph within a major city, 65 mph (105 km/h) for most of the suburban highway stretches, and up to 70 mph (115 km/h) throughout the desert and rural stretches of the state. In some states, commercial trucks have a lower speed limit than passenger automobiles. In some mountainous regions, the condition of the roadway mandates a lower speed limit than would otherwise have applied.

While some states have maintained the 65 mph limit, other states have increased the limits to 70 or 75 mph (110 or 120 km/h). Generally, the highest speed limits are found in the South and Southwest, while the lowest are found in the Northeast. Soon after the end of the National Maximum Speed Limit, the state of Montana ended daytime speed limits for automobile traffic on Interstate Highways in the state, instead instructing motorists to maintain a "reasonable and prudent" speed. A few years later, the "reasonable and prudent" law was declared unconstitutional for being too vague and a limit of 75 mph (120 km/h) was enacted in its place.

Texas recently enacted a law allowing 80 MPH speed limits on certain portions of Interstates 10 and 20 in far west Texas. However, these limits are on hold pending further study by the Texas Department of Transportation.

Dual-purpose design
In addition to being designed to support automobile and heavy truck traffic, interstate highways are also designed for use in military and civil defense operations within the United States, particularly troop movements.

One potential civil defense use of the Interstate Highway System is for the emergency evacuation of cities in the event of a potential nuclear war. Although this use has never happened, the Interstate Highway System has been used to facilitate evacuations in the face of hurricanes and other natural disasters. An option for maximizing throughput is to reverse the flow of traffic on one side so that all lanes become outbound lanes. This procedure is known as Contraflow, and could be seen in the evacuations of New Orleans, Louisiana and Houston, Texas prior to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, respectively. Several Interstates in the South, including I-16 in Georgia, I-40 in North Carolina, I-65 in Alabama, I-10 & I-59 in Louisiana, and I-59 in Mississippi, are equipped and signed specifically for contraflow, with crossovers inland after major interchanges to distribute much of the traffic. This is however not limited to Interstates; US 49 from Gulfport to Jackson and State Road 528, in Central Florida, have the same setup.

A widespread but false urban legend states that one out of every five miles of the Interstate highway system must be built straight and flat, so as to be usable by aircraft during times of war.[4] However, the Germans in World War II used the Autobahns for just such a purpose.

While the name implies that these highways cross state lines, many Interstates do not. Rather, it is the system of interstates that connects states. There are interstate highways in Hawaii, funded in the same way as in the other states, but entirely within the populous island of Oahu. They have the designation of H-X, and connect military bases. Similarly, both Alaska and Puerto Rico have public roads that receive funding from the Interstate program, though these routes are not signed as Interstate Highways.


Primary routes
The numbering scheme for the Interstate Highway System (as well as the U.S. Highway System) is coordinated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), though their authority is occasionally trumped by a number written into Federal law. Within the continental United States, primary Interstates (also called main line Interstates or two-digit Interstates) are given one- or two-digit route numbers. Most Interstates have two numbers; there are only three one-digit Interstates in the system: I-4, I-5 and I-8. Within this category, east-west highways are assigned even numbers, and north-south highways are assigned odd-numbers. Odd route numbers increase from west to east, and even numbered routes increase from south to north. Numbers divisible by 5 are intended to be primary routes, carrying traffic long distances. For example, I-5 runs from Canada to Mexico along the west coast (the only interstate to do so) while I-95 runs from Miami north to Canada. In addition, I-10 runs from Los Angeles, California to Jacksonville, Florida while I-90 runs from Seattle to Boston. However, not all primary routes traverse long distances. I-45 runs from Galveston, Texas north to Dallas, Texas, a distance of only 284 miles. It is the only primary route that does not cross state lines (see List of intrastate Interstate Highways).

It should be noted that I-50 and I-60 do not exist (and there are no even-numbered Interstates from 46 to 62), mainly because they would most likely have passed through the same states that already have US 50 and US 60. AASHTO rules discourage Interstate and US Highways with the same number to exist in the same state, although I-24 and US 24 exist at opposite ends of Illinois. Some planned Interstates do not follow this guideline - I-69 will enter Texas (which has US 69), I-74 will have a multiplex with US 74 in North Carolina, and I-41 will do the same with US 41 in Wisconsin.

Several two-digit numbers are shared between two roads at opposite ends of the country, namely I-76, I-84, I-86 and I-88. Some of these were the result of a change in the numbering system in the 1970s; previously letter-suffixed numbers were used for long spurs off primary routes; for example, western I-84 was I-80N, as it went north from I-80. In the 1970s, AASHTO decided to eliminate these; some became additional two-digit routes, while others became three-digit routes (see below). Only two pairs of these exist; I-35 splits into I-35W and I-35E through both the Dallas-Fort Worth and the Minneapolis-St. Paul areas.

Strict adherence to the directional nature of the system results in some amusing oddities. For a ten-mile stretch east of Wytheville, Virginia, the driver can be traveling on both I-81 North and I-77 South at the same time (and vice versa) (see also Wrong-way multiplex).

For the sake of efficiency, some Interstates double up for short or sometimes long distances, as in the example above. Another notable example are Interstates I-90 and I-94, which double and then separate several times as they criss-cross the upper Midwest and Great Plains.


Three-digit Interstates
Three-digit route numbers, consisting of a single digit prefixed to the number of a primary Interstate highway, are used to designate usually short spur or loop routes from their "parent" route, either directly or via another three-digit Interstate. A route that spurs from its parent and ends at an intersection with no other Interstates is given an odd first digit; a route that returns to its parent is given an even first digit. The number given to the first digit of a route that spurs from the parent and ends at another Interstate depends on the state; some consider these routes spurs and give them odd numbers, while others consider them loop-style connectors and give them even numbers.

For instance, I-90 in New York has a full set of three-digit Interstates - I-190, I-290, I-390, I-490, I-590, I-690, I-790, I-890 and I-990. Due to the large number of these routes, they can be repeated in different places along the mainline; no two three-digit Interstates in the same state can share a number.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has a single loop around the entire Metro area. I-94 intersects the loop in two spots and runs directly through it separating it into a northern and southern half. The southern half of it is labeled I-494 while the northern half of it is labeled I-694.

Charlotte, North Carolina has a single loop around the city that intersects with both I-77 and I-85, but the entire loop is known as I-485.

The Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area has several spur routes off of I-95. The area has I-195, I-295, I-495, I-795 and I-895. It also has two routes numbered I-395 (in Baltimore and Washington) and two I-695s (one, the Baltimore Beltway, is signed, the other is a secret designation), as well as an unsigned route called I-595. No I-995 exists anywhere.

New York City has numerous spur routes off of I-78 and I-95, but none of I-78's spur routes actually intersect with I-78.

A three-digit spur off a letter-suffixed two-digit Interstate (see above) was given a number without a letter suffix, except for one case - I-184 in Idaho was I-180N.


Exceptions
Main article: List of gaps in Interstate Highways 
Interstate 238 near Oakland, California is one of two major exceptions to the numbering scheme, as no Interstate 38 exists. This number exists because Interstate 238 replaced a segment of California Highway 238, and no appropriate number was available. The other exception is I-99 in Pennsylvania, which was written into law as I-99 by Pennsylvania Congressman Bud Shuster; I-99 (which is also U.S. Highway 220) is west of several Interstates that are numerically less than 99, and was the nearest available unused two-digit number. Some feel that this violation of the numbering scheme is unnecessary and that a three-digit number such as I-776 would have been more appropriate, if an interstate designation is even necessary, since I-99 is multiplexed with U.S. 220 for its entire length.

Some proposed future Interstate routes have been given similarly non-conforming designations by their legislative proponents. For example, backers of the proposed Third Infantry Division Highway, a route in Georgia and Tennessee, have suggested it be named Interstate 3, in honor of the division for which the highway is named [5].


Other notable examples
I-82 lies fully north of I-84, but I-84 was I-80N when I-82 got its number. 
I-85 diverts west of I-75 (intersecting it in Atlanta, Georgia) 
The following two-digit Interstates change signed direction from their normal (even=east-west, odd=north-south) direction:

I-69 
I-76 (west) 
Two-digit interstates in Hawaii, as well as the "paper" interstates of Alaska and Puerto Rico, are numbered sequentially in order of funding, without regard to the rules on odd and even numbers.

Business Loop and Business Spur Interstates are not subject to any of the Interstate standards. Their designation is simple - a Business Loop heads into a downtown area from its parent and returns to its parent; a Business Spur ends downtown, occasionally continuing from the end of the main Interstate. Business routes can split from either two- or three-digit Interstates, and can be repeated within a state. In a few cases, where an Interstate has been realigned, the old road has been designated a Business Loop because it is not up to standards.


Financing
About 72% (2003 FHWA summary) of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through user fees, primarily gasoline taxes, collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs come out of the federal budget. In the eastern United States, large sections of some Interstate Highways planned or built prior to 1956 are operated as toll roads. The taxes dedicated to the construction and maintenance of highways are often criticized as a direct subsidy from the government to promote and maintain auto-oriented development as we know it today.

The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to pass laws in areas outside of the powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold highway funds, the federal government has been able to force state legislatures to pass a variety of laws. Examples include increasing the legal drinking age to 21, for a number of years reducing the maximum speed limit to 55 miles per hour, passing Megan's Law legislation, lowering the legal intoxication level to 0.08/1000, and other laws. This has proved to be controversial. Those who support this feel that it is a way to provide an impetus to states to pass uniform legislation. Others feel that using highway dollars in this fashion upsets the balance between federal and states' rights in favor of the federal government, and effectively holds funds as ransom in order to coerce state governments into passing laws that would not have otherwised been introduced.

As American suburbs push ever outward, the costs incurred of maintaining freeway infrastructure has started to catch up with the economy, leaving little in the way of funds for new interstate construction[6]. This has led to the proliferation of the toll road (turnpike) as the new method of building limited-access highways in suburban areas. Also, some interstates are being privately maintained now (VMS in Texas, I-35) in order to cut rising costs of maintenance and allow state departments of transportation to focus on serving the fastest growing regions in their respective states. The future of the interstate system as we know it is in question. It is entirely possible that parts of the system will have to be tolled in the future to meet maintenance and expansion demands, as is done with adding toll HOV/HOT lanes in certain cities like Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, and Washington D.C.


Non-chargeable Interstate routes
In addition to Interstate highways financed with federal funds (Chargeable Interstate routes), federal laws allow other highways to be signed as Interstates, if they meet the Interstate Highway standards and that they are logical additions or connections to the System.

Called Non-Chargeable Interstate routes, these additions fall under two categories:

Routes that already meet Interstate standards. They can immediately be signed as Interstates once their proposed number is approved, or can retain with a non-Interstate designation. 
Routes designated as a future part of the system once they are upgraded to Interstate standards. Until then, it cannot be signed as an Interstate yet.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta

This is the War & Peace of thread starters!


----------



## FM 2258

WOW, Awesome thread. I always wondered about the origin of Autoroutes and how they function. When I was younger I wasn't sure why they didn't spread throughout Canada.


Anyway, my vote went to Interstates being more effective.


----------



## mr_storms

havent voted yet, sitll digesting all that info


----------



## doady

Quebec's Autoroutes are very poorly designed... some of the interchanges are very dangerous to use.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta

Nick in Atlanta said:


> This is the War & Peace of thread starters!


I printed the first post out and I have already read 259 pages. I think I'm a third of the way through. Got to get back. It's getting good as Eisenhower was just elected president. Will try to post this weekend.


----------



## gronier

*Infraestructure: EU or USA??*

Which part of the world has best infraestructure, the European Union or the United States of America?? (roads, highways, trains, airports, subways, etcetera)


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

that´s normal.. happens everywhere.. of course not everybody takes NY subway..thats just a force of expression.. to say that the city is "liberal, multiculturalism" blah blah blah..why u see so many cabs in NY? that´s not normal IMO


----------



## Bitxofo

European Union!!
:yes:
Mainly for railways (including all high speed trains) and airports!
kay:


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

by roads or higways:USA 
by public transit or trains:Europe


----------



## DonQui

chiccoplease said:


> PS Getting back to the topic of "everyone taking the NYC subway". When I first came to NY I thought that like 90% of its citizens are black. No, I really did. I only saw other races at work and in my neighborhood. Frankly, my impression was based on what I saw on the subway (and "everyone took the subway"). Then I changed the line and saw Mexicans, then I walked around, then I started work. My verdict after one year was that 80% of people taking the subway were poor minorities.


Your verdict was wrong then.


----------



## DonQui

chiccoplease said:


> Short time? No, I'm not one of the Germans who went to Fiji on vacation for 10 days and want to emigrate there forever.
> 
> From what I have witnessed myself, everyone who can avoid the subway does it by taking the taxi. People with a higher income order a car with a driver. That's the way it goes.
> 
> And please don't sing the song about Spain and Portugal (!) being as developed as Western Europe. Spain might have a few fancy high-speed lines and trains, but getting from A to B is still a nightmare. The transportation network is slow, inefficient and old. Now, what has been created in Madrid and some other large cities is wonderful and I'm sure that the entire transportation network of the country will be amazing in a decade considering the speed it's developing at. But if you ask me what I consider developed when it comes to transport, my answer is Germany, Austria, Switzerland and no other European country even comes close.


:blahblah:

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are the only countries now with developed infrastructure?

I can see the American reputation of hubris perhaps should be applied to other countries.


----------



## DonQui

TeKnO_Lx said:


> that´s normal.. happens everywhere.. of course not everybody takes NY subway..thats just a force of expression.. to say that the city is "liberal, multiculturalism" blah blah blah..why u see so many cabs in NY? that´s not normal IMO


I think you are confusing NYC with Rio.

Of course Donal Trump does not take the subway. But, even if there were 100.000 cabs in Manhattan, given that there are 7 million rides taken on the subway every day, the number of people taking cabs is chump change in comparison.


----------



## DonQui

premutos said:


> don qui is a american-nuyorican who considers himself spaniard
> 
> there is something u dont see everyday
> 
> hahaha just kidding donqui.


Hilarious, where do you get your material! 

:rofl:

:|


----------



## OettingerCroat

The great majority of US roads are absolutely falling apart. Even the total amount of roads by size (as in, density of the network) can't compete with the EU.

EU wins the road question.

Railways in the modern sense are completely nonexistant in 90% of the US.

EU wins the rail questions.

The US has more massive airports, but EU ones are organized infinitely better.

If you simply look at the infrastructure aspect, the US wins the airport question.

The EU is lightyears ahead in the mass transit aspect. I can't state it any simpler.

EU wins the public transport question.

OVERALL

EU-US:

3 to 1


----------



## Frungy

Wealthy suburbanites take the commuter rail in the US.

Subways and urban transit are a mixed bag in the US- buses are predominantly used by lower income people who can't afford a car. Rail is used by everyone. Obviously you won't see Manhattan businessmen in the Harlem or Bronx parts of the subway, but they're all over midtown-lower Manhattan.

This poll is irrelevant anyway, since Japan clearly has the best infrastructure.


----------



## Alfa-Omega

Remember the numbers for EU
3,976,372 km² area
459,500,000 people

and USA
9,631,418 km² area
298,290,000 people

you can not compare, USA is better.


----------



## snot

chiccoplease said:


> And please don't sing the song about Spain and Portugal (!) being as developed as Western Europe. Spain might have a few fancy high-speed lines and trains, but getting from A to B is still a nightmare. The transportation network is slow, inefficient and old. Now, what has been created in Madrid and some other large cities is wonderful and I'm sure that the entire transportation network of the country will be amazing in a decade considering the speed it's developing at. But if you ask me what I consider developed when it comes to transport, my answer is Germany, Austria, Switzerland and no other European country even comes close.



:weirdo: 
German public transport is excellent but not a big difference with Netherlands, France, Belgium and yes Spain and Portugal. They come very close. Germany, Switzerlandor Austria can't beat France TGV network for example.
Do something about your 'we are the center of the world' thinking.
And with your false statements about Portugal and Spain you are stuck far in the eigthees.


----------



## Jue

Definitely the EU. The EU has both great rail and great roads. No part of the US seems to have both, and in many areas neither.


----------



## capslock

I don't really have enough experience of the US to know for certain, and as others have stated it's hardly like for like in terms of size and population density.

However, my distinct impression is that the EU has the edge, just in terms of number of options available and how widely available they are, certainly in terms of rail coverage anyway


----------



## chiccoplease

DonQui said:


> :blahblah:
> 
> Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are the only countries now with developed infrastructure?
> 
> I can see the American reputation of hubris perhaps should be applied to other countries.


You should work for a tabloid. Maybe your major talent is to twist other people's words around, don't you think? First you accuse me me of comparing the US to Poland, now of saying that only those three countries have developed infrastructure. Give me a break.


----------



## empersouf

EU!


----------



## empersouf

I'm planning a trip from Netherlands to Morocco, by rail. Rotterdam-Paris 3 hours(500km), Paris-Bordeaux(2hours 500km)-Irun(+2 hours 200km). 7 hours to reach the Spanish boarder. Nighttrain to Madrid, 500km almost nine hours! And than, AVE to Cordoba, 1,5 hours. 250km. 250km to Algeciras left more than 6 hours trip by RAIL!!!
Spanish Railways are underdevelopped if you compare it with France, Germany etc etc. I think for Portugal too. Eventough Spain is catching up. Spain is developping really fast, 35 years ago they were as poor as Morocco was. But now they are a very good developped country. 4th biggest aiport of Europe by passenger numbers!


----------



## chiccoplease

snot said:


> :weirdo:
> German public transport is excellent but not a big difference with Netherlands, France, Belgium and yes Spain and Portugal. They come very close. Germany, Switzerlandor Austria can't beat France TGV network for example.
> Do something about your 'we are the center of the world' thinking.
> And with your false statements about Portugal and Spain you are stuck far in the eigthees.


For someone who is really mature you really should desist from getting personal. Have you ever read my posts glorifying everything that's German?

However, when it comes to the topic of infrastructure I indeed think that Germany does it best in Europe. Seeing new fancy projects in soutern France and Spain actually raised doubts about my theory. But after travelling a little more I'm still sure that no one has quite reached the German (Austrian and Swiss) standards in that department. 

Small countries with indeed awesome networks like the Netherlands and Belgium should rather be compared to Switzerland and Austria instead of to the large Germany. The service in the alpine countries is far more frequent, vehicles are more modern, it's also very safe which can't be said about the Benelux countries. Also, Austria and Switzerland certainly have more difficuilties maintaining their networks due to the geographical conditions. We should also take into account that Belgium and Austria are some of the most densely populated countries in the world.

It's true - no European country can beat the French TGV network. Especially the Paris-Marseille line is just breathtaking. However, you profit from the TGV if you only take the routes it serves. Taking a regional feeder train to, say, Bordeaux and then the TGV to Paris is quite slow. The overall rail service is very infrequent in France. Germany might only have a few real high-speed tracks, but the service density is amazing. You can get up at night in Soutern Germany and be like, I wanna go to the Frankfurt/Cologne airport right now. And the ICE will take you there. In fact, you'll probably have this opportunity several times each hour. The transfer system is a logistical masterpiece and I haven't seen anything similar in France. 

It's also true that France has a good public transportation system, but it's tarnished by countless strikes. In cities like Toulouse, there are several strikes a day. The SNCF isn't strike-free, either.

Then there is the road network, best I've ever seen. But usually it's cheaper to take the plane.


----------



## Justme

It's such a pity that a couple of people have ruined this thread by rude comments, and chiccoplease, to be honest some of the things you write are simply rubbish.

Anyway, for those who feel the US has terrible urban public transport, they are completely wrong. Yes, on average public transport is more developed in a typical EU city, but that is not to say that many American cities don't have excellent public transport.

The following cities have a metro system in the US.

Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

Granted, this is far short of the EU, but it is still something, and considering one of them, New York, is one of the largest in the world, and another Chicago is one of the most celebrated, it does put it at least to a level that shouldn't be described as "appalling" as was suggested in a previous post.

Many of these cities have good commuter and suburban rail, again, not as developed as an average EU city, but it doesn't warrant scoffing.

As far as long distance rail transport, such services do exist, and some, like the New York to Philadelphia are quite adequate. However, it is certainly not as advanced as the EU network. This is true, but it also has to be remembered that distances between major cities in the US are generally longer, and these long distances don't work in the favour for rail transport.

Still on rail, I find it rediculous for the comments made on the Spanish or Portuguese systems. In my experience, Spain and Portugal have an excellent rail network, both for Urban Areas and for Intercity Travel. Barcelona and Madrid's Metro is equal to any Metro in Germany with only Berlin having an edge on Barcelona (but not Madrid). In fact, many rail sites would point out that only four cities in Germany have a proper metro system, the rest being a combination of metro/light rail - this compares to Spain which also has four full metro systems. 

Commuter rail services are also excellent, and although not as comprehensive as a typical S-bahn system, they are still very good. Lisbon also has a brilliant commuter/suburban rail network, and both countries are expanding their networks at a very fast rate.

Air travel comparisons between the EU and the US is far more difficult. To be honest, I would consider this a tie. The massive proliferation of low cost airlines in Europe over the last few years has really changed the scene in Europe's skies. Prior to this, I would have given the edge to the US, however now it seems to be tied to me.

Expressways is also another difficult one. The general consensus is that the US has the largest Interstate system in the world, which is entirely true. But this is of cause reflected by the enormous size of the country. The EU is much smaller than the US, 3,976,372km² to 9,161,923km². Yet the EU has 56,704km of expressway to the US's 74,950km, making the EU one far more dense. Add to that, the excellent Autobahns of Germany with large sections with no speed limits, the edge to me seems to go the the EU. However, the US has the most comprehensive "free" expressway system as many of the European ones have tolls.

Can we please try and keep this discussion pleasant? Both regions have excellent infrastructure, obviously people are going to have differing opinions in which they feel is better.

However, if you start to make stupid comments putting one down drastically, not only will it probably result in this thread being closed, but it will also make you look like a total dickhead.


----------



## chiccoplease

Just me, would you kindly point out the rubbish parts of my posts? And even if you disagree with me, please don't forget your own legendary Frankfurt bashing post ("You can't even pay with your EC card at Lidl!")


----------



## Lee

It is pretty obvious that Europe as a whole has better rail and public transportation than North America (although there are certain cities that are just as good), but that's because Europe really needs it, while the US doesn't with the invention of the airplane and its unique lifestyle. At one time, the US had by far the best rail system in the world-because they needed it. Since those days are gone, rail travel is no longer a big thing, but it remains so in Europe. Having said that, America's airtravel and highway system is unmatched by any group of nations, let alone a single one. Just look at how many US airports make the top 20 in world's busiest. It's atonishing. Almost every small town in the U.S. now has an airport with feeder traffic to a larger aiport, with many frequencies. The U.S. air domestic market is larger than the rest of the international market combined (or almost). That should tell you something about its efficient use. 

In the future, as the nation gets more dense, we will have to invest more in rail, but as we speak, the plane does most of the work.

BTW, the comment about how Low-Cost carriers have been better established in Europe is wrong. LCC were pioneered in the U.S. and its only now that Europe has copied. Also, the notion that U.S. highways are "falling apart" is rediculous, and proof that people will take this opportunity to bash America no matter what.


----------



## Lee

Jue said:


> I'm actually on Hillcroft, but I don't bother with that exit. Those red lights keep me waiting until the Year of the Rooster.
> 
> Beautiful, inefficient infrastructure:


If it were ineffecient, the US economy would be likewise given that infrastructure is a large component in long run aggregate supply.


----------



## Jue

Lee said:


> You've gone too far and have exposed your pathetic anti-american disposition. Fact is, its infrastructure is anything but pathetic. You can't blame us for not having railroad travel, when it is well known that it simply isn't feasible. Our infrastructure follows our needs, and obvioulsy it has done one heck of a job. Congress just passed a highway bill valued at $100 billion, which is more than the GDP of most nations.


I thought it was $280 billion?


> If it were ineffecient, the US economy would be likewise given that infrastructure is a large component in long run aggregate supply.


The picture is only an illustration of rush hour traffic. The economy functions just fine during the other 20 hours of the day, when trucks and UPS vans and the whatnot can cruise along freely.

Highway networks in the US are efficient on the aggregate whole, just not for the individual heading to work.


----------



## Lee

Jue said:


> The picture is only an illustration of rush hour traffic. The economy functions just fine during the other 20 hours of the day, when trucks and UPS vans and the whatnot can cruise along freely.
> 
> Highway networks in the US are efficient on the aggregate whole, just not for the individual heading to work.


Are you telling me there are no traffic jams in Europe? :lol: Madrid, in my personal experience, is not much better than any normal US city, even though it has one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world.


----------



## Pindakaas

Highways are probably more widespread in the US. Europe though doesnt need them as much. The public transport is just better in Europe.

Theres other Infrastructures too. One exampe is sewers. Another is dikes and dams, and we all know that they arent too good in the US.


----------



## Jue

Lee said:


> Are you telling me there are no traffic jams in Europe? :lol: Madrid, in my personal experience, is not much better than any normal US city, even though it has one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world.


In Europe people have an alternative to traffic jams, at least in most urban areas. Here, good luck.


----------



## Insignia

Lee said:


> Are you telling me there are no traffic jams in Europe? :lol: Madrid, in my personal experience, is not much better than any normal US city, even though it has one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world.


Your post is so hypocritical. You state that Madrid is


> not much better than any normal US city


and you admit Madrid has


> one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world.


The Irony of this post. :runaway: 

Or on which count? Transportation? 

So you are suggesting Madrid which has "one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world" is not better than any Normal US City?


----------



## zergcerebrates

EU is way better. I live in the States I know and I've been to 10 European countries.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Bouwendoetgoed said:


> Highways are probably more widespread in the US. Europe though doesnt need them as much. The public transport is just better in Europe.
> 
> Theres other Infrastructures too. One exampe is sewers. Another is dikes and dams, and we all know that they arent too good in the US.


and levees :lol:


----------



## Paddington

Cheap shots against New Orleans and generalizations about American dikes and dams? What a bunch of turd burglars. :bash:


----------



## jmancuso

Jue said:


> I'm actually on Hillcroft, but I don't bother with that exit. Those red lights keep me waiting until the Year of the Rooster.


hillcroft is still pretty close and that transtar map reminds me how much houston traffic sucks. 59 south is a real drag during rush hour.


----------



## Lee

Jue said:


> In Europe people have an alternative to traffic jams, at least in most urban areas. Here, good luck.


Not if you live outside the city-center, which many do.


----------



## Lee

Insignia said:


> Your post is so hypocritical. You state that Madrid is
> 
> 
> and you admit Madrid has
> 
> 
> The Irony of this post. :runaway:
> 
> Or on which count? Transportation?
> 
> So you are suggesting Madrid which has "one of the greatest public transportation networks in the world" is not better than any Normal US City?


I am saying its traffic jams and congestion are just as bad. Yes, indeed. Ask anyone who lives there, and they will tell you that traffic is terrible.


----------



## Lee

Bouwendoetgoed said:


> Theres other Infrastructures too. One exampe is sewers. Another is dikes and dams, and we all know that they arent too good in the US.


Lets see how any other city can survive with a Cat 4 hurricane and an old levee created 100 years ago! How are dams not good here? Hoover Dam is one of the most impressive in the world, and well ahead of its time.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Paddington said:


> Cheap shots against New Orleans and generalizations about American dikes and dams? What a bunch of turd burglars. :bash:


yes, absolutely, I'm going to generalize. The US has demostrated it puts little money into building world-class infrastructure and even less care in maintaining after its built. New orleans levees are the prime example of American ignorance and slopiness. it is ABSOLUTELY a fair example. new orleans was an American icon and extremely important to the United States. Face it; it was. Don't say it was able to afford being poorly protected because it was unimportant, because it was a major port and brought enormous tourism revenues to the region.

The entire area was home to over 500,000 people. it was protected by walls of soil. SOIL. in other areas, it was simply slabs of conrete lined up side-to-side. 

a staple of American culture, protected by something 3 year olds build in a sandbox. whichever way you turn it, that was unacceptable.

had the govt acted, all the people could have been saved, but they intentionally let the immobile and impoverished African American population in harms way, BUT THATS A SEPERATE STORY ALTOGETHER.

anyways back to the levees:


*Here's how the British hold back the waters from flooding London:*










*And the Dutch solution to protecting an entire nation that mostly rests below sea level:*










*The Italians are defending their city on the sea, Venice:*










*And... 
Here's how the richest, most powerful and technologically advanced
nation on earth protected against the long-forecasted flooding of New Orleans*


----------



## OettingerCroat

Lee said:


> Lets see how any other city can survive with a Cat 4 hurricane and an old levee created 100 years ago! How are dams not good here? Hoover Dam is one of the most impressive in the world, and well ahead of its time.


THATS ONE ITEM!!!! THAT DOESNT MEAN USA HAS GOOD DAMS. the rest of the US's could be built just as good by a well-motivated beaver.

IF SOMALIA BUILT THE MOST MODERN EXPRESSWAY IN THE WORLD, BUT IT WAS ONLY 5 KM LONG, THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS HIGHWAYS ARE GOOD!!!!!!


----------



## Lee

OettingerCroat said:


> THATS ONE ITEM!!!! THAT DOESNT MEAN USA HAS GOOD DAMS. the rest of the US's could be built just as good by a well-motivated beaver.
> 
> IF SOMALIA BUILT THE MOST MODERN EXPRESSWAY IN THE WORLD, BUT IT WAS ONLY 5 KM LONG, THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS HIGHWAYS ARE GOOD!!!!!!


And who are you to say that the US doesn't have good dams? Rest assured, it does.


----------



## jmancuso

OettingerCroat said:


> yes, absolutely, I'm going to generalize. The US has demostrated it puts little money into building world-class infrastructure and even less care in maintaining after its built. New orleans levees are the prime example of American ignorance and slopiness. it is ABSOLUTELY a fair example. new orleans was an American icon and extremely important to the United States. Face it; it was. Don't say it was able to afford being poorly protected because it was unimportant, because it was a major port and brought enormous tourism revenues to the region.
> 
> The entire area was home to over 500,000 people. it was protected by walls of soil. SOIL. in other areas, it was simply slabs of conrete lined up side-to-side.
> 
> a staple of American culture, protected by something 3 year olds build in a sandbox. whichever way you turn it, that was unacceptable.
> 
> had the govt acted, all the people could have been saved, but they intentionally let the immobile and impoverished African American population in harms way, BUT THATS A SEPERATE STORY ALTOGETHER.



as much as i would like to disagree, i can't. we americans prefer to put our tax dollars towards things like cruise missiles and fighter planes rather than clean up new orleans.


----------



## zergling

I feel sorry for the US for having a sprawl culture. Sooner or later the issue of sustainability will come to haunt this great nation.


----------



## Lee

jmancuso said:


> as much as i would like to disagree, i can't. we americans prefer to put our tax dollars towards things like cruise missiles and fighter planes rather than clean up new orleans.


Yeah, I guess those $80 billion allocated for relief means absolutely nothing :sleepy:


----------



## premutos

hahaha Lee I know I am such an anti-American and I hate Americans so much that I live in San Diego and I was born in NYC. HAHAHAA


----------



## DonQui

zergling said:


> I feel sorry for the US for having a sprawl culture. Sooner or later the issue of sustainability will come to haunt this great nation.


Canada don't do much better ya know.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Lee said:


> Lets see how any other city can survive with a Cat 4 hurricane and an old levee created 100 years ago! How are dams not good here? Hoover Dam is one of the most impressive in the world, and well ahead of its time.


it was a Cat. 5 hurricane, and the levees were 40 years old. in 1960's an equally powerful Cat. 5 hurricane hit the region and destroyed all the levees THAT time, so the levees are no older than 40 years.

and your comment PERFECTLY defines america's problem! americans build something once and act as if what they built is a permanent solution! WRONG!!! when it gets outdated, it must be modernized or replaced. you can't modernize dirt walls protecting a half-million city, and the country is FAR too conservative to invest in the region and build a state-of-the-art levee system, so they say, "meh **** it, if it aint broke, don't fix it. hasn't sprung a leak yet, so best not worry about it. and if it does, throw some bubble gum onto it."

had the countries shown above not thought SECOND LEVEL, which is an impossible concept for americans to grasp, they would look like New Orleans too.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Lee said:


> Yeah, I guess those $80 billion allocated for relief means absolutely nothing :sleepy:


it went to trailers for the victims to live in. these trailers are now sitting in arkansas, and haven't yet been delivered.

it went to cleaning up the destruction. outside of downtown, STILL TODAY it looks like the city got carpet bombed. shit, 10 months later, refrigerators are still hanging in the trees.

so yeah, as of now, those $80 million DO NOT mean anything, you are correct.


----------



## OettingerCroat

premutos said:


> hahaha Lee I know I am such an anti-American and I hate Americans so much that I live in San Diego and I was born in NYC. HAHAHAA


yah and i was born in Oakland and lived all over California, hehehehe


----------



## Lee

OettingerCroat said:


> it was a Cat. 5 hurricane, and the levees were 40 years old. in 1960's an equally powerful Cat. 5 hurricane hit the region and destroyed all the levees THAT time, so the levees are no older than 40 years.


No, they were simply re-patched (unfortunately). 



> and your comment PERFECTLY defines america's problem! americans build something once and act as if what they built is a permanent solution! WRONG!!! when it gets outdated, it must be modernized or replaced. you can't modernize dirt walls protecting a half-million city, and the country is FAR too conservative to invest in the region and build a state-of-the-art levee system, so they say, "meh **** it, if it aint broke, don't fix it. hasn't sprung a leak yet, so best not worry about it. and if it does, throw some bubble gum onto it."


Conservative? Why didn't any liberal Democrats say anything about replacing the levees before the hurricane?



> had the countries shown above not thought SECOND LEVEL, which is an impossible concept for americans to grasp, they would look like New Orleans too.


That's impossible to interpret, given that none of the countries get hurricanes, let alone many severe storms.


----------



## premutos

Let's pray to God an earthquacke don't hit LA during rush hour and send all those SUPER MODERN, ULTRA-ENORMOUS MILES AND MILES AND MILES OF SECOND AND THIRD AND FOURTH STORE HIGHWAYS to the ground.

I don't know who has had the courage and humble patience among the people on this website to drive thru LA during rush hour!! YOU CAN READ AN ENTIRE BOOK SITTING INSIDE YOUR CAR WHILE WAITING FOR TRAFFIC TO MOVE.

But something liek that occurring would be a MAJOR CATASTROPHE.

This country's cities are not functional, they really arent, the only place on the entire United states where you can hop on a train and go pretty much every where is NYC, other than that the railway stations in other cities are always located in areas where they are not needed, on areas where they are hardly used, or in areas that are very unnaccesible, basically you would get off in that station and you would have to drive a car from there for a few minutes to go to a more estrategic place.

Not to mention the COUNTLESS NUMBER OF CITIES AND SMALL TOWNS THAT DO NOT EVEN HAVE A RAILWAY STATION, OR A HIGHWAY NEARBY.
There are places in the US where you have to drive 45 minutes to go to the closest highway.

Sprawls are really gonna become a nightmare in the near future, America is gonna look back and say, wow!!! we didn't need these GIGANTIC SPRAWLS we could have built smaller more efficient cities!!!


----------



## Lee

OettingerCroat said:


> it went to trailers for the victims to live in. these trailers are now sitting in arkansas, and haven't yet been delivered.
> 
> it went to cleaning up the destruction. outside of downtown, STILL TODAY it looks like the city got carpet bombed. shit, 10 months later, refrigerators are still hanging in the trees.
> 
> so yeah, as of now, those $80 million DO NOT mean anything, you are correct.


You said that the Fed. Gov't hasn't payed a cent. It has on a grand level. New Orleans is still a mess because many do want to come back, meaning that all the debris is not a top priority. I don't know where the money is going, but what I do know is that somebody is getting it!


----------



## premutos

oh in New Orleans there are still rotten corpses in certain parts of the city that are STILL flooded.

Imagine this country trying to rebuild its cities like Europe did back in the day right after world war II

and Canada is pretty much the same story, horrible infraestructure!!!


----------



## DonQui

Lee, I think as admirable as it is, you are fighting a losing battle.

Our infrastructure, in general, frankly sucks. Like jmancuso said, we spend our money on military and leave our infrastructure in tatters. As good as New York's system is, if it were in another country, like France, it would be even better.

We have our good points, we have our strong points. But infrastructure frankly is not one of them.


----------



## premutos

Even in "developing" Colombia I was able to stay in a small town 120 miles from the largest city, with only 2,000 people...... and every day I was able to catch the local bus that leaves every 15 minutes during the day, and every hour during the night, and then hop on a train that took me to the downtown area of Medellin a city with 2 million people in a matter of 1 hour, without having to deal with highways and traffic like I do here in FIRST WORLD CALIFORNIA.

Here in California to travel a distance of 120 miles you would have to drive for almost 2 hours and half and during rush hour it would take you an eternity.


----------



## jmancuso

Lee said:


> Yeah, I guess those $80 billion allocated for relief means absolutely nothing :sleepy:



they can allocate a trillion dollars but new orleans hasn't seen much $$ as of yet and it's been 7/8 months already. talk is cheap.


----------



## AdamDeLonge

EU


----------



## Chalaco

The European Union all the way. I've never been there but...it has to be better than waiting for a bus that comes by every hour or so. Or at least that happens in my sprawl city near Ft. Lauderdale. Not even in Canada do you have to wait so long for the bus. 

The U.S. has pretty nice roads by the way that keep eating getting more lanes.....and even with more lanes they still get packed.  Booo.


----------



## [email protected]

Definitely the EU!

The USA has probably more roads, but they are often in a pretty bad shape outside of the major metro areas. And public transportation in the US is nothing else than a bad joke. I've used Amtrak pretty often and they are 1. extremely slow 2. never on time 3. extremely expensive; no comparison to european HST networks.

Also cities of the size of Houston and Phoenix don't even have a subway there, just a crappy bus system. Something like that would be unthinkable in Europe.

It will be funny to see what happens to those cities and american suburbia in general when the oil crisis strikes big time!


----------



## DonQui

[email protected] said:


> Definitely the EU!
> 
> The USA has probably more roads, but they are often in a pretty bad shape outside of the major metro areas. And public transportation in the US is nothing else than a bad joke. I've used Amtrak pretty often and they are 1. extremely slow 2. never on time 3. extremely expensive; no comparison to european HST networks.
> 
> Also cities of the size of Houston and Phoenix don't even have a subway there, just a crappy bus system. Something like that would be unthinkable in Europe.
> 
> It will be funny to see what happens to those cities and american suburbia in general when the oil crisis strikes big time!


Overall, I agree with this post, but what makes you think that Germany is immune to peak oil? The shit will hit the fan there as well, it will just hit us harder.


----------



## jmancuso

houston has a surface light rail, albiet a very short one but a subway would not be a good idea in a city barely above sea-level


----------



## DonQui

jmancuso said:


> houston has a surface light rail, albiet a very short one but a subway would not be a good idea in a city barely above sea-level


Well Manhattan is an island, you can't get much closer to sea level than that.


----------



## [email protected]

DonQui said:


> Overall, I agree with this post, but what makes you think that Germany is immune to peak oil? The shit will hit the fan there as well, it will just hit us harder.


No country is immune to that of course. But here in Germany basically every city with a population of more than 100,000 has a light rail or a tram and I don't know of any village with a population of 500! people that doesn't have a bus connection(and if its just twice a day)


----------



## Lee

DonQui said:


> Lee, I think as admirable as it is, you are fighting a losing battle.
> 
> Our infrastructure, in general, frankly sucks. Like jmancuso said, we spend our money on military and leave our infrastructure in tatters. As good as New York's system is, if it were in another country, like France, it would be even better.
> 
> We have our good points, we have our strong points. But infrastructure frankly is not one of them.


It may suck for somebody who thinks our country should be transformed to their taste, but for how it stands, its infrastructure is does not suck. As I already posted, we are good at what we need. We are not going to suddenly build huge swaths of rail just so that we could be "number 1." Now I do think that we should invest in greater public transportation, and infact, Congress did act on it with this new highway bill. However, when you consider that US airports handle more people than the rest of the world combined, it becomes pretty clear that US infrastructure does its job and gets people around the way it needs to, and that's what counts when considering the economic benefits.


----------



## LtBk

premutos said:


> Even in "developing" Colombia I was able to stay in a small town 120 miles from the largest city, with only 2,000 people...... and every day I was able to catch the local bus that leaves every 15 minutes during the day, and every hour during the night, and then hop on a train that took me to the downtown area of Medellin a city with 2 million people in a matter of 1 hour, without having to deal with highways and traffic like I do here in FIRST WORLD CALIFORNIA.
> 
> Here in California to travel a distance of 120 miles you would have to drive for almost 2 hours and half and during rush hour it would take you an eternity.


I thought Colomiba didnt' had any trains.


----------



## DonQui

jmancuso said:


> i think i will do us all a favor and put this thread out of its misery. it's an EU vs. US thread.


:yes:


----------



## nysgreg

DonQui said:


> What a childish post. Especially because NAFTA and the EU are just as comparable as the USA versus the EU.:crazy2:


u just proved my point... the USA alone as a country still holds weight against 25 wannabe superpowers put together


----------



## DonQui

nysgreg said:


> u just proved my point... the USA alone as a country still holds weight against 25 wannabe superpowers put together


:blahblah:

Where in Jesusland are you from?


----------



## DrJoe

Madrid makes just about anyone look silly.

Look Toronto has a yearly ridership of over 430 million. For a city of 2.5 million that is pretty good. I don't know the numbers for the metro.


----------



## nysgreg

jmancuso said:


> i think i will do us all a favor and put this thread out of its misery. it's an EU vs. US thread.


thats what it was all about anyways... in guise of discussing infrastructure of course


----------



## polako

Infrastructure goes with density, so EU wins.


----------



## DonQui

DrJoe said:


> Madrid makes just about anyone look silly.
> 
> Look Toronto has a yearly ridership of 430 million. For a city of 2.5 million that is pretty good. I don't know the numbers for the metro.


Agreed. :yes:

I think that especially by North American standards, Toronto is certainly up there with New York in terms of the quality and quantity of its infrastructure. I just think we need to move beyond our North American standards and start emulating what other countries do. 

That was my only point, don't take it as I was knocking Canada or Toronto.


----------



## nysgreg

DonQui said:


> :blahblah:
> 
> Where in Jesusland are you from?


Staten Island, NY


so you wanna speak infrastructure, not only highways? well come visit my city and tell me that americans don't have a lick of infrastructure.... especially in a city where some workers don't even see daylight from working underground tunnels, aqueducts, etc...


----------



## OettingerCroat

polako said:


> Infrastructure goes with density, so EU wins.


this is very true also.


----------



## DonQui

nysgreg said:


> Staten Island, NY
> 
> 
> so you wanna speak infrastructure, not only highways? well come visit my city and tell me that americans don't have a lick of infrastructure.... especially in a city where some workers don't even see daylight from working underground tunnels, aqueducts, etc...


Should have let you secede and move to Jersey. Now that our trash dump is closed, little need to keep a little swath of suburbia that pretends to be part of the urban fabric of NYC.

:jk:

In all seriousness, how can you, like me, be a New Yorker and try to argue that our infrastructure is remotely comparable to Europe's? You know just like I know that our city is an island within the American sea of highways and SUVs.

:no:


----------



## OettingerCroat

nysgreg said:


> Staten Island, NY
> 
> 
> so you wanna speak infrastructure, not only highways? well come visit my city and tell me that americans don't have a lick of infrastructure.... especially in a city where some workers don't even see daylight from working underground tunnels, aqueducts, etc...


new york by population = 8-9% of population of the US
new york by size = 0.00008% of the US (seriously it is)

so you know what nysgreg, its fine and dandy that NYC has good infrastructure.

about 90% of the rest of the US doesnt.

:cheers2:


----------



## DonQui

OettingerCroat said:


> new york by population = 8-9% of population of the US
> new york by size = 0.00008% of the US (seriously it is)
> 
> so you know what nysgreg, its fine and dandy that NYC has good infrastructure.
> 
> about 90% of the rest of the US doesnt.
> 
> :cheers2:


:yes:

BTW, I hope you mean the metro area right?


----------



## OettingerCroat

donqui, dont worry about nysgreg, he's probably never left his island.


----------



## OettingerCroat

DonQui said:


> :yes:
> 
> BTW, I hope you mean the metro area right?


yes of course. cause nyc itself would be EVEN smaller LOL


----------



## nysgreg

DonQui said:


> Should have let you secede and move to Jersey. Now that our trash dump is closed, little need to keep a little swath of suburbia that pretends to be part of the urban fabric of NYC.
> 
> :jk:
> 
> In all seriousness, how can you, like me, be a New Yorker and try to argue that our infrastructure is remotely comparable to Europe's? You know just like I know that our city is an island within the American sea of highways and SUVs.
> 
> :no:


because it is in our blood to argue  
tell me you've never argued with a cabbie on the fastest way to get from point a to point b???


----------



## DonQui

OettingerCroat said:


> donqui, dont worry about nysgreg, he's probably never left his island.


:lol: Impossible, no way that Staten Island is self-sufficient. 

But you bring up an interesting point. Curiously, those people that go on and on about US superiority (in general, but we are talking abot infrastructure here) are actually the ones who have never ventured beyond our borders to see how other countries approach their infrastructure problems. I have been to London, I have been to Madrid, I have been to Paris, I have been to Barcelona, and Toronto, and Montreal. And each of those cities has infrastructure that would make US cities of comparable size weep in terms of quality and diversity of infrastructure.


----------



## nysgreg

OettingerCroat said:


> donqui, dont worry about nysgreg, he's probably never left his island.


ASSume all you want... lived in east NY which is where? oh thats right BROOKLYN and also lived in south ozone park.... where is that again??? oh thats right QUEENS...

oh yeah... I never leave the island but I gotta take the ferry almost daily to battery park right? :bash: 


don't hate because you can't even afford to pay the $9 toll on the verrazzano


----------



## OettingerCroat

nysgreg said:


> because it is in our blood to argue
> tell me you've never argued with a cabbie on the fastest way to get from point a to point b???



:hahano:

of course ppl argue with cabbies. all ppl with mouths do. not just newyorkers.


----------



## OettingerCroat

nysgreg said:


> ASSume all you want... lived in east NY which is where? oh thats right BROOKLYN and also lived in south ozone park.... where is that again??? oh thats right QUEENS...
> 
> oh yeah... I never leave the island but I gotta take the ferry almost daily to battery park right? :bash:
> 
> 
> don't hate because you can't even afford to pay the $9 toll on the verrazzano


you cant afford $50 dollars to cross all the bridges in the bay area either buddy.

or our $3.50 gas.

:cheers2:


----------



## OettingerCroat

DonQui said:


> :lol: Impossible, no way that Staten Island is self-sufficient.
> 
> But you bring up an interesting point. Curiously, those people that go on and on about US superiority (in general, but we are talking abot infrastructure here) are actually the ones who have never ventured beyond our borders to see how other countries approach their infrastructure problems. I have been to London, I have been to Madrid, I have been to Paris, I have been to Barcelona, and Toronto, and Montreal. And each of those cities has infrastructure that would make US cities of comparable size weep in terms of quality and diversity of infrastructure.


EXACTLY!!!! whereas me, and as far as i can tell, you as well, have seen the world and know that US infrastructure is truly nothing special! considering how powerful the US is, in all honesty, US infrastructure is a mockery.


----------



## jmancuso

OettingerCroat said:


> EXACTLY!!!! whereas me, and as far as i can tell, you as well, have seen the world and know that US infrastrucre is truly nothing special! considering how powerful the US is, in all honesty, US infrastructure is a mockery.



read my comments about how our $$ goes towards missiles and tanks instead of the potholes that are tearing up the shocks on my truck on the corner of san felipe and post oak. i wan't dubya to personally to come out here and fix that fucking pothole.

and madrid's metro system is insane, btw


----------



## DrJoe

DonQui said:


> Agreed. :yes:
> 
> I think that especially by North American standards, Toronto is certainly up there with New York in terms of the quality and quantity of its infrastructure. I just think we need to move beyond our North American standards and start emulating what other countries do.
> 
> That was my only point, don't take it as I was knocking Canada or Toronto.


I respectively disagree. Inner-city Toronto can stand up to many Euro cities with its 300 km of light rail and 70 km of subway. When you get out into the 'burbs is when you notice a big difference but then the slack is picked up by highways(lets not get one-dimensional, they are still very important)


----------



## OettingerCroat

jmancuso said:


> read my comments about how our $$ goes towards missiles and tanks instead of the potholes that are tearing up the shocks on my truck on the corner of san felipe and post oak. i wan't dubya to personally to come out here and fix that fucking pothole.
> 
> and madrid's metro system is insane, btw


yah i know i read it, i even said how you are right. i agree 100%.


----------



## OettingerCroat

DrJoe said:


> I respectively disagree. Inner-city Toronto can stand up to many Euro cities with its 300 km of light rail and 70 km of subway. When you get out into the 'burbs is when you notice a big difference but then the slack is picked up by highways(lets not get one-dimensional, they are still very important)


yes toronto does hold its own rather well, i must admit. its still not paris.


----------



## great prairie

I-275westcoastfl said:


> by roads or higways:USA
> by public transit or trains:Europe


I agree


----------



## Justme

jmancuso said:


> yeah but manhattan is a giant rock where houston is mud and clay...and sinking. yay!


Your point is very valid. The construction of an underground system does indeed depend on the ground below. Certainly, some types of ground make it more difficult and expensive to build subways. A perfect example of this is London. If you look at a map of London, you can see most of the network is North of the river. The reason for this is because the clay and sand in the south makes it very expensive to bore tunnels. London however got around this by building the massive above ground network which can be seen in the South.

However, where there is a will, there is a way. Venice is currently constructing it's first subway line, which is quite remarkable considering the difficulties involved. The entire line will be in the lagoon areas with connecting foot tunnels to land points.

I am also surprised that Houston has such a problem with soil considering their number of excellent skyscrapers. These buildings needs good strong foundations.


----------



## Paddington

Infrastructure is used to support the economy. America's GDP per capita is a lot more than that of the EU as a whole, and more than all but one or two European countries individually. So I don't know how you can say that America's infrastructure is inferior to Europe's, when it is capable of supporting such a massive economy.


----------



## premutos

Paddington said:


> Infrastructure is used to support the economy. America's GDP per capita is a lot more than that of the EU as a whole, and more than all but one or two European countries individually. So I don't know how you can say that America's infrastructure is inferior to Europe's, when it is capable of supporting such a massive economy.


zzzzzZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZ zzzzZZZZZZZZ


----------



## DrJoe

If we are still talking NAFTA here is some Canadian freight infrastructure.


----------



## Lee

OettingerCroat said:


> the airports carry more crap because to get to their final destination, there are no rails to take them there. theyre either go by truck or plane.
> 
> the only reason US airports transit so much shit is because there is NO OTHER FAST WAY of getting the shit to the giant walmarts across the country. had there been well-developed rails, like in normal countries, such huge amounts of air traffic wouldn't exist.
> 
> that highway bill is the greatest scam of all history. originally worth $300that was signed just before Hurricane Katrina struck, i.e. early August 2005. once Katrina struck, 25 billion were immediately slashed from the bill. And earlier you say its worth only $100 billion.
> 
> the same will happen of this money as happened to Katrina relief money: 90% of it will go to Halliburton. 10% will go to that bridge in alaska which connects two uninhabited islands.
> 
> nothing will be of the Highway bill. It exists only to make Bush seem more moderate prior to elections in November, and to keep completely brainwashed voters like Lee supporting the Republicans, waiting for imaginary projects to be built.


Of course there is no other way. And even if there was rail, air traffic would be huge. Airplanes are afterall faster than trains! I don't know the details of this highway bill, but the fact that you think it 90% is going to a "Halliburton" jus shows how lopsided you are. Come on, get real. You really don't think that money will be spent on highways and bridges? And for you information, I am not affiliated with any political party.


----------



## Lee

Paddington said:


> Infrastructure is used to support the economy. America's GDP per capita is a lot more than that of the EU as a whole, and more than all but one or two European countries individually. So I don't know how you can say that America's infrastructure is inferior to Europe's, when it is capable of supporting such a massive economy.


I am with you on this debate, but GDP per capita has nothing to do with how much you spend on infrastructure (even though the US spends more than people think).


----------



## Lee

:lock:


----------



## polako

jmancuso said:


> read my comments about how our $$ goes towards missiles and tanks instead of the potholes that are tearing up the shocks on my truck on the corner of san felipe and post oak. i wan't dubya to personally to come out here and fix that fucking pothole.


So true. Our own infrastructure is crumbling and we're rebuilding someone else's. :dunno: 

Well America has to always be at the forefront of power and stupidity.


----------



## polako

Paddington said:


> Infrastructure is used to support the economy. America's GDP per capita is a lot more than that of the EU as a whole, and more than all but one or two European countries individually. So I don't know how you can say that America's infrastructure is inferior to Europe's, when it is capable of supporting such a massive economy.


Yes, but their infrastructure is able to handle a much bigger economy than ours does.If only Europeans would free themselves from the chains of socialism their economy would surely take off.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Lee said:


> And for you information, I am not affiliated with any political party.


thats nice, but i still can guess who you've voted for.


----------



## OettingerCroat

canada has much better rails than the US. again, they invest more into rails than the US does. they also have an excellent passenger service. i just wish they were electrified.


----------



## OettingerCroat

Lee said:


> Of course there is no other way. And even if there was rail, air traffic would be huge. Airplanes are afterall faster than trains! I don't know the details of this highway bill, but the fact that you think it 90% is going to a "Halliburton" jus shows how lopsided you are. Come on, get real. You really don't think that money will be spent on highways and bridges?


of course things will be built with it, but it will me spent mostly on ludicrous projects that won't help me and you getting to work. like that bridge connencting two uninhabited islands in Alaska.

and air traffic would stay huge, duh.

why?

because its already been well established. americans are too stubborn (not in a mean way, they just are stubborn. theyre not open to change) to suddently switch over to rail traffic. but you can't blame them for that.

had rail traffic developed like it did in normal countries, that is, alongside the interstate system, this woldn't be a topic of discussion.


----------



## sbarn

OettingerCroat said:


> the airports carry more crap because to get to their final destination, there are no rails to take them there. theyre either go by truck or plane.
> 
> the only reason US airports transit so much shit is because there is NO OTHER FAST WAY of getting the shit to the giant walmarts across the country. had there been well-developed rails, like in normal countries, such huge amounts of air traffic wouldn't exist.


Er, you might want to get your facts straight. According to the Int'l Union of Railways, the U.S. accounted for approximately 1/3 of the worlds rail freight traffic.










Due to size-constraints at the Panama Canal, the majority of goods from China/Asia are shipped to west coast ports (primarily LA), then loaded on double stacked trains to the midwest and the east coasts.


----------



## sbarn

On the other hand... passenger travel via railway in the U.S. is nothing short of embarrasing:


----------



## sbarn

^^ Btw, I got this info from this website:

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/ch3c2ben.html#2

It has a bunch of interesting information regarding train travel, I highly recommend checking it out. In short, I think the U.S. has a relatively strong freight rail network, but our passenger rail is a joke.


----------



## Lee

OettingerCroat said:


> thats nice, but i still can guess who you've voted for.


I'm not old enough to vote


----------



## FM 2258

jmancuso said:


> read my comments about how our $$ goes towards missiles and tanks instead of the potholes that are tearing up the shocks on my truck on the corner of san felipe and post oak. i wan't dubya to personally to come out here and fix that fucking pothole.
> 
> and madrid's metro system is insane, btw



That's what I'm fucking talking about. Upgrading our infrastructure is more important to our economy and national security than fighting a useless expensive war. 

I love the United States but there's alot of shit we need to fix here. I know our politicians use infrastructure to get around but I guess the pitfalls don't really frustrate them enough.


----------



## gronier

sbarn said:


> On the other hand... passenger travel via railway in the U.S. is nothing short of embarrasing:


Sorry, but America is not just the US.


----------



## OettingerCroat

^^ this graph refers to all countries of both north and south america. if africa is included, S. America must be included. these numbers are fuckin pathetic.


----------



## sbarn

gronier said:


> Sorry, but America is not just the US.


No kidding... but this discussion is about the U.S. and the U.S. is located on the continent of America. No matter, the point is that rail travel in all of the Americas is pretty much non-existant. Freight on the other hand is a different story.


----------



## MIMICA

EU. :yes:


----------



## jmancuso

Justme said:


> Your point is very valid. The construction of an underground system does indeed depend on the ground below. Certainly, some types of ground make it more difficult and expensive to build subways. A perfect example of this is London. If you look at a map of London, you can see most of the network is North of the river. The reason for this is because the clay and sand in the south makes it very expensive to bore tunnels. London however got around this by building the massive above ground network which can be seen in the South.
> 
> However, where there is a will, there is a way. Venice is currently constructing it's first subway line, which is quite remarkable considering the difficulties involved. The entire line will be in the lagoon areas with connecting foot tunnels to land points.
> 
> I am also surprised that Houston has such a problem with soil considering their number of excellent skyscrapers. These buildings needs good strong foundations.


i don't understand venice's rational...subway as opposed to surface rail so not to disrupt historical areas perhaps. but often in the united states, if there is a cheaper mode of undertaking a project, the better. the amount of money and resources to build a subway system in houston would be far too prohibitive...especially in a city addicted to the car and sprawly such as this.

most of the skyscrapers were built by oil firms rolling basking in the oil boom and on an ego trip where as a subway is subject to stingy taxpayers and congress.


----------



## JD

well question should be: does american feel anything special about european infrastructure or hate their own and vice versa. That would be more accurate. No european is in position to judge american infrastructure based on absence of trains as americans don't believe in travelling through trains (holds true for americans too).


----------



## DonQui

tytler said:


> well question should be: does american feel anything special about european infrastructure or hate their own and vice versa. That would be more accurate. No european is in position to judge american infrastructure based on absence of trains as americans don't believe in travelling through trains (holds true for americans too).


:crazy:


----------



## JD

DonQui said:


> :crazy:



?? I would "prefer" an explanation, ALL KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING one.


----------



## DonQui

tytler said:


> ?? I would "prefer" an explanation, ALL KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING one.


American's don't take trains.

Never been to New York have you? Or Boston? Or Philadelphia? Or Washington? Or Chicago? Or San Francisco?

:crazy:


----------



## JD

DonQui said:


> American's don't take trains.
> 
> Never been to New York have you? Or Boston? Or Philadelphia? Or Washington? Or Chicago? Or San Francisco?
> 
> :crazy:



Hmmm...yes you are right..America starts and ends in NY,Boston...And there is a "train" and then there is a "train" which takes you from one city to another. Also, how many americans would choose train if they can manage a car (yeh in NYC/Boston)...I have seen almost empty metro lines in DC and completly full one too..

And yes, considering the fact that US is 290 million strong, americans don't "travel" in train (though word should be metro/monorail...)

P.S: it would be easy to take a poll here and see how many americans actually pick trains over car..


----------



## OettingerCroat

and then they raise the temperature of the world by 10 degrees an hour.


----------



## DonQui

tytler said:


> Hmmm...yes you are right..America starts and ends in NY,Boston...And there is a "train" and then there is a "train" which takes you from one city to another. Also, how many americans would choose train if they can manage a car (yeh in NYC/Boston)...I have seen almost empty metro lines in DC and completly full one too..
> 
> And yes, considering the fact that US is 290 million strong, americans don't "travel" in train (though word should be metro/monorail...)
> 
> P.S: it would be easy to take a poll here and see how many americans actually pick trains over car..


America dos not start and end with NY, but when the wealthy liberal parts of the country make up a significant chunk of the population, certainly comes out to more than no one. 



And frankly, what Jesusland does in its auto-dependent cities, while it fucks up the environment, really has no impact on how I live aside from global climate change. I just hope that you guys don't start begging New York for money when oil become so ridiculously high that your transportation infrastructure literally collapses.


----------



## JD

DonQui said:


> America dos not start and end with NY, but when the wealthy liberal parts of the country make up a significant chunk of the population, certainly comes out to more than no one.
> 
> 
> 
> And frankly, what Jesusland does in its auto-dependent cities, while it fucks up the environment, really has no impact on how I live aside from global climate change. I just hope that you guys don't start begging New York for money when oil become so ridiculously high that your transportation infrastructure literally collapses.



Texas is second biggest economy in US after California. And I have never been to south so I don't know much about jesusland but people use train in NYC because it's cheap and hassle free. I used to make daily trip between Edison, NJ and NYC and the only reason NJT was popular because driving everyday to NYC is tough and expensive. Train was not a "preference" but necessity. I doubt europeans see train travel in that way. As I said, if car and train provide you almost same experience, monetarily and traffic wise, do tell me how many americans would pick train.

by the way JESUSLAND rocks and so are the chicks from Jesusland


----------



## jmancuso

tytler said:


> Texas is second biggest economy in US after California. And I have never been to south so I don't know much about jesusland but people use train in NYC because it's cheap and hassle free. I used to make daily trip between Edison, NJ and NYC and the only reason NJT was popular because driving everyday to NYC is tough and expensive. Train was not a "preference" but necessity. I doubt europeans see train travel in that way. As I said, if car and train provide you almost same experience, monetarily and traffic wise, do tell me how many americans would pick train.
> 
> by the way JESUSLAND rocks and so are the chicks from Jesusland


new york is still 2nd largest economy after california. most cities in here fly-over country were built-up around the car (post WW2) and are spread out where as NYC/ boston and european cities are older and more compact and more practical for rail.


----------



## Justme

jmancuso said:


> * i don't understand venice's rational...subway as opposed to surface rail so not to disrupt historical areas perhaps*. but often in the united states, if there is a cheaper mode of undertaking a project, the better. the amount of money and resources to build a subway system in houston would be far too prohibitive...especially in a city addicted to the car and sprawly such as this.
> 
> most of the skyscrapers were built by oil firms rolling basking in the oil boom and on an ego trip where as a subway is subject to stingy taxpayers and congress.


This is essentially the gist of it, as well as environmental issues. No one would want to see a railway line carve up the beautiful Venice lagoon and then pile through the dense, carless streets. The only option is to go underground. This is enormously expensive for Venice because they can't go under the actual city due to fears it may begin sinking again (During the turn of the last century, water wells were dug right across the city and this caused the city to start sinking as the water table below emptied. This was stopped in the '60's and Venice has since pretty much stopped sinking since then)

The case for aesthetics is also valid for most of the rest of Europe. In fact, it is part of the reason why Europe has so few skyscrapers in the central areas, as people here don't like their cities torn apart for infrastructure (highways, car parks in downtown, railways and even skyscrapers). It is worth the extra money to build these things underground. 

For example, Frankfurt has many large underground carparks (I'm sure many US cities do as well) but in central Frankfurt the only type of carpark you will find are underground ones, which from my experience in the US, you see many multistory above ground carparks and many street level ones as well.

Spending money to keep the central area's beautiful is very important to Europeans. And infrastructure, equally important must also follow certain rules, especially in central city area's.

I would suspect that the main reason Houston doesn't have an underground subway is because of the way the city developed, into low density sprawl. It simply doesn't have the density to build such infrastructure. Metro's only work when there are large groups of people within close walking proximity to stations. It would simply be a waste of money to built a subway that goes to low density suburbs.

We also have different attitudes between the regions to how a city should develop. Because of obvious space available, Houston built out in suburban sprawl. Texans have become so used to this, I would imagine the majority prefer it. Drag a Houstonian (is that what you guys are called) to Madrid, and they may be shortly impressed with the infrastructure, but soon long for their space and lower densities, and their garage with their car. Likewise, if you drag a Madridian (I'm probably loosing this one with Madrid's naming convention) to the suburbs of Houston, they will no doubt marvel at the size of their new house, but soon miss the high densities, street life and transport infrastructure of back home.

There is no doubt that Houston has great highway infrastructure. Madrid may not have the same visual highway infrastructure, as is typical of European cities, they avoid building motorways right into the downtown areas, but it is still excellent. The public transport infrastructure in Madrid on the other hand is brilliant.

Essentially, what I am saying, is that both regions do what is needed for their style of living. Yes, I do think the infrastructure is greater in Europe, but that is because of different lifestyles. Cars simply require less infrastructure, and the US in general is designed much more for cars. The infrastructure works well for Americans, if it didn't, then I am sure they would improve it.

However, as in the Nationmaster list I pointed out before, car ownership levels is no real difference in Europe than in the US. Italians in fact have the highest percentage of car ownership in the world. However, people do use their cars far less as the public transport infrastructure is more advanced - mainly because it needs to be. They don't like their city centers filled up with carparks, and they don't like giant 8-10 lane motorways carving up their inner neighbourhood districts, and finally, they also have environment issues to think about.


----------



## Paddington

Hrmmm... I should post some more pictures of stack interchanges to make these Euros shit themselves. :cheers:


----------



## Æsahættr

Paddington said:


> Hrmmm... I should post some more pictures of stack interchanges to make these Euros shit themselves. :cheers:



http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=london&ll=51.265272,-0.124712&spn=0.019737,0.1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=london&t=k&ll=51.49282,-0.496273&spn=0.019639,0.054159
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=london&t=k&ll=51.679794,0.125077&spn=0.009779,0.02708
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=london&t=k&ll=51.399955,-0.537086&spn=0.019679,0.054159


----------



## 909

Some people here assume quantity equals quality (bigger is better?). American freeways are very impressive, but they are lacking the quality of the German Autobahn. 
I don't have to repeat what other said about public transport, which is in Europe more developed. 
And i don't have the knowlegde to judge about infrastructure for planes, but overall Europe seems to have a better infrastructure.


----------



## Justme

Paddington said:


> Hrmmm... I should post some more pictures of stack interchanges to make these Euros shit themselves. :cheers:


Why would we shit ourselves? You have to remember, that 5 stories of concrete roadway smack in an urban area doesn't impress Europeans. Most Europeans would look at that and think either "ugly" or "there goes the environment". There are only a few examples of where it has been tried in Europe before outrage pretty much stopped construction of more. Showing Europeans these stack interchanges is like showing a hard core non smoker a pack of cigarettes. They're not going to suddenly want a smoke.

Using another analogy, it's just like it would be no point in Europeans showing you pictures and maps of the large public transport infrastructure. You'd probably just look at it and think "train, who goes by bloody train?"


----------



## Æsahættr

London has numerous stack interchanges, and also turbine and clover-stack.

A fine example of US infastructure:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...44.858029,-93.47816&spn=0.022359,0.054159&t=k


----------



## Paddington

It's a thing of beauty:























































:cheers:


----------



## eomer

In USa and Canada, the main problem, imo, is that highway are build and maintained thanks to tax-payer money. The European system with toll is more efficient.

In Canada, I know at least one free ferry-boat (near Tadoussac): that's a non sense. Of course, it can be free for local people but not for tourists.


----------



## gronier

That is no beauty at all for me.


----------



## FM 2258

Paddington said:


> It's a thing of beauty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:


I think it's beautiful as well. Stack interchanges are the pinnacle of highway interchanges. No cloverleafs or hairpin turns.


----------



## sk

i dont like them either....by the way,i cant see a protective fence at the sites of the highways...dont they have a protective fence?also as far as i know,here we have some sort of shining rods in between the two opposite lane directions to show the way at night,do you have those?i cant see those either in the pics....


----------



## premutos

Actually like some said above, America is not just the USA

America goes from the nroth of Alaska and Canada all the way down to the southern tip of South America.


----------



## FREKI

DrJoe said:


> _That _ is infrastructure


So is this:
































( the habour bus )

Plus all major streets and roads in Denmark has bikepaths on each side...

I love driving, but there's other ways to get around... many other ways!


----------



## jmancuso

Justme said:


> I would suspect that the main reason Houston doesn't have an underground subway is because of the way the city developed, into low density sprawl. It simply doesn't have the density to build such infrastructure. Metro's only work when there are large groups of people within close walking proximity to stations. It would simply be a waste of money to built a subway that goes to low density suburbs.


that is true.



Justme said:


> We also have different attitudes between the regions to how a city should develop. Because of obvious space available, Houston built out in suburban sprawl. Texans have become so used to this, I would imagine the majority prefer it. Drag a Houstonian (is that what you guys are called) to Madrid, and they may be shortly impressed with the infrastructure, but soon long for their space and lower densities, and their garage with their car. Likewise, if you drag a Madridian (I'm probably loosing this one with Madrid's naming convention) to the suburbs of Houston, they will no doubt marvel at the size of their new house, but soon miss the high densities, street life and transport infrastructure of back home.


those people living in the big houses out in suburbia unkowingly have a poorer quality of life than a typical madrileno living in more modest setting becuase that suburbanite often has to spend a good deal amount of time communting back and forth from work and the suburbs are not known for their cultural amenities. houston is attractive to its low cost of living and this is why the population has exploded; people come here mostly out of neccesaity so the city gov't never real had to make an attempt to me the place more attractive becuase people are moving here regardless. houston is (in)famous for its lack of zoning so anything and everything goes and the insane amount of surface lots, cheesy strip malls and lack of human scale in most areas. 

europe places a higher value on asthetics and the realtion to people where american cities go for the biggest bang for the buck...massive highways and low density sprawl.

as for me, i would drop houston for madrid in a new york minute. i like the density and compactness of older cities which is one of the reasons i am moving to providence (rhode sialnd)

@ paddington: there's nothing even remotely attractive about that. also, i take it you don't have to deal with freeways becuase for the most of that do, we can find a lot more things more apealling.


----------



## Lee

Justme said:


> Essentially, what I am saying, is that both regions do what is needed for their style of living.  Yes, I do think the infrastructure is greater in Europe, but that is because of different lifestyles. Cars simply require less infrastructure, and the US in general is designed much more for cars. The infrastructure works well for Americans, if it didn't, then I am sure they would improve it.


Exactly. BRAVO!!! :cheers:


----------



## Æsahættr

I love stacks, I wished we had one in the TC but honestly they are common in Europe too.


----------



## eomer

justme said:


> Cars simply require less infrastructure...


Are you shure about that ? I absolutly don't subscribe to this point of view.
- If there were no subburban trains in Paris (I don't talk about the metro but only about subburban trains), 40 more higway lanes should be built for this trafic.
- A railway is not wider than an ordinary road (2x1 lane) and can transport more people than a 2x6 lanes motorway. It's the same for long distance trafic: an HSR = 3 motorways but the cost is only twice (10 M €uro/km for HSR, 5 M €uro/km for a 2x2 lanes motorway).
- More cars need more car parks.
- More cars = more accidents.
- More cars = more pollution.
....


----------



## Saab

you have to pay to drive on french motorways?


----------



## Saab

Justme said:


> Why would we shit ourselves? You have to remember, that 5 stories of concrete roadway smack in an urban area doesn't impress Europeans. Most Europeans would look at that and think either "ugly" or "there goes the environment". There are only a few examples of where it has been tried in Europe before outrage pretty much stopped construction of more. Showing Europeans these stack interchanges is like showing a hard core non smoker a pack of cigarettes. They're not going to suddenly want a smoke.
> 
> Using another analogy, it's just like it would be no point in Europeans showing you pictures and maps of the large public transport infrastructure. You'd probably just look at it and think "train, who goes by bloody train?"


I am fucking impressed by those interchanges. Screw the damn greenies, I say build more of them hahaha. Australia has finally said **** you to the damn greenies and NIMBY's by building a stack in Melbourne and Sydney and Melbourne has atleast 3-4 freeway projects underway with a number of 3 level t-junctions. Stacking roads is the way to go.

Showing quality-infrastructure minded people these stacks is like showing a hard core smoker a pack of cigars!


----------



## snot

Saab said:


> you have to pay to drive on french motorways?


The big long distance motorways, yes. But near or in urban area's they're free.


----------



## snot

FM 2258 said:


> I think it's beautiful as well. Stack interchanges are the pinnacle of highway interchanges. No cloverleafs or hairpin turns.


We have some like this in Europe as well.


----------



## mic of Orion

EU, IMHO...


----------



## Minato ku

Saab said:


> you have to pay to drive on french motorways?


French motorways are free in Paris area.


----------



## eomer

minato ku said:


> French motorways are free in Paris area.


Exept A14 between La Defense and Orgeval and the futur A86 in the west.


----------



## Æsahættr

Saab said:


> I am fucking impressed by those interchanges.


One could say the same thing about rail infastructure.

"Scew the damn capitalists, I say build more of them"


----------



## DrJoe

lotrfan55345 said:


> One could say the same thing about rail infastructure.


The US does have impressive rail infrastructure. It's just for freight rather than passenger.


----------



## Mercutio

Our civilization must be already in a very sad state when some people start defining such a massive piece of rotten concrete as *beautiful*…

http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/...k_looking_w_from_raynold_31-may-2001_hres.jpg


----------



## OettingerCroat

^^ uke:


----------



## 909

DrJoe said:


> The US does have impressive rail infrastructure. It's just for freight rather than passenger.


An impressive picture, credit goes to the photographer:


----------



## Æsahættr

DrJoe said:


> The US does have impressive rail infrastructure. It's just for freight rather than passenger.


 Too bad what 80% of all freight is transported through tractor trailers using the highway system.

(I don't know the exact figure but I imagine it's around there)


----------



## sbarn

lotrfan55345 said:


> Too bad what 80% of all freight is transported through tractor trailers using the highway system.
> 
> (I don't know the exact figure but I imagine it's around there)


In terms of total tonnage, its 30%:









In terms of ton-mileage, its 47% (means rails run the majority of long distance routes):









According to this website & the U.S. Dept of transportation:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6350&sequence=0

So contrary to people's stereotypical belief, the U.S. is heavily reliant on railroads for freight transportation, and has significant freight rail infrastructure.


----------



## Joshapd

Mercutio said:


> Our civilization must be already in a very sad state when some people start defining such a massive piece of rotten concrete as *beautiful*…
> 
> http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/...k_looking_w_from_raynold_31-may-2001_hres.jpg


Impressive: Yes
Beautiful: No


----------



## JD

Mercutio said:


> Our civilization must be already in a very sad state when some people start defining such a massive piece of rotten concrete as *beautiful*…
> 
> http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/...k_looking_w_from_raynold_31-may-2001_hres.jpg



in Texas, it is BEAUTIFUL


----------



## OettingerCroat

^^ and so are your 600 lb women.


----------



## hellolazyness

^^ Now now thats out of order :nono:


----------



## alesmarv

EU by a long shot, althoe its closer then it apears because of land area and population differences.
America just cant compare in highways, roads, pasenger rail, freight rail(close), public transport in cities barly exists in America, and you cant say im wrong because I know, and I would personaly actualy say EU air transport is also beter. Its no fun having to drive to a airport, fear geting a colon exam the whole time and then have to somehow make your way to your destination(I know that there are airports that have transit going to them but theres is only a couple). In EU you can almost always hop on a train get of at the airport, fly, get of hop on a train and get to the city center, and then if you want to get to another town you just hop right back on another train.


----------



## Manila-X

Hard to tell but I sometimes find European cities more modern compared to US ones. 

BTW, is it because of automobile ownership and freeways why commuter rails in US didn't took off?

And while some US highways are top notch, it's Euro counterparts are impressive as well especially the German autobahn


----------



## Justme

WANCH said:


> Hard to tell but I sometimes find European cities more modern compared to US ones.
> 
> *BTW, is it because of automobile ownership and freeways why commuter rails in US didn't took off?*
> 
> And while some US highways are top notch, it's Euro counterparts are impressive as well especially the German autobahn


I don't know about automobile ownership, as this list shows that a number of European nations actually top the list. However, it may have been different in the past when the US had the highest number of automobile ownership.

Number of Cars per 1000 people (From Nation Master)
#1 Italy 539 per 1,000 people 
#2 Germany 508 per 1,000 people 
#3 Austria 495 per 1,000 people 
#4 Switzerland 486 per 1,000 people 
#5 Australia 485 per 1,000 people 
#6 New Zealand 481 per 1,000 people 
#7 United States 478 per 1,000 people 
#8 France 469 per 1,000 people 
#9 Canada 459 per 1,000 people 
#10 Belgium 448 per 1,000 people 
#11 Sweden 437 per 1,000 people 
#12 Norway 407 per 1,000 people 
#13 Finland 403 per 1,000 people 
#14 Japan 395 per 1,000 people 
#15 Netherlands 383 per 1,000 people 
#16 United Kingdom 373 per 1,000 people 
#17 Denmark 353 per 1,000 people


----------



## KIWIKAAS

^^
To be quite honest I get the impression that this list mixes up total registered private vehicles with just private car ownership per capita. It wouldn't surprise me if the Italian statistic includes mopeds/motorbikes. Various lists show different results. Usually Luxemburg tops the list followed by the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The other high ranking EU countries then follow.
I get the distinct impression that the above list doent use constant criteria.


----------



## Justme

^ I have no idea how the list is compiled, however, it does specify cars and Germany which comes 2nd on the list doesn't have a large number of mopeds. And, yes, I have seen other lists, wikipedia has one for car ownership which 

Iceland is also often at the top of the lists, but is not mentioned in the Nationmaster stats. You can also do a google search for Italy's claim to have the most cars in the world per capita, and quite a few pages show up.

This link shows a similar list for Europe, and clearly differentiates between cars and two wheeled vehicles: (both tables show similar figures for 1999 for cars with the Nationmaster list) http://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_an...TERM_2002_32_EU_Size_of_the_vehicle_fleet.pdf

But again, I never trust international statistics, which as you have pointed out, one never really knows what the definitions in each country really are. There could be so many variables. My point being, I don't think there is much difference in car ownership between Europe and the US today.


----------



## Pavlvs

Usa statistic probably don't includes Sport utility vehicle, considered "light trucks" and not cars.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Justme said:


> ^ I have no idea how the list is compiled, however, it does specify cars and Germany which comes 2nd on the list doesn't have a large number of mopeds. And, yes, I have seen other lists, wikipedia has one for car ownership which
> 
> Iceland is also often at the top of the lists, but is not mentioned in the Nationmaster stats. You can also do a google search for Italy's claim to have the most cars in the world per capita, and quite a few pages show up.
> 
> This link shows a similar list for Europe, and clearly differentiates between cars and two wheeled vehicles: (both tables show similar figures for 1999 for cars with the Nationmaster list) http://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_an...TERM_2002_32_EU_Size_of_the_vehicle_fleet.pdf
> 
> But again, I never trust international statistics, which as you have pointed out, one never really knows what the definitions in each country really are. There could be so many variables. My point being, I don't think there is much difference in car ownership between Europe and the US today.


Indeed. It's a tricky one to call but as far as I know the number of registered vehicles in the US (total) was over 700 per 1000 people. Australia, New Zealand and Canada all above 600. The Netherlands (a pretty average EU country) was aprox 480. Germany was about 550. Luxemburg and Iceland would be the toppers in Europe I believe but I think their total vehicle numbers would be slightly lower than the US.


----------



## Justme

KIWIKAAS said:


> Indeed. It's a tricky one to call but as far as I know the number of registered vehicles in the US (total) was over 700 per 1000 people. Australia, New Zealand and Canada all above 600. The Netherlands (a pretty average EU country) was aprox 480. Germany was about 550. Luxemburg and Iceland would be the toppers in Europe I believe but I think their total vehicle numbers would be slightly lower than the US.


That could well be for total "vehicle" numbers, as opposed to "cars" etc. As we all can see, statistics between different countries is almost impossible to do accurately.


----------



## czm3

Justme said:


> I don't know about automobile ownership, as this list shows that a number of European nations actually top the list. However, it may have been different in the past when the US had the highest number of automobile ownership.
> 
> Number of Cars per 1000 people (From Nation Master)
> #1 Italy 539 per 1,000 people
> #2 Germany 508 per 1,000 people
> #3 Austria 495 per 1,000 people
> #4 Switzerland 486 per 1,000 people
> #5 Australia 485 per 1,000 people
> #6 New Zealand 481 per 1,000 people
> #7 United States 478 per 1,000 people
> #8 France 469 per 1,000 people
> #9 Canada 459 per 1,000 people
> #10 Belgium 448 per 1,000 people
> #11 Sweden 437 per 1,000 people
> #12 Norway 407 per 1,000 people
> #13 Finland 403 per 1,000 people
> #14 Japan 395 per 1,000 people
> #15 Netherlands 383 per 1,000 people
> #16 United Kingdom 373 per 1,000 people
> #17 Denmark 353 per 1,000 people


This is autos only. Remember that around 55% of all private vehicle sales in the US are "light trucks."


----------



## Used Napkin

Well, firstly, the scale of the US highway system alone makes it difficult to maintain.

That being, said, the majority of poor highways in the US are in areas where there is a lot of ice and snow. Highways of the Southeast and Southwest no better or worse than anywhere else.


----------



## GNU

greek_eagle said:


> On the other hand, wars are often the reason infrastructure is improved..for example Germany's autobahn system was started during the world war.


Thats not correct. first parts of the Reichsautobahn or Avus was being constructed from 1913 onwards.
after the first world war construction was being taken up again and the first part was beieng opened to the public in *1921.*

that was well in the times of the Weimar republic which we all know was rather short on money.

This is a list of construction projects during the Weimar republic:

Köln–Düsseldorf (1925) 
Aachen–Köln (1925) 
Mannheim–Heidelberg (1926) 
München–Leipzig–Berlin (MüLeiBerl) (1927) 
München–Starnberger See (1927) 
Leipzig–Halle (LeHa) (1927) 
Hansestädte–Frankfurt–Basel (HaFraBa) (1927) 


Here are some Reichsautobahn pics which might be interesting:









the network in 1934:








and the network in 1936: (this one only shows the autobahn)
















Brandenburger triangle shortly before being finished in 1936.
today its part of the Berlin ring highway:








An Autobahn bridge from 1936 which is still in use today.








Another typical Reichsautobahn bridge:








In Bavaria:








The first Highway petrol station opened in 1936:
































a pic from today of a Reichsautoabhn which is still in use. (note the old bridge)


----------



## GNU

greek_eagle said:


> Now, because you happened to mention the Greek Highway System and added "of course" to emphasize your belief, let it be known, that the freeways where they are built are built in a similar and up to date fashion as the US system. There are multi level interchanges and stacks like back home, and I wouldn't say that there is any reason to think they are inferior. The only thing I'd like to see is the building of even more in metro Athens as the city is quite large both in size and population.


But you cant really compare the greek infrastructure with lets say the german,french or dutch infrastructure.
Greece is one of the poorest countries in the EU. It gets quite a lot of money from Germany,Britain, France and Italy from the EU funds in order to bring the domestic infrastructure up to date.
Im sure that the new Highways that are being built there are of good quality but in terms of density and size you cant compare them to central europe.
Therefore I said its better to compare the central european networks to the US.
Personally I tink the highways here are of better quality.
But thats just my opinion and I havent been in the US so I dont have first hand experience.
But the german Autobahn for example has a tarmac layer which is twice a thick as the tarmac thickness on US highways.
It costs much more but in the end it will be more durable.
The Autobahn highways here are also very modern, you have fleets of autobahn maintenance organizations which take care of everything.
If it snows heavily in the winter it doesnt matter. 

Theres also the Maut system here which keeps the entire network under video surveillance.










And you can also travel as fast as you want to, which is a big bonus.  theres no speed limit on many sections.
You might actually run danger of getting pulled over by the police if you drive slower than 90 mph or 130 km/h.
Still Germany ranks 4th when it comes to Highway safety (behind Denmark,Finland and France) the US with a speed limit of 120km/h ranks 14th.
And when it comes to car traffic on the highway you have the dutch in first position with 41 %, the swiss second with 33 % and Germany in third position with 31 %. The US has 24 %.

source


----------



## Des

Checker said:


> But you cant really compare the greek infrastructure with
> And when it comes to car traffic on the highway you have the dutch in first position with 41 %, the swiss second with 33 % and Germany in third position with 31 %. The US has 24 %.


Finally the dutch are first with something. Not very positive though. 

Here's what a regular thursday rush hour looks like :runaway:


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

lets all remember that different states pay for highway construction that is not part of the interstate system. States and the fedral government both pay for 3 digit interstates and only the fedral government pays for 1 and 2 digit interstates.

That and this entire thread is just a 'look how much better europe is than the U.S.'

Im gettin tired of threads like this


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I didn't read all 20 pages of this thread, because SSC is way too slow to do that.

But i found some interesting points:

Taxes: European taxes are extremely high, fuel is about 3 to 4 times more expensive than in the US. 

In NL (Netherlands), the drivers annualy pay for over 20 billion euro's to the state in form of taxes, VAT, Roadtaxes, and huge taxes if you buy a car. But the ministry of traffic has only a budget of about 8,7 billion euro's each year.
Public transportation takes about 5 billion off that budget, so there's ONLY 3,7 billion left for roads, and the waterways (NL has to maintain thousands of km's of dikes). 

So you can say; drivers pay a lot, but doesn't get much back from the government. 
NL is one of the most congested countries in Europe. Rush hour starts from 6am till 10am, and continues from 3pm to 8pm. Most of those motorways are only 2 or sometimes 3 or more lanes wide. So think of the congestion, when a US road takes 26 lanes to take 350.000 cars/day, when here, a 7lane motorway takes 200.000 cars/day.

Also, road building costs are almost astronomious high. Over 40 years, they want to build a 7km (4,5mile) motorway from The Hague to Rotterdam. That stretch of road of 7km costs between 500 and 700 MILLION Euro's. Meantime, that road still hasn't build, and the only other motorway between those cities, is a 24/7 parking lot.

But NL roads are very sophisticated:

Detections in the road surface, at least one between every exit, but most of the roads have one every 500 meters. So you can have realtime trafficjam information, and if someone has a breakdown, and is unable to reach the shoulder, a signallingsign over the road, crosses that lane red, so traffic is pushed away from that breakdown automatically.

VMS: Variable Message Signs, shows the time take to travel to a certain focal point on a motorway, for example:

A28 Utrecht 25 minutes
A1 A27 Utrecht 30 minutes

so you can pick another motorway to reach Utrecht, if there is a jam on the A28.

And Dutch roads are maintained very well, with no concrete roads, all asphalt, and even ZOAB, that means water on the road won't splash up, so you have very clear visibility on the road. ZOAB has another welcome thing: It is noise-reducing, concrete isn't. That's quite important in a heavily dense lived country as NL.

Another difference in US/EU motorways is that most rural Motorways in Europe are also heavily travelled, in the US, outside the agglomerations, traffic is quite low. Here, a road is called a less travelled road, when AADT falls under 80.000/day. 

Also, en Europe, most people work in another agglomeration than in their own city. So commutingtraffic is extremely much, and there is 24/7 a lot of traffic between large cities. 

There is another annoying thing in Europe: BANANA's. They even want that a motorway should be built in a tunnel under ordinary grasslands.


----------



## Booze

Chris1491 said:


> Also, road building costs are almost astronomious high. Over 40 years, they want to build a 7km (4,5mile) motorway from The Hague to Rotterdam. That stretch of road of 7km costs between 500 and 700 MILLION Euro's. Meantime, that road still hasn't build, and the only other motorway between those cities, is a 24/7 parking lot.


O_O How come can a 7KM highway cost 700€M!!? That's 100€M per Kilometer!

I've never been to America, though in my opinion a European model based on alternatives to highways is quite effective. As car traffic is lower, so are the networks kilometers per capita and the manteinance costs.

In this picture taken at a Barcelona Metropolitan Area corridor, by Sanlucar-Playa and hosted here we have not only the E90 highway, but also the C4 commuter rail line. A bit further, one of the bridges will be used by a fast goods line and the other one by an impressive 350Km/h passengers line. At the other side of the river there's another highway, A2, and another commuter line. This is much common in the rest of Europe and offers a wide arrange of possibilities, hence reducing traffic congestion.


----------



## GNU

Booze said:


> I've never been to America, though in my opinion a European model based on alternatives to highways is quite effective. As car traffic is lower, so are the networks kilometers per capita and the manteinance costs.
> 
> In this picture taken at a Barcelona Metropolitan Area corridor, by Sanlucar-Playa and hosted here we have not only the E90 highway, but also the C4 commuter rail line. A bit further, one of the bridges will be used by a fast goods line and the other one by an impressive 350Km/h passengers line. At the other side of the river there's another highway, A2, and another commuter line. This is much common in the rest of Europe and offers a wide arrange of possibilities, hence reducing traffic congestion.


But the traffic in Europe is higher according to Wiki:

car Traffic:

1. Netherlands 41%
2. Switzerland 33%
3. Germany 31%
US 24%


----------



## ChrisZwolle

where can i find such stats?


----------



## Booze

^^ To be fair, lets post the other countries data too. As you see, most of them have lower traffic than US.

Denmark 25%
Finland 10%
France 21%
Ireland 4%
Austria 23%
Slovakia 19%
Sweden 21%
Chez Republic 11%
UK 23%

Regarding Germany, it handles with heavy intraeuropean traffic, and many of their roads are *freely* used by lorries from other countries. 

The Netherlands is one of the densest countries on earth, and, as posted above, the Ranstad functions as a unique city. Except for the Rhur area in Germany, this model doesn't apply to other parts of Europe, where metropolitan areas are much less policentric and more isolated.

Even so, Germany, Switzerland and The Netherlands have some of the best rail networks of the world. Just imagine how the highways situation would be without so much public transport alternatives. 

Had Europe adopted the US model, it would be normal to see 16 lanes highways in order to deal with such great mobility.


----------



## Booze

Chris1491 said:


> where can i find such stats?


There you go:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Booze said:


> Even so, Germany, Switzerland and The Netherlands have some of the best rail networks of the world. Just imagine how the highways situation would be without so much public transport alternatives.


The Netherlands is the most congested country in Europe i think. Rush hours here lasts about 8 hours a day, on a common day, there are over 50 traffic jams totaling 200 - 300kms of traffic-jam every morning and evening. 

In Rush hour, a route from Haarlem to Utrecht (65km) takes about 2,5 hours on a motorway.

Things are different in NL from Germany. Many roads are only 2x2 lanes, but handles way over 100.000 vehicles/day. 2x3 and more lanes are sparse. In Germany, they decide to build longer strechtes of 2x3 lanes, in example the A2 and A9 motorway. In Germany, most traffic-jams occur inside metropolitan areas and large cities, but in The Netherlands, traffic-jams occur throughout the country, and around every city over 80.000 inhabitants. The longest traffic-jam we ever had was from Amsterdam to Eindhoven in heavy snow, over 90kms in length! That's about one third of our country's N-S length.

So in rush hours, 10 - 20% of the motorway network is completely jammed, and over 50% is extremely busy.


----------



## Booze

^^ That's scaring!

If that happens everyday, why people still use the roads so much? I mean, I've been several times there and rail network is quite impressive. You even have trains all night long!


----------



## ChrisZwolle

There are only nighttrains in the Randstad region. The railnetwork is in fact even longer than the motorway-system. But in rushhours, the trains are overcrowded. 

Another fact is that the government disencourage the use of the N-roads (National non-motorway roads), by putting down the maximumspeed to 60km/h, and besides that, almost every N-road goes through every town, so they are not quite a option.

The most important commuterstream is from Almere to Amsterdam and back. Those cities are about 15km/9 miles apart. Everyday, over 50.000 Almerian commuters head to the Amsterdam region, but there is only one road: The A1 motorway, which has 4 lanes in rushhour-direction, but handles 200.000 vehicles a day. 

In rainy conditions, traffic jams are easily twice the normal length, and you know... it rains often here..

Today it rained. A friend of my has to drive back from work, and it takes him 1,5 hours to just drive 7km/4miles on the A27 motorway near Utrecht, the road was completely jammed. 

Maybe it looks like NL has a extensive motorway system, in fact it does, but it is used heavily by local and regional traffic. And those motorways are just not wide enough.

As an example: the A1 between Apeldoorn and Hengelo, in the eastern province of Overijssel, the right lane is one long train of trucks. That train starts around 5am and lasts to 11pm.


----------



## Minato ku

Chris1491 said:


> The Netherlands is the most congested country in Europe i think. Rush hours here lasts about 8 hours a day, on a common day, there are over 50 traffic jams totaling 200 - 300kms of traffic-jam every morning and evening.



The same in Paris metropolitain area all day in rush hours more 300 Km of traffic jam.
But Paris and the rest of the France are really different
In the rest of France the traffic are not heavy except in big metropolitan area like Lyon Bordeaux Marseilles etc )


----------



## LtBk

Is the Dutch government upgrading all the roads 2x2 motorways in NL?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

LtBk said:


> Is the Dutch government upgrading all the roads 2x2 motorways in NL?


I would wish...

Some of the most important motorways are still only 2x2 lanes, the amount of traffic there requires at least 2x4 lanes. 

But a lot of "Green" parties and foundations oppose it. They make it looks like most people don't like roadwidening, but instead, it's only a marginal part of the population who is opposed road widening.

Think how polluting traffic-jams are! That is really much more than construct just 3 of 6 meters of asphalt along those heavily travelled roads. They calculated, driving in a traffic jam at 30 - 50km/h, you use the same amount of fuel driving 170km/h! 

But there are some road widening projects, but here, it takes 5 - 50 years to wide a road! Some road and widening project dates back to the fifties and sixties, but are still not widened. 

It's really a shame, that a country of such prospherity, still has a road network date from the seventies. 

For example, many roads now in the Randstad metropolian region, are as wide as in 1970, but the amount of traffic has exploded in the last 20 years. 

So, in conclusion; the network is okay, but those roads are just too small. There are only a few "missing links" in the motorway-network.


----------



## Alargule

^^

You spent too much time here 

But seriously, some major arteries could use some extra lanes. Most notoriously: the A1 between Amsterdam and Amersfoort, the A2 between Amsterdam and Utrecht (which is now in the process of being widened to 2x5 (!)), the A2 between Utrecht and Eindhoven (mainly 2x2, better were 2x3), the A4 between Amsterdam and Rotterdam (including completing the road between Delft and Rotterdam), the A7 between Purmerend and Zaandam, the A10 (ring road Amsterdam) Coen tunnel, the A9...and those are just the roads around Amsterdam that I use on a frequent basis...

Then again, why even bother? A time will come all cars are electrically powered, intelligent guidance systems will allow cars to travel in close distance and at high speeds (greatly augmenting capacity on existing roads), and oil prizes will rise to such astronomical levels that - if the prospect of the hydro-fueled car were not to be realized - people will abandon their cars altogether...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Alargule said:


> and oil prizes will rise to such astronomical levels that - if the prospect of the hydro-fueled car were not to be realized - people will abandon their cars altogether...


Well, in the relation US-EU what this topic is about, fuel prices in Europe are about 2 to 3 times higher than in the US, but the traffic Jams are no less then in the US. In fact, in the time fuel prices rose about 200% (2 times), from 1,70 guilders (0,77 euro's) to 1,50 euro's per LITRE, the amount and length of traffic jams rose 5 - 10% each year in that time. So even when the prices are exploding, traffic jams are still continue to grow.


----------



## Alargule

That's not a limitless equation, though. Don't forget that not only the oil prices, but ALL prices have risen considerably over the last few years, making people less feel the pain of a price increase. As soon as a car gets too expensive to drive around, people are bound to leave it for what it is. Again, it's just a 'what if' scenario...but you never know. We'll run out of oil someday.


----------



## Bikkel

The NL should have less motorways! The countryside has been completely wasted! Besides car drivers become egotistical twats, and given our already poor manners, we became even more annoying as a nation.

You can easily cycle, or even run from say Rotterdam to The Hague, but tosser little dutch car drivers are too lazy to use their legs. Just let 'em rot in their cars and jams. People drive to the gym :laugh:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bikkel said:


> The NL should have less motorways! The countryside has been completely wasted!


Nonsense.

Only 0,2% of the dutch land area exist of Motorways, and most of them in non-countryside areas. 

Even if you count all traffic areas (roads, street, pavements, sidewalks, railroads, airports etc.) you still won't get over 4% of the dutch land area.

For the statistics: over 84,5% of the Dutch area is unbuild. (non build-up area).

But those 0,2% handles over 164 billion travelled kilometers. (141 billion by road)


----------



## Booze

Some highways of Mallorca (A mediterranean island with a population of 800.000 people, though that stat just doubles in summertime as Mallorca is a top European touristic destination)









































































You can find more of them here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10046024&postcount=215


----------



## Mr Bricks

Wtf?? Are American highways built of concrete?? Must be hell to drive on such roads.


----------



## emutiny

SuomiPoika said:


> Wtf?? Are American highways built of concrete?? Must be hell to drive on such roads.


Yes, some of americas highways are built using concrete and it is not that bad especially some of the newer highways like 64 here in raleigh are smooth as can be. We have alot of asphalt highways as well tho. Concrete highways are more expensive and have a lifespan twice or 3 times asphalt ones. The concrete "block" highways are pretty rough but i highly doubt they are actually constructed with blocks. I see that its a pretty common concept here that concrete highways are shit when they are actully the higher quality choice of material.


----------



## eusebius

Chris1491 said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Only 0,2% of the dutch land area exist of Motorways, and most of them in non-countryside areas.
> 
> Even if you count all traffic areas (roads, street, pavements, sidewalks, railroads, airports etc.) you still won't get over 4% of the dutch land area.
> 
> For the statistics: over 84,5% of the Dutch area is unbuild. (non build-up area).
> 
> But those 0,2% handles over 164 billion travelled kilometers. (141 billion by road)


That's a popular sermon with the orthodox automobile people. Juggle up a few very doubtful figures - no motorway can be reached without secondary roads and there you go. The NL have very poor air, is noisy and lit everywhere. You live in quiet Zwolle, not next to the A10 in Amsterdam-West.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The problem is that there aren't so much good secondary roads. Everyone has to use the motorway, that is why they are so busy. 

But in recent years, there are more and more overcrowded motorways, outside the Randstad region.

You say quiet Zwolle, i don't know if you visit this city, but it isn't so quiet as you think. We have long traffic jams every day, reaching over 20kms/13miles in length each day. All roads to Zwolle are congested. For example, the A28 motorway handles the same amount of traffic as the A10-North or the A12 near Zoetermeer....


----------



## eusebius

Give it a rest. When you claim Zwolle handles the same amount of traffic as Amsterdam, you just fully disqualified yourself there.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That is just a fact, you can download data from the RWS website, if you like.

But here's a fact, counts from 2005 

A10 Schellingwoude S115 - Zeeburg S114: 103.121 (weekworkday)

A28 Knooppunt Hattemerbroek - Zwolle-Zuid 115.243 (weekworkday)

Know the figures, than talk. >(


----------



## Bikkel

And how many people live on the river IJssel between Hattemerbroek and Zwolle-Zuid. Never noticed any housing on the bridge there!

So, you claim traffic around Zwolle equals that of Amsterdam then :laugh:

Secondary roads in NL aren't good enough? Well, find somewhere better then! Jeebus, you are blind!

And _only_ A28 leads to beautiful Zwolle, whilst A1, A2, A6,A7, A8, A9, A10 etc lead to Amsterdam. No wonder the one road leading to Zwolle is busy at the sole bridge across the river IJssel.

Besides I mentioned Amsterdam-West, not East like Schellingwoude is.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Bikkel said:


> Secondary roads in NL aren't good enough? Well, find somewhere better then! Jeebus, you are blind!


Try to drive from Utrecht or Almere to Amsterdam, without using a motorway. That's almost impossible, and it takes so much time if you do so.

Unlike other countries, the Dutch motorwaynetwork has been build, while there were not so much long-distance non-motorways. So, we have an extensive (overcrowded) motorwaynetwork, and a relatively small non-motorwaynetwork. 

In Germany, they did that better. They have an extensive B-road network, with a lot of "ortsumgehungen" (Bypasses or ringroads), but here in NL, you have to drive through every little town to reach a larger city. So if you have to travel more than 20kms, there is mostly some motorway nearby, so you take that motorway, instead of those N-roads through every city, with only 60 and 80 speed limits, and 50 within buildup areas.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Besides, in relation to the A10-west, north of exit Geuzenveld, the amount of traffic between Geuzenveld and Coenplein is the same as the A28 through Zwolle.


----------



## Bikkel

I'm sorry but you've lost the plot! The NL has loads of roads, more than Germany, you simply know too little.

Your Zwolle has 1 A28, Amsterdam has about a dozen of equally busy A-motorways.

It'd be a lot easier for you if you'd just admit you're wrong. There are few countries with as much as asfalt and concrete like the NL have.


----------



## Bikkel

Right, I read your other reply.

Why would you want to use a secondary road from Utrecht to Almere or to Amsterdam? Secondary roads simply aren't designed to cover such commutes.

Take the train instead. Your replies puzzle me.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I agree on your sub...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

But since, i don't think we can agree on it, let's get back ontopic.

The American freeway network exists from a grid. Europe's doesn't. In that way, the European E-numbers are quite useless, since such a numbering only works with some kind of a grid network.

But the European motorway network is much denser than the american one, especially in Western Europe, but in central Europe, a motorway network is forming too (Croatia, Slovenia, Czech, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc). 

But inside metropolitan areas, i think the US system of a grid or with a beltway is better. In Europe, there is no space inside agglomerations for an extensive motorway-network, so in theory, US congestion should be lesser than the European one.

Countries with extreme congestion: France, UK, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Austria. 
Of course, there are other cities outside these countries with congestion.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Chris1491 said:


> But since, i don't think we can agree on it, let's get back ontopic.
> 
> The American freeway network exists from a grid. Europe's doesn't. In that way, the European E-numbers are quite useless, since such a numbering only works with some kind of a grid network.
> 
> But the European motorway network is much denser than the american one, especially in Western Europe, but in central Europe, a motorway network is forming too (Croatia, Slovenia, Czech, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc).
> 
> But inside metropolitan areas, i think the US system of a grid or with a beltway is better. In Europe, there is no space inside agglomerations for an extensive motorway-network, so in theory, US congestion should be lesser than the European one.
> 
> Countries with extreme congestion: France, UK, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Austria.
> Of course, there are other cities outside these countries with congestion.



And I really am glad that in most European cities are to agglomerated to lead highways right through them. I dont know how people can be glad to have such monster highways cutting cities into little pieces and degrading the quality of life considerably for everyone near. As long there are alternatives keep those highways out of the towns. 

Building highways never is a solution against congestions, (as long as you dont want to built dozen lanes monsters). By creating highways you create just more traffic. 

One could see that very well at the Südosttangente in Vienna. It was once thought to be the solution to the congestions and now is the very center of them. Its effect was just to unnecessarely foster the sprawl-creation. 

I am glad that cars are a bad choice in Vienna to get around. That makes public means of transport to be the first choice of getting around. And as consequence this public transport system is a real good one.


Highways are a necessary evil. One needs them, but one should not obey the maxim of ever greater even if it is allready a dense network.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Slartibartfas said:


> Building highways never is a solution against congestions, (as long as you dont want to built dozen lanes monsters). By creating highways you create just more traffic.


That traffic comes from elswere, mostly on alternative routes through cities and towns. You better have more traffic and pollution on a motorway, than inside towns, and villages, were people are living. So the amount of traffic on a motorway rises, but decrease somewhere else. 

You can see that on the A13 near Delft. A lot of traffic drives through towns and nature areas, because the A13 is more like a parking lot. Once the A4 is completed, you have new traffic there, but no more inconvenience about traffic on roads that aren't designed for that much traffic.


----------



## Mr Bricks

emutiny said:


> Yes, some of americas highways are built using concrete


Do you know if there are highways outside the states built of concrete?


----------



## Aokromes

^^ There are some on Spain on Asturias.


----------



## Minato ku

Freance has the second largest expressway system in Europe +12,000 Km

*Paris*
Not the best highway in France


















































Other French highways


















































Highways in french oversea departement
Martinique








Reunion


----------



## ChrisZwolle

minato ku said:


> France has the second largest expressway system in Europe +12,000 Km


To be rapidly overtaken by Spain, which stands at around 11,000 km, and is still growing fast, especially Autovia's.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

But ontopic, i don't like the French signage. Especially around cities, there are way too many (local) destinations on the signs. And you guys have to put signs into 1 sign, not 4  like this one


----------



## Maxx☢Power

The way I see it, one of the main differences is..

American utilitarianism, "bigger is better", "as long as it works"..






























Vs. European elegance and aesthetics



















































Now, I'm not saying something like this:










.. isn't beautiful in its own way, because it is  But there is and always has been a cultural difference between Americans and Europeans when it comes to aesthetics. I love how the European 2x2 motorways with their sexy black asphalt and brilliantly white markings wind elegantly through the landscape, with breathtaking viaducts and tunnels. Even so much that I find having 3 lanes makes it look kind of tacky.. But in and especially around cities I think European motorways look run down and a bit second class compared to the American highways. I'm sure this has to do with the amount of traffic, available space and all that, but that's the way it is. But then again European cities don't rely in their motorways as much as American cities do, having other modes of transport available.


----------



## FallenGuard

Anyone see the Episode on Discovery's "Extreme Engineering" about Germanys Highways, the _Autobahn_?


----------



## Minato ku

Chris1491 said:


> To be rapidly overtaken by Spain, which stands at around 11,000 km, and is still growing fast, especially Autovia's.



Don't worry 12,000 km was in 2001. I don't know the real number for now.

France autoroute and expressway system growing fast too.
they are maby highway in construction in France
I don't know the real number but more 400 km of expressway are in construction.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yes, they are reconstructing some Voie Expresses into Autoroutes in Bretagne. 

Nowadays, there aren't large expressway constructions in France, but there are plans to improve the motorways around Paris, and build some extra length to some motorways.

The last one completed should be the A89 motorway from Bordaux to Clermont-Fd.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

From wikipedia: "At December 31, 2005 the network was composed of 12,444 km." (Spain).


----------



## Minato ku

Chris1491 said:


> Yes, they are reconstructing some Voie Expresses into Autoroutes in Bretagne.
> 
> Nowadays, there aren't large expressway constructions in France, but there are plans to improve the motorways around Paris, and build some extra length to some motorways.
> 
> The last one completed should be the A89 motorway from Bordaux to Clermont-Fd.


I was not talk about reconstruction but construction 
Many expressways are in construction but it is right the average length is 12 km for an expressway 

And some expressways are in construction in oversea departement of France  
But Spanish expressway system growing fast

The France network was composed of 11810 km in january 2001 according USIRF.


----------



## sbarn

MaxxPower said:


> The way I see it, one of the main differences is..
> 
> American utilitarianism, "bigger is better", "as long as it works"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vs. European elegance and aesthetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not saying something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. isn't beautiful in its own way, because it is  But there is and always has been a cultural difference between Americans and Europeans when it comes to aesthetics. I love how the European 2x2 motorways with their sexy black asphalt and brilliantly white markings wind elegantly through the landscape, with breathtaking viaducts and tunnels. Even so much that I find having 3 lanes makes it look kind of tacky.. But in and especially around cities I think European motorways look run down and a bit second class compared to the American highways. I'm sure this has to do with the amount of traffic, available space and all that, but that's the way it is. But then again European cities don't rely in their motorways as much as American cities do, having other modes of transport available.


Even as an American, I buy into this arguement. Well said... although in the northeastern U.S. (with a similar climate to Europe), there is much black asphalt and white roadway markings... also run down roads within cities, such as New York.


----------



## Skylandman

*Some Spanish highways*


----------



## Skylandman

*a few more pics*


----------



## ChrisZwolle

i think Spain has actually one of the best motorway-networks in Europe. Especially around Madrid, where in a few years, an huge freeway network has been build. They definitly beat Paris, London, Berlin, Amsterdam etc. 

this one is in Barcelona, right?


----------



## Skylandman

Chris1491 said:


> this one is in Barcelona, right?


yes, it´s Barcelona, it´s called Nus de la Trinitat.


----------



## cinosanap

Chris1491 said:


> i think Spain has actually one of the best motorway-networks in Europe. Especially around Madrid, where in a few years, an huge freeway network has been build. They definitly beat Paris, London, Berlin, Amsterdam etc.
> 
> this one is in Barcelona, right?


Probably because they get so much money from the EU. Everywhere in Spain is a construction site with an EU Funded sign on it.


----------



## Johnny_Bravo

cinosanap said:


> Probably because they get so much money from the EU. Everywhere in Spain is a construction site with an EU Funded sign on it.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## staff

^^
Feels quite weird considering I'm from a country that pays way more money to the EU than we're given back!
But Spain deserves it - it's a great country which unfortunately has been in 'bad shape' for a long time, plus it's a nice place for us Scandinavians to take a vacation.


----------



## FallenGuard

staff said:


> ^^
> But Spain deserves it - it's a great country which unfortunately has been in 'bad shape' for a long time, plus it's a nice place for us Scandinavians to take a vacation.


Yes, the EU is good for the poorer Countries. The same happened to Portugal, they were quite poor, but after joining the EU their Economy steadily grew. Now they are quite wealthy. Looks like the same thing has happened to Spain.

The new Eastern Expansion is a different story tho... hno:


----------



## goschio

Elsongs said:


> I don't think you can accurately compare them; US Highways span for thousands of miles whereas European countries are much smaller.


Well, they span for thousand of miles in europe as well. You just have to drive through different countries on your way. But with the european union, its like driving through states in the US. Not much different actually. The density of the network is comparable.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

FallenGuard said:


> The new Eastern Expansion is a different story tho... hno:


But wealthy begins with good infrastructure. The EU even funds road construction outside the EU (Croatia) and even outside Europe (Kazakhstan). 

But countries like Hungary, Czechia and Slovenia developed a motorway network, long before they joined the EU. 

But though, i think it's a good think for Western Europe to share our wealthy with those other countries. We are not getting worse from it, but they getting better. Especially countries like Estonia, Lituvia and Latvia.


----------



## FallenGuard

Chris1491 said:


> But wealthy begins with good infrastructure. The EU even funds road construction outside the EU (Croatia) and even outside Europe (Kazakhstan).
> 
> But countries like Hungary, Czechia and Slovenia developed a motorway network, long before they joined the EU.
> 
> But though, i think it's a good think for Western Europe to share our wealthy with those other countries. We are not getting worse from it, but they getting better. Especially countries like Estonia, Lituvia and Latvia.


I agree, but many People (including myself) think we are moving WAY too fast expanding the EU. People are not even asked (by Referendum) if they want more Countries to join. The Expansion should be slow and controlled in my Opinion, a new country is a big change. Especially if many new countries are "poor", it has a big impact on the EU.

But if course it is good for the Join Candidates, they work hard to meet the EU Standards (Anti-Corruption Programs, Freedom of Speech etc), which increases their Quality of living.

Hm, this has drifted off Topic, but i'm happy to discuss it in another Thread if you wish.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

FallenGuard said:


> People are not even asked (by Referendum) if they want more Countries to join. .


Maybe it's better to not have a Referendum for all cases. In most cases the experts now things better than the citizens.

But i agree on you that the last expansion was too much at one time. Countries like Hungary, Slovenia and Czechia were ready for it, but i think Poland and Slovakia and the Baltic states was a little too fast.

Expansion by Romania and Bulgaria by next year is too fast, if you ask me. Romania is like a 3rd world country in many visions. 

But it's better for those east European citizens, they're getting better of it.


----------



## kokpit

FallenGuard said:


> The Expansion should be slow and controlled in my Opinion, a new country is a big change. Especially if many new countries are "poor", it has a big impact on the EU.


Impact of joining new states from Eastern Europe on the EU is minimal, even if they are poor (I don't mean big country like a Turkey). Biggest problem of EU is called globalisation. Some western EU countries are becoming less and less competitive at the global market. The german or french workman can do same work as workman let's say from Poland, India or China, but needs much more money. The only way out is to follow scandinavian countries like Finland or Sweden which invest most % of their GDP to Education and Reseach & Developement in Europe, these countries are one the most competitive (economically) countries in the world.


----------



## kokpit

Chris1491 said:


> But i agree on you that the last expansion was too much at one time. Countries like Hungary, Slovenia and Czechia were ready for it, but i think Poland and Slovakia and the Baltic states was a little too fast.


Slovakia? Are you kidding me? Have you ever been there? You would be very surprised how rich that country is. Same for the Baltics, which are very small after all and joing of them did absolutely nothing to EU (BTW, their GDP grows about 10% y/y for many years, Estonia is now as rich as Portugal and remaing baltic countries will follow soon). Poland is big and not so rich, but it's growing fast and in next ten years it will draw level with poorest countries of old member states. 

You simply have to search for the reason of current problems of western countries somewhere else, not in the Eastern Europe.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I've been to Czechia, and what i've seen from Slovakia, that it's a beautiful country, but not so modern like Hungary or Czechia.


----------



## kokpit

^ So you have to visit it again  Trust me, there is no gap between Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. And Slovakia GDP is growing about 6-7% y/y and will overtake Portugal in next two years. 

OK, this is a bit off topic so I'm quiting this thread. But you should definitely change your opinion on Eastern Europe, Iron curtain isn't in Europe anymore


----------



## Nephasto

kokpit said:


> Estonia is now as rich as Portugal and remaing baltic countries will follow soon).


Huh?!
I've never heard about that, and I have a really hard time believing in that.
Slovenia is as rich as Portugal, but it's the only country from the 10 new ones to be that rich.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Estonia, Lituvia and Latvia are quite modern countries. I think they reached the level of Slovenia and Portugal very soon.

They also have a motorway network, but it's not too large, because of the low amount of population. 

As what i know, these 3 countries were always the richest of the soviet union.


----------



## Vinny was here

> Estonia, Lituvia and Latvia are quite modern countries. I think they reached the level of Slovenia and Portugal very soon.
> 
> They also have a motorway network, but it's not too large, because of the low amount of population.


 I'm sorry for you, but the quality of the motorway network don't give always an impression of the wealthness of the country. 
Belgium and the United States seems less developed than The Netherlands for instance, but both countries have a bigger GDP/capita than the Netherlands....


----------



## ChrisZwolle

That's right, but this thread was about motorways


----------



## marax0

MaxxPower said:


>


I have loved it visiting Montereux this summer
Astonishing view..

few photos more









Spanish E9( Barcelona-Toulse ) (Mercedes has the best looking plates in Europe - Principat Andora)






And polish motorway

A briudge for animals



a normal one with Rainbow colours (ugly one )


----------



## Aokromes

AP-1 From Arrasate to Bergara on Basque Country, under construction:



Noico said:


> Fotos de la autopista AP-1 (Arrasate-Bergara)
> 
> Unas fotos sacadas esta mañana.
> Las obras de la autopista a la altura de Arrasate-Mondragón:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otro dia con mas tiempo sacare fotos del tramo Arrasate-Arlaban en obras.
> 
> Aqui otras fotos del tramo ya abierto entre Arrasate y Bergara (Ampliable a 3 carriles cuando la autovía GI-632 enlace con la AP-1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entrada al tunel dirección Bergara:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salida a la altura de San Prudencio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paneles de direcciones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salida a Bergara y enlace con la carretera GI-632:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cabina de peaje (me ha salido la foto borrosa)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enlace con el peaje sur de Bergara y GI-632 vista desde la GI-627
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vista de la autopista en Bergara Norte;


----------



## marax0

nice  i saw that also E9 is under construcrion ( few tunels, bridges ecc)

ps. Could you translate description of photos?


----------



## mabuse

marax0 said:


> ps. Could you translate description of photos?


some explanations:

- first 3 pics: A1 under construction seen from south Mondragon
- Driving between Mondragon&Bergara (4 km.)
- South Bergara exit, you can see the toll (tag available)
- Last pics: A1 seen from the ground near Bergara

This map shows the location of the pics & basque country network:



BPT said:


> Aunque afortunadamente va a tardar poco en quedar obsoleto, ahi va una actualizacion al mapa de carreteras:


As you can see, A1 is not finished yet, especially in the south conexion with Vitoria/Gasteiz, so most of the international traffic from iberian peninsula to EU still using the old N1, and that´s why you can see a very poor traffic in the A1 ( for the moment  )


----------



## ChrisZwolle

How's the condition of the A8/AP8 between Irun en Bilbao? I heard this is one of the oldest Spanish motorways, so in a bad condition?


----------



## Nephasto

^It's in excelente condition, the only problem is that the terrain is quite dificult and the motorways is quite old(built in the 70's), so the geometry of the motorway is not very good - many "sharp" curves, for a motorway.
There are many streaches limited to 100km/h or even 80km/h(in tunnels).


----------



## Aokromes

Hernani-Astigarraga variant U/C:



mabuse said:


> Tras una buena temporada sin desempolvar la cámara, me he dado una vuelta para sacar unas fotos a pocas semanas -supuestamente- de que sea inaugurado el tramo Variante de Hernani-Astigarraga.
> 
> En primer lugar, el viaducto que cruza el río Urumea, al norte de Hernani:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Algo más de cerca, debajo de la nueva autovía la vieja carretera Hernani-Donostia por Astigarraga:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detalle de los falsos túneles en los que termina el viaducto...se nota que están trabajando con ganas :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y un par de detalles para completar esta 1ª ronda de fotos:
> 
> 
> El enlace de Hernani norte, justo en el punto en el que viaducto se une con la variante de Hernani. No se aprecia del todo desgraciadamente...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> y unos entrañables commieblocks de Hernani


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Which Autovia/Autopista is that?


----------



## Nephasto

^It's a short motorway, which is called Autovia del Urumea and will link S. Sebastian with Andoain.


----------



## Aokromes

AP-1 bridge U/C at Garagartza, Gipuzkoa



xabiergo said:


> URTE BERRI ON
> 
> FELIZ AÑO
> 
> Hola a todos:
> 
> Hoy para comer he ido a Garagartza (Arrasate), como todos los años, pero ante mi padre y yo hemos ido a ver las obras del viaducto de marin (gipuzkoa), en las obras de la autopista AP1 (Eibar-Vitoria)
> 
> Es impresionante!
> 
> Tener unas fotos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SI QUEREIS MAS DECIRMELO, Q TENGO MAS
> 
> ES IMPRESIONANTE


----------



## aussiescraperman

all in the last 25 pages......they are called freeways/motorways/interstates(american), not highways.....


----------



## aussiescraperman

nevermind..that is only the australian definition..carry on


----------



## Guest

I'm quite interested in how UK motorways compare to those of our fellow European neighbours.

In the UK when we design a motorway properly we usually get somehting very good but too often we get poor standards and a constant obession with bloody round abouts.


----------



## eusebius

Well, roughly the same but not better. In NL for example motorways are paved with 'silent' asfalt and motorways have noise shields along the parts near homes and other buildings. This is a suggestion that found a very welcome with the two largest political in parliament: it's in Dutch but you'll get the picture; it's a construction of solar shields over the very busy A12 (A equals the UK's M)
www.stichtingduurzamea12.nl translates as the Foundation for a sustainable A12.

In NL you'll find a few wildlife viaducts, with a couple of very ambitious ones more on their way. I think Denmark and Germany are on the same level as NL. Belgium and France have invested more in railways in the past decades.


----------



## Thermo

About Belgian highways. It's true that about 5-10 years ago they were way worse than in other European countries. But the last years we see major improvements everywhere.

The big 2 highways through the Ardennes are being renewed from border to border.










































Belgium 2006


----------



## lpioe

What's the difference between autovias and autopistas in Spain?


----------



## Cicerón

lpioe said:


> What's the difference between autovias and autopistas in Spain?


Autovías are free. Autopistas are not free, you have to pay if you want to use them.


----------



## gronier

*Best Highways in Each Continent?*

According to your opinion based on experience or just pictures you've seen, which country do you consider has the best highways/motorways/autopistas/autobhans/autoestradas/autoroutes in each continent of the world?

North America
South America
Europe
Asia
Africa
Oceania


----------



## Castle_Bravo

North America- USA
SA- Argentina (from pics)
Europe- Germany or Netherland
Asia- Japan (from pics) 
Africa- i think South Africa (from pics)
Oceania- Australia (from pics)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

North America: United States
South America: Chile
Europe: Croatia
Asia: China
Oceania: Australia
Africa: South Africa


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Castle_Bravo said:


> Europe- Germany


Personally, i don't think Germany is that good. They have a great network, but some motorways are just old concrete, or worse (eastern Germany). Some Autobahnen near borders are bad too.


----------



## Nicolás

Chris1491 said:


> worse (eastern Germany).


eh, in eastern Germany they nearly all have the newest motorways. After 1990 Germany began to renew the old "WW2 motorways" which the GDR never had renewed. Germany has also build lots of new motorways there. Actually the worst motorways are around the biggest cities, for example in the Rhein-Ruhr-Area with lots of traffic. 
But I agree, Germany is not the country with the best roads in Europe. 
I guess the Netherlands have the best system and the best quality kay:

And for North America I would rather say that Canada has the best roads (if I compare photos)... The US roads often are in a very bad condition...


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Based on experience:

North America - USA
Europe - Italy

From pictures:

South America - Chile
Asia - Malasia
Africa - South Africa
Oceania - Australia, NZ?


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Nicolás said:


> eh, in eastern Germany they nearly all have the newest motorways. After 1990 Germany began to renew the old "WW2 motorways" which the GDR never had renewed. Germany has also build lots of new motorways there.


^^ I agree. East Germany along with some other former Warsaw Block countries (Poland, Czechia, Croatia, etc) have very good motorways. Well, they are new now, so I can't predict if they will be repaired in a timely manner once they become old.


----------



## Ali_B

North America - Canda
Europe - France, Croatia, Slovenia, Spain & Portugal
South America - Chile
Asia - Malaysia, China & Japan
Africa - South Africa & Morocco
Oceania - Australia


----------



## pilotos

North America:U.S.A
South America:Chile
Europe:France
Asia:Malaysia
Africa:Morocco
Oceania:Australia


----------



## Coneslammer

Haha good to see that Australia is winning the Oceania category, although who's gonna beat us, Fiji?

Specificially, Melbourne (and the state of Victoria of which it is the capital) has the best highway/freeway network and the only one that is comparable with a major North American Metropolis.


----------



## Blue_Sky

From pics

North America - USA
South America - Brazil
Europe - Germany
Asia - Somewhere in the middle east (Saudi Arabia or UAE) or China
Africa - South Africe
Oceania - Australia


----------



## gladisimo

Coneslammer said:


> Haha good to see that Australia is winning the Oceania category, although who's gonna beat us, Fiji?
> 
> Specificially, Melbourne (and the state of Victoria of which it is the capital) has the best highway/freeway network and the only one that is comparable with a major North American Metropolis.


I think New Zealand comes the closest... =)

Anyway

NA - USA 
Asia - Probably China
SA - Argentina
Africa - South Africa
Europe - Autobahn - mostly because of its lack of speed limit =)\
Oceania - Fiji XD


----------



## gronier

North America: Canada
South America: Chile
Europe: France
Asia: Japan
Africa: South Africa
Oceania: Australia


----------



## TheCat

Well there are many factors. Many countries nowadays are building (or have recently built) very "good looking" modern highways that look simply awesome because they are new. However, one has to look at the overall road network (for example, a country with 40,000km of "okay" modern freeways has in fact a superior road network to a country with 500km of brand-new highways of which pictures are being shown over and over again). However, the size of countries (or rather, of populated regions only) also matters. For example, it is not even possible to compare the sheer size of the US highway system with that of Canada, and yet in most major population centres Canada has an extensive highway system, which is about the same as in the US in quality, and in fact often joins the US network seamlessly and in an integrated manner.

Also, about Asia - China's highway system is definitely the most extensive one, but then again the overall state of the country's roads (aside from the brand new expressway network, which is very nice) is quite poor. Japan's system is not as extensive, but then again Japan is a much smaller country. Overall, Japan's overall road system is currently of much higher quality than China's. Also one must consider the driving culture a little in my opinion, because some countries, like India, are also building some nice highway systems, but the overall situation on the roads is chaotic without any real traffic laws (that are actually followed).

And referring to the person who mentioned the Middle East for Asia, the ME definitely doesn't have the best highway system of Asia. But if we are talking about the ME only, then gulf countries such as UAE come to mind. However, if we are talking about a really extensive and well-maintained road network with a modern driving culture in the ME, it is definitely Israel.


----------



## Chicagoago

Not trying to stary a riot here, but I am at the moment watching a program called "Modern Marvels; Paving America", and it's all about the numerous cross country highways in the United States. I'm curious why many of you think that Canada has the best highways in North America. 

I am totally in love with Canada, and have been there many times, but as far as the "best highways in North America", I grew up with a family that traversed EVERYWHERE in Canada and the United States. It was all amazing, and I don't downplay any of it, but the highway system in the United States is truely something so amazing. It's hard to realize until you drive some of the tens of thousands of miles of the system. I'm not saying the US is "better" than Canada at all, but the diversity of its highway system is honestly something to be appreciated.


----------



## sonysnob

Chicagoago said:


> Not trying to stary a riot here, but I am at the moment watching a program called "Modern Marvels; Paving America", and it's all about the numerous cross country highways in the United States. I'm curious why many of you think that Canada has the best highways in North America.
> 
> I am totally in love with Canada, and have been there many times, but as far as the "best highways in North America", I grew up with a family that traversed EVERYWHERE in Canada and the United States. It was all amazing, and I don't downplay any of it, but the highway system in the United States is truely something so amazing. It's hard to realize until you drive some of the tens of thousands of miles of the system. I'm not saying the US is "better" than Canada at all, but the diversity of its highway system is honestly something to be appreciated.


As a Canadian I have to agree. Canada and the US have a very different kind of highway network. Some sections of Canada are quite sparsely populated, and while the road is excellent, through these areas it often isn't 4-laned and will probably never need to be. The US interstate network certainly has its flaws, but generally speaking is a very good network, with excellently designed roads (that sometimes need resurfacing).

Furthermore, the condition of US roads depends greatly on the state. I travel to Western New York a fair amount, and New York State has excellent roads, they are well designed, and very well surfaced. One state away, Pennsylvania is notorious for the poor condition of its roads. Same goes in Canada, the province of Ontario generally has very well maintained roads in its jurisdiction, however, travelers to Quebec will quickly notice that la belle province doesn't take the same good care of its roadways.


----------



## Cicerón

North America - USA
South America - Chile
Europe - France
Asia - Japan
Africa - South Africa
Oceania - Australia


----------



## gronier

Chicagoago said:


> Not trying to stary a riot here, but I am at the moment watching a program called "Modern Marvels; Paving America", and it's all about the numerous cross country highways in the United States. I'm curious why many of you think that Canada has the best highways in North America.
> 
> I am totally in love with Canada, and have been there many times, but as far as the "best highways in North America", I grew up with a family that traversed EVERYWHERE in Canada and the United States. It was all amazing, and I don't downplay any of it, but the highway system in the United States is truely something so amazing. It's hard to realize until you drive some of the tens of thousands of miles of the system. I'm not saying the US is "better" than Canada at all, but the diversity of its highway system is honestly something to be appreciated.


Because most highways in the US are really poorly maintained.


----------



## Chicagoago

^ I hear ya. I've driven from coast to coast, mexico to Canada (multiple times actually - grandparents just loved hauling me across the country in their van, god bless em), and I've seen my share of bad roads.

I still dont' think MOST are poorly maintained though. Maybe I'm just ignorant because I live here and it's "normal", but of the roads I've been on in Europe and South America, the US didn't stand out as a LOT worse.


----------



## garzland

North America - USA
South America - Chile, Argentina
Europe - France
Asia - Japan, China
Africa - South Africa
Oceania - Australia


----------



## ADCS

gronier said:


> Because most highways in the US are really poorly maintained.


The US does as well as it can given both the decentralized structure and the fact that fewer people pay per km as compared to European countries.


----------



## Chicagoago

gronier said:


> Because most highways in the US are really poorly maintained.


In 2007 our interstate system is now around 50 years old. It just needs to be reconstructed as it's reaching a very old age for a road. They do TRY to maintain them to a great degree, but it's just like a house. It functions amazing for 20-30 years or so, but after that you need to work on things to keep it up to par. New roof, new furnace, new carpet, etc. We just need to shift gears and really start fixing up the rural areas of the interstates. Finances though....


----------



## Minato ku

But european motorways are not recent.
the first autobahn is around 80 years old (Germany)
the first autoroute is 61 years (France) 

I agree the biggest part of french motorway system was built between 1950's and 1990's.

Autoroute du Soleil (A7) is for many people one of best motorway is the world but this motorway is around 40 years old.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

The A75 is much better! 
and a way better scenery, except you don't have some views of the Alps, but from the Massif Central.


----------



## -Corey-

North America: USA
South America: Chile
Europe: Germany
Asia: Japan
Africa: South Africa
Oceania: Australia.


----------



## Calvin W

North America: Canada (Alberta)
Oceania: Australia (Victoria)
Europe: Netherlands
Asia: Japan
South America: Argentina
Africa: South Africa


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Autoroute du Soleil... Das ist romantisch, or what?!


----------



## gladisimo

Chicagoago said:


> In 2007 our interstate system is now around 50 years old. It just needs to be reconstructed as it's reaching a very old age for a road. They do TRY to maintain them to a great degree, but it's just like a house. It functions amazing for 20-30 years or so, but after that you need to work on things to keep it up to par. New roof, new furnace, new carpet, etc. We just need to shift gears and really start fixing up the rural areas of the interstates. Finances though....


Sigh, sometimes I think, if we spent even 10% of those millions of dollars each day fighting a war into improving our own country's roads (among MANY other things) we could have such a better country...


----------



## KB

^^
Not only america but Iraq and Afghanistan would also be much better countries.

War does not bring good to any country.


----------



## ADCS

kbboy said:


> ^^
> Not only america but Iraq and Afghanistan would also be much better countries.
> 
> War does not bring good to any country.


Aggressive wars, maybe, but I think there are several instances where defensive wars have brought some good...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Okay, but please return ontopic: The best motorways on every continent


----------



## ADCS

Chris1491 said:


> Okay, but please return ontopic: The best motorways on every continent


Good point :banana:


----------



## oliver999

north american USA
europe germany
asia china, japan(chinese highway are mostly newly built)
oceania aussi
africa dont know, maybe south africa


----------



## Manila-X

Asia: Japan
Europe: Germany
Africa: South Africa
North America: USA
South America: Argentina
Oceana: Australia


----------



## ren0312

gladisimo said:


> Sigh, sometimes I think, if we spent even 10% of those millions of dollars each day fighting a war into improving our own country's roads (among MANY other things) we could have such a better country...


Well a better solution will be to make the welfare system more efficient by cutting down on the free loaders, and then using those savings in welfare payments to repair the highways, instead of taking them away from the defense budget.


----------



## Chicagoago

Are there many toll roads in other countries? We have some here, but on a national level, not many. Just realized I have no clue about the situation in the rest of the world.


----------



## Minato ku

Yes the majority of french motorways are toll. (about 8,000 km are toll and 3,000 km are free)


----------



## Già

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Autoroute du Soleil... Das ist romantisch, or what?!


The italian autobahn A1 is also called like that "Autostrada del sole"....
Some italian autobahn have nice name.... like "Autostrada dei fiori" translation Flower`s autobahn


----------



## JoKo65

gronier said:


> According to your opinion based on experience or just pictures you've seen, which country do you consider has the best highways/motorways/autopistas/autobhans/autoestradas/autoroutes in each continent of the world?
> 
> North America
> South America
> Europe
> Asia
> Africa
> Oceania


America is one continent.


----------



## snupix

JoKo65 said:


> America is one continent.


:weird: ^^


----------



## JoKo65

snupix said:


> :weird: ^^


That's how we learn it here.

For the best motorways I would say:

America: Canada
Europe: Switzerland


----------



## ChrisZwolle

JoKo65 said:


> That's how we learn it here.


Where did they teach you that? 

On that hand, i can say Eurasia is one continent :lol:


----------



## ADCS

JoKo65 said:


> America is one continent.


In English, and all English-speaking countries, there are two continents of North and South America. I know it's different in Spanish, but I'm pretty sure that's the only language that does it that way (one W. Hemisphere continent).


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Yeah, languages are different. In Estonian there are two ways how to divide the world into different parts. One way is by natural boundaries and the other way is by the culture, religion etc. In both ways the Earth is divided into six parts but in one case America is one"continent" and Eurasia is two parts, in the other case America is divided into South-America and North-America and Eurasia is one "continent". But this was off-topic. 
In my opinion it's quite important if the motorways are free of charge or tolled and in that manner Germany takes the first place in Europe's category. 
So...
Europe - Germany
North America- USA
South America - Brasil
Asia - Japan
Africa - South Africa
Oceania - Australia


----------



## Nephasto

Chris1491 said:


> The A75 is much better!



What?!? :crazy:

Have you ever use the A75?
It's certainly the worst motorway I've ever driven on France... the only thing good is the Millau viaduct, which is amazing.
Apart from that, the geometry is just plain bad, with many tight curves and constant up's and downs...
Well, it's not a toll motorway(appart from the Millau viaduct), and I think it was build using the existing road, so that can justify it being so bad.


----------



## Nephasto

Europe - France
North America- USA
South America - Don't know
Asia - Don't know
Africa - Don't know
Oceania - Don't know


----------



## -Corey-

snupix said:


> :weird: ^^


Yeah! In the Spanish World AMerica is just ONE continent, from Canada to Tierra del Fuego in Argentina.. While in English America is two continents, South America and North AMerica.. ANd american is everyone who was born in American Soil. (from Canada to Argentina).. In Spanish America is divided in three regions, North AMerica (USA, Canada and Mexico), Central America (From Guatemala to Panama), South America (Colombiam Brazil, Argentina etc..) and the caribbean..


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent


----------



## -Corey-

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent


In Spanish (According to Wikipedia)
Un continente es una gran extensión de tierra que se diferencia de otras menores o sumergidas por conceptos geográficos y culturales como oceános y etnografía. *En países hispanos suelen considerarse seis continentes*(in hispanic countries there are 6 continents): *Asia*, *América*, *África*, *Ántartida*, *Europa *, y *Oceanía*
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continente

In English (according to wikipedia)
A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, but seven areas are commonly reckoned as continents – they are (in descending order of size): *Asia*,* Africa*, *North America*, *South America*, *Antarctica*, *Europe*, and *Australia*.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Nephasto said:


> What?!? :crazy:
> 
> Have you ever use the A75?
> It's certainly the worst motorway I've ever driven on France... the only thing good is the Millau viaduct, which is amazing.
> Apart from that, the geometry is just plain bad, with many tight curves and constant up's and downs...
> Well, it's not a toll motorway(appart from the Millau viaduct), and I think it was build using the existing road, so that can justify it being so bad.


I've driven the whole A75 from Clermont-Fd to Béziers. It's an exciting road to drive, and except near Clermont-Fd, the pavement is good. The descend south of Millau is spectacular. But also the ascend near Clermont-Fd is cool, you go through many gorges and canyons, and on the Central Massive, you drive over the highest points on a Autoroute (i think) some 1100meters. 

Much more scenic than the A7 route, and it's almost completely tollfree. 
Another very good Autoroute, is the tolled part of the A20 south of Brive, but damn that's a long distance from Vierzon to Toulouse (500km or so).


----------



## Nephasto

Chris1491 said:


> I've driven the whole A75 from Clermont-Fd to Béziers. It's an exciting road to drive, and except near Clermont-Fd, the pavement is good. The descend south of Millau is spectacular. But also the ascend near Clermont-Fd is cool, you go through many gorges and canyons, and on the Central Massive, you drive over the highest points on a Autoroute (i think) some 1100meters.
> 
> Much more scenic than the A7 route, and it's almost completely tollfree.
> Another very good Autoroute, is the tolled part of the A20 south of Brive, but damn that's a long distance from Vierzon to Toulouse (500km or so).


I'm not saying it's not scenic and beautifull... I was just refering to the road quality in itself (the geometry), which is by very far the worst I've ever seen in France.

You don't want to drive in a car pulling a caravan, like I did. 

But if you're driving just a car and are looking for a scenic, cheaper and less congester route than the A-7, then the A-75 is your autoroute, no doubt! :cheers:


----------



## Minato ku

A75 can be bad and can be very good that depends of the section 

A75 page 1 A75 page 2 A75 page 3 A75 page 4 A75 page 5


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Europe-Germany
NA-USA
SA-Brazil
Africa- South Africa 
Oceania- don't know


----------



## Vic19

westender said:


> I definatley would not say Australia. Although there have been some improvments, most of the highways are single lane dangerous roads. New Zealand has some pretty hair raising roads as well.


besides Australia and NZ, Oceania is notihng more than a bunch of islands in the Pacific.

Victoria has about 1000km of motorway for a population of around 5 million. Melbourne is linked to the large regional towns by motorway


----------



## phattonez

I still don't understand how people can say Canada for North America. Canada's system is nothing compared to the US Interstate system.


----------



## Gaeus

*Not Voting for U.S.A?*



phattonez said:


> I still don't understand how people can say Canada for North America. Canada's system is nothing compared to the US Interstate system.


Canada doesn't really have lots of interstate highways unlike U.S.A. but they are nicely built and highly maintained. However, I disagree with them voting for Canada because U.S.A Interstate Highways are out of this world. Maybe, they haven't driven to U.S yet, or they have driven in a badly built interstate like in Seattle or New York or maybe they are Canadians voting for their country :lol:


----------



## Gaeus

North America --- USA ---- Los Angeles
South America --- Argentina --- Buenos Aires
Europe --- Germany ---- Munich
Asia --- China --- Hong Kong
Africa --- South Africa --- Johannesburg
Oceania --- Australia --- Melbourne


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Gaeus said:


> North America --- USA ---- *Los Angeles*


Los Angeles? You've got to be kidding :lol:


----------



## pwalker

*California/Oregon*

If the question is who has the most developed freeway system in North America, yes Los Angeles is your winner. Some are in better shape than others, but Caltrans does a remarkable job keeping these roads in decent condition with the millions and millions of drivers who use them everyday.

BTW, over the past weekend I drove an absolutely incredible stretch of U.S. Interstate 84 from Pendleton, Oregon eastbound up over a steep mountain climb. Probably the best stretch of Interstate in the western US, three lanes in each direction, beautifully maintained with wide easy to navigate curves, and a rise of atleast 3,000 feet!


----------



## Nephasto

pwalker said:


> BTW, over the past weekend I drove an absolutely incredible stretch of U.S. Interstate 84 from Pendleton, Oregon eastbound up over a steep mountain climb. Probably the best stretch of Interstate in the western US, three lanes in each direction, beautifully maintained with wide easy to navigate curves, and a rise of atleast 3,000 feet!


3 lanes in each direction?! I found it very hard to believe that a freeway in such a remote place would have 3 lanes per direction... And I did a search on Google Earth and the images clearly show "only" 2 lanes in each direction.

Regardless of haveing 3 or 2 lanes in each direction, I have no doubt it's an excelent freeway. Also, I personally much prefer to ride in a 2 lane rural freeway than in a freeway with 3 lanes, and more traffic.


PS: Hum... now that I'm checking it on Google Earth I wonder if there was some irony in your post... Because I'm seeing some of the tightest curves I've ever seen on an interstate just about 15 km's east of Pendleton...


----------



## pwalker

*No irony!*

You never know how old those google shots are. During the climb there are three lanes in each direction mainly to allow for slow trucks. You can't really tell from google, but the curves are wide and graceful and easily navigated at 65-70 mph. The road does reduce down to two lanes each direction at the top of the elevation. You'd have to actually drive it to see this beautiful stretch of freeway.


----------



## Nephasto

^^I've just noticed that it has 3 lanes in each direction going upphilll on that steep section with the tight curves.
I've made some research on the net and found out that is known as the Cabagge Hill, and it does indeed has the tightest curves on the interstate system. Still, tight for an interstate, not for just a regular road. 
I'm sure you can do those at 65-70 mph in good weather, but those must be limited to at least 80 km/h(50mph), considering the radius(around 250 m). I'm actually curious to know what the legal limit is for cars on those curves.
Still, no big deal. 




pwalker said:


> You'd have to actually drive it to see this beautiful stretch of freeway.


Believe me, I'd love to drive on it, and I have no doubt it's an extremely beautifull stretch!!


----------



## pwalker

Speed is 65mph during good weather, but the trucks usually are hard pressed to do better than 30 depending on their load. 

I also did a little research...the 3rd lane was added in 1999 to allow for better truck conditions. What is amazing about this stretch is the terrain that it is built over, the elevation change and views are terrific! (Although I can't find any real good photos on the web hno: )


----------



## M3_SoutheastMelb

(best roads overall in country, best metropolitan road network on continent)

North America --- USA ---- Dallas
South America --- Argentina --- Buenos Aires
Europe --- Germany ---- Madrid
Asia --- Malaysia --- Hong Kong
Africa --- South Africa --- Johannesburg
Oceania --- Australia --- Melbourne


----------



## pwalker

Gaeus said:


> Maybe, they haven't driven to U.S yet, or they have driven in a badly built interstate like in Seattle or New York or maybe they are Canadians voting for their country :lol:


True, about Seattle interstates. The I-5 through Seattle is a joke! You never know if your exit will be left or right. And one major connection is Highway 520 (Lake Washington north bridge) to I-5 south. Locally, it is known as "The Mercer Weave", where you come off Highway 520 on the left side of I-5 and have a half mile to right exit to Seattle Center (Space Needle, etc.). It involves crossing atleast six lanes, and it's a zoo! There has been talk of rebuilding I-5 through Seattle, but other priorities are more important, the Alaskan Way Viaduct (Seattle's 2nd N-S route, damaged by an earthquark in 2001), and replacing that same Highway 520 (who's useful lifespan is up). However, the suburban eastside I-405 is much better! (Not the traffic, but the design!)


----------



## aussiescraperman

M3_SoutheastMelb said:


> (best roads overall in country, best metropolitan road network on continent)
> 
> North America --- USA ---- Dallas
> South America --- Argentina --- Buenos Aires
> Europe --- Germany ---- Madrid
> Asia --- Malaysia --- Hong Kong
> Africa --- South Africa --- Johannesburg
> Oceania --- Australia --- Melbourne


i agree with this list.....


----------



## GrigorisSokratis

Europe - Germany
North America - United States
South America - Chile
Asia - Japan
Oceania - Australia
Africa - South Africa

btw you cannot compare neither Canada nor Mexico with America in the case of North America, the country with the longest and most modern network on earth.

In the case of South America as I know both Argentina and Chile among other countries in the continent, let me tell you that highways in Argentina are crap (except in Buenos Aires), but as soon as you get outside the city they are all in terribly poor conditions and are mostly one-way per direction roads. While in Chile the network is quite long (3,000 kms) and modern, with high quality highways traversing the whole country and even automatic toll systems.


----------



## Nephasto

GrigorisSokratis said:


> btw you cannot compare neither Canada nor Mexico with America in the case of North America, the country with the longest and most modern network on earth.



It may be the longest, but it certainly isn't the most modern.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

i've checked Chinese expressways a lot lately on google earth. I think it is the most modern network of such size. But that is logical, since most of the network is brand new, and outside cities, the expressways are more quiet than an average county road in the US. 

I would say Croatia is under the most modern motorway countries. Spain is doing a good job, but some stretches are quite old.


----------



## Matthijs

When not considering the actual volume of traffic, one might argue that the Dutch freeway network is one of the best of Europe. I mean, it has a very high 'freeway' density, of well-built and well-maintained freeways. Compared to France for example, the density of freeways is much higher, and there are much more direct connections. Maintenance is in most cases on a very high level.

Where it goes wrong is that the volume is traffic is much higher than the capacity of most of the system. Morning rush hour takes up about the whole morning, and is quite often followed about immediately by the evening rush hour...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Yeah, i think the Netherlands has the busiest nationwide roadnetwork. At rushhours, all motorways near any midsize or larger cities are jammed. 

I mean, the total length of an average rushhour is twice Germany's average length, but than country is ten times bigger, and has more than 5 times more inhabitants. 

But the quality of roads in the Netherlands are actually very good indeed, proper signage, road assistance, loads of variable message signs and road control by cctv camera's. 

But driving longer distances in the Randstad region is almost impossible, since the roads are 9 - 10 hours of a day jammed. That's a pity.


----------



## aguere7

Europe: Germany ,Italy, Portugal,Spain and Netherlands

North America: USA and Canada

South America: Chile 

Africa: Canary Island: Tenerife and Gran Canaria and South Africa.

Oceania: Australia and New Zealand


----------



## radi6404

Chris1491 said:


> Personally, i don't think Germany is that good. They have a great network, but some motorways are just old concrete, or worse (eastern Germany). Some Autobahnen near borders are bad too.


German motorways are awful, they are very very old and the asphalt is not good anymore, the network is very good though but the motorways are never the best ones. the crashbarriers are brown and rosty everywhere.


----------



## Slagathor

Alle said:


> Anyhow the USA is a big country which is less densely populated than Europe. Also, it is not in every sense the same nation it was a few decades ago, resource wise. Still I think a big part of the issue with certain infrastructure not being maintained as good as it could be has to do with budget priority.


The population argument only gets you so far. Many parts of the US may be almost deserted, but you don't need to build a dense highway network like that of Belgium in North Dakota. All you really need in ND is one major highway running East to West to connect the state to the rest of the country. 

So the population argument doesn't _entirely_ apply.


----------



## Eddard Stark

timmy- brissy said:


> Oh yeah and the spanish and italians and Greeks care bloody crazy drivers!


I am italian and I risked my life at pedestrian crossings only 2 times in my life and it was in England (and yes, I was looking in the right direction  )

The problem of maintenance is severe in Europe too, as for example Germany and Italy have very old networks built sometimes earlier than in the US. The thing is...we do not spend so much money in expensive inside the city highways...which are difficult to maintain and humongous in size. In EU there are not so many highways used for urban traffic as in the US, in fact any road of importance in the US inside the cities is a highway

Our cities have smaller streets easy and cheap to maintain


----------



## timmy- brissy

Eddard Stark said:


> I am italian and I risked my life at pedestrian crossings only 2 times in my life and it was in England (and yes, I was looking in the right direction  )
> 
> The problem of maintenance is severe in Europe too, as for example Germany and Italy have very old networks built sometimes earlier than in the US. The thing is...we do not spend so much money in expensive inside the city highways...which are difficult to maintain and humongous in size. In EU there are not so many highways used for urban traffic as in the US, in fact any road of importance in the US inside the cities is a highway
> 
> Our cities have smaller streets easy and cheap to maintain


You maybe be not but on a hair pin bend! There a pricks from these countries who do it and they deserve to get shot for how uncool they are. But there are stupid boy racers in the UK as well!:bash:


----------



## Glodenox

Eddard Stark said:


> I am italian and I risked my life at pedestrian crossings only 2 times in my life and it was in England (and yes, I was looking in the right direction  )


Same here. I was even told that pedestrians don't have the right of way over cars on pedestrian crossings in the UK, is that right? I was told they only force pedestrians to use those, but don't give any advantages in return.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## nerdly_dood

I don't know about other states, but in Virginia the law says that NOBODY has the right of way until whoever's more courteous gives it (except for stop lights and pedestrian signals). Most drivers tend to give the right of way to pedestrians, though, particularly at crosswalks or if a pedestrian is crossing a side street at an intersection with another side street or a secondary/primary road. At intersections between secondary/primary roads with significant pedestrian traffic there are often pedestrian signals that indicate when it's safe for pedestrians to pass. There are usually buttons that pedestrians push that will change the pedestrian signal to "walk" because i think those signals are always showing "don't walk" so the most traffic can pass as quickly as possible.


----------



## ChrisH

Glodenox said:


> Same here. I was even told that pedestrians don't have the right of way over cars on pedestrian crossings in the UK, is that right? I was told they only force pedestrians to use those, but don't give any advantages in return.
> 
> Greetings,
> Glodenox


Actually it's the other way round. Pedestrians theoretically have right of way anywhere (except motorways) - the most common place to see this is crossing the road at junctions, where cars should stop for pedestrians. It doesn't seem to work too well in London though...!


----------



## Fabrega

By my personal experience, i have driven in europe madrid to granada on the summertime to go to the beach and when i was a kid the trip was a pain in the ass. It took like 5 hours zig zag up mountains, up and down slopes and thats just been a passanger. 

In the last years that i have gone back the trip has been a pleasure tunnels to cut trougth mountains, briges between hills so there is not ups and downs or they just removed complete hills and mountains to make the roads straigther instead of going around. Roads are smooth asfalt the time reduced to 4 hours just excellent, except coming and getting out of the city.

Now i live in the states, not very fair to compare to the EU because i live in oklahoma city obviously not the best city or state. But that is also an advantage sense in the great plains there is no need for all that fancy stuff spain has just build a straigth highway. The road conditions are mediocre u get that bump bump bump bump ride, and those interchanges are a pain they are old and always getting repaired and cause huge traffic jams for oklahoma standards thats a 30min jam:nuts:. 

What i do luv about oklahoma higways is the space, amount of overpasses to turn around and the amount of space to merge or get off. 

In conclusion, by my experience yes the EU has a higher standar but for the amount of roads the states has, it is amazing the good conditions ours are on making equaly has great. I enjoy driving in both even doh oklahoma can be boring, always so straigth :lol: You can fall asleep if you have a good aligment. What i do find more annoying than anything is some American drivers, for some reasons they don't seem to get the left lane concept, is because is so easy to get your license here. We have no other choice than to put up with some crappy drivers.:bash:


----------



## jsfox

ChrisH said:


> Actually it's the other way round. Pedestrians theoretically have right of way anywhere (except motorways) - the most common place to see this is crossing the road at junctions, where cars should stop for pedestrians. It doesn't seem to work too well in London though...!


By my experience in London, Edinburgh, and St Andrews on a regular basis the key words above are theoretically and should  In Scotland you'll get honked at by cars behind you if you allow someone to use a crosswalk.


----------



## jsfox

So, back on topic... Biggest probs on US highways for me are left entrances/exits, lanes disappearing or suddenly becoming exit-only, and as Fabrega said bump bump bump bump bump. Left entrances/exits are the worst of these though. Worse than this though are US drivers; daydreaming in the left lane, hitting their brakes if you flash them, believing that the merge lane is for going 20mph slower than the traffic they're merging in to, and obviously knowing that going down the road behind the wheel is for anything but driving (eg, phone, texting, eating, reading, combing hair, writing notes, and picking their nose).


----------



## Wallaroo

mlm said:


> Another thing that makes many European highways look good, is the fact that many places here the new roads are very well intergrated in the landscape. Atleast here in Denmark, they would never make an "elevated highway" on some pillars, but instead move tons of sand to make it look "good". I know this ain't the case for ALL highways in Europe, but in general I agree that many looks better than their American counterparts.


I wonder if its cheaper to build an elevated highway on pillars instead of tons of sand?


----------



## H123Laci

^^ sand is cheaper...


----------



## gramercy

basically it comes down to the return:
sand must consolidate which takes time, often a year or more, wherease concrete pillars are more expensive

so which do you value more: opening up the road for traffic a year sooner or putting that cash somewhere else with even bigger return

now you tell this to politicians and knuckle draggers and their heads explode..


----------



## RawLee

But the digging work required for pillars would be enormous,and the ground has to be drilled until water-proof layer is found,whereas in the case of "sand",it doesnt matter whats below the ground,only humus has to be removed.


----------



## steven_vc

*Concrete vs. asphalt*

Why are European highways considered to be better than US highways? Firstly, I live in Belgium and we have some truly horrific specimen of roads, secondly, European highways are always gridlocked, certainly in Belgium, the Netherlands and around all major cities, think of the Périférique, think of the M25 the R0 (Brussels), the R1, Manchester spaghetti Junction,...









This is actually a Belgian highway...
Also, the choice for asphalt isn't always so straightforward, because asphalt does give you a better driving experience, and is, in my opinion, a little bit safer because in rainy conditions, the water is drained more rapidly. But this type of road surfacing has some drawbacks too:
-It's not as durable as concrete roads, tears open after 5 years of intensive usage, while concrete can last for 20 years. This is due to the fact that asphalt tends to sag under high loads hence the rutting in the first lane, due to the lorry's.








-Due to better drainage characteristics, water in the asphalt can freeze and expand, consequently, the road breaks and potholes are formed

All things considered, concrete is much more durable, but asphalt is more comfortable. And I prefer more durable roads which can save the taxpayer's money and time, because resurfacing asphalt roads can cause major traffic jams.

about the junctions and aesthetics: of course, major American free-ways and highways through the city centre are less pretty. But Europe hardly has any down-town highways, they use public transport or too crowded surface roads/avenues and all the highways are docked in a peripheral highway (eg. M25, R 0/1/2) these peripherals are well away from the centre, and more space = better aesthetics.


----------



## poshbakerloo

steven_vc said:


> European highways are always gridlocked, certainly in Belgium, the Netherlands and around all major cities, think of the Périférique, think of the M25 the R0 (Brussels), the R1, Manchester spaghetti Junction,...


A highway being gridlocked isn't a sign that it has a low build quality. Also Europe as a whole is MUCH more densely populated than the US so the highways will be more jammed with cars. Also I know that here in the UK pretty much all highways are 6 lanes. Its only in a few places that they go up to 8 or 10. In the US the highways in general are much bigger.

Here are some Google Maps screen shots showing some unusual motorway layouts in England...

M56 in south east Manchester is 8 lanes in total. Once outside the city it returns to the normal 6 lanes.










Gravelly Hill interchange Birmingham...


----------



## seem

some pictures of our slovak motorways


----------



## Spikespiegel

It really comes down to taste.

Some people prefer the American highways, cause they are more impressive. Some prefer the European highways because they are of higher quality.

But this isn't always the case. I live in Denmark, and here you can find absolutely horrible highways around Copenhagen. The reason is that it has been decided that major roadwork has to be done on the highway within the next few years, so the government does not want to pay for putting on entirely new surface until then. After the major roadwork, the highways are usually in pristine condition for many many years.

Highway design comes down to politics. In the US, the politicians want the highways to be able to handle all commute to the cities, which means huge highways with a lot of lanes. If the highways become too congested, more lanes are built.
In Europe, politicians want people to use the mass-transit systems. If highways become too congested, the mass-transit system will get improved instead of the highways to force more people away from the roads. Only when the congestion becomes extreme, will politicians build more lanes.

In the US, highways usually cut straight from A to B. This is great if you have to get somewhere in a hurry.

Here in Denmark, highways curve through the landscape. The reason for this is mostly safety. First off, curvy highways give you a lot of focus points, which means that you actually feel you are making progress through the landscape. Furthermore it keeps the driver aware on inter-city trips. Also, the landscape around the highway has been designed to raise awareness. The landscape keeps changing between fields, vistas, forests, lakes etc.

Highways in the US feels a lot like monstrosities, that cuts through the landscape, ruining it, while the European highways feel a lot more like it's part of the landscape.

I hope we never get concrete highways in Denmark. They are a pain to drive on, and they doesn't look good. As for safety, I would imagine that breaking distance is shorter on asphalt than concrete.

As concrete crash barriers, we only have those on the O3 around Copenhagen, and the only reason they are to be found at all, is because the middle section is too narrow to fit a steel crash barrier (as it would bend into oncoming traffic in an accident). Other than the O3, all crash barriers in Denmark are of steel. The reason is that if you are in an accident, and hit the crash barrier, it's supposed to give away to soften the impact a bit. Steel does this, and concrete doesn't.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It's also not really fair to compare a brand-new motorway somewhere in Europe with 40 - 50 year old Interstates. If you look at the older Autobahnen in Germany, or the non-tolled Autoroutes in France, you'll see the pavement quality isn't always that good.

For example, this is the German A30, just across the Dutch border. It opened in 1989.


----------



## TheCat

What frustrates me much more is the horrible quality of the city roads inside Toronto. The motorways around here (400-series) are okay.

Apparently the asphalt that we use on streets here is not designed for our cold climates, so even newly-repaved streets are in horrible condition within just a few years. Some roads in Toronto have almost Third World standards.

By the way, this is the reason many people here on streets (not motorways) hog the middle or left lane. The right lane is often so damaged, or has such deep potholes or storm drains that it's troublesome at best, and dangerous at worst, to drive in it. I once damaged the front right suspension in the car, probably by going into some hole. Generally, if a street here has 3 or more lanes, I tend to drive in the middle lane unless turning right.

Also, many rural 2-lane roads here lack clear outside edge demarcations (and usually do not have those reflective posts that are common in Europe). The standard calls for a yellow line in the middle and white lines at the edges, but on many roads those edge lines are completely faded. In my opinion, they are more important than the centre yellow line, and should be repainted at the first opportunity when they are no longer visible. I've personally experienced some pretty uncomfortable situations while driving at night on such roads.

Perhaps this is not 100% on topic, but I think currently this is the best place for this .


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

poshbakerloo said:


> A highway being gridlocked isn't a sign that it has a low build quality. Also Europe as a whole is MUCH more densely populated than the US so the highways will be more jammed with cars. Also I know that here in the UK pretty much all highways are 6 lanes. Its only in a few places that they go up to 8 or 10. In the US the highways in general are much bigger.


Actually in NA motorways have a large amount of lanes in urban areas.
Interstates normally got 2X2 lanes
Then very long interstates could have even branches that simply are a common 1+1 lane road, as here in Canada
http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ie=UTF8&ll=50.236374,-101.874767&spn=0.001832,0.005429&t=h&z=18

That obviously makes sense as in the middle of Canada you can have many hundreds of kms of 'nothing' with a very low traffic, and obviously you don't need dozens of lanes (or even only 2) for few cars




ChrisZwolle said:


> It's also not really fair to compare a brand-new motorway somewhere in Europe with 40 - 50 year old Interstates. If you look at the older Autobahnen in Germany, or the non-tolled Autoroutes in France, you'll see the pavement quality isn't always that good.
> 
> For example, this is the German A30, just across the Dutch border. It opened in 1989.


Generally in Italy there is difference of quality due to mantainance between Autostrada (tolled) and Superstarada (non tolled); the last ones often got a bad quality pavement (sometimes very bad)

Here, for istance, E-45 http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ie...C5af8L6skn7owZK7MM3JaQ&cbp=12,118.78,,0,10.32


----------



## TheCat

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Actually in NA motorways have a large amount of lanes in urban areas.
> Interstates normally got 2X2 lanes
> Then very long interstates could have even branches that simply are a common 1+1 lane road, as here in Canada
> http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=it&ie=UTF8&ll=50.236374,-101.874767&spn=0.001832,0.005429&t=h&z=18


Actually, this section was twinned at the end of 2008. You can see the new section using Street View in the same location as your link . The aerial photos are too old.

However, being twinned doesn't always mean being a motorway. If you explore the Trans-Canada Highway in many of its rural parts around Manitoba and Saskatchewan, you will see that it has at-grade intersections, although the right of way always belongs to the drivers on the highway (i.e. no traffic lights, but rather yield-type intersections with short acceleration lanes). This allows many small towns to be connected without building interchanges on sections that have no traffic almost. Speed limit is 110 km/h.

Though I suspect that 2-lane roads, while they can possibly extend from Interstates in the US, would not be classified as Interstates. The Canadian example isn't perfect because the TCH is not a motorway (although it is a motorway in many places, and is being upgraded continuously).


----------



## Spikespiegel

A shot of O3 around Copenhagen, after the expansion:









A shot of Køge Bugt motorway (South of Copenhagen) at the final stage of it's expansion:









Right now, Holbæk motorway (West of Copenhagen) is being expanded around Roskilde. couldn't find any shots of the construction site as it looks now, but I guess I could go take a photo this weekend. Currently, the motorway bridge at Maglegårdsvej has been torn down partly (the bridge itself stands, but the two ends of it has been demolished, to move them back so 2 more lanes can fit under). It's rather impressive that all this work is being done while the motorway itself remains open.


----------



## nerdly_dood

poshbakerloo said:


> ... I know that here in the UK pretty much all highways are 6 lanes. Its only in a few places that they go up to 8 or 10. In the US the highways in general are much bigger.


Only one highway in my area (southwest Virginia) is more than 6 lanes and that's Interstate 581/US 220 through Roanoke. There's i think one 10-lane road between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, but it's a surface road, not a highway.

The vast majority of highways, including interstates, are 4 lanes.

There's a section of US rt. 29 north of Lynchburg paved with concrete, and from looking at the pavement and the surrounding terrain it's clear that it's recently bulit. That section of highway is without a doubt in the best condition of any highway I've ever been on; most other highways are in decent condition, but Interstate 81 is in really bad condition. And VDOT (the state transportation authority, responsible for highway maintenance) is, like the rest of the state government, losing a lot of money very quickly... so no new projects, and there are plenty of places that need to be upgraded...


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E

"Why European Highways are much better than American ones?? "

Certainly, the person claiming this did not think about Norwegian roads....


----------



## 909

ChrisZwolle said:


> If you look at the older Autobahnen in Germany, or the non-tolled Autoroutes in France, you'll see the pavement quality isn't always that good.
> 
> For example, this is the German A30, just across the Dutch border. It opened in 1989.


That is the worst Autobahn I have driven. Just look at these pics:


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

Just from my recent experience. I went on vacation to Germany, but to get there, I had to drive from Washington state to California. So, I will compare only motorway quality. 

1) I drove 1600 km in Washington, Oregon and California: Washington and Oregon motorway quality is anywhere from 3 to 4 (on a scale of 5). California was from 2+ to 4.
2) Drove 1600 km on A6 in Germany and A4 in France. German quality was from 4 to 5, and the French quality was from 3+ to 4+. 
3) Drove 1600 km in California, Nevada, and Idaho. The motorway quality in California was from 1 to 4. Nevada was from 4+ to 5, Idaho was from 2+ to 3+.

So, the quality of I-80 in Nevada between Reno and Winnemucca beats both German A6 in South-West Germany and A4 in France east of Paris, hands down. However, Oregon and Washington motorway quality is lagging compared to European one. California was by far the worst compared to other states and other countries. Especially the stretch of I-80 in Sierra county was the worst of the worst :uh: Back in 2007, I posted a report on I-80 east of Sacramento, and since then they did not do any improvement in the E/B direction.


----------



## Albaneren

Its no doubt that Europe has better quaility highways than the US.


----------



## seem

*Traffic jam in Europe and in America*


----------



## verum

909 said:


> That is the worst Autobahn I have driven. Just look at these pics:


That is a beautiful stretch of road! Just come down to So. Cal, and we'll show you what _real_ bad roads look like. :nuts:


----------



## Danielk2

seem said:


> *Traffic jam in Europe and in America*


That's nothing. This is a real traffic jam :lol:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

^^ Is that seriously real?


----------



## Danielk2

That's a good question. I actually do not know


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No it's a bad photoshop. It's actually the I-405 in Los Angeles, probably viewed from the Getty Center.


----------



## Nikom

*Europe (Lisbon)...*









*...and USA (San Francisco) *


----------



## sotavento

spyguy said:


> Wait, was the whole thing made of concrete or just some parts? If it's only a few parts then that's most likely a rumble strip which is meant to alert sleepy drivers of things like toll booths and merging lanes.
> 
> But you have to remember, the US highway system dates back to Truman and started in the 1950s with Eisenhower and only "finished" in the 1990s. The problem is that you can't expect America to fix all the roadways at once, for obvious reasons like money and traffic problems. So once construction finishes on a highway, they move to the next few highways and by that time the first highway needs to be repaved or fixed. It's a constant battle, especially on high volume highways.
> 
> The main obstacle is money of course. Every state has its problems with paying for the highway system. Americans (generally) hate the word "tax" and so states have to think of creative ways to pay for highway projects.
> 
> So overall I think it's unrealistic to think that every highway could be in tip-top shape. :bash:


European highways in 1940









Same highway in 2010:




























:cheers:


----------



## sotavento

You forgot to add this picture:










^^ running INSIDE the bridge at lisboa ... :cheers:



Nikom said:


> *Europe (Lisbon)...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...and USA (San Francisco) *


----------



## mediar

verum said:


> That is a beautiful stretch of road! Just come down to So. Cal, and we'll show you what _real_ bad roads look like. :nuts:


Please permit me to do that first - Hemus highway in Bulgaria, near Shumen:































































I bet you haven't seen anything worse that that. That section of the highway ( around 35km ) is abandoned since many years ago and no reconstruction is going to be made soon. Bulgaria has the worst roads in EU at all.

@909 - we'd love to have highways like yours in Germany.


----------



## SeanT

I´m sure you can find roads with so bad condition elswhere too.


----------



## mediar

But that's not just a road, that's one of the very few highways in our country. And we pretend to be one of the growing countries in EU. The photos are from a section, that is less than 15 years old, and it's supposed to be for 130km/h.

Last but not least, Serbian highways are miles ahead, compared to ours, dispite being in war ten years ago.


----------



## SeanT

mediar said:


> But that's not just a road, that's one of the very few highways in our country. And we pretend to be one of the growing countries in EU. The photos are from a section, that is less than 15 years old, and it's supposed to be for 130km/h.


...well, yes, I see your point.


----------



## Slagathor

Those are some jaw-dropping photos. I've never seen highways like that in Europe before.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Slagathor said:


> Those are some jaw-dropping photos. I've never seen highways like that in Europe before.


You should've traveled in eastern Germany or Poland in the early 2000's.

I remember the German A13 in 2000, it was totally disastrous, like this, we were traveling with a caravan and we were all sea-sick, it was like driving on half gravel-half pavement. A4 and A11 also used to be in extremely bad conditions in eastern Germany.

And then there is the Polish A4 and DK18. I was also honored to have experienced them in 2003, before renovation (DK18 is still disastrous).


----------



## Danielk2

DK18 is great westbound, and not excactly as good eastbound


----------



## CNGL

I vote for European. The US should change to metric, and then... (But I think they will change units February 30th)


----------



## Penn's Woods

^^
(Rolleyes)


----------



## Danielk2

CNGL said:


> The US should change to metric, and then... (But I think they will change units February 30th)


That would be great, but i don't think that's ever gonna happen :soapbox:


----------



## Penn's Woods

Danielk2 said:


> That would be great, but i don't think that's ever gonna happen :soapbox:


Right, because God forbid any country should do anything differently. The glorious Western European model must be conformed to by everyone without question! Because it is by definition the best! Ban baseball and cricket; ban driving on the left and license plates that actually permit someone more than a few feet (sorry, meters) away to tell where they're from; ban dollars and pounds. It's bizarre, really, that Europeans who are so eager to tell English-speaking people what to do are also so eager to make English into their Esperanto. But I suppose that makes it easier for us to understand their lectures. And once we've gone metric and started giving a damn about soccer, they can work on telling us how to make the language better too.

Also, ban Interstate shields in avatars. Alpha-numeric route markers are just so much more civilized. 

Hmph.


----------



## Danielk2

What are you so pissed about?


----------



## Penn's Woods

Danielk2 said:


> What are you so pissed about?


Ah, read that tongue-in-cheek. 

(But "the US should do everything like us" is a recurrent theme here - and elsewhere - from some European posters. It makes sense that that would be less noticeable to you. But, "pissed"? No, sarcastic.)


----------



## Slagathor

Penn's Woods said:


> Ah, read that tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> (But "the US should do everything like us" is a recurrent theme here - and elsewhere - from some European posters. It makes sense that that would be less noticeable to you. But, "pissed"? No, sarcastic.)


It's rather annoying, I agree. Although I do much prefer the metric system for measurements when there's any calculating involved. Someone once told me how many yards go in a mile but it was so ludicrously complicated I quickly forgot about it


----------



## Danielk2

Penn's Woods said:


> Ah, read that tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> (But "the US should do everything like us" is a recurrent theme here - and elsewhere - from some European posters. It makes sense that that would be less noticeable to you. But, "pissed"? No, sarcastic.)


I've never said that the US should be identical to Europe. I'm just saying that one international system of measurements where everything is divideable by 10 is easier than having several different systems.

If you think i've offended the United States of America in any way, i apologize.

But it's my right to say my opinion about the standard of measurements in the US vs Rest of the world. 

If you think i'm a jackass, tell me it, but do not offend my or any other users' place or region of residence


----------



## nerdly_dood

Slagathor said:


> It's rather annoying, I agree. Although I do much prefer the metric system for measurements when there's any calculating involved.* Someone once told me how many yards go in a mile* but it was so ludicrously complicated I quickly forgot about it


1,760 if I recall properly.

As for the system of measurements, it works just fine for us, so we're quite glad to keep it.


----------



## Verso

mediar said:


> I bet you haven't seen anything worse that that. That section of the highway ( around 35km ) is abandoned since many years ago and no reconstruction is going to be made soon. Bulgaria has the worst roads in EU at all.


I believe the "EU" in the title is meant more like "Western Europe" (including its poorer parts), not so much EU's new members.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Danielk2 said:


> I've never said that the US should be identical to Europe. I'm just saying that one international system of measurements where everything is divideable by 10 is easier than having several different systems.
> 
> If you think i've offended the United States of America in any way, i apologize.
> 
> But it's my right to say my opinion about the standard of measurements in the US vs Rest of the world.
> 
> If you think i'm a jackass, tell me it, but do not offend my or any other users' place or region of residence


First, look up the expression "tongue-in-cheek."

This IS a recurrent theme from European posters, *plural*. (Example: "Why do the Brits drive on the left? Do they think they're better than us?") In fact, it's constant. And *I* am not going to apologize for finding it irritating and saying so. If you find that equates to calling you (singular) a jackass, well that's too bad. But I don't think that, and that's not what I meant. And how does it offend your place or region of residence? I like Europe. Which is one reason I'm not sitting here telling Europeans to change the way they do things...


----------



## Danielk2

I'm not telling americans to change anything either. If they wanna stick to their old system, fine. 
But i am going to express that i am not satisfied with their system.

I'm not just gonna tell some random american: "change that system"

But i am gonna express my opinion. And my opinion is that there should be one international standard.

BTW: If you read my previous post i said: "If you think i've offended the United States of America in any way, *I* apologize.

But that only applies if i offended the United States or any of it's residents based on their residence in the US"


----------



## darko06

If we are speaking about the higways too, not about the motorways/freeways only, than the best and sceniest highway on both continents is the coastal "California One", especially the famous "Big Sur route" between Monterey and San Luis Obispo. I have been there two times, in 2006 from north to south and in 2007 vice versa. :cheers:


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Penn's Woods said:


> First, look up the expression "tongue-in-cheek."
> 
> This IS a recurrent theme from European posters, *plural*. (Example: "Why do the Brits drive on the left? Do they think they're better than us?") In fact, it's constant. And *I* am not going to apologize for finding it irritating and saying so. If you find that equates to calling you (singular) a jackass, well that's too bad. But I don't think that, and that's not what I meant. And how does it offend your place or region of residence? I like Europe. Which is one reason I'm not sitting here telling Europeans to change the way they do things...


:chill:


----------



## Xpressway

Perhaps we should compare Europe's best highway with USA's best highway?

Many of the supposedly good highways posted in here look good in pics, but in reality their designs are awful from a driver's point of view.


----------



## Haljackey

Here's a couple of pictures from I took last month from my neck of the woods in Ontario, Canada. 

Good quality:









Poor quality (note the lack of shoulders):









Wonder how they compare to US and Euro highways. I think they're a nice balance between the two.


----------



## Harry

Danielk2 said:


> But i am gonna express my opinion. *And my opinion is that there should be one international standard.*
> 
> BTW: If you read my previous post i said: "If you think i've offended the United States of America in any way, *I* apologize.
> 
> But that only applies if i offended the United States or any of it's residents based on their residence in the US"


I agree with this. But I would go further. As well as a single international standard for measurement (and, of course, a single international protocol where all countries that currently drive on the left agree to switch to the right), I think there also needs to be an international standard of language.

Simply put, the current system where most countries use their own national language is messy and outdated. It adds immense cost to global trade and means that international travellers have to contend with speaking a foreign language. I propose that everyone across the globe should adopt English for exclusive use from January 1st 2011. German, French, Cantonese, Portuguese...all redundant, just like the Imperial system of measurement. Agree? Of course each of these languages have their own history and are embedded in the cultures of the countries and regions that use them, but the onward march of standardisation/homogenisation cannot be halted.

[Alternatively, we could all just agree that our differences make the world a slightly more interesting place. And that folk living in Denmark really have no business at all asking Americans, Britons or anyone else to adopt metric for every day use.]


----------



## earthJoker

Harry said:


> I agree with this. But I would go further. As well as a single international standard for measurement (and, of course, a single international protocol where all countries that currently drive on the left agree to switch to the right), I think there also needs to be an international standard of language.
> 
> Simply put, the current system where most countries use their own national language is messy and outdated. It adds immense cost to global trade and means that international travellers have to contend with speaking a foreign language. I propose that everyone across the globe should adopt English for exclusive use from January 1st 2011. German, French, Cantonese, Portuguese...all redundant, just like the Imperial system of measurement. Agree? Of course each of these languages have their own history and are embedded in the cultures of the countries and regions that use them, but the onward march of standardisation/homogenisation cannot be halted.
> 
> [Alternatively, we could all just agree that our differences make the world a slightly more interesting place. And that folk living in Denmark really have no business at all asking Americans, Britons or anyone else to adopt metric for every day use.]












There is an international system of measurement (called SI), it's just the US that want to play Asterix for some reason.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

It occurred to me the other day that Europeans have the same knee-jerk reactions to criticism that Americans do to the whole metric thing, but for Europeans it's pavement markings. Just as the metric system is qualitatively and objectively better than whatever else is out there, the American practise of separating directions of traffic with a different colour (yellow) is qualitatively and objectively better than the one-colour European scheme. But if you try and suggest they change to the better system you will be told it's none of your business, that's the way it's always been and it's working perfectly fine. This unwillingness to evaluate the subject objectively is the same protective instinct that kicks in when you criticise the US customary system.


----------



## Penn's Woods

earthJoker said:


> There is an international system of measurement (called SI), it's just the US that want to play Asterix for some reason.


There used to be lots of systems. There is a French system that has spread to most of the world. Most. The US *and the UK* have chosen not to adopt it, or not chosen to adopt it. "For some reason."

I fail to see why it is such a big deal to you. We have to be familiar with a second measurement system when we cross the border, so you should be able to do the same when you come here. Or alternatively, you could not come here.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Penn's Woods said:


> I fail to see why it is such a big deal to you. We have to be familiar with a second measurement system when we cross the border, so you should be able to do the same when you come here. Or alternatively, you could not come here.


_*+1*_


----------



## earthJoker

Penn's Woods said:


> There used to be lots of systems. There is a French system that has spread to most of the world. Most. The US *and the UK* have chosen not to adopt it, or not chosen to adopt it. "For some reason."


These are the countries where SI units are not official








And I don't think reson as something to do with it.


> I fail to see why it is such a big deal to you. We have to be familiar with a second measurement system when we cross the border, so you should be able to do the same when you come here. Or alternatively, you could not come here.


Which part of *discussion* board you have problems to understand?


----------



## Penn's Woods

earthJoker said:


> These are the countries where SI units are not official
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't think reson as something to do with it.
> 
> Which part of *discussion* board you have problems to understand?


Add the U.K. (Where I just learned that metric is actually illegal on highway signs. Imperial-only. You'll occasionally see some miles-and-metric signs here.) Why don't you start working on them: they're closer to you, and do lots of things that annoy continentals.

"Problems understanding" not "...to understand." And I _am_ discussing.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Maxx☢Power;60239341 said:


> It occurred to me the other day that Europeans have the same knee-jerk reactions to criticism that Americans do to the whole metric thing, but for Europeans it's pavement markings. Just as the metric system is qualitatively and objectively better than whatever else is out there, the American practise of separating directions of traffic with a different colour (yellow) is qualitatively and objectively better than the one-colour European scheme. But if you try and suggest they change to the better system you will be told it's none of your business, that's the way it's always been and it's working perfectly fine. This unwillingness to evaluate the subject objectively is the same protective instinct that kicks in when you criticise the US customary system.


There's one thing that never seems to be considered whenever people are talking about whether the way one...part of the world (country, continent, most of the world...) does things is "qualitatively and objectively better" than another area's way: It's not just a question, in my opinion, of whether one system is better than another in a vacuum, but whether the difference is significant enough to justify the disruption of the change from the "inferior" system to the better one. To get away from the metric example, someone on another thread was complaining about the British driving on the left, saying it was "unsafe." (And also saying it was evidence that the British think they're better than everyone, which is ridiculous.) His objection seemed to be based in particular on a recent experience of driving in London in a left-hand-drive car.

Well, let's think this through: is driving on the right really inherently safer - to any degree, let alone a significant degree - than driving on the left? I doubt it. So the benefit of Britain's switching to driving on the right would be to make it easier for continentals using their own cars in Britain (and also for British and Irish, *once they've all got left-hand-drive cars*, using their cars on the Continent). Weigh that against the cost of redesigning some intersections and interchanges, changing every road sign in the British Isles (in some cases just moving them across the road, but the signs at all those roundabouts would need to be redone...), a public-information campaign, and everyone's getting new cars - hence the bold three lines above (or using right-hand-drive cars on the right) and it seems to be a no-brainer for the British to keep doing what they're doing and people crossing the Channel to adjust. If it's really that difficult to drive a left-hand-drive car in London, you can rent a British car next time. As opposed to expecting 60 million people to accomodate you by getting new cars and spending tax money on new signs.

Back to metric: Yes, having everything in multiples of ten is convenient. If I were starting a country from scratch, I'd probably adopt the metric system for it. But we're not talking about starting a country from scratch here; we're talking about considerable disruption and cost to 300 million people, for relatively little benefit.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Penn's Woods said:


> Long story short, maintaining status quo is easier.


_*+1*_


----------



## earthJoker

Penn's Woods said:


> Add the U.K. (Where I just learned that metric is actually illegal on highway signs. Imperial-only. You'll occasionally see some miles-and-metric signs here.) Why don't you start working on them: they're closer to you, and do lots of things that annoy continentals.


Oh come on, it's not that I can't sleep at night thinking how I could turn the US and Uk to the SI units. I just pointed out that it's only a few countries left that haven't switched yet. And therefore it is not at all comparable to languages.

Just on the topics of languages. I don't like signs that have too much text. In Switzerland we have almost no texts (other than names and numbers) on signs because it's a multi-lingual country.


> "Problems understanding" not "...to understand." And I _am_ discussing.


Thank you for the gerunds and infinitive lesson :cheers:


----------



## Nephasto

Driving on the right isn't better than driving on the left hand side. There's not a better one and a worst.

But metric system is objectivelly better than imperial system (that's why the whole world started using metric instead of older and more primitive systems (like the imperial system) that each country used.).
As for the UK, appart from road distances, it's almost all metric by now.




Maxx☢Power;60239341 said:


> Just as the metric system is qualitatively and objectively better than whatever else is out there, the American practise of separating directions of traffic with a different colour (yellow) is qualitatively and objectively better than the one-colour European scheme. But if you try and suggest they change to the better system you will be told it's none of your business, that's the way it's always been and it's working perfectly fine.


Actually, I think in this subject the american system (with yellow on the middle) is supperior, and I'd like it to bo applied in Europe. :cheers:


----------



## Coccodrillo

Penn's Woods said:


> Back to metric: Yes, having everything in multiples of ten is convenient. If I were starting a country from scratch, I'd probably adopt the metric system for it. But we're not talking about starting a country from scratch here; we're talking about considerable disruption and cost to 300 million people, for relatively little benefit.


300 millions people will have to get used to another system, but it is not as difficult, expensive, or dramatic as changing side of the road traffic or as teaching the same language to the whole world.

And starting conversion today, children will grow up "metric minded" just like nearly 6.800.000.000 people in the rest of the world.


----------



## dizee

It would be an absolutely huge undertaking to convert the US though. There must be millions of roadsigns. Not realistic to replace them overnight. Ireland started replacing distance signs in the 70s and while it's rare you can still sometimes see some old mile-based signs. The speed limits were changed overnight but that was a huge effort as well, such that it was delayed until 2005, despite having metric distances for 30 years. :lol: And that's a small country, imagine the same for a country that's practically a continent in its own right...

Metric is a better system but it's probably too much cost and difficulty for the US to convert now. Anyway there's no reason that they should if they don't want to. It's just a system of measures, these discussions get far too political. 

Driving on the left might _actually_ be objectively safer though, because most people are right-eye dominant.  

As for EU vs US, I think the whole thing's a bit stupid. Both have their advantages. Only thing is the US network is often older so of course the quality will be a little worse, but that's natural. Plus there are Inter-states through really sparsely populated areas which will be lower priority to maintain. I do like yellow centre lines though and yellow diamonds (though better with symbols), and concrete barriers are safer when done properly. But then everyone likes best what they're familiar with.


----------



## ja_kubek2

Penn's Woods said:


> Back to metric: Yes, having everything in multiples of ten is convenient. If I were starting a country from scratch, I'd probably adopt the metric system for it. But we're not talking about starting a country from scratch here; we're talking about considerable disruption and cost to 300 million people, for relatively little benefit.


I can compare it to change value in many european countries. In every country were different values, but now we have euro. changing wasn't easy. we had to change labels in shops, software in banks and in cash desks, and our habits but now many countries have one value and i think it's better and the same would be with changing system to metric in usa


dizee said:


> It would be an absolutely huge undertaking to convert the US though. There must be millions of roadsigns. Not realistic to replace them overnight.


who said that it have to be changed overnight? in usa I saw signs with double-system (a sign was in imerial system, and under it second sign in metric system), so i think they can change sings but not overnight but eg. in 10 years. it can't be so hard for the most rich country in the world


----------



## dizee

Yeah but it's still going to take a long time to do it, if they really want to they can though I suppose. Needs a lot of political will for it.


----------



## Harry

ja_kubek2 said:


> I can compare it to change value in many european countries. In every country were different values, but now we have euro. changing wasn't easy. we had to change labels in shops, software in banks and in cash desks, and our habits but now many countries have one value and i think it's better and the same would be with changing system to metric in usa


Apologies in advance for taking this thread even further off topic, but I think you've chosen a poor example there. The UK has its fair share of economic problems like any other European country, but one problem that most of us here are glad we _don't_ have is the Euro. During the last few months we have seen Angela Merkel, leader of a country of 82 million people, devoting a large part of her time & energy to solving the problems of Greece. That cannot be sustainable. Before the economic crisis, there was still a minority section of public opinion in the UK in favour of joining the Euro...but that has now evaporated. Euro membership is now completely off the agenda and I cannot see that changing for a very long time.



ja_kubek2 said:


> who said that it have to be changed overnight? in usa I saw signs with double-system (a sign was in imerial system, and under it second sign in metric system), so i think they can change sings but not overnight but eg. in 10 years. it can't be so hard for the most rich country in the world


But the point you are still failing to address is that even if a US change over to metric was possible, why would they want to anyway? They're happy, thanks. Americans think in miles, pounds, feet and inches. It's a part of US culture. The only folk who seem to be upset about this live in Europe...and I can't see 300+ million Americans effecting a change simply to please a few grumpy Europeans!


----------



## ja_kubek2

sorry, that i continue this off-topic, but i have to answered.


> The UK has its fair share of economic problems like any other European country, but one problem that most of us here are glad we don't have is the Euro.


you don't have the euro and you have economical problems like every country in europe. it shows that there isn't connection between the euro and economical problems.



> During the last few months we have seen Angela Merkel, leader of a country of 82 million people, devoting a large part of her time & energy to solving the problems of Greece.


they haven't problems couse of the euro, but cause of their stupid policy (socjalism)



> Before the economic crisis, there was still a minority section of public opinion in the UK in favour of joining the Euro...but that has now evaporated. Euro membership is now completely off the agenda and I cannot see that changing for a very long time.


yes and you are against shengen zone, lisbon tractate, and you are against any attempt to increase the competence of the EU. so i'm not suprised that you don't want the euro

eot

I will return to the topic. In my opinion highways in eu are better, because there are better quality, smaller traffic and in europe more people drive on the right lane than on the left. and we can drive faster. and we have germany :lol: (without a general speed limitt)


----------



## Harry

I think you missed the point, there. But given that this is off topic, I'd rather not hijack the thread completely with a discussion on Euro membership. Happy to discuss via pm if you would like.


----------



## State of the Union

LOL @ Europeans and their "I'm always better than anyone else" attitude.

So far, the only argument you Europeans have said is that it looks nicer.

All you Europeans agree that the interstate highway system is the most impressive highway system in the world....I think you are pretty much saying the US interstates win. You guys are saying the Interstate system is more impressive than your sorry ass motorways. We win.

1) Don't talk $hit about our system until you Europeans have to worry about covering an area twice the size Europe is now, and as one unified country.

2) Because of vastness of the US, especially the west, unlike say Germany we can't babysit every single stretch of highway in whole country.

3) Money plays a factor in the conditions of the roads, but not entirely. We are a car oriented country. I would love to see if Europeans could build a 14 lane freeway, complete with HOV access ramps, and interchanges as big the Texas high five, and still keep it looking European-motorway asphalt-good. Also maintaining freeways like that ALL OVER an area the size of the United states in EVERY major city. Can Europeans do it? I think not.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

State of the Union said:


> LOL @ Europeans and their "I'm always better than anyone else" attitude.
> 
> So far, the only argument you Europeans have said is that it looks nicer.
> 
> All you Europeans agree that the interstate highway system is the most impressive highway system in the world....I think you are pretty much saying the US interstates win. You guys are saying the Interstate system is more impressive than your sorry ass motorways. We win.
> 
> 1) Don't talk $hit about our system until you Europeans have to worry about covering an area twice the size Europe is now, and as one unified country.
> 
> 2) Because of vastness of the US, especially the west, unlike say Germany we can't babysit every single stretch of highway in whole country.
> 
> 3) Money plays a factor in the conditions of the roads, but not entirely. We are a car oriented country. I would love to see if Europeans could build a 14 lane freeway, complete with HOV access ramps, and interchanges as big the Texas high five, and still keep it looking European-motorway asphalt-good. Also maintaining freeways like that ALL OVER an area the size of the United states in EVERY major city. Can Europeans do it? I think not.


Am I wrong in guessing this was posted from a college dorm room?


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Nephasto said:


> Actually, I think in this subject the american system (with yellow on the middle) is supperior, and I'd like it to bo applied in Europe. :cheers:


It would have to be a different colour though, because yellow is already being used for temporary markings. How about green or blue? I guess it would look a little weird and unusual to begin with, but people would get used to it. Although, yellow markings being temporary, I guess we could just wait until they're gone and say, from now on, yellow separates directions of traffic and red is used for temporary markings.


----------



## 909

State of the Union said:


> LOL @ Europeans and their "I'm always better than anyone else" attitude.
> 
> So far, the only argument you Europeans have said is that it looks nicer.
> 
> All you Europeans agree that the interstate highway system is the most impressive highway system in the world....I think you are pretty much saying the US interstates win. You guys are saying the Interstate system is more impressive than your sorry ass motorways. We win.


Well, if someone here has an attitude is must be you. 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.



State of the Union said:


> 1) Don't talk $hit about our system until you Europeans have to worry about covering an area twice the size Europe is now, and as one unified country.


Not the area of the country is important, but the total _lenght_ of the roadsystem.



State of the Union said:


> 2) Because of vastness of the US, especially the west, unlike say Germany we can't babysit every single stretch of highway in whole country.


You can, but most of the Americans aren't willing to pax for it. Vastness shouldn't be the biggest issue here, many parts of France, Spain, Sweden or Finland are also quite sparsely populated. 



State of the Union said:


> 3) Money plays a factor in the conditions of the roads, but not entirely. We are a car oriented country.


I wouldn't deny that, but more countries are car oriented (with alternatives!) like Germany. The best example of that is the lack of speedlimits on the Autobahn.  

But speaking of money, it it well known that many people aren't willing to pay money for sustaining the infrastructure, which has been proven by the tragic Minneapolis Bridge Collapse.



State of the Union said:


> I would love to see if Europeans could build a 14 lane freeway, complete with HOV access ramps, and interchanges as big the Texas high five, and still keep it looking European-motorway asphalt-good. Also maintaining freeways like that ALL OVER an area the size of the United states in EVERY major city. Can Europeans do it? I think not.


Europeans can do it, but mostly we prefer efficiency instead of being effective. For example, the _Frankfurter Kreuz_, an Autobahn interchange where the autobahns A3 and A5 meet and approximately 320,000 cars daily can handle traffic without the massiveness of the 26 traffic lanes wide El Toro Y in Los Angeles. Is bigger better? No, it isn't.

But i am not an expert, it would be interesting to hear the opinion from someone like ChrisZwolle.


----------



## snowman159

So far no one could explain why having units that are multiples of ten would be more convenient for drivers. I'm really curious. 

You compare the numbers on speed limit signs to your speedometer readings and adjust your speed accordingly- no division, no multiplication, certainly no conversion between yards and miles. Same thing with distances. It makes absolutely no difference whether the signs are in miles or kilometers. Just because you're used to one system and the other looks exotic to you isn't a good enough reason.

I'm sure there are many fields where the metric system does have real advantages and in many (if not most) it is already the international standard.


----------



## Penn's Woods

909 said:


> Well, if someone here has an attitude is must be you. 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.
> 
> 
> Not the area of the country is important, but the total _lenght_ of the roadsystem.
> 
> 
> You can, but most of the Americans aren't willing to pax for it. Vastness shouldn't be the biggest issue here, many parts of France, Spain, Sweden or Finland are also quite sparsely populated.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't deny that, but more countries are car oriented (with alternatives!) like Germany. The best example of that is the lack of speedlimits on the Autobahn.
> 
> But speaking of money, it it well known that many people aren't willing to pay money for sustaining the infrastructure, which has been proven by the tragic Minneapolis Bridge Collapse.
> 
> 
> Europeans can do it, but mostly we prefer efficiency instead of being effective. For example, the _Frankfurter Kreuz_, an Autobahn interchange where the autobahns A3 and A5 meet and approximately 320,000 cars daily can handle traffic without the massiveness of the 26 traffic lanes wide El Toro Y in Los Angeles. Is bigger better? No, it isn't.
> 
> But i am not an expert, it would be interesting to hear the opinion from someone like ChrisZwolle.


I am _totally_ not taking sides in your exchange with "State of the Union" except on one point: "sparsely populated" by European standards is nothing like "sparsely populated" in the U.S. The state of Montana has the land area (roughly) of Germany and a population of maybe 700,000 or 800,000. There are sparsely populated pockets of France or Spain, but not on that scale.
[Bows out]


----------



## Penn's Woods

snowman159 said:


> So far no one could explain why having units that are multiples of ten would be more convenient for drivers. I'm really curious.
> 
> You compare the numbers on speed limit signs to your speedometer readings and adjust your speed accordingly- no division, no multiplication, certainly no conversion between yards and miles. Same thing with distances. It makes absolutely no difference whether the signs are in miles or kilometers. Just because you're used to one system and the other looks exotic to you isn't a good enough reason.
> 
> I'm sure there are many fields where the metric system does have real advantages and in many (if not most) it is already the international standard.


Right. I keep forgetting to ask when anyone'd need to know how many yards are in a mile (a point raised by MaxPower a couple of days ago). Distances of less than a mile are normally posted in fractions here.


----------



## State of the Union

Maxx☢Power;60257571 said:


> Am I wrong in guessing this was posted from a college dorm room?


Am I wrong in guessing that infact you are the one posting from college dorm room and that you are trying to make your sorry ass feel better by saying someone else is?

No, I'm not posting college dorm room. I'm just an American posting his stance. 

I'm just a long time lurker, never bothered really to post people on here because seem to act like babies sometimes.

EDIT: Thank you 909 for your respectful response to my post.


----------



## Harry

Penn's Woods said:


> Right. I keep forgetting to ask when anyone'd need to know how many yards are in a mile (a point raised by MaxPower a couple of days ago). Distances of less than a mile are normally posted in fractions here.


And here. In fact , it's not uncommon to see signs showing a distance of 1/3 mile to the next exit. The fact that this distance equates to 586 yards 2 feet is not something that preoccupies too many drivers.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

909 said:


> Europeans can do it, but mostly we prefer efficiency instead of being effective. For example, the _Frankfurter Kreuz_, an Autobahn interchange where the autobahns A3 and A5 meet and approximately 320,000 cars daily can handle traffic without the massiveness of the 26 traffic lanes wide El Toro Y in Los Angeles. Is bigger better? No, it isn't.
> 
> But i am not an expert, it would be interesting to hear the opinion from someone like ChrisZwolle.


The El Toro Y is a different kind of interchange, with different traffic patterns. At first, it is much more busy, the Frankfurter Kreuz busiest Autobahn section is around 150,000 vehicles per day. At the El Toro Y it is 350,000 vehicles per day. Besides that, the El Toro Y also has several local exits within it, plus separate HOV facilities, which makes the interchange much larger. It is also the only through route in a subdivision of 3 million people. The Frankfurt area has much more alternate routes, while traffic in Greater Los Angeles are combined on a relatively limited amount of freeways, hence it's massiveness. Nonetheless, the Los Angeles freeway system is one of the least developed in the entire U.S. calculated to capacity and population, comparable to New York City.

However, the 26 traffic lanes also includes access roads. The I-5 has only 2x4 through lanes on that section, the rest are additional lanes to exits, access roads and HOV facilities. The most impressive section, in my opinion, is not the interchange itself, but the area where all those lane merge just to the south near Lake Forest Drive. There are as much as 20 lanes there, eventually merging into 14 through lanes. 

It also has to be noted the immediate surroundings of the El Toro Y consist of one of the largest job centers outside downtown Los Angeles with tens of thousands of jobs. Apart from the Airport, there is no such thing around the Frankfurter Kreuz. 

Lastly, the Frankfurt metropolitan area is chicken shit compared to the Los Angeles metropolitan Area. Orange County alone is already bigger than (sub)urban Frankfurt.


----------



## nerdly_dood

You could replace yellow temporary markings with orange ones, wait a few years and then use yellow to indicate opposing traffic, or do as the US does and use temporary markings that are the same as normal ones, and use black to cover permanent markings that you don't want people to obey so people won't see white lines telling them two different things.


----------



## Coccodrillo

snowman159 said:


> I'm sure there are many fields where the metric system does have real advantages and in many (if not most) it is already the international standard.


In daily life (maintaining speed on roads, measuring the fuel at a petrol station, ...) two systems are equivalent.

In scientific works metric system is already spreading in the USA. But not everywhere...



> The use of two different systems was the root cause in the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1998. NASA specified metric units in the contract. NASA and other organizations worked in metric units, but one subcontractor, Lockheed Martin, provided thruster performance data to the team in pound force seconds instead of newton seconds. The spacecraft was intended to orbit Mars at about 150 kilometers (93 mi) altitude, but the incorrect data meant that it probably descended instead to about 57 kilometers (35 mi), burning up in the Martian atmosphere.[12]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter


----------



## State of the Union

909 said:


> Well, if someone here has an attitude is must be you. 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.
> 
> *Fair Enough.*
> 
> 
> Not the area of the country is important, but the total _lenght_ of the roadsystem.
> 
> *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.
> *
> You can, but most of the Americans aren't willing to pax for it. Vastness shouldn't be the biggest issue here, many parts of France, Spain, Sweden or Finland are also quite sparsely populated.
> 
> *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.*
> 
> I wouldn't deny that, but more countries are car oriented (with alternatives!) like Germany. The best example of that is the lack of speedlimits on the Autobahn.
> 
> *Lack of speed limits would be impractical on your average US urban freeway.*
> 
> But speaking of money, it it well known that many people aren't willing to pay money for sustaining the infrastructure, which has been proven by the tragic Minneapolis Bridge Collapse.
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Europeans can do it, but mostly we prefer efficiency instead of being effective. For example, the _Frankfurter Kreuz_, an Autobahn interchange where the autobahns A3 and A5 meet and approximately 320,000 cars daily can handle traffic without the massiveness of the 26 traffic lanes wide El Toro Y in Los Angeles. Is bigger better? No, it isn't.
> 
> *Funny. Every picture of this interchange the highway looks as bad as any America highway. The asphalt doesn't look uniform, it has patches, the bridges are not the same as the rest of the highway and it doesn't look any of Europes best highways. The condition looks the same. I also don't see how this interchange is more effecient than any other interchange in the US. We have plenty of heavily used interchanges like that all over the US and the do fine. 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.*
> 
> But i am not an expert, it would be interesting to hear the opinion from someone like ChrisZwolle.


All good though.

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.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> 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.


Actually many reports have addressed the issue of structural and widespread bridge deficiency throughout the United States. Of course this is an issue in Europe as well, but certainly not on a large scale. Many 1950's bridges are structurally unsound because substandard steel was used during the Korean War. The main problem in the United States right now is that most of the 50's and 60's infrastructure is nearing the end of it's lifespan, and have to be replaced en-masse, but there are no sufficient funds for that. I'm talking gazillions of dollars to replace literally thousands major and minor bridges in every state.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Penn's Woods said:


> Right. I keep forgetting to ask when anyone'd need to know how many yards are in a mile (a point raised by MaxPower a couple of days ago).


I think you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## 909

Penn's Woods said:


> I am _totally_ not taking sides in your exchange with "State of the Union" except on one point: "sparsely populated" by European standards is nothing like "sparsely populated" in the U.S. The state of Montana has the land area (roughly) of Germany and a population of maybe 700,000 or 800,000. There are sparsely populated pockets of France or Spain, but not on that scale.
> [Bows out]


True, but most highways are where most people are. California or the northeastern part of the US has more highways and motorways than Montana or Nebraska. 

According to nationmaster, countries like Austria, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, Spain, Norway, France and Denmark are having more km paved highway per capita. Note: I have my doubts about these statistics and the term 'highway'. And we all know that statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. 
On the other hand, according to Wikipedia the only European countries with a greater length of motorways per capita are Austria and Luxembourg. The only European countries with a lower density of motorway per square km are Iceland, Norway, Poland, Finland and Sweden. That is not a suprise, since those countries are sparsely populated.
In an other article Wikipedia claims that 'considering Austria's relatively low population density and its location in the centre of the continent, the motorway density per capita is the highest in Europe.' Let's not forget that Austria is a mountainous country.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from all of this, except that a low population density doesn't explain much about the quality and condition of the roads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

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). 

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.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

edit double


----------



## 909

ChrisZwolle said:


> The El Toro Y is a different kind of interchange, with different traffic patterns. (...)


Thanks for clearing that up. But perhaps it would be interesting in this discussion, why are many American intersections different than European ones? State of the Union used the High Five Interchange as an example, I used the El Toro Y and the Frankfurter Kreuz as an example. But how can we those compare?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

909 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. But perhaps it would be interesting in this discussion, why are many American intersections different than European ones? State of the Union used the High Five Interchange as an example, I used the El Toro Y and the Frankfurter Kreuz as an example. But how can we those compare?


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. 

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. 

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. 

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.


----------



## Squiggles

The EU has far superior road quality for sure, hence my vote to them. However, I will give kudos to the U.S. for the amazing stacked interchanges.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It is also interesting to note that job centers in the U.S. are quite different from Europe. Downtown jobs in Europe are usually not on a very large scale, apart from some cities. American cities do not have a historical center, but are the center of trade and commerce, creating much larger traffic flows towards the city centers than is common in Europe. Apart from offices, many downtown areas also have large industrial areas with light industries, warehouses, transportation etc, for example the area east of downtown Los Angeles or north of downtown Denver.

However, you can also see a trend in the U.S. where the downtown is losing out on jobs, or better, other locations are growing faster than the downtown area. A prime example is Atlanta, where many sub centers have sprung up, like Buckhead, Sandy Springs, Uptown, etc. This resulted in a significant traffic drop on I-75/I-85 (Downtown Connector) through downtown Atlanta in recent years (as much as 50,000 vpd less).


----------



## Penn's Woods

Maxx☢Power;60263537 said:


> I think you have me confused with someone else.


I did: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=60089429&postcount=990
Sorry!


----------



## 909

State of the Union said:


> 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.



State of the Union said:


> Lack of speed limits would be impractical on your average US urban freeway.


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



State of the Union said:


> 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+.'



State of the Union said:


> Funny. Every picture of this interchange the highway looks as bad as any America highway.


Funny, _as bad_ as any American highway? 



State of the Union said:


> 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.



State of the Union said:


> 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?


----------



## 909

ChrisZwolle said:


> 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.



ChrisZwolle said:


> 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.


----------



## State of the Union

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

909 said:


> '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


----------



## 909

ChrisZwolle said:


> 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?



ChrisZwolle said:


> 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:





















ChrisZwolle said:


> 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.



ChrisZwolle said:


> 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! kay:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

> 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.


----------



## geogregor

ChrisZwolle said:


> 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


----------



## 909

State of the Union said:


> 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.



State of the Union said:


> 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? 



State of the Union said:


> 1) Our economy is in the $hit hole.


More economies are. 



State of the Union said:


> 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. 



State of the Union said:


> 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.



State of the Union said:


> 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. 



State of the Union said:


> 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. 



State of the Union said:


> 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. 



State of the Union said:


> 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. 



State of the Union said:


> 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:


State of the Union said:


> 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.





909 said:


> 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: 


909 said:


> 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?



State of the Union said:


> 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?


State of the Union said:


> I'm not saying bigger is better.





State of the Union said:


> If that's one freeway, image one interchange here in the US.





State of the Union said:


> 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.


----------



## Coccodrillo

909 said:


> 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).


----------



## 909

geogregor said:


> 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.



ChrisZwolle said:


> 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.


----------



## 909

Coccodrillo said:


> 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.



Coccodrillo said:


> 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.


----------



## Xpressway

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.


----------



## Haljackey

Xpressway said:


> 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?


----------



## Verso

State of the Union said:


> 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).


----------



## Xpressway

Haljackey said:


> 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?


----------



## nerdly_dood

Xpressway said:


> 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...


----------



## Xpressway

nerdly_dood said:


> 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...


----------



## Spikespiegel

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.


----------



## SeanT

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.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Xpressway said:


> 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)


----------



## g.spinoza

Slagathor said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say when we're talking about numbers. Is "A2" any different in Italian than it is in Dutch or French? No.


Of course not. Quite the opposite. You cannot make mistakes in Europe, but you can in the US. What if someone has to take the I-something in North Dakota and end up taking the I-something in South Dakota? 



> So what? What does that have to do with it? The problems are the same: namely that you'd run out of numbers because the places in question (US, EU) are too big for a single scheme.


No, it just means that americans are too lazy or dumb to devise a different scheme (for instance, spurs not only with 3-digit numbers but also with 4-digit numbers. Or with letters -- I-A95 and I-B95 being spurs of the I-95).

By the way, dude: cool off.


----------



## Slagathor

^^ I'm not having a discussion with someone who'll portray an entire people as lazy or dumb. Not worth my time.


----------



## snowman159

g.spinoza said:


> Of course not. Quite the opposite. You cannot make mistakes in Europe, but you can in the US. What if someone has to take the I-something in North Dakota and end up taking the I-something in South Dakota?


Or even worse, imagine the poor guy from Long Island caught in an infinite loop on the Capital Beltway, looking for his exit, going round and round.... :lol:


----------



## g.spinoza

Slagathor said:


> ^^ I'm not having a discussion with someone who'll portray an entire people as lazy or dumb. Not worth my time.


You were the first to talk about "retards" and "dumb" people, and making derogatory comments. An entire people may not be dumb... at least one person is.


----------



## snowman159

g.spinoza said:


> Of course not. Quite the opposite. You cannot make mistakes in Europe, but you can in the US. What if *someone* has to take the I-something in North Dakota and end up taking the I-something in South Dakota?


That someone, is he or she a German driver out of this video? 







g.spinoza said:


> No, it just means that *americans are too lazy or dumb to devise a different scheme* (for instance, spurs not only with 3-digit numbers but also with 4-digit numbers. Or with letters -- I-A95 and I-B95 being spurs of the I-95).


It probably means Americans are smart enough to figure out what state or metro area they're in. Not sure about European tourists driving in America, though. 


Anyway, you can probably tell I'm pretty bored today, so don't take what I wrote before too serious. 3-digit Interstates are not *that* frequent (edit: I meant 3-digit interstates sharing the same number in close proximity) and unless you're so stoned you shouldn't be driving in the first place, there's really no way it could cause any confusion. People are not that dumb - on either side of the big pond.


----------



## g.spinoza

snowman159 said:


> It probably means Americans are smart enough to figure out what state or metro area they're in. Not sure about European tourists driving in America, though.


I hope so... Obviously I wasn't serious about americans, I was only pissed by the scornful comments of someone...



> Anyway, you can probably tell I'm pretty bored today, so don't take what I wrote before too serious. 3-digit Interstates are not *that* frequent (edit: I meant 3-digit interstates sharing the same number in close proximity) and unless you're so stoned you shouldn't be driving in the first place, there's really no way it could cause any confusion. People are not that dumb - on either side of the big pond.


Understood, all I meant is that a nation-wide project like the Interstate should be more rigorous and uniform in giving names to its roads.
Before anyone asks, I'm Italian and in Italy national road names (not autostrade) are a mess bigger than you can imagine...


----------



## Surel

I thought that for Europe (not only EU) should in the future work the system with E numbers. However, not covering all the motorways and expresways.

It is certainly not perfect to have same numbers and names for different roads in different parts of the same country. Yet, I see as a bigger mess changing the numbering overnight because of this, not forgetting, that it causes no problems so far.

Sure EU is not country, but as for me it should be. I am wholeheartedly en EU federalist and would support this. But that is not the core. I mean generally speaking EU is comparable with US in many ways and I dare to say that transport policy is one of the areas where the similarities are huge. So to say, I have never in my entire life thought it could cause problems that different countries in EU have the same names and numbers for their motorways. On the other side I experienced a situation when I made a mistake and used number from german network on a motorway from another country or vice versa.


So yes. The system should be a such, that it would assign unique number to every motorway in given "network" system. Whether this is feasible to achieve when the system is already built and whether the benefits of such a change uitweights the costs is another question.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

It would be good if fuels had the same name all over Europe

Simply;

E95
E98
Diesel
Autogas

So to get rid of all the "sans plomb", "senza piombo", "gazole", "bleifrei", "Blyfri", "gasol", "motorgas", "gasolio", "sem chumbo", "gasóleo", "bezolowiowa", "Olej napedowy" etc. mess.


----------



## snowman159

g.spinoza said:


> Understood, all I meant is that a nation-wide project like the Interstate should be more rigorous and uniform in giving names to its roads.


I can see your argument, but I can't help thinking it's primarily for the sake of pedantry than any real world benefits. Knowing that 3-digit interstates are local to a single metro area, sharing numbers is an effective way to keep things simple.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

In countries like Germany and France there are many roads with the same numbers.


----------



## snowman159

Surel said:


> I have never in my entire life thought it could cause problems that different countries in EU have the same names and numbers for their motorways. On the other side I experienced a situation when I made a mistake and used number from german network on a motorway from another country or vice versa.


Haha. I'd say that's not a design flaw, but a momentary lapse in concentration. Happens to the best of us. :lol:


----------



## Verso

ChrisZwolle said:


> In countries like Germany and France there are many roads with the same numbers.


Really? That's retarded.


----------



## g.spinoza

^^ I think he's referring to unfinished autobahns with missing sections...


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No, Communal, Departemental Routes in France and Landesstrassen and Kreisstrassen in Germany. The latter aren't signposted though.


----------



## Verso

^^ Do you mean there're e.g. two B100s, or the prefix is different? We also have A2 and H2, but that's not the same.


----------



## Wimpie

I'm surprised people didn't post more videos here, roads are intented to move on, hence you should judge them while moving and not only by looking at one static picture.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Verso said:


> ^^ Do you mean there're e.g. two B100s, or the prefix is different? We also have A2 and H2, but that's not the same.


No, in France and Germany road numbers are reused in other districts. For example K1 can be found in just about any district in Germany.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Not only three digit interstate numbers are repeated: there are two of each I-76, 84, 86, 88!

Beside that there is one I-35, two I-35E, and two I-35W.



ChrisZwolle said:


> In countries like Germany and France there are many roads with the same numbers.


Or in Italy: provincial roads start from SP 1 in each province.


----------



## CNGL

^^ Yeah.

And I have decided what are the best roads of the world: The continental Europe ones. The worst ones are the UK ones, because they drive on the left and use miles (But I have heard they have kmposts, not mileposts, on the motorways). And falling between, the USA (Driving on the right side but using miles, bad), Ireland and Japan (Using kilometers but driving on the left, bad).


----------



## Coccodrillo

_British should drive on the *right* side of the road _

Seriously, there is no a "better" side of driving, it's just question of habit. But it's true than swapping side is annoying, the UK should have done it 40 years ago with Sweden. Now it's too late.

About miles...*thinkmetric*, as one user here says in his signature 

================

Back to numbering: it's maybe annoying changing number at the border, but it's even more stupid when this happens in the same country: A14-S16-A12 and S6-S36-S37 in Austria, A1-S6 in Poland, ...


----------



## g.spinoza

Coccodrillo said:


> Or in Italy: provincial roads start from SP 1 in each province.


That's different. Interstates are nationwide, Italian provincial roads are operated by each single province. I don't doubt there are many local roads with the same name in different US state, but they are supposed to be. Interstates are not.



Coccodrillo said:


> Back to numbering: it's maybe annoying changing number at the border, but it's even more stupid when this happens in the same country: A14-S16-A12 and S6-S36-S37 in Austria, A1-S6 in Poland, ...


A18-RA15-NSA339-A18 in Italy...hno:


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ Also A4-RA13-NSA314-SS202...


----------



## Grisent

ChrisZwolle said:


> It would be good if fuels had the same name all over Europe
> 
> Simply;
> E95
> E98
> Diesel
> Autogas
> 
> So to get rid of all the "sans plomb", "senza piombo", "gazole", "bleifrei", "Blyfri", "gasol", "motorgas", "gasolio", "sem chumbo", "gasóleo", "bezolowiowa", "Olej napedowy" etc. mess.


^^ 
And "Benzin", "Regular", "Super" and "Super plus", too, whatever they are.


----------



## diablo234

Even though I voted for EU some US states such as Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Ohio have decent roadway quality (ie few potholes, etc). However the roadway quality in some states such as Louisiana, Alabama, etc have poorer road quality.


----------



## KingNick

Grisent said:


> ^^
> And "Benzin", "Regular", "Super" and "Super plus", too, whatever they are.


Wow, seems like taking a simple look at the octane rating is too much to ask.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Are diesel pumps always black anyway all over EU at least?


----------



## niterider

CNGL said:


> ^^ Yeah.
> 
> And I have decided what are the best roads of the world: The continental Europe ones. The worst ones are the UK ones, because they drive on the left and use miles (But I have heard they have kmposts, not mileposts, on the motorways). And falling between, the USA (Driving on the right side but using miles, bad), Ireland and Japan (Using kilometers but driving on the left, bad).


And the Australians? New Zealanders? Irish? Japanese? Indonesians? Indians, Pakistanis? Sinaporeans? South Africans? or others in Africa and South America.... The UK is not the only left-driving country in the world. 



CNGL said:


> (But I have heard they have kmposts, not mileposts, on the motorways).


That wouldn't make any sense to do.... still in miles territory, with metrificiation creeping into other aspects of life 



diablo234 said:


> Even though I voted for EU some US states such as Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Ohio have decent roadway quality (ie few potholes, etc). However the roadway quality in some states such as Louisiana, Alabama, etc have poorer road quality.


But European motorways tend to cost a lot more to use. Higher fuel taxes, other taxes related to owning a vehicle, and often much higher tolls (try driving the length of France and compare that with a trip the Northeast States and you'll see what I mean!) While road conditions US States vary, its nothing like the variation seen in Europe in terms of design standards, markings, signage etc.


----------



## KingNick

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Are diesel pumps always black anyway all over EU at least?


Since I haven't been to all 27 states so far, no idea.


----------



## Substructure

It's usually yellow in France, I actually thought it was the standard color for every state in the EU ! E95 (named SP95 here) is always green though, with no exception.

I agree we should make this standard in every state. I mean, what's the big deal calling SP95 E95 ? We already do that with E10.


----------



## Gareth

Just thought I'd at that Northern Ireland has a separate numbering system to the rest of the UK. The duplicate numbers don't cause a lot of problems.


----------



## Verso

^^ That's different again, because Northern Ireland is apparently sth special within the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain _and Northern Ireland_) and it's also physically separated from GB.



g.spinoza said:


> That's different. Interstates are nationwide, Italian provincial roads are operated by each single province. I don't doubt there are many local roads with the same name in different US state, but they are supposed to be. Interstates are not.


Exactly. For example, there's just one A1 in both Germany and France.


----------



## Dallas boi

Dallas Freeway tour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGhgL04G-6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fIN_b2CbYA


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Maxx☢Power;70908347 said:


> I've never seen yellow for diesel in France, just black..


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Indeed, the forumer from Huesca is right when he says that mileposts here are in metric.

In the UK, the only thing not in metric are distance signs and speed limits, even in general conversation, metric is slowly taking over, in fact, being part of a younger generation, I have no idea whatsoever how long an inch is, or how big a pint is, but I do understand miles. 


What I don't get is why some people want to change the side of the road in the UK, or anywhere else, I think that would just be a huge waste of money, and be pointless. I would like full metrication though.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^

It would be on an island like it is the case with the UK, the situation is different where you have borders between countries driving on different sides. Thats not really the case in Europe if I remember correctly but in quite a few places around the world. I guess there it would pay off to change sides. 

Why it is forbidden by law to use metrics for distances is something probably only Britons can understand and maybe not even they can.


----------



## brewerfan386

^^
On the last point, *let's not go there*.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

I voted EU (and proud).

It's true that US highways can boast a million lanes, but EU highways in general are far 1) safer, 2) better signposted, 3) better lit and 4) better surfaced. Even in my home country of the UK, the highways (motorways) are generally of better quality. None of the highways or expressways here in South Florida would even be able to achieve motorway classification. There are too many exits, merge lanes are not long enough and safety is a complete and utter joke.

The US has some great roads, but it cannot hold a candle to the highways of countries such as Germany, France or the Netherlands. If the UK had more motorways, I'd say the UK too, only the UK just doesn't have enough.


----------



## Xusein

This comparison is invalid...although the US is a huge country, it is still one single country being compared against 27 nations that all have different standards, some better than others. Compare it to North America or something (although yeah EU would win if that was the case).


----------



## FabriFlorence

Comfortably Numb said:


> I voted EU (and proud).
> 
> It's true that US highways can boast a million lanes, but EU highways in general are far 1) safer, 2) better signposted, 3) better lit and 4) better surfaced. Even in my home country of the UK, the highways (motorways) are generally of better quality. None of the highways or expressways here in South Florida would even be able to achieve motorway classification. There are too many exits, merge lanes are not long enough and safety is a complete and utter joke.
> 
> The US has some great roads, but it cannot hold a candle to the highways of countries such as Germany, France or the Netherlands. If the UK had more motorways, I'd say the UK too, only the UK just doesn't have enough.


+1


----------



## g.spinoza

It seems to me that this kind of polls has a very predictable outcome, given that not many people drove on both EU and US motorways: Europeans vote for EU roads, Americans for US roads.


----------



## KingNick




----------



## Comfortably Numb

geogregor said:


> Germany motorways are not that great at all. There are a lot off exits with very tight slip roads and short acceleration/deceleration lanes. Some of the old ones have narrow or even non existent hard shoulder/emergency lane.
> For me, all the superlatives about German motorways are partly mythical, caused by lack of speed limits on some sections. Sure, there are some great stretches but so they are in the US.
> French motorways are great (especially the surface because geometry or other design aspects are not especially spectacular) but stupid tolls completely destroy driving experience, at least for me.
> Netherlands motorways are fine, UK ones too, but I don't see big superiority in quality over the US interstates.
> In UK strong points is that motorways are mostly with three lanes.
> In US I like wide median, feeling of space (outside urban areas) and some stack intersections. They are truly amazing. Come on guys, what in our backyard beats "high five" in Dallas?
> Paving varies, I experienced great and really bad one. But the same applies to EU.
> I don't understand complaining about signposting in US. I never got lost there, even driving in unfamiliar urban areas, despite never using satnavs.
> Signposting in US is clear and consistent. It's big advantage over EU system of 27 sets of road signs, 27 road numbering and naming systems, 27 of everything actually. It's huge mess comparing with logical US system.


Well, personally I liked what I saw of German motorways. They were nicely surfaced, drivers (although fast) were sensible. Signage was good.

Now I'm from the UK. I know I'm going to get flamed and bashed for this, but in comparison with the equivalent of motorways here in Florida, the UK's somewhat limited network is vastly superior in terms of quality to the highways of Florida. If I compare (for example) the M6 to I-95, I-95 will clearly win on the "I have more lanes than you" contest, but it will lose in every other department, including signage, safety, number of exits, quality of the road surface, length of merge lanes and overall safety. If the UK had a more extensive motorway network, it would literally piss all over the US interstate network with flying colours (sorry). Sadly, the network is nowhere near as extensive as it should be, so it's too close of a contest.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

ChrisZwolle said:


> Yes, the incomplete motorway network is a major setback for Europe, even if you think of Europe as "EU". There are still many missing links, also in western Europe, but more so in central and southeastern Europe. Of course, this can be explained historically, but it doesn't bode well for Europe in a comparison.
> 
> The United States overall has been a very wealthy country for many decades. Europe, in part, was just as wealthy, but there are also areas of Europe where wealth is just starting to accelerate, and the road network goes accordingly (and sometimes not).
> 
> Lastly, the U.S. had a centrally planned and funded Interstate Highway network. Something like that on such a scale never existed in Europe. All roads and motorways are funded out of the regular budget, which are generally surprisingly tight considering our much higher taxes.


Comparing the US interstate network to the EU's motorways is like comparing a Lincoln Navigator to a Mercedes Benz. One is much bigger, the other is better engineered. Either option involves a trade-off.


----------



## urbanlover

g.spinoza said:


> Of course not. Quite the opposite. You cannot make mistakes in Europe, but you can in the US. What if someone has to take the I-something in North Dakota and end up taking the I-something in South Dakota?


How could someone possibly make a mistake? Let's take I-275 in Metro Detroit, you'd have drive 200+ miles south to Cincinatti to see it again. Even the dense northeast corridor there is plently distance between between route number to avoid confusion I'll give you another example between I-295 in Providence and I-295 Portland are 150 miles apart 

And road signage is exceedingly clear in the US compared to an number of EU countries especially the UK, France and Italy. They're well organized destinations are clear without providing too much info


----------



## g.spinoza

urbanlover said:


> How could someone possibly make a mistake?


I was just making an example, I don't know if there's a really possibility to get confused. But, since when I heard about a former collegue of mine who was to take a flight to Konstanz in Germany and found herself at Constanta in Romania (in many languages those cities share the same name), I think that everything's possible...


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ Trains to Tirano and Torino (250 km away by road or by train) in Milano Centrale leave from two adjacent tracks  Confusion is quite common.


----------



## Wimpie

When judging on who or what is better, we should also look to the past.

Late 60's and early 70's in Belgium
(Photographs were taken by the US federal highway administration)


----------



## minus_human

*Well....*



gronier said:


> European Highways Rock!! (although massachussets highways look very european)
> 
> Autobahn:



Well, I am from US, and I've been and drove in few European countries (Spain and France). What I noticed, that the pavement quality in Spain is 
higher then in US (however it depends on where in US you drive of course), but there were few things that made driving there not as comfortable as in US - if you look at those pictures that you posted when the road curves it stays flat, so you'd have to reduce speed, while in US freeways are not flat on curves, moreover most US highways have raised pavement markers (which I didn't see in Spain or France, and on any German autobahn picture I looked at) which make night driving in US way better. 

Many people complaint about concrete here....well, I personally prefer concrete over alphalt as on concrete road the night visibility is way better.


----------



## Botev1912

Which is the longest highway in the world? By longest I mean you never exit. Here are some videos from US highways

I-95 East in Maryland






I-5 North in Seattle


----------



## snowdog

I'm inclined to say the EU has better roads, but I haven't been in too many countries ( I've only been in the UK, NL, BE, LUX, DE, PL and FR, so only the (wealthy) northwest and Poland ) and haven't ever been in the US, so I'll refrain from voting until I do the road trip in the US I always wanted to do and when I get a good idea how the roads in the south and southeast are (Eg. Spain, Italy, Koratia, Bulgaria, etc...).


----------



## Botev1912

Bulgaria still has terrible roads. Probably the worst in EU


----------



## Alexriga

Botev1912 said:


> Bulgaria still has terrible roads. Probably the worst in EU


nope, Latvia does


----------



## Botev1912

do you have any pics or videos?


----------



## Botev1912

most of the roads look like that


----------



## Preibiton

40% of Bulgarian roads are in good condition,40% are drivable and 20% are in bad condition according to the Minister of Regional Development.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Maxx☢Power;71075395 said:


> As we're descending down a raging spiral of petty arguments and Hitler and Nazis have already been mentioned several times, I'll take the chance to say this. I know this isn't a very constructive comment nor an important attribute to judge by, but I have to say most US Interstates that I've seen are pretty damn ugly. But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


From what I've heard from a rather biased source of mine (uncle), Virginia makes every effort to hide highway interchanges with trees and hills and stuff to make it all look natural. Texas, on the other hand, uses nothing but concrete and makes no effort to keep anything hidden, natural looking, or of prudently small size. The concrete pillars that Texas paints up to look all prettyful, Virginia makes a concerted effort to hide.

I'm pretty familiar with Virginia's highways, most notably Interstates 81, 66, and some of Interstate 64, numerous secondary roads, and a handful of unpaved mountain roads. But I've never been to Texas so I can't compare our highways to theirs, and I've just got to take his word for it.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg

European motorways differ greatly by country. Two close neighbours - Germany and France - have very different motorways in terms of marking, curvature, signage, rest areas and finally driving culture. I love German autobahn and German drivers, but man, German rest areas suck big time! French drivers suck, French signage suck, but their rest areas are superb. Does it mean as a whole German autobahn is superior to French autoroute? Of course, no. Same logic applies when comparing the US motorways with the EU motorways. 

Having said that... So far, the only thing I am damn sure about is that Californian motorways are absolutely THE WORST compared to Western European motorways and motorways from other US states


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Rest areas along the older motorways in Europe tend to suck anyway, unless it's a tolled road. In countries with newer motorway systems (like Portugal or France) the rest areas are generally outstanding, but in countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Germany or Denmark don't be surprised if all you find is a small number of parking lots, a few benches and garbage bins. Of course there are well-equipped rest areas too, but they are further apart.


----------



## Wimpie

minus_human said:


> ), but there were few things that made driving there not as comfortable as in US - if you look at those pictures that you posted when the road curves it stays flat, so you'd have to reduce speed, while in US freeways are not flat on curves, moreover most US highways have raised pavement markers (which I didn't see in Spain or France, and on any German autobahn picture I looked at) which make night driving in US way better.


All that you mention here, we have as well. Our freeway have been inclining in bends since the 60's


----------



## Botev1912

I am not sure what you guys mean. What does flat road mean? and what is in the US


----------



## diablo234

ChrisZwolle said:


> Rest areas along the older motorways in Europe tend to suck anyway, unless it's a tolled road. In countries with newer motorway systems (like Portugal or France) the rest areas are generally outstanding, but in countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Germany or Denmark don't be surprised if all you find is a small number of parking lots, a few benches and garbage bins. Of course there are well-equipped rest areas too, but they are further apart.


The US is like that too in that regard. The toll road sections of the Interstates such as the Ohio Turnpike, Indiana Toll Road, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, Kansas Turnpike, all of the tolled Chicagoland expressways, Massachusetts Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike, etc all have good rest areas with gas stations/convenience stores/restaurants and free wi-fi.

However on most non-tolled interstate highways the rest areas basically just consist of a parking lot, some public restrooms, and a few vending machines.


----------



## ADCS

Botev1912 said:


> I am not sure what you guys mean. What does flat road mean? and what is in the US


They're talking about superelevation of curves, to counteract the effect of centripetal force when taking a turn at high speed.



> From what I've heard from a rather biased source of mine (uncle), Virginia makes every effort to hide highway interchanges with trees and hills and stuff to make it all look natural. Texas, on the other hand, uses nothing but concrete and makes no effort to keep anything hidden, natural looking, or of prudently small size. The concrete pillars that Texas paints up to look all prettyful, Virginia makes a concerted effort to hide.


Virginia's native flora consists mainly of fast-growing hardwood trees, while in the populated areas of Texas, it either consists of scrub that would be unsuited toward camouflage purposes, pines that take too long to grow, or sensitive plants that the toxic highway runoff would kill. Texas also has universal frontage roads, which makes surface-level interchanges inconvenient. Finally, stacks are the most efficient kind of interchange, and Texas' climate is such that icing on the tall bridges would not be an issue during the winter. It snows and ices in Virginia just enough for stacks to be a considerable problem.


----------



## antovador

USA have good highways, however they must improve more their signages. This is a shame for the US network of highways IMO.

USA









EU










USA









EU









writing signages are totally useless, logically drivers must stay driving not reading losing fractions of second and not everyone understand English. 

I remember the movie "Magnum force" after the murder of Rica where you can see two signages "Do not enter" and "wrong way" near the crime scene don't know if they improve after 40 years but in Europe this is enough with this.


----------



## Nexis

^^

There slowly Europeanized things in this region with signs.....making them more picture like instead of words....along with upgrading roads to Euro standards...


----------



## kangaroo0100

Maxx☢Power;70945253 said:


> Actually, the standards are mostly the same when it comes to motorway construction. I can't think of any _motorways_ that aren't built to very high standards in the EU. Sure, there are some old ones that were built when standards weren't as high as they are today, but that goes for Interstates too, not to mention the many "freeway" classified roads that are not part of the Interstate system.
> 
> As always, it seems that in the US quantity is what matters while in Europe it's quality before quantity (though the quantity is for the most part adequate).


That's how it always is in the US. People prefer quantity over quality for some unknown reason.


----------



## Wimpie

antovador said:


> EU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> writing signages are totally useless, logically drivers must stay driving not reading losing fractions of second and not everyone understand English.
> 
> I remember the movie "Magnum force" after the murder of Rica where you can see two signages "Do not enter" and "wrong way" near the crime scene don't know if they improve after 40 years but in Europe this is enough with this.



Well, and these aren't even the real signs, used in most European nations, over here they look like this.

Do not Enter










No left turns









Wrong way









One way, as signed when entering a one-way street in the middle










One way, signed at the beginning of the street


----------



## apinamies

Why compare 27 countries to one country (although large country). 

isn't country vs. supranational union threads against rules in this forum?

USA have one standard in which is used every parts of the country, but in EU-area there are different standards in every country so comparison is not wise.


----------



## weava

antovador said:


> USA have good highways, however they must improve more their signages. This is a shame for the US network of highways IMO.


I think our (USA) signs are way better, there is no confusion since it says right on the sign what it means.


----------



## kangaroo0100

Wimpie said:


> Even though my driving expierence in the US is limited to the state of New York and New Jersey, I prefer Europe(15) over the US.
> Even though I liked driving in the US, the road quality gravely disapointed me.
> I've never seen such bad pavement quality as over there.
> People who claim that there isn't that much difference, are either blind, don't know how to use Google Streetview or haven't been in both unions.


Roads in the US are quite old, so the pavement quality isn't going to be the best.


----------



## Wimpie

weava said:


> I think our (USA) signs are way better, there is no confusion since it says right on the sign what it means.


So do ours, but the problem of US signage is that it very often uses written text only, symbols are clearer AND you can make signs bigger while decreasing their total size!

What's so unclear about this?












kangaroo0100 said:


> Roads in the US are quite old, so the pavement quality isn't going to be the best.


So are ours but we actually renovate them during their lifespan.


----------



## TheInsider

how's this thread created to compare one nation vs one continent?

it makes no sense at all. one country vs different countries with their own way of doing things. apples and oranges. is this one of those Europeans things where they beg Americans to pay attention to them?

a bunch of geniuses around here.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

kangaroo0100 said:


> Roads in the US are quite old, so the pavement quality isn't going to be the best.


An old road is not an excuse for bad pavement.

Germany has built over 2000 miles of freeways before 1943 (the largest network in the world at the time). Most of whom are now in good to excellent condition. 

Highway engineering and operation goes a bit further than just building a road and then forget about it. Roads need repaving every few years. Every 10 years for asphalt and every 20 - 30 years for concrete. Having freeways with the same surface for over 50 years is ridiculous. Especially with concrete, which you cannot patch up easily. A concrete pavement renovation requires almost a full reconstruction of the existing road. It's a bit more expensive than just another layer of asphalt, and that's why they've postponed it too long in the United States.


----------



## TheCat

^^ It also depends on the original quality of the pavement. For example, here in Ontario newly-repaved asphalt roads tend to wear out and incur significant damage in just a few years. It is quite common for a road here to be repaved and then after just 1-2 winters it fills up with cracks and even deep potholes. I once broke the suspension on one of the wheels in my car because of such a pothole.

The excuse given is that the freeze-thaw cycle in the winter, combined with the scraping of the pavement by snowploughs, causes this damage. This is actually true, but it doesn't seem to be a problem in many European countries, which also have severe winter conditions.

I heard at some point (don't remember what the source was, however) that it is a known fact that the asphalt used in Toronto is not suitable for our conditions, but it is still used because it is much cheaper. I guess at least our road taxes are much lower than in Europe.

I wonder - does the porous asphalt used in NL hold up much better in the winter?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

TheCat said:


> I wonder - does the porous asphalt used in NL hold up much better in the winter?


No, although they increased its durability in recent years. They say it needs renovation every 9 - 12 years. There could be some patchworks every few years, but nothing on a serious scale. Most winter repairs can be executed in one night or even a few hours because they also have cold asphalt available.


----------



## Penn's Woods

TheInsider said:


> how's this thread created to compare one nation vs one continent?
> 
> it makes no sense at all. one country vs different countries with their own way of doing things. apples and oranges. is this one of those Europeans things where they beg Americans to pay attention to them?
> 
> a bunch of geniuses around here.


There are a lot of people in Europe who are so small-minded that they consider their way the "international" way, when it's really just the European way, and when you dare to not conform you're just doing it to be different. (And unfortunately, there are Americans prepared to go along with this belief.) These are same sort of people who consider not caring about soccer, for example, a sign of backwardness.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Wimpie said:


> So do ours, but the problem of US signage is that it very often uses written text only, symbols are clearer AND you can make signs bigger while decreasing their total size!


And there are no text-only signs in Belgium - some on the previous page? (Forgetting about how widely our respective languages are understood....)



Wimpie said:


> So are ours but we actually renovate them during their lifespan.


So do we. Now you're just being a [self-censored].


----------



## Penn's Woods

Nexis said:


> ^^
> 
> There slowly Europeanized things in this region with signs.....making them more picture like instead of words....along with upgrading roads to Euro standards...


Why is switching to "Euro" standards necessarily an upgrade?


----------



## Verso

TheInsider said:


> how's this thread created to compare one nation vs one continent?


What's wrong with that? The US is bigger than the EU (we're not talking about all Europe), so the comparison seems in place. You can even compare the US to Mars. We all know why there're no roads on Mars, but you can compare them anyway.


----------



## TheCat

Penn's Woods said:


> Why is switching to "Euro" standards necessarily an upgrade?


I agree partially with your point, but switching to pictorial signs in place of text is simply better, and it happens that in Europe pictorial signs predominate. It doesn't mean that everything North American is worse.

For example, I much prefer using yellow to separate traffic flow in opposite directions. I also think that priorite-a-droit should be the rare exception, rather than the norm as it is in several European countries (though I do think that we have to be more precise and consistent in this regard).


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Verso said:


> The US is *bigger* than the EU (we're not talking about all Europe), so the comparison seems in place.


EU population: 500 000 000

USA population: 310 000 000

bigger?


----------



## Fuzzy Llama

Slartibartfas said:


> That first sign shown is utterly redundant. There is about three times as much text in there as needed and I am not really sure that increases road safety.


Well, as much as I hate stereotypes - those about British and their reaction to snow are 100% true


----------



## Sponsor

minus_human said:


> if you look at those pictures that you posted when the road curves it stays flat, so you'd have to reduce speed, while in US freeways are not flat on curves


You mean section grade?









If yes, then they don't. At least in Poland (and I believe not only) section grade depends on curve radius and it varies getting values from 2% (radius 4000 m) to 7% (900 m).



minus_human said:


> moreover most US highways have raised pavement markers (which I didn't see in Spain or France, and on any German autobahn picture I looked at) which make night driving in US way better.


Pavement markers are useful on single carriageway highways with lots of curves going outside built-up areas. And on those we have plenty of while on real motorways white markings are enough as the carriegeways are straight and wide.




minus_human said:


> Many people complaint about concrete here....well, I personally prefer concrete over alphalt as on concrete road the night visibility is way better.


Concrete is expensive and cannot be widely used. Moreover, it makes markings less visible but I don't consider it as a problem.


----------



## Spookvlieger

Fuzzy Llama said:


> Well, as much as I hate stereotypes - those about British and their reaction to snow are 100% true


Not to mention it actually snows a lot in the north of the UK and in the highlands...


----------



## Suburbanist

Sponsor said:


> If yes, then they don't. At least in Poland (and I believe not only) section grade depends on curve radius and it varies getting values from 2% (radius 4000 m) to 7% (900 m).


Superelevation (if that is what you are talking about) is a must. You can't have roads without superelevation for high speeds.



> Pavement markers are useful on single carriageway highways with lots of curves going outside built-up areas. And on those we have plenty of while on real motorways white markings are enough as the carriegeways are straight and wide.


I think raised road markers are good for safety even on motorways. However, they are the enemy #1 of snow plowing machines.


----------



## Verso

sonysnob said:


> There is an Ocean that separates North America and Europe. (I live in Canada, and while I like the Yanks, I don't want to be lumped in as one of them), it isn't surprising that Europe and Asia are similar considering they are the same land mass.


One of the funniest things I've ever heard. Europe and Asia are very different from each other. They aren't considered separate continents for no reason. Europe and North America are much more similar.


----------



## Penn's Woods

Verso said:


> One of the funniest things I've ever heard. Europe and Asia are very different from each other. They aren't considered separate continents for no reason. Europe and North America are much more similar.


This, and a few previous posts from various people, really go to what I'm getting at: North American and European signage standards are different (I'm leaving out Asia _only_ because I don't know enough to talk about it) but why is that a problem? And if - for reasons that aren't clear to me - it is a problem and everyone should do everything the same way, why should it automatically be the European standard that prevails? That's what really bugs me about this type of comparison.

Actually, I do think there are things that Europe generally does better than we do. In the field of signage, we don't show enough destinations and distances*, although certain European countries show too many to be safely read at high speed. French signs are lovely if you're looking at them on the Internet. At 80 m.p.h., not so much. But I think there's a natural human tendency to take sides, at least when it's phrased in broad terms like "whose roads are better" as opposed to just "please compare" or "what's good and bad about...."

In fact, if anyone wants a peace-and-love moment, we could try "what do you like about the roads in other countries you've been in" 

*One particular example: A year or two ago I drove US 322 from suburban Philadelphia to Harrisburg. For those who don't know, Harrisburg is the state capital of Pennsylvania, and about 100 miles (160 km) from Philadelphia. While 322 is now the back route, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to include Harrisburg as a destination on the reassurance signs. But not once on that route was there a sign telling me the distance; they'll just give the next two or three small towns.... In Europe, that would be considered obvious, basic information. (And not just in Europe: Virginia's good at this, just to take one example.)


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I always found the lack of really distant destinations on the signs along Interstate Highways a bit surprising about the United States. Of course, control cities are not as prominent on the signage in the U.S. as it is in Europe, but there may be only a few instances of destinations that are consistently signed from 400 miles away or more.


----------



## Verso

Penn's Woods said:


> This, and a few previous posts from various people, really go to what I'm getting at: North American and European signage standards are different (I'm leaving out Asia _only_ because I don't know enough to talk about it) but why is that a problem? And if - for reasons that aren't clear to me - it is a problem and everyone should do everything the same way, why should it automatically be the European standard that prevails? That's what really bugs me about this type of comparison.


Don't worry, you're Europeans in denial anyway.


----------



## Sponsor

Suburbanist said:


> Superelevation (if that is what you are talking about) is a must. You can't have roads without superelevation for high speeds.


I know. It's not me who doubted about that.


Suburbanist said:


> I think raised road markers are good for safety even on motorways. However, they are the enemy #1 of snow plowing machines.


And what I think is that as long as markings are kept white and clean, cat eyes are only confusing and unnecessary addition.


----------



## TheCat

I think a big problem with North American signage and traffic rules in general is that there are no strict standards.

Like I already commented previously in some other threads, there are many examples in Ontario, for example, where the official Driver's Handbook (the book most new drivers read before doing the theory exam) is ambiguous or just mentions something like "the following are some of the signs you will see on Ontario roads".

I think the set of signs/rules should be very specific and completely defined, and no deviations from the standard should be allowed (you should not be able to put up some random sign, whether pictorial or textual, unless specifically defined by regulations). I have encountered signs while driving on Ontario roads (though rarely, I must say) whose meaning I wasn't immediately sure about because I never saw them anywhere before.

There are many other examples that come to mind. For example, how does the "priority from the right" work here? According to the books, the rule exists, but how can you really know when to follow it if the set of signs "controlling" it is not complete here (you have signs telling you to yield, but no signs telling you that you have the right of way, like in Europe).

Another example is specific to Ontario - apparently overtaking across a solid yellow line is legal, just not recommended. I actually did not know this until much later, and am still not 100% sure about it. The book says that a solid yellow line means "overtaking is unsafe".

In general, in Europe such things are much better defined. While it is true that in practice it does not really have an effect, I still think that these things should be clearer.

Another thing to remember is that while North America does have uniform driving regulations for the most part (I am including the US and Canada only because I don't know that much about Mexico), but at the same time, there are still many differences between all states, provinces, and territories.

The bottom line though is that no system is absolutely better, and it is certainly not necessary for everyone to adopt one system. However, it is also quite arrogant to not see the definite advantages of certain aspects of other systems.

For example, the pictorial signage system used by the majority of the world (based on the Geneva Convention) is better than the textual and not-as-standardized system that we have here. On the other hand, I prefer North American road markings. Mind you, even this is not very uniform across North America. For example, from my relatively limited observations, Canada seems to be a bit better than the US when it comes to using pictorial signs.


----------



## urbanlover

ChrisZwolle said:


> I always found the lack of really distant destinations on the signs along Interstate Highways a bit surprising about the United States. Of course, control cities are not as prominent on the signage in the U.S. as it is in Europe, but there may be only a few instances of destinations that are consistently signed from 400 miles away or more.


I checked the MUTCD those sings are limited to three destinations with last meant for a control city . http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E39
But even that if that wasn't the case would be really useful info to have cities 400 miles away listed? Westbound on I-94 from Detroit that'd mean Milwaukee would be listed in addition to Chicago, while adding another city wouldn't hurt per se. I don't see as a glaring lack of info to know that Milwaukee is 350 something miles away.


----------



## Penn's Woods

urbanlover said:


> I checked the MUTCD those sings are limited to three destinations with last meant for a control city . http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E39
> But even that if that wasn't the case would be really useful info to have cities 400 miles away listed? Westbound on I-94 from Detroit that'd mean Milwaukee would be listed be addition to Chicago, while adding another city wouldn't hurt per se. I don't see as a glaring lack of info to know that Milwaukee is 350 something miles away.


Well, from the perspective of someone in Michigan, Milwaukee is beyond (and smaller than) Chicago, so I don't see the need. But Chicago is a must on 94 westbound west of Detroit. If Michigan treated 94 the way Pennsylvania does 80 and 81 your control cities would be Ann Arbor, then Jackson, then Battle Creek....

The example I like to use if of a European trying to find his way from Washington to Chicago. He'll look at his map, note that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are close to his route, then drive up Wisconsin Avenue expecting to see a sign with "Pittsburgh" and a freeway symbol, and therefore disregard the "I-270 Frederick" sign unless he's bothered to note the route numbers.

Conversely, an American trying to get to some point in rural France will note that he needs to exit the A-whatever at the N-whatever and miss his exit because the sign at the exit won't show the N-whatever, just a couple of towns. (At least most if not all European countries number their exits these days, which wasn't the case in the '80s when I was first there....) In either of these cases, it helps to be familiar with the fact that the other system emphasizes things you're not used to being emphasized.


----------



## Verso

TheCat said:


> For example, the pictorial signage system used by the majority of the world (based on the Geneva Convention) is better than the textual and not-as-standardized system that we have here.


Agreed, pictorial is definitely better, even if you speak the language that textual signs are written in. I've driven in Australia, which has many textual signs (and needless to say I speak English) and I found it very annoying and distractive to read so much of the same text.


----------



## Penn's Woods

So apparently, even in Europe, roads suffer when there's a bad winter. 

(article in French)
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique...er-se-degrade-suite-aux-degats-hivernaux.html


----------



## apinamies

Average roads in here aren't that bad condition. ^^


----------



## Shifty2k5

Penn's Woods said:


> So apparently, even in Europe, roads suffer when there's a bad winter.
> 
> (article in French)
> http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique...er-se-degrade-suite-aux-degats-hivernaux.html


You should see the roads where I live..


----------



## Penn's Woods

apinamies said:


> Average roads in here aren't that bad condition. ^^


So Europe's roads get judged by their best and our roads get judged by our worst? ;-)


----------



## Minato ku

Belgian highways are some of worst in Western Europe.


----------



## Shifty2k5

Penn's Woods said:


> So Europe's roads get judged by their best and our roads get judged by our worst? ;-)


Dude, we all know that this is a retarded topic by now.

The EU is not a single nation, it consists of 27 different countries and they all have different standards in terms of pavement quality, signage, curv radius etc etc. 

I've driven plenty in the US and my vote definitely goes to the US. Are roads in the netherlands better than the US? Yes. 

Are roads in France better than in the US? Yes.

Are roads in Germany better than in the US? They're on par.

Are roads in Scandinavia better than in the US? No, they're not.


----------



## tall_dreams

There should be thread which reads Best Highways: Americas vs EU vs Asia


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ Interesting. 

A few comparisons seem flawed to me though. For instance, ranking the U.S. next to Spain seems weird, since Spain arguably has the best infrastructure in Europe. And high-speed rail is not there to please rail enthusiasts. Tax payers have better things to spend money on. You build high-speed rail if it's necessary, not for other reasons. Also; comparing the Acela to TGV Paris - Lyon travel times is also not correct, Acela runs through almost continuously urbanized areas while the TGV passes through large areas with nothing. 

Another issue is that high motorist taxes does not necessarily represent good infrastructure. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands have the highest taxes in Europe while the infrastructure is not much more than adequate. Compare that to low-taxed Spain which has outstanding infrastructure, whether it is road, rail or air.


----------



## Spikespiegel

ChrisZwolle said:


> Having driven now 100% of the Danish motorways, I can say for most of the time the road quality is not much better than "acceptable" or "mediocre". Relatively few roads have absolutely smooth surface. Maybe DK should spend a little more in maintenance, many roads are patched up, sometimes so much the entire roadway is patched, with few of the original pavement remaining. Roads like that require full top layer replacement. Second, nearly all roads are extremely noisy compared to Germany (non-concrete) and the Netherlands.


I think the "problem" is that the Vejdirektoratet (the body responsible for maintaining the motorways) have extensive plans formajor upgrades of the motorways, as we are currently seeing on O3, route 21, E20/E47 and which we will soon see on E45. They do not want to spend too much money on maintaining a road, that will soon be upgraded anyway, so they just keep them at a drivable standard.


----------



## Penn's Woods

geogregor said:


> Here is article from last week The Economist:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944&fsrc=rss


Just read it. That was depressing....


----------



## Fender56

Many of these disputes EU roads vs US same, I guess depends on what vehicle you´re in.

Driving one of these, on concrete highways in the US, ....










will feel the same, as in one of these on the most EU highways ....










:cheers:


----------



## Kjello0

Dude, VW Polo is one of the coolest cars in existence.


----------



## Verso

Not to mention that not everyone drives an SUV in the US and a small car in the EU.


----------



## trainrover

^^ don't you think the size itself of the average car in Europe's got bigger, I do?

Europe's engineering's superior.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Compare a 1980's Corsa to a 2010 Corsa. They've become much bigger. Although they are still relatively small cars, the age of cars where a grown man barely fit into is kind of over.


----------



## Verso

trainrover said:


> ^^ don't you think the size itself of the average car in Europe's got bigger, I do?


That's what I said.


----------



## Coccodrillo

One of the first cars (built I suppose in the 1980s) I drove was so small that my foot pressed the accelerator to the maximum and my knee touched the steering wheel. Driving that car proved nearly impossible for me. I'm not so high now (1m90), but at that time I was only 16 years old...(I tested it on a private circuit of a driving school).


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ At the same time cars smaller than the former compact cars have been introduced. But its true, cars where you barely fit into are not very common anymore. But many cars, especially in the US are quite a bit larger than they'd need to bit to offer sufficient space for the people.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Also, bigger doesn't mean that it's more comfortable. Passenger comfort relies on the suspension and American cars tend to have far softer suspension than European cars.


----------



## VoltAmps

USA highways are more appealing to the eyes. Interstates look so nice. Not just the actual highway, but the sound barriers, concrete barriers, overpasses, grass and trees.


----------



## Verso

^^ My opinion is totally opposite - US highways are impressive, but quite ugly visually.


----------



## Shifty2k5

VoltAmps said:


> USA highways are more appealing to the eyes. Interstates look so nice. Not just the actual highway, but the sound barriers, concrete barriers, overpasses, grass and trees.


I agree. That's why some of my favorite highways in Sweden are the ones that look like your average rural interstate. 

Examples:

E4 between Tierp and Uppsala. Concrete pavement, wide grassy median and cops in Chevys


----------



## Norsko

Shifty2k5 said:


> I agree. That's why some of my favorite highways in Sweden are the ones that look like your average rural interstate.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> E4 between Tierp and Uppsala. Concrete pavement, wide grassy median and cops in Chevys


Was this originally an U turn interchange?


----------



## Shifty2k5

Norsko said:


> Was this originally an U turn interchange?


No. The road was opened in 2007. Turning points for emergency vehicles are common in Sweden.


----------



## Norsko

Clever! :cheers: Never seen thoose over here.


----------



## nerdly_dood

Norsko said:


> Clever! :cheers: Never seen thoose over here.


They're common in the States but they're much more crude in construction, just a simple gravel path across the median, with a small "authorized vehicles only" sign, and sometimes hidden by bushes so the police can hide and run radar checks.


----------



## Ingenioren

They are in every country i think. You find them on every motorway in Norway to Norsko, sometimes with removable fence, sometimes with cones and sometimes with a raising gate. Used for running trafic from one side to the other during roadworks, but also by police.

Here is one on E6 with a raising gate:
http://maps.google.no/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...Lx8iS4n5UDqScqXcKpB6WA&cbp=12,117.47,,0,12.04


----------



## Verso

Age doesn't matter. Roads can be maintained, you know.


----------



## tall_dreams

Don't these tunnels suffer the problem of flooding from rainwater?


----------



## flierfy

tall_dreams said:


> Don't these tunnels suffer the problem of flooding from rainwater?


Only if there isn't a proper drainage system in place.


----------



## Wimpie

^^
Which every tunnel in a modern western country has since the 1920's.


----------



## Spookvlieger

^^^Lets not forget that Tall_dreams is from India and that rains overthere are more severe than here.
Or do you forget tunnels ofthen do flood when a big thunderstorm hits?


----------



## Wimpie

The tunnels I know never do 
And with the current weather we're having I can barely remember how rain looks like


----------



## Spookvlieger

I remember more than once that Tunnels i nBrussels flooded because of big rainfall during a thunderstorm. Yes we really need rain! Grass is going all brown...


----------



## Penn's Woods

Verso said:


> Age doesn't matter. Roads can be maintained, you know.


I repeat: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=77604755&postcount=1288


----------



## Wimpie

Belgium


----------



## Barciur

Is it true that every km of a motorway in Belgium is lighted?


----------



## Wimpie

There are 2 motorways that aren't completely lit but they do have the extensive exit lighting other motorways have as well. The motorways that have lighting are lit all the way like in the picture.

Video


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Wimpie said:


> ^^
> Which every tunnel in a modern western country has since the 1920's.












Belfast quite recently


----------



## flierfy

Barciur said:


> Is it true that every km of a motorway in Belgium is lighted?


No, it's not true.


----------



## Wimpie

^^
Almost, only a couple haven't got the extensive median lighting like the ones that are light. They do have the same exit lighting as the lighted freeways.
So yes, I would say that 80% of the Belgian motorway network is fully lighted.


----------



## flierfy

Wimpie said:


> ^^
> Almost, only a couple haven't got the extensive median lighting like the ones that are light. They do have the same exit lighting as the lighted freeways.
> So yes, I would say that 80% of the Belgian motorway network is fully lighted.


80% of the network might have lights installed. Actually lit is just a fraction of that.


----------



## quadi

In the night (between 1 and 5 am) the highways aren't lit... and I dare to say that 90% at least is lit...


----------



## Wimpie

^^
Indeed, when there are lights installed, they are working.


----------



## Ingenioren

Norway has 97 % of fully lit motorways, only small test-stretches has guide-lights instead. So we're "better" than Eu and Usa... :nuts:

(And our lights stay on all night.)


----------



## riiga

Ingenioren said:


> Norway has 97 % of fully lit motorways, only small test-stretches has guide-lights instead. So we're "better" than Eu and Usa... :nuts:
> 
> (And our lights stay on all night.)


However, Norwegian motorways make up only a fraction of the road network... :lol:


----------



## Ingenioren

3,5 % of our national-road network actually


----------

