Highways

[blackfox]

Cycocelica,

From what I remember of Seattle-area highways, the HOV lane is on the left - but so are many of the exits. Seattle also has the nifty quasi-underground express lane, although I have yet to see the southbound one open ever. It also gets complicated as the expressway merges with the Interstate on the left past downtown. In any case, I have seen better, but I have certainly seen worse.

Oh, iirc, Seattle is putting in a lightrail/train system in the next few years - perhaps by 2012.

 

[aloofman]

Absolutely. L.A. would be a 'real city' without eight lane highways and better public transportation. The Cross Bronx during rush hour in July when your air conditioner is broken?. 'Nuff said. I'll take Metro North and the subway any day.

See, there's where your problem is. How could you drive at all with a broken air conditioner?

 

[aloofman]

Even so, the gas argument isn't completely valid on it's own these days anyway. With the cost of gas these days around here it pretty much costs $30/week at least to fill up. When I was commuting to McLean everyday I easily filled up 2-3 a week. Depending on where his sister is going in D.C., it could also be a trek to get there from Dunn Loring (considering the amount of time she'll probably just be sitting in her car idling in traffic). I would have loved to be able to spend only $30/week for public transit and would've gladly used it were it easily accessible to and from where I was going.

In southern California, at least, the problem with public transportation is that it just doesn't meet most people's needs because everybody is too spread out. L.A. has buses, light rail, trains, and a subway (a little one), but there are only so many people that can serve. If you have to drive more than ten minutes to get to a Metrolink station and wait for the next departure, enough time has been burned that you might as well just drive the whole way. I'm fortunate that I don't live in the L.A.-Orange county basin AND I live very close to work. But I'm in a very small minority.

Mass transit is getting more feasible for some people though. Parts of downtown, East L.A., the west side, are as densely populated as Manhattan, so they can be served without a hundred different lines. The patchwork transportation will just muddle through over time. Gasoline taxes will have to go up to pay for it, but it seems unlikely anyone will take that brave step.

 

[aloofman]

So over Memorial Day weekend I went to Disneyland. I live up in Redmond, WA (yes home of Microsoft). I used to live in San Diego and visit some part of California every year. Anyways, it is just amazing at how well California can build highways. I mean, 6-8 lanes across is a miracle. The Diamond lane (carpool, HOV, etc.) on the left side instead of the right where everyone exits. Highways up here in the greater Seattle area are probably some of the worse I have ever seen (and I have seen plenty of highways). Our highways are at the most 4 lanes across, usually 3 (2 regular, one HOV) and the diamond (carpool, HOV, etc.) lane is in the right lane where everyone merges and exits. Yes I know we up here don't have the worst traffic although we are up there. I know even with 8 lanes in L.A. there is still terrible traffic but at least you have the right idea. We up here love our green plants and trees and would never want to cut them down to help expand our tiny highways. All my mom and I talked about was how big they were and how smart the DOT in California is. Seattle really needs to talk classes from them. Just a little story.

CN: Los Angeles highways are huge and Seattles are tiny and suck, and Seattle builders need to take lessons from L.A.

Speaking as a lifelong Socal resident, I think you're being wowed by the sheer size and complexity of our freeway system. It IS huge, with an insane number of lanes, and there are quite a few carpool lanes. (I believe the I-5-to-405 interchange in Irvine --aka, the El Toro Y-- has the record for most traffic lanes, like two dozen lanes or something like that.) Caltrans pushes a lot of highway innovation out of sheer necessity. For example, putting stop lights on onramps seems like a simple thing, but systemwide it's really a big help.

However, all of this is true despite the fact that a lot of the Socal freeways are jammed for hours at a time. The system you see now was mostly conceived decades ago and investment and spending on highways has lagged compared to demand for the last 25 years or so. Each time they add lanes or redesign an interchange is at least ten years after it was needed. (I'm looking at you downtown Riverside interchange!) After the last portion of the 210 freeway is finished next year, there won't be any more freeways built, and in many places the real estate is too expensive to add lanes to existing highways. It's going to keep getting worse and Caltrans won't be able to keep up.

In summary, I think you caught the OC freeways on a good day.

 

[cait-sith]

From what I remember of Seattle-area highways, the HOV lane is on the left - but so are many of the exits. Seattle also has the nifty quasi-underground express lane, although I have yet to see the southbound one open ever. It also gets complicated as the expressway merges with the Interstate on the left past downtown. In any case, I have seen better, but I have certainly seen worse.

What's an HOV lane?

Exiting on the left is absolutely evil. I prefer the clover-leaf design.

 

[yg17]

What's an HOV lane?

Exiting on the left is absolutely evil. I prefer the clover-leaf design.

High Occupancy Vehicle. Its a seperate lane, only for cars with 2 or more people, I guess to encourage carpooling.


I don't care for left exits too much, but I despise cloverleafs. To go around the circle, you have to slow down, usually around 30mph or less, and then are given like 3 feet to merge into highway traffic doing 60mph or more. I hate them. I prefer the stack/flyover ramps, because you usually don't have to slow down much at all.

 

[aloofman]

What's an HOV lane?

Exiting on the left is absolutely evil. I prefer the clover-leaf design.

The clover leaf is cheap and compact, but doesn't handle much traffic. It requires a lane on each side where people are merging in both directions in a very short distance. All of the major interchanges that were clover leafs in Socal are either being replaced or are already gone.

 

[Black&Tan]

I would argue that the public transportation costs are a major reason why people don't use it more often. If my wife, son and I went to the Bronx Zoo in New York, the train would cost me $74 or more for a round trip visit. We can make the same visit in my wife's car for about $15. That's significant.

I would prefer to take the train more frequently, but realistically, its not possible. Train stations are few and far in between, you need to drive both to and from a train station, and on top of that, pay parking costs for the privilege of public transportation.

When I've taken the train to Boston, about a 2 hour journey by car, the cost is $90-$110 for one person. No thanks!

 

[floriflee]

High Occupancy Vehicle. Its a seperate lane, only for cars with 2 or more people, I guess to encourage carpooling.


I don't care for left exits too much, but I despise cloverleafs. To go around the circle, you have to slow down, usually around 30mph or less, and then are given like 3 feet to merge into highway traffic doing 60mph or more. I hate them. I prefer the stack/flyover ramps, because you usually don't have to slow down much at all.

I have to put in a good word for the milk jug ramps in NJ. Those are awesome if you hate making left turns off of off-ramps.

 

[yg17]

I have to put in a good word for the milk jug ramps in NJ. Those are awesome if you hate making left turns off of off-ramps.

WTF are milk jug ramps?

 

[quigleybc]

Whenever I go down to Seattle, I dread the traffic.

It's soo bad there, (not as bad as LA, but what is?)

Is it mostly because of that Boeing Air factory?

 

[adk]

While I'd love to abandon my car and take Public transit everywhere, it's just not possible since I don't live in a high density population area. Sure, I could take the bus to work, but it would be a mile walk to the bus stop, at least 3 transfers, and it would take about two hours. There's just no way to have a bus route reach all of the people in a suburban area, things are just too spread out.
That being said, a well designed public transit system can be great. Look at the new light rail in minneapolis, one line connects downtown, the metrodome, the airport, and the mall of america. Ridership is well above projected levels, and now every part of the city wants light rail.

 

[joepunk]

IMO, they need to stop focusing on bigger highways and start developing better forms of public transportation such as commutter rail, so people wont have to take cars everywhere.

My thoughts exactly. But please don't let public transportation be more than it would cost to drive to where-ever.

And bring in more smaller cars, better fuel consumption, tax those who have hummers, actually finish road constructions earlier/on-time, etc.

 

[Ugg]

While I'd love to abandon my car and take Public transit everywhere, it's just not possible since I don't live in a high density population area. Sure, I could take the bus to work, but it would be a mile walk to the bus stop, at least 3 transfers, and it would take about two hours. There's just no way to have a bus route reach all of the people in a suburban area, things are just too spread out.
That being said, a well designed public transit system can be great. Look at the new light rail in minneapolis, one line connects downtown, the metrodome, the airport, and the mall of america. Ridership is well above projected levels, and now every part of the city wants light rail.

And that is one of the reasons why mass transit is such an uphill battle in the US. Suburbs. Most planning is based on the ideas of cheap gas and lots of cheap land. Sure, this is changing but urban planning remains one of the US' greatest problems and it's especially a problem in areas where land is the cheapest.

 

[Black&Tan]

My thoughts exactly. But please don't let public transportation be more than it would cost to drive to where-ever.

And bring in more smaller cars, better fuel consumption, tax those who have hummers, actually finish road constructions earlier/on-time, etc.

But unless the Feds subsidize "public transportation," when you add in those smaller cars with better fuel consumption, you'll never get it to be less than what it costs to drive there.

Public transportation is not about creating a convenient service in America for the general public, its about turning a profit for a private corporation (the same applies to hospitals!). In New Haven, they wanted to move the bus terminal blocks away so that people wouldn't see all the people waiting to get onto crowded city buses. They felt that people wouldn't stop to shop with all the crowds waiting for a bus.

End of rant...

 

[devilot]

Hee, sorta OT

Registration is a fixed cost, and I drive so little (under 6,000 miles a year)...

Hee. I've only driven 11K miles in the 3 years I've had my car.

And what part of the Bay Area are you referring to as having adequate public transportation? I don't think the South Bay has a good network at all. I guess it's to sprawled out in suburbia and buses come maybe once every 45 minutes to the very few stops that are around, so I agree w/:

...the problem with public transportation is that it just doesn't meet most people's needs because everybody is too spread out.

 

[bousozoku]

Even so, the gas argument isn't completely valid on it's own these days anyway. With the cost of gas these days around here it pretty much costs $30/week at least to fill up. When I was commuting to McLean everyday I easily filled up 2-3 a week. Depending on where his sister is going in D.C., it could also be a trek to get there from Dunn Loring (considering the amount of time she'll probably just be sitting in her car idling in traffic). I would have loved to be able to spend only $30/week for public transit and would've gladly used it were it easily accessible to and from where I was going.

Isn't that a lot of the problem in D.C. even when you want to go into the city, there isn't a suburban station that would help? Going around the city is great, but it seems more useful for tourists than for people who live and work nearby.

And that is one of the reasons why mass transit is such an uphill battle in the US. Suburbs. Most planning is based on the ideas of cheap gas and lots of cheap land. Sure, this is changing but urban planning remains one of the US' greatest problems and it's especially a problem in areas where land is the cheapest.

Of course, when you have 150-300 miles between cities, there isn't much chance that anyone's going to have public transportation.

 

[Ugg]

But unless the Feds subsidize "public transportation," when you add in those smaller cars with better fuel consumption, you'll never get it to be less than what it costs to drive there.

So what is federal highway funding if not a direct subsidy to "private transportation" ? There's a total disconnect in this country when it comes to getting around. Amtrak, according to many in this country is just a wasteful subsidy, but building a 12 lane highway is a public necessity.

 

[Black&Tan]

So what is federal highway funding if not a direct subsidy to "private transportation" ? There's a total disconnect in this country when it comes to getting around. Amtrak, according to many in this country is just a wasteful subsidy, but building a 12 lane highway is a public necessity.

Exactly. Highways are private transportation and generally money pit for the DOT. In Connecticut, THE major highway, I-95 has been under construction for over 20 years. And its STILL not done! There was a 100ft (length) bridge that took so long to build, by the time they made the connection to the other end, the bridge had shifted on its moorings, so it needed to be demolished and a new bridge built to replace the new birdge. Idiotic!

There should be less privatization of industry in the US. Public transportation should not be a source of profit. It is a service to the public. If Amtrak reduced its fares to a reasonable level, it might be surprised at how many people would ride the rails. I mean, come on, $90-110 per person for a trip to Boston??? Its only a two hour drive!

 

[vniow]

And what part of the Bay Area are you referring to as having adequate public transportation? I don't think the South Bay has a good network at all.

Can't speak for WildCowboy but my experiences with Bay Area transit have been pretty decent. SF's is probably the best due to its compact size and wide range and frequent network SamTrans is pretty good (although my experience is limited) and VTA is pretty high up there too. They were one of the few public transit systems to make a profit during the Silicon Valley boom. Santa Cruz's is okay as well but if suffers from the same problem as the previous two, too sprawled out. I've found the VTA system to work pretty well in the metro areas but once you get out to places like your's its a bit lacking which is suprising since there's a college right up the street.

The real key to having adequate public transportation is quite simply having a populated metro that's not too sprawled out as mentioned before. Most of the Bay Area transit systems work well when they're in that, but not when you get out of that little circle as it becomes harder to rely on it. That's why systems like SF, New York and London for example have been so successful but not Santa Cruz Metro, or Golden Gate Transit (Marin) or the ones that serve Monterey/Salinas (horrible).

 

[adamb100]

Milwaukee's freeways are ehhhh. There OK but not great. The entire metro area has 6 lanes wide freeways. Since there are only 3 lanes for each direction, a car accident that closes a lane halts traffic at a standstill. Add to the fact that the Marquette Interchange, basically the heart of Downtown Milwaukee is in a major reconstruction thing and you got yourself something crappy.

There was a light rail system planned called the Connector but failed because it would only goto about 3 places.

 

[Johnny Rico]

.

 

[adk]

Milwaukee's freeways are ehhhh. There OK but not great. The entire metro area has 6 lanes wide freeways. Since there are only 3 lanes for each direction, a car accident that closes a lane halts traffic at a standstill. Add to the fact that the Marquette Interchange, basically the heart of Downtown Milwaukee is in a major reconstruction thing and you got yourself something crappy.

There was a light rail system planned called the Connector but failed because it would only goto about 3 places.

I hate to break the news, but nobody cares about milwaukee. and there's nothing wrong with the highways either. They couldn't even expand I-94 if they needed/wanted to, since the idiots built it so that it goes right through a cemetery.

 

[adamb100]

I hate to break the news, but nobody cares about milwaukee. and there's nothing wrong with the highways either. They couldn't even expand I-94 if they needed/wanted to, since the idiots built it so that it goes right through a cemetery.

The reason Milwaukee is so secret is because of it's proximity to Chicago. If Milwaukee was say where Denver is well then Milwaukee would be a central hub. Come to think of it, why you insulting the city you live in?(I think you live in it telling by the brewers avatar).

 

[adk]

The reason Milwaukee is so secret is because of it's proximity to Chicago. If Milwaukee was say where Denver is well then Milwaukee would be a central hub. Come to think of it, why you insulting the city you live in?(I think you live in it telling by the brewers avatar).

No, the reason milwaukee is so "secret" is because there's really nothing special about it. Take away pro sports, and you have another omaha/cleveland/oklahoma city - Yeah, they're there, but does anybody really want to visit them (don't mean to offend any folks who live there, but on the same note would you want to visit milwaukee?)?