I honestly kind of hate when people who make a big deal about induced demand. The one thing that they don’t ever seem to keep in mind is that traffic on that highway is not the only reason why...
I honestly kind of hate when people who make a big deal about induced demand. The one thing that they don’t ever seem to keep in mind is that traffic on that highway is not the only reason why they might expand it.
When city planners are looking at expanding highways, they are looking at how it will affect traffic overall, including all of the smaller streets around it. When a highway is too slow, people will take side streets, and that has a whole lot of knock-off effects including economic and safety issues. This guy makes a big deal of people losing their home for highway expansion but it’s even worse when it is done on streets. I have seen many examples of expanded streets where houses were demolished and the neighborhood has odd roads with completely unnecessary side streets separated only by a median. Heck, to make cities pedestrian friendly will also mean demolishing neighborhoods.
Don’t get me wrong; I am absolutely in favor of getting rid of this world where cars in cities are a necessity. They are completely correct that we should be making alternatives more viable. But that is not the world we live in right now, so highway expansions can sometimes be the best option available even after considering all the alternatives.
This is a complex topic with many variables that are going to be wildly different across different situations and areas, so I will admit that I’m not well qualified to talk about this, but it seems clear to me that universal damnation is not a wise position to hold. It rarely ever is for anything.
Is there research (theoretical or practical) on whether building roads "vertically" improves or changes congestion and traffic patterns? By this I mean having an elevated highway over the existing...
Is there research (theoretical or practical) on whether building roads "vertically" improves or changes congestion and traffic patterns?
By this I mean having an elevated highway over the existing highway in areas with major highways that go to, and then around, major cities or urban areas. The existing highway becomes for "local" traffic while the upper highway is for trucks and thru-traffic that have fewer exits to get off the highway, maybe every 5 miles/kilometers or something like that. This should reduce the amount of merging, changing of speeds, and the likelihood that people will use the elevated highway for short-haul trips. People still will, but I wonder if adding elevated highways would change the psychological aspects of induced demand and other driving habits that slow us down.
Another of my wacky ideas is to build an elevated highway over select existing major highways ... and replace the existing highway with rail because that makes a heck of a lot more sense for commuting. And then we don't have to create awkward new routes for trains. And while it would be expensive, it would still be cheaper to build what's essentially a bridge for cars to travel on, while trains travel underneath.
Your proposal was adopted repeatedly in the past, and they were generally terrible for the areas through which they were built. The Embarcadero in San Francisco was once entirely blocked by an...
Your proposal was adopted repeatedly in the past, and they were generally terrible for the areas through which they were built. The Embarcadero in San Francisco was once entirely blocked by an elevated highway, and the removal of it caused a significant revitalization of the area.
Seattle had the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and it was kind of a disaster to maintain. It didn't fix traffic and it was torn down not too long ago. It was replaced with an underground highway and a...
Seattle had the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and it was kind of a disaster to maintain. It didn't fix traffic and it was torn down not too long ago. It was replaced with an underground highway and a slower surface road. I think Seattle and Boston burying their highways is a better model than stacking viaducts.
On trains, center running rail is pretty popular. It's easy to get right-of-way. You can check out Brightline West in Cali as an example.
Double-decker highway would be functionally equivalent to adding additional lanes, so wouldn't solve anything as the video posit. Double-decker with rail on one level would probably help a lot,...
Double-decker highway would be functionally equivalent to adding additional lanes, so wouldn't solve anything as the video posit.
This is sometimes done in the Netherlands, although not vertically, so it is not that wacky ;) See for example https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randweg_Eindhoven
This is exactly what I was curious about! Thank you for the link. :) I guess it suffers from the same challenge of induced demand, and they expanded the number of lanes over time to compensate for...
This is exactly what I was curious about! Thank you for the link. :) I guess it suffers from the same challenge of induced demand, and they expanded the number of lanes over time to compensate for increased traffic, but I like that they tried. Also thank you all Dutch people for having a 'John F. Kennedylaan,' that is very cool.
The route between the Batadorp and Leenderheide junctions is equipped with a system of main and parallel carriageways.[2] These are intended for through and local traffic respectively. The main carriageway is called A2 (the southern part combined A2/A67) and has the status of a motorway, with a maximum speed of 120 km/h on the main carriageway. The parallel carriageway is called N2 and is a motorway, with a maximum speed of 80 km/h.[3] All connections are connected to the parallel road. On the main carriageway there are only options for turning at the junctions. The parallel carriageway offers connections to Eindhoven Airport, Eindhoven Center, Meerhoven-Zuid, Veldhoven, Veldhoven-Zuid, the High Tech Campus, Stratum-West/Waalre and Stratum-Oost/Tongelre/Leenderheide.
Could you explain what's described in this article? It's not available in English and it's not super clear to me what it is since the comment you replied to is discussing elevated highways but you...
Could you explain what's described in this article? It's not available in English and it's not super clear to me what it is since the comment you replied to is discussing elevated highways but you said it's not vertical.
I honestly kind of hate when people who make a big deal about induced demand. The one thing that they don’t ever seem to keep in mind is that traffic on that highway is not the only reason why they might expand it.
When city planners are looking at expanding highways, they are looking at how it will affect traffic overall, including all of the smaller streets around it. When a highway is too slow, people will take side streets, and that has a whole lot of knock-off effects including economic and safety issues. This guy makes a big deal of people losing their home for highway expansion but it’s even worse when it is done on streets. I have seen many examples of expanded streets where houses were demolished and the neighborhood has odd roads with completely unnecessary side streets separated only by a median. Heck, to make cities pedestrian friendly will also mean demolishing neighborhoods.
Don’t get me wrong; I am absolutely in favor of getting rid of this world where cars in cities are a necessity. They are completely correct that we should be making alternatives more viable. But that is not the world we live in right now, so highway expansions can sometimes be the best option available even after considering all the alternatives.
This is a complex topic with many variables that are going to be wildly different across different situations and areas, so I will admit that I’m not well qualified to talk about this, but it seems clear to me that universal damnation is not a wise position to hold. It rarely ever is for anything.
Is there research (theoretical or practical) on whether building roads "vertically" improves or changes congestion and traffic patterns?
By this I mean having an elevated highway over the existing highway in areas with major highways that go to, and then around, major cities or urban areas. The existing highway becomes for "local" traffic while the upper highway is for trucks and thru-traffic that have fewer exits to get off the highway, maybe every 5 miles/kilometers or something like that. This should reduce the amount of merging, changing of speeds, and the likelihood that people will use the elevated highway for short-haul trips. People still will, but I wonder if adding elevated highways would change the psychological aspects of induced demand and other driving habits that slow us down.
Another of my wacky ideas is to build an elevated highway over select existing major highways ... and replace the existing highway with rail because that makes a heck of a lot more sense for commuting. And then we don't have to create awkward new routes for trains. And while it would be expensive, it would still be cheaper to build what's essentially a bridge for cars to travel on, while trains travel underneath.
Your proposal was adopted repeatedly in the past, and they were generally terrible for the areas through which they were built. The Embarcadero in San Francisco was once entirely blocked by an elevated highway, and the removal of it caused a significant revitalization of the area.
Seattle had the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and it was kind of a disaster to maintain. It didn't fix traffic and it was torn down not too long ago. It was replaced with an underground highway and a slower surface road. I think Seattle and Boston burying their highways is a better model than stacking viaducts.
On trains, center running rail is pretty popular. It's easy to get right-of-way. You can check out Brightline West in Cali as an example.
Double-decker highway would be functionally equivalent to adding additional lanes, so wouldn't solve anything as the video posit.
Double-decker with rail on one level would probably help a lot, and there's not an insignificant number of actual double-decker bridges.
This is sometimes done in the Netherlands, although not vertically, so it is not that wacky ;) See for example https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randweg_Eindhoven
This is exactly what I was curious about! Thank you for the link. :) I guess it suffers from the same challenge of induced demand, and they expanded the number of lanes over time to compensate for increased traffic, but I like that they tried. Also thank you all Dutch people for having a 'John F. Kennedylaan,' that is very cool.
Could you explain what's described in this article? It's not available in English and it's not super clear to me what it is since the comment you replied to is discussing elevated highways but you said it's not vertical.