- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why urban freeway expansion is futile
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:25 am to NOLALGD
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:25 am to NOLALGD
The idea that adding capacity does not improve congestion is is the biggest fallacy in modern urban planning.
A road system is like a delta. The water flows where flow is easiest and disperses accordingly. When a waterway is widened or deepened, it sees more water, even if the water moves at the same speed. With more water on the expanded channel means less water in the smaller channels (i.e. surface streets). This IS A GOOD THING!!!
Controlled Access Highways are the most efficient means of moving cars through a road system. Getting more cars on the more efficient system, even if they're traveling at the same speed, increases efficiency. It permits the system to handle MORE cars overall, and allows for easier travel on surface streets as they become less clogged.
Getting cars OFF of surface streets and onto the controlled access highway is THE POINT not an UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCE. When capacity is increased on those arterial highways, the overall number of cars in the system is not increasing. They are just moving from the less efficient surface streets to the more efficient arteries, AS THEY SHOULD!!!
Improving inter-connectivity of surface streets and expanding freeways are not mutually exclusive. They are both important infrastructure needs and should be done in concert with one another. This is an and not an or.
A road system is like a delta. The water flows where flow is easiest and disperses accordingly. When a waterway is widened or deepened, it sees more water, even if the water moves at the same speed. With more water on the expanded channel means less water in the smaller channels (i.e. surface streets). This IS A GOOD THING!!!
Controlled Access Highways are the most efficient means of moving cars through a road system. Getting more cars on the more efficient system, even if they're traveling at the same speed, increases efficiency. It permits the system to handle MORE cars overall, and allows for easier travel on surface streets as they become less clogged.
Getting cars OFF of surface streets and onto the controlled access highway is THE POINT not an UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCE. When capacity is increased on those arterial highways, the overall number of cars in the system is not increasing. They are just moving from the less efficient surface streets to the more efficient arteries, AS THEY SHOULD!!!
Improving inter-connectivity of surface streets and expanding freeways are not mutually exclusive. They are both important infrastructure needs and should be done in concert with one another. This is an and not an or.
4
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:29 am to NOLALGD
quote:
Why urban freeway expansion is futile
It's futile if your goal is to decrease commute times, since the expansion will eventually fuel more growth in the area and thus eventually encourage more use of the highway if an expansion of alternative routes are also not undertaken. This argument completely ignores every other benefit of added capacity, including economic growth and easier movement of freight.
They use this argument in Pennsylvania as a reason to fund elaborate highway and public transit projects in Philadelphia instead of expanding the tunnels in Pittsburgh.
State and federal highways in the Baton Rouge area all need to be improved significantly. I don't see a way around that.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:29 am to TH03
quote:
I'd love to see someone argue to make 75 through Dallas 2 lanes. It's packed 24/7 and during peak hours,
It used to be 2 lanes. When it was expanded 25 years ago traffic was better for a couple of years and then it became a cluster again....and this was before the population explosion in DFW. But really, its the interchanges that clog things up. I used to be able to drive to Denton in 30 minutes from East Dallas. But then they built the 121 and Bush interchanges at I-35 and it became a 45 minute drive. Between 4pm and 7pm its over an hour. All 121 and Bush have done is allow more development up north which has increased traffic. And I know, development = $$$$....but when your development planning is centered on building more highways it leads to what DFW is now.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:34 am to kingbob
quote:
Improving inter-connectivity of surface streets and expanding freeways are not mutually exclusive.
True. Take Ascension Parish for an example:
I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes between Highland Road and LA73. This is needed, but so is the widening of Airline Highway and Nicholson. Both of them are alternative routes to I-10. All of them are projects with regional traffic impacts that should have been addressed 20 years ago.
That goes without mentioning the multiple local surface roads in Ascension Parish that need to be improved. At some point, Ascension will have to tax themselves to widen or add turn lanes for secondary arteries like Highway 44, Highway 74, Germany Road, etc.
This post was edited on 8/14/17 at 11:37 am
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:41 am to dewster
quote:
It's futile if your goal is to decrease commute times, since the expansion will eventually fuel more growth in the area and thus eventually encourage more use of the highway
The problem is - the sheople don't want to hear that when they're asked to vote for tax increases to fund it. So, the government does what they always do - lie to "sell" the tax increase.
There are benefits to urban freeway expansion. Problem lies in other places for congestion, though. Every intersection is built in congestion. Every curve. Every hiccup in what is largely haphazard urban planning. Even cities that were relatively well thought out when planned (Washington D.C.) or western towns that have the luxury of space, relatively lower population densities and much design/expansion since the automobile became dominant suffer from traffic issues.
Traffic congestion is kind of like noise pollution. It is inevitable. You can't eliminate it and grow. All you can do is plan around it and try to mitigate it.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:42 am to Ghost of Colby
quote:
The I-10 bridge is congested because of its terrible design.
The point where it merges at I-110 (and east to the 10/12 split) has been an issue for as long as I have been alive.
Even if a new bridge was built in the Brusly area, I don't see how a costly expansion and redesign of that section in Baton Rouge can be avoided. It's a pretty big failure of state government that it hasn't happened yet.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:49 am to NOLALGD
Exactly why we need to make Interstates more open for through traffic and less convenient for local traffic.
We could widen I-10 from the West
Bank to the Split and close down the Washington Street, Louise Street, Perkins Road, and Dalrymple exits and upgrade the ones at Acadian, and College. The West bound entrance by the Old Deaf School could be upgrades as could the down ramp at Nicholson coming off the bridge.
That's also why I think the new Pecue interchange is also unnecessary. It should be a flyover as should Millerville. The notion that you need an interchange every mile just makes the interstate more convenient for local traffic. More crossover and underpasses are needed not exits and entrances.
We could widen I-10 from the West
Bank to the Split and close down the Washington Street, Louise Street, Perkins Road, and Dalrymple exits and upgrade the ones at Acadian, and College. The West bound entrance by the Old Deaf School could be upgrades as could the down ramp at Nicholson coming off the bridge.
That's also why I think the new Pecue interchange is also unnecessary. It should be a flyover as should Millerville. The notion that you need an interchange every mile just makes the interstate more convenient for local traffic. More crossover and underpasses are needed not exits and entrances.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:49 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The problem is - the sheople don't want to hear that when they're asked to vote for tax increases to fund it. So, the government does what they always do - lie to "sell" the tax increase.
State government has not cultivated a good, trusting relationship with taxpayers.
This is especially the case with taxpayers in the Baton Rouge area, whose needs were ignored with the TIMED initiative.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:52 am to NOLALGD
quote:
adding more urban interstate capacity will just mean more people will use the interstate so it will still be congested,
So that frees up surface roads for locals....
This is a really asinine argument.
quote:
choke point are the real problem (I-10 bridge in BR)
Choke points are literally points where the number of lanes are insufficient.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:53 am to doubleb
quote:
That's also why I think the new Pecue interchange is also unnecessary.
This. Pecue does not need an interchange. If an interchange is built, it should not be a full interchange. The format of development on Pecue should be single family residential. They want to develop it like they did Siegen.
Pete's Highway in Livingston doesn't need a freeway exit at all. In fact, they should never added an exit at Juban Road without first widening US 190 first.
This post was edited on 8/14/17 at 11:56 am
Posted on 8/14/17 at 11:57 am to kingbob
quote:
Controlled Access Highways are the most efficient means of moving cars through a road system. Getting more cars on the more efficient system, even if they're traveling at the same speed, increases efficiency.
Even if they are crawling along at 40 MPH, you can move more cars across a given point with 4 lanes than you can with 2 or 3 lanes.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 12:03 pm to dbeck
quote:
Yeah there's no point in expanding roads. If you add more lanes people are just gonna drive on them. Keep the roads narrow and maybe people will stay home.
Maybe if we don't build roads at all, we won't have to worry about all the bullshite that comes with economic development.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
The idea that adding capacity does not improve congestion is is the biggest fallacy in modern urban planning.
A road system is like a delta. The water flows where flow is easiest and disperses accordingly. When a waterway is widened or deepened, it sees more water, even if the water moves at the same speed. With more water on the expanded channel means less water in the smaller channels (i.e. surface streets). This IS A GOOD THING!!!
This is only partially true, in reality cars go where stuff is. Economic Development and location of places people want to go is often a part of new road (and especially new transit) construction which also results in additional traffic.
This is why in cities (and even in suburban areas now) there is a real estate premium on residential areas where people can get to stuff without getting in their car and/or driving a long way.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:11 pm to TH03
quote:
That's not always the case. I'd love to see someone argue to make 75 through Dallas 2 lanes. It's packed 24/7 and during peak hours, so is every other major north south road in the city.
You literally read my mind.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:12 pm to kingbob
quote:Don't hold your breath for this to happen in BR. BR's Old Guard and Deep Pockets will fight you to the death to prevent street connectivity.
Improving inter-connectivity of surface streets
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:16 pm to goofball
quote:wow, you sound racist
Washington Street exit must be relocated
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:17 pm to NOLALGD
Mobile has the same problems but the state is wasting federal money on worthless projects (northern beltline in Birmingham) instead of protecting the states biggest tourism. There's a partially complete 98 bypass just north of the current 98 that the state won't finish (you can see it bright as day on google earth). The I-10 tunnel needs to be bypassed with a wider, higher speed bridge and the bayway needs to be widened. Baldwin county accounts for a huge part of the states tourism and gets treated like a stepchild because of Birmingham and Montgomery.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:20 pm to NOLALGD
Oh, well in that case
Posted on 8/14/17 at 1:32 pm to NOLALGD
Build a southern bypass toll freeway that connects from around Hwy 74 and reconnects with I-10 west of the river.
If more people use it and it becomes congested, so be it. Then its more toll revenue rolling in and maybe LA will realize that toll freeways in NO and BR could be a good infrastructure investment for the state.
If more people use it and it becomes congested, so be it. Then its more toll revenue rolling in and maybe LA will realize that toll freeways in NO and BR could be a good infrastructure investment for the state.
Posted on 8/14/17 at 2:07 pm to NOLALGD
This has been proven as far back as Al Smith in NYC. Adding more roads only increases the problem. More efficient roads are the key. Also improper lane usage and reckless driving affects traffic more than roads.
This post was edited on 8/14/17 at 2:08 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News