WORST road layout for a major city

174 views
Skip to first unread message

BrianB4837

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 2:34:07 AM12/19/03
to
As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
NYs system is among the worst.

1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past NY
either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter difficult)

2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC area
system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor design
flaws.

3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
among other inefficiencies.

4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use circuitous
routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.

5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
incomplete highway connections.

6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.

Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?

Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 2:44:15 AM12/19/03
to
Northern Kentucky has a mighty wretched layout, and not just from my
perspective. Probably because of terrain problems, a lot of roads don't
really go anywhere. They keep building new subdivisions where there
aren't enough roads to handle them. You should see what the traffic is
like.

--

I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
----- http://members.iglou.com/bandit ------

Check out my blog blogga blog at http://bandit73.pitas.com

Eastward Bound

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 5:55:38 AM12/19/03
to
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...


This is a dumb post. First off NYC is a historical city with much of
it built long before suburbia, the automobile and the superhighway.

If you love your car that much then by all means, move to Suburbia.
That would mean more room for people who prefer to live in NYC and
take public transit. If it weren't for the Subway, steel frame
buildings + elevators - NYC would not be the NYC that it is today. It
would never have gotten as dense as it is. NYC was built around
public transit rather then around the car.

Like I said, if you love your car that much that you absolutely MUST
drive it everywhere then you must move WEST, west of the Mississippi
River.

General rule of thumb. East Coast, Old. West Coast, New.

Angry Male

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 9:40:59 AM12/19/03
to
> This is a dumb post. First off NYC is a historical city with much of
> it built long before suburbia, the automobile and the superhighway.

If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
were a farmer bringing your goods to market.

I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.

Pat OConnell

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 10:15:51 AM12/19/03
to
BrianB4837 wrote:
> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways.

As others have said, NYC is very old, and wasn't designed for cars at all.

Austin TX has no excuse at all for not doing its highways right. It was
horrible in 1991 when I last drove in the town. Two north-south freeways
parallel to each other, neither with enough lanes. No east-west freeways.

I understand the town is getting new toll roads to relieve the congestion,
but I don't know if that will be enough to do the job.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

tropic...@tampabay.rr.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 11:42:05 AM12/19/03
to
My two nominations

Tampa - Unlike it's little brother St. Petersburg, Tampa's road system is in
shambles. Only NOW is the state been committing serious money to upgrading
the interstate and surface street system. For years South Florida has
gotten the cash...now Tampa bay gets the leftovers.

Tallahassee - Easily the WORST road design I'm ever seen. This is the only
city I've ever been in with overpasses to NOWHERE. Rather than make it's
"beltway", Capital Circle into a true 4 or 6 lane highway, much of it is
still 2 lane pot-strewn crap! The joke in Tally is that when they were
designing the road system, they tossed a bunch of monkeys in a room with
paper and crayons and the most nonsensical drawing is what they adopted for
the road system. And I know Tally is not considered a "major" city, but I
consider any state capital a major city.

Honorable Mention:

Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
INEXCUSABLE


"BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com...

Nathan Perry

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 1:51:59 PM12/19/03
to
In article <20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:

> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.
>
> 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past
> NY
> either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> difficult)

Fortunately, the transit system there works. There is admittedly still a
problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
residents and commuters have a fair chance.


>
> 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC
> area
> system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> design
> flaws.

Elaborate?


>
> 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
> sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
> among other inefficiencies.

The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated. Problem is, NYC
had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
to continue this kind of progress in later years.

All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.


>
> 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> circuitous
> routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.

This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.


>
> 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
> incomplete highway connections.

These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.


>
> 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
> nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.

Prohibitive ROW costs.

Nathan Perry

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 1:57:55 PM12/19/03
to
In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:

> If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> were a farmer bringing your goods to market.

Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
probably true of most other cities nationwide.


>
> I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
> Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
> the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
> and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
> today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
> Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.

Long Island, simply stated, outgrew its accessibility. On the other
hand, anyone deciding to move there must understand to increased
difficulties of getting in and out. Persons with wanderlust should avoid
the island, while homebodies can do quite well there.

Jeff Kitsko

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 1:59:54 PM12/19/03
to
"BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?

Pittsburgh - only three expressways make it into the CBD. Most lanes on an
expressway honor goes to I-279, but its a 3-2-3 combo with the center two as
HOV only lanes, separated from the main travel lanes. PA 28 is an
expressway almost to the city, but falls short (to be rectified). There are
no major bypass routes, unless you want to go out of your way and take the
Turnpike, I-79, or I-70. So, all traffic gets funneled through the CBD (for
now until the Southern Beltway is built, but it will go only as far as 43
and not I-76.

--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/


George Conklin

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 2:00:09 PM12/19/03
to

"Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nperry-5D744B....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...

> In article <20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
> brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:
>
> > As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few
reasons.
> > Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> > reasons
> > NYs system is among the worst.
> >
> > 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route
past
> > NY
> > either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> > difficult)
>
> Fortunately, the transit system there works. There is admittedly still a
> problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
> residents and commuters have a fair chance.
> >

Irrelevant comment. The issue was roads, not transit. And the transit
is not very good if you count speed. The great old IRT was nice 100 years
ago but it like riding a museum.


> > 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the
NYC
> > area
> > system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> > design
> > flaws.
>
> Elaborate?
> >
> > 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed,
with
> > sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow
lanes,
> > among other inefficiencies.
>
> The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated.


As is the transit system.

Problem is, NYC
> had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
> has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
> to continue this kind of progress in later years.
>
> All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.
> >

The penalty of being first. NYC was a great port, but now being a port is
now so important anymore.

> > 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> > circuitous
> > routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
>
> This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
> streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
> best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.
> >

It is hard to avoid the city, but of course you can do it. Trying to get
a truck around NYC is a pain.


> > 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> > Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no,
or
> > incomplete highway connections.
>
> These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
> connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.
> >


That is no reason for the conditions to continue.

Pete from Boston

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 2:24:31 PM12/19/03
to
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?

No. I'll do just the opposite.

NY is rife with duplicative routes, making alternates possible on just
about any trip.

The Manhattan street grid is for the most part logical and easily
grasped by outsiders. While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
Staten Island is another matter, being essentially a suburb recently
developed.

One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
from most directions that geography allows.

Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
in Boston. And the frustration of driving in New York doesn't begin to
compare with that of Boston, where few through routes were ever
completed, the street pattern is for the most part random, and nearly
all corridors are served by only one decent route. Then there's the
appalling lack of complete interchanges and complementary one-way
streets -- par not to mention signs. Having spent good portions of my
life in both areas, I can't see any sane defense of NY being more
poorly laid out than Boston. Just spend a while driving here.

william lynch

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 4:14:31 PM12/19/03
to
in article xTFEb.100144$b01.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com,
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com at tropic...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on
12/19/03 8:42 AM:

> My two nominations
>
> Tampa - Unlike it's little brother St. Petersburg, Tampa's road system is in
> shambles. Only NOW is the state been committing serious money to upgrading
> the interstate and surface street system. For years South Florida has
> gotten the cash...now Tampa bay gets the leftovers.
>
> Tallahassee - Easily the WORST road design I'm ever seen. This is the only
> city I've ever been in with overpasses to NOWHERE. Rather than make it's
> "beltway", Capital Circle into a true 4 or 6 lane highway, much of it is
> still 2 lane pot-strewn crap! The joke in Tally is that when they were
> designing the road system, they tossed a bunch of monkeys in a room with
> paper and crayons and the most nonsensical drawing is what they adopted for
> the road system. And I know Tally is not considered a "major" city, but I
> consider any state capital a major city.
>

<big snippage>

Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.

Jay Maynard

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 4:25:09 PM12/19/03
to
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:14:31 GMT, william lynch <x@y.z> wrote:
>Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
>capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
>some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
>two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
>Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.

Hell, while we're at it, we should also examine the two that don't have
Interstates that aren't on your list: Jefferson City and Dover. (Juneau and
Pierre are the other two, for the folks who don't know; Carson City used to
be on that list (or maybe still should be for now: is I-515 there yet?).)

Chris Bessert

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 4:22:15 PM12/19/03
to
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote:
>
> Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
> capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
> some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
> two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
> Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.

Frankfort, Concord(!!), Augusta, Jefferson City, Santa Fe... others
which are small cities. Especially Concord!

Later,
Chris

--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org


Jon Enslin

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 4:32:09 PM12/19/03
to

william lynch wrote:

Madison is also quite difficult unless you know it well. The lakes make
a grid system difficult and there are no numbered streets outside of six
on the east side...which don't even start at the Capitol Square.

The Beltline is nice, but again because of the lakes, it doesn't serve
everyone.

Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most logical
layout of any major city.

Jon

--
"It seems all you can do is step on our collective joy whenever Canada
achieves a milestone in sports." - rob

Craig Holl

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 5:40:52 PM12/19/03
to
Jon Enslin wrote:

> Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most
> logical layout of any major city.

Milwaukee County is very good, with nearly all the section lines serving as the
arterials. A few exceptions are: 1) western Franklin on the SW side of the
county, where the EW streets don't quite get to, and there aren't any NS
arterials. 2) A few places where the section line arterials get stopped because
of the angle streets. 3) Wauwatosa, where there is about three miles with only
one arterial.

The section line arterials do continue, for the most part, into the neighboring
suburbs. Unfortunately, Waukesha County is not trying to expand the grid system,
so we'll be stuck with cruddy arterials.

Now lets not even talk about the freeways...

--
Craig Holl
Mechanical Engineer; New Berlin, WI
www.midwestroads.com
*remove all numbers and caps to reply*


tropic...@tampabay.rr.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 7:03:46 PM12/19/03
to
I hate to say it but any city target by another country with a nuclear
warhead I consider a major city....

That's my personal criteria...importance..not population


"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:brvq7r$1qrr$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...

George Conklin

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 7:33:50 PM12/19/03
to

"Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...

> In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
>
> > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
>
> Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> probably true of most other cities nationwide.
> >

With the coming of the street car, downtowns developed. They decimated
community shopping. People were supposed to travel downtown and AWAY from
the community for serious shopping.

You cannot have it both ways: pushing for centralized shopping downtown
and then stating people should shop locally.


Mark Roberts

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 8:48:12 PM12/19/03
to
william lynch <x@y.z> had written:

|
| Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
| capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
| some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
| two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
| Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.

Apparently the Michelin US atlas has the same idea. Despite its
general excellence, it includes an inset map of Jefferson City,
Missouri, but not of Columbia, which is the largest city and
metropolitan area (for some value of "metropolitan") between Kansas
City and St Louis.

Just imagine if the California capital were still Benicia....


--
"Right here in Minnesota!"
"Bullwinkle, that's Florida!"
"Well, if they're gonna keep adding states all the time, they
can't expect me to keep up!" -- Rocky & Bullwinkle, episode 5, 1960

Mark Roberts

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 8:51:55 PM12/19/03
to
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com <tropic...@tampabay.rr.com> had written:


| Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
| INEXCUSABLE

If that's your criterion, I'd wonder what your restaurant reviews
would be like.

"This restaurant was awful *just* *because* the service exit wasn't
marked!"

Anyhow, Kansas City is a *very* easy city to move around in. The
boulevard system is a real plus and most boulevards are quite
attractive. About the worst things are the major freeway
interchanges on the Missouri side, which seemed to have a quite
demented design. The apotheosis of same, the Grandview Triangle,
just had extensive realignment work done (Ben Prusia's web site
documents some of it).

Amanda the F-ing GREAT!

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 9:33:19 PM12/19/03
to
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.

European cities are WAY worse than American cities as far as roads go.
Many of them are a spaghetti mess of very narrow roads, which is
probably why biking is a popular alternative to cars in Amsterdam.

DanTheMan

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 9:35:58 PM12/19/03
to
mass...@my-deja.com (Pete from Boston) wrote in message news:<b282e3e6.03121...@posting.google.com>...

> brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message
news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> <cut out lots of stuff>

> While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
They do? Let's look at Queens - the numbered streets end in Street,
Road, Drive, Avenue, Place, or Lane. Four-way intersections are few
and far between - one way streets abound. Just about every street has
a number of sections, and very few run continuously from one side of
Queens to the other without a few blocks missing. Don't even get me
started on Brooklyn - half a dozen sets of numbered streets which
don't connect. How about those numbers in the "Bay umpteenth St."
area? The numbers don't go in order: 14th Ave., Bay 7th St., Bay 8th
St., 15th Ave., Bay 10th St., Bay 11th St., 16th Ave., etc. Those
streets are all parallel, in order, from NW to SE.

> One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
> from most directions that geography allows.

The speed limits might be high, but you can't do 65 across the Cross
Bronx Expressway in bumper to bumper traffic. Last time I was there,
potholes restricted it to about 40 mph without the traffic. I-287 is a
nice bypass, but that's about all there is in the way of "high speed
through routes."

> Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
> in Boston.

I'll give you that - Boston is probably worse. The Big Dig helped -
but not enough.

Bob S

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 12:00:45 AM12/20/03
to
Jon Enslin <enslinjREMOVE...@uww.edu> wrote in message news:<3FE36E59...@uww.edu>...
>
> <snip>

>
> Madison is also quite difficult unless you know it well. The lakes make
> a grid system difficult and there are no numbered streets outside of six
> on the east side...which don't even start at the Capitol Square.
>
> The Beltline is nice, but again because of the lakes, it doesn't serve
> everyone.
>
> Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most logical
> layout of any major city.
>
> Jon

Don't forget all the one-way streets also. There are actually eight
numbered streets on the east side. There are really only three ways
or combination thereof to efficiently get from the east side to the
west side or vice versa. The Beltline around the south side, Hwy
30/East Washington/Johnson/Gorham/University Ave through town or
around Lake Mendota on Packers/Northport/CTH M. So if anything
happens like a major crash, there are few good alternate routes.

The capacity on the Beltline is getting to the point where if someone
sneezes, traffic slows down and backs up. A north Beltline is needed.
Instead of a freeway, the county is pushing a 4-lane 45-mph arterial.

Bob S

BrianB4837

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 1:45:27 AM12/20/03
to
>I'll give you that - Boston is probably worse. The Big Dig helped -
>but not enough.
>

Data may not totally indicate how awful NYs traffic problems are, but any NYer
knows how bad it really is. First of all, on NYC highways, there is no rush
hour direction. Generally, in both directions in the AM and the PM, you will
be sitting in traffic on most of the major commuting routes. Getting into the
city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.

In most of the other cities in the country, the traffic is near the "downtown
area", and then goes into the suburbs. In NYC, not only is there bad traffic
around Manhattan, and extending into the suburbs, but the boroughs themselves
are also traffic nightmares.

Daniel Westfall

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 1:41:16 AM12/20/03
to
Reading some of these posts brings a classic tale to mind: A Tale of Two
Cities. My first thought is Greensboro, NC and Columbus, OH. Both IMHO
feel similar in size however Columbus is the winner as far as highway
system. Columbus features US 23 and US 33 to run you NW and SE. Then
there's I-71 and I-70. Both seem to serve well for points N, S, E, and
W. Then if the 2-di's are too congested there's I-270 and I-670. All
of these are generally 4-lane some are even 6 in some parts. I've never
had problems getting around thanks to what I feel is a good setup. Then
there's Greensboro. In my two years in this area I've felt there was a
desperate need for a loop similar to I-270. The only good route through
town to points west is I-40. This road was not stretched out to 8 lanes
(too many IMO) until the early '00's. I-40 should be 6-lanes with an
I-285 going around it. The loop is being built but it won't be finished
until the mid '10's. This should've been in place back in 1998 when
NC's economy was still booming in leaps and bounds. When the existing
projects are complete what's to say there's not the traffic to support
them?

Dino

"You'll shoot your eye out."
-The people vs. Ralphie

Eastward Bound

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 2:37:44 AM12/20/03
to
<tropic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<xTFEb.100144$b01.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

What are you talking about? I29 becomes highway 71. End of story.

TPH

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 2:38:02 AM12/20/03
to
I'd have to say Baltimore (but mostly the surrounding areas). There's so much
rerouting onto the I-695 Beltway which it's never going to be able to handle.
To go west in Maryland from Baltimore you have to go down I-95 and take the
beltway to I-70. Reverse that for a western route coming into the city. Not
to mention that if you want to come from central PA you have to get off on 695
to get to 95 south. Same with northwestern maryland (I-795 into I-695 to get
to I-95.)

Most people think that the traffic problems are just in downtown and the inner
city, but if you get to the surrounding portions of the city, there's usually
several miles to I-95.

Jeff Leadbeater

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 7:31:28 AM12/20/03
to
Take out NYC, put in Long Island. I'd buy your NYC arguments if there
weren't so many people that either walked or used the subway.

Jeff Leadbeater

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 7:38:05 AM12/20/03
to
That is a pretty fucking serious problem. Can it hurt them to connect
I-395, I-83 and I-70 in a three-way interchange downtown by Camden Yards?

"TPH" <thart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220023802...@mb-m13.aol.com...

Stéphane Dumas

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 10:20:33 AM12/20/03
to
> Hell, while we're at it, we should also examine the two that don't have
> Interstates that aren't on your list: Jefferson City and Dover. (Juneau
and
> Pierre are the other two, for the folks who don't know; Carson City used
to
> be on that list (or maybe still should be for now: is I-515 there yet?).)

For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1
turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
be removed de facto from the list.

Stéphane Dumas


william lynch

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 12:45:52 PM12/20/03
to
in article 9LZEb.30866$7S3.4...@weber.videotron.net, Stéphane Dumas at
steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:

I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
doesn't exist. Go here:

http://www.nevadadot.com/

And, under "Reports & Publications" download "State Maintained
Highways Descriptions, Index and Maps". 50 cuts through E-W,
and 395 runs N-S. Those are the only highways in Carson City
proper (not the goofy annexation at Tahoe).

Oscar Voss

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 1:27:10 PM12/20/03
to
william lynch wrote:
>
> in article 9LZEb.30866$7S3.4...@weber.videotron.net, Stéphane Dumas at
> steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:

> > For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1


> > turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
> > be removed de facto from the list.
>

> I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
> doesn't exist. Go here:
>
> http://www.nevadadot.com/

It comes from, among other places, Andy Field's Nevada Highways site:

http://www.westcoastroads.com/nevada/i-580.html

as well as FHWA's website:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm

FWIW, I just drove in October the completed portions of I-580 through
Reno, which are milemarked as I-580 even if still signed as US 395. But
the Interstate has not yet been completed to Carson City (they're still
working on new freeway segments).

--
Oscar Voss - ov...@erols.com - Arlington, Virginia

my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://users.erols.com/ovoss/

william lynch

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 1:42:58 PM12/20/03
to
in article 3FE494...@erols.com, Oscar Voss at ov...@erols.com wrote on
12/20/03 10:27 AM:

> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article 9LZEb.30866$7S3.4...@weber.videotron.net, Stéphane Dumas at
>> steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:
>
>>> For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1
>>> turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
>>> be removed de facto from the list.
>>
>> I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
>> doesn't exist. Go here:
>>
>> http://www.nevadadot.com/
>
> It comes from, among other places, Andy Field's Nevada Highways site:
>
> http://www.westcoastroads.com/nevada/i-580.html
>
> as well as FHWA's website:
>
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm
>
> FWIW, I just drove in October the completed portions of I-580 through
> Reno, which are milemarked as I-580 even if still signed as US 395. But
> the Interstate has not yet been completed to Carson City (they're still
> working on new freeway segments).

OK, I misspoke. Slightly. It doesn't exist anywhere near
Carson City right now.

Andrew Tompkins

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 5:42:39 PM12/20/03
to
<tropic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ClMEb.101350$b01.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

OK, so your saying any town that is unlucky enough to contain or sit next to:

Any military installation (regardless of size),
Any nuclear missile silo,
Any port facility,
Any airport with a hard surface runway of at least 5000 ft.,
Any rail yard,
Any crossings of major highways and/or railroads,
Any industrial base,
Any major river crossing,
and probably a few other categories.

This includes towns like Kenmare, ND (pop. 1081, probably no bigger than 100 blocks),
and numerous smaller towns within 20 miles that have no populations listed, which
sits near several missile silos and possibly a missile control facility.

--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------


william lynch

unread,
Dec 20, 2003, 9:50:18 PM12/20/03
to
in article 8-idnWYWlcX...@comcast.com, Andrew Tompkins at
and...@comcast.net wrote on 12/20/03 2:42 PM:

I would skip the 'other categories', because I believe that your
current list includes more than 99.99% of the population.

Raymond Chuang

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 9:38:32 AM12/21/03
to
"Angry Male" <angry_wh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com...

> If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> were a farmer bringing your goods to market.

Interestingly enough, it was the sheer overcrowding of London, England that
forced them to build the Underground subway system late in the 19th Century.
And even more interestingly enough, it was Underground extensions that built
up new suburbs in London!

--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA


Raymond Chuang

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 9:43:06 AM12/21/03
to
"Amanda the F-ing GREAT!" <blakcat_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a57d66c7.03121...@posting.google.com...

> European cities are WAY worse than American cities as far as roads go.
> Many of them are a spaghetti mess of very narrow roads, which is
> probably why biking is a popular alternative to cars in Amsterdam.

Because of the sheer oldness of European cities (and the fact you can't move
and/or demolish historic old buildings), it's actually more convenient to
ride the excellent public transit systems in many of these cities.

Froggie

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:06:46 AM12/21/03
to
> Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?

Under honorable mention: Virginia Beach, VA

A city of over 400K which, for most intents, only has one freeway...an east-west
route so congested that the nearby parallel arterial requires 8 lanes...

No north-south freeways....portions of the city that have only one way in or
out....badly time traffic lights on the arterials (though I've read that this
will be partially rectified soon)...overdevelopment....and an acute lack of
access management on all but two routes...

It is not uncommon during peak hours for one travelling Independence Blvd (VA
225) to spend 15+ minutes travelling the 3/4 mile or so from north of VA Beach
Blvd (US 58) to I-264. If you can do it in less than 10 minutes, it's a
light/quiet rush hour...

Froggie | Reporting from Liverpool, NY (but will be back in Virginia Beach
next weekend) | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/


william lynch

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 1:57:45 PM12/21/03
to
in article IfiFb.13558$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Raymond
Chuang at rch...@goodbye.mindspring.com wrote on 12/21/03 6:38 AM:

Only on the northern half. The first southern tube extensions
are just now getting down there, due to the difficulties in
tunneling through the bedrock.

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 2:09:07 PM12/21/03
to
"Froggie" <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote:
>
> Under honorable mention: Virginia Beach, VA
>
> A city of over 400K which, for most intents, only has one freeway...an east-west
> route so congested that the nearby parallel arterial requires 8 lanes...

That wasn't the reason why US-58 was widened to 8 lanes. It formerly
had 2 mainline lanes each way and 2 service road lanes each way, and the
service roads were narrow surface-treated roads; and it was decided that
a conventional 8-lane arterial would make maximum use of the
right-of-way available, with more capacity and better ease of use. The
service roads had narrow outer separators and small slip ramps to the
main roadways, and it wasn't a good arrangement.

I-264 is an 8- to 10-lane freeway with an HOV lane each way. I-64 also
passes through a populated section of Virginia Beach.



> No north-south freeways....portions of the city that have only one way in or
> out....badly time traffic lights on the arterials (though I've read that this
> will be partially rectified soon)...overdevelopment....and an acute lack of
> access management on all but two routes...

Well, the fact that it is a coastal city that is hemmed in on 3 of 4
sides by geography, is a prime factor in that. The city has the
Atlantic Ocean on the east, Chesapeake Bay on the north, and on the
south Back Bay and Currituck Sound. The northern (most populated) part
of the city has internal waters in Little Creek, Lake Smith, Lynnhaven
Bay, and Broad Bay. There are plenty of wetlands in various parts of
the city.

All that makes it difficult to build new highways, from a cost
standpoint as well as from an environmental standpoint. Any north-south
new freeway in the mid section of the city would likely be infeasible,
and any coastal freeway along US-60 would likely be infeasible. So the
city has focused on expanding its arterial road system.

The Southeastern Expressway was proposed as an 8-lane freeway, running
from the Route 168 Bypass near Kempville Road, east-west about 5 miles
south of I-264, then curving around the east edge of Oceana NAS, and
ending at I-264 near Birdneck Road. Environmental and development
concerns led to the proposal being reduced to the Southeastern Parkway,
a 4- and 6-lane parkway, but the project is still stalled by
environmental and development concerns, mainly due to the concerns of
Virginia Beach elected officials. The project was the highest rated
regional project in an MPO study done several years ago that compared
traffic benefits to the cost of the project.

Virginia Beach had a referendum in 1999, concerning funding for the
light rail line proposed between downtown Norfolk and the Oceanfront,
along the very lightly used Norfolk-Southern freight rail line that
parallels US-58. The voters (actually only 11% turnout) said "no".
Norfolk is going forward on its section of the line out to Newtown Road,
and I think that Virginia Beach ought to revisit the issue, since I
think that this line would serve a valuable purpose. The rail
right-of-way is already there and it happens to be positioned where it
will serve a lot of neighborhoods and business complexes, with selective
grade separations (over 4 or 5 major road crossings) the trip time would
be about 25 minutes from end to end, and the $700 million cost was vying
for 50% federal transit funding back in 1999. Hampton Roads Transit is
negotiating to buy that right-of-way for its proposed light rail line,
although only the Norfolk section has been approved by its respective
city. Still, if the city's position changes that line has potential for
a light rail line that could also handle freight movements from about
midnight to 5:00 AM when the LRT is not running. A northern LRT
extension to the U.S. Naval Base was also under consideration.

Virginia Beach has quadrupled in population since it became a city in
1965, so a lot of people want to live there, and the above two major
transportation projects would help the city a lot, and would be mainly
funded by state and federal funding.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Sancho Panza

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 6:30:28 PM12/21/03
to

"BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220014527...@mb-m21.aol.com...

> Getting into the city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.

That is an understatement. After the Port Authority flips the middle tube of
the Lincoln Tunnel around 4:15 p.m. to all New Jersey bound, traffic on
Route 3 backs up for an hour to an hour and a half, largely because everyone
fears what might happen if they had to stack up the traffic in Manhattan.
The one saving grace is that after the efficacy of the morning Express Bus
Lane became immediately apparent, the Port Authority had to explain that it
could not operate a westbound Express Bus Lane in the evenings because of
the tremendous crush of eastbound traffic at that hour.

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 9:55:22 PM12/21/03
to
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.
>
> 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past NY
> either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter difficult)
>
> 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC area
> system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor design
> flaws.
>

Remember, most of the roads are old....thats probably why....

> 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
> sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
> among other inefficiencies.

See above.

>
> 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use circuitous
> routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.

I like parkways. I hate trucks. I find trucks to be very rude and
inconsiderate. When I switch into the left lane, I will switch when
the lane is clear. I will not cut someone off who is barrelling down
the lane trying to pass me. DO the trucks do this? No, they just cut
you off. Trucks also drive slow, forcing you to pass them, and when
you finally pass them, they speed up (ok, this doesn't always happen,
but it happens often enough). Trucks have really annoying spray from
their tires when it rains. Truckers make their rolling lane blocks at
construction zones, forcing cars who want to get to their exit before
the lane closure but after the truck-block to use the shoulder to get
around the truck. Trucks accelerate too slowly, and often can't keep
up with traffic in a traffic jam, meaning that a big gap opens up in
front which other cars dive into....so in otherwords, the truck and
all the people behind it lose out. Trucks emit terrible
pollution....I was almost overcome by fumes on the cross bronx once
when stuck in one of those long underpasses with idling, accelerating
trucks. Trucks also often drive recklessly...they ought to be held to
a higher standard since they are inherently more dangerous then cars,
since they weigh so much more. Trucks also block the view in front of
them, which makes driving behind them dangerous and not fun, and lots
of times, they make it difficult to pass them.

Traffic is bad enough in NY where I enjoy driving on the parkways
without the hassles of driving with the annoying trucks....I feel a
lot safer too on the parkways without the big-rigs.

>
> 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
> incomplete highway connections.

These bridges are considered local streets, and are part of the local
street network. Bridges on the highway network are the toll bridges.
If you made the free bridges too easy to get to, no one would use the
toll bridges!

>
> 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
> nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
>

Again, probably because of their age, and due to robert moses' abuse
of local communities, the NIMBY's are stronger then ever here....

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 9:59:15 PM12/21/03
to
> > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
>
> Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> probably true of most other cities nationwide.

See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.

> >
> > I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
> > Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
> > the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
> > and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
> > today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
> > Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.
>
> Long Island, simply stated, outgrew its accessibility. On the other
> hand, anyone deciding to move there must understand to increased
> difficulties of getting in and out. Persons with wanderlust should avoid
> the island, while homebodies can do quite well there.

most people get along fine, since we don't need to leave the island
for anything. The island is self-sufficient, plenty of stores,
employment, etc for the most part. But yes, people like me who like
to travel to the outside world should (and in my case eventually will)
avoid long island. Some people like the isolation though.

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:00:13 PM12/21/03
to
"George Conklin" <nil...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ONMEb.5552$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

> "Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
> > >
>
> With the coming of the street car, downtowns developed. They decimated
> community shopping. People were supposed to travel downtown and AWAY from
> the community for serious shopping.
>
> You cannot have it both ways: pushing for centralized shopping downtown
> and then stating people should shop locally.

unless everyone lives downtown which is what a lot of radical
environmentalists think should happen.

Exile on Market Street

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:05:17 PM12/21/03
to

To a historian of transport in all its variety, this is less surprising
than it may seem to some on this board.

Both population growth and (in some countries) cultural preferences have
contributed to a fairly steady expansion in area of large cities since
the 18th century. As new technologies made it possible to open up land
further away from the city for development, development has followed the
paths of the new modes of travel.

The phrase "streetcar suburb" entered the language via historian Sam
Bass Warner's landmark 1962 book on how metropolitan Boston developed in
the late 19th century on the back of its expanding streetcar network.
And as the residents of these new developments rode the cars to their
jobs and shopping downtown, the resulting gridlock caused by the
convergence of so many streetcars on compact downtown Boston led that
city to become the first in North America to open a subway. Many other
US cities experienced similar patterns of rail transit-driven expansion
and traffic in the late 1800s and early 1900s, though relatively few of
them sought the expensive congestion remedy of a subway (either
streetcar or rapid-transit variety).

All of those old Northeastern cities have development patterns of the
type found in New York to a greater or lesser degree, though none have
high-density development on the scale of Manhattan's. And the
disruption caused by the initial punching of expressways through the
urban fabric eventually led to a major backlash against freeway
construction in all of them--New York's highway network is as
"inadequate" as it is because most of it was completed well before the
backlash began in the mid- to late 1960s.

--
-----------Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia----------
Managing Editor, _Penn Current_ / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
215.898.1423 / fax 215.898.1203 / http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
Got news? Got events? Got stories? Send 'em to cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
If you see this line, the opinions expressed are mine, not Penn's

"I keep telling my husband, 'How bad is that? [Tim] Russert's not
getting it two times a day.'"
--Comedian/talk-show co-host Ali Wentworth, on reassuring hubby
George Stephanopolous that her remark about their marriage ("Do you
know of many strained marriages that make love twice a day?") was not
---------------all that scandalous (_Philadelphia Inquirer_ 9/30/03)--

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:08:26 PM12/21/03
to
"George Conklin" <nil...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ZUHEb.5101$wL6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

> "Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nperry-5D744B....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> > In article <20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>,

> > brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:
> >
> > > As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few
> reasons.
> > > Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> > > reasons
> > > NYs system is among the worst.
> > >
> > > 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route
> past
> > > NY
> > > either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> > > difficult)
> >
> > Fortunately, the transit system there works. There is admittedly still a
> > problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
> > residents and commuters have a fair chance.
> > >
>
> Irrelevant comment. The issue was roads, not transit. And the transit
> is not very good if you count speed. The great old IRT was nice 100 years
> ago but it like riding a museum.

No, it is relevant.....transit = transportation, just like roads =
transportation. People in NY are used to using their transit system,
in fact, the proportion of NYers who use transit is higher then in any
other major US city.....put it this way, the roads would be A LOT
worse if it weren't for the transit. Very few people drive anywhere
in Manhattan, not only are the roads congested, but there won't be any
cheap place to park when you get there! Transit increases the
accessibility of the city, and makes a place like Manhattan
possible...no way you coul dhave that density with only roads and not
transit...well, you could, but only the richest of the rich would be
able to afford to get there.

>
>
> > > 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the
> NYC
> > > area
> > > system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> > > design
> > > flaws.
> >

> > Elaborate?


> > >
> > > 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed,
> with
> > > sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow
> lanes,
> > > among other inefficiencies.
> >

> > The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated.
>
>
> As is the transit system.

Outside of Manhattan, yes.....and if you could ADA access, then yes,
the entire system is outdated.

>
> Problem is, NYC
> > had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
> > has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
> > to continue this kind of progress in later years.
> >
> > All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.
> > >
>
> The penalty of being first. NYC was a great port, but now being a port is
> now so important anymore.


>
> > > 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> > > circuitous
> > > routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
> >

> > This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
> > streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
> > best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.
> > >
>
> It is hard to avoid the city, but of course you can do it. Trying to get
> a truck around NYC is a pain.


>
>
> > > 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> > > Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no,
> or
> > > incomplete highway connections.
> >

> > These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
> > connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.
> > >
>
>
> That is no reason for the conditions to continue.

Yes, they should have been fixed when the express highways were built.
But because Robert Moses wasn't in charge of the free bridges, he
only made it easy to get to the toll facilities that his Triboro
bridge and tunnel authority ran. If Moses wanted to connect them, he
would have done it, since he was unstoppable. Today, its too
late....people will not tollerate an "unstoppable" road builder in the
city because of Moses' past abuses.

>
> > > 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide,
> not
> > > nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
> >

> > Prohibitive ROW costs.

Exile on Market Street

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:10:15 PM12/21/03
to
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:


> Honorable Mention:
>
> Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
> INEXCUSABLE

That strikes me as more a signage oversight than a system design defect.

I don't know if the situation is the same today as it was in the 1970s,
but I believe the problem stems from the fact that the southern end of
I-29 is at the 29/35 junction north of the river, about 5 miles N of the
downtown freeway loop. Motorists in downtown KC need to know which road
leads to I-29 northbound while southbound motorists on I-29 simply
continue into the city on I-35, so you get I-29 markers northbound but
not southbound on the North Midtown (Paseo Bridge) Freeway.

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:11:14 PM12/21/03
to
mass...@my-deja.com (Pete from Boston) wrote in message news:<b282e3e6.03121...@posting.google.com>...

> brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?
>
> No. I'll do just the opposite.
>
> NY is rife with duplicative routes, making alternates possible on just
> about any trip.

I agree with you on this. Where else will you find a city with 2
freeways paralleling each other as closely as the LIE and Northern
State? This essentially makes the 6-lane grievance a moot point, as
for all intents and purposes, the LIE corridor is at least 12 lanes
wide when you count the northern state.


Also, one other thing....NYC is great with signal timing, which means
one doesn't even need to use highways at rush hour when they are
jammed, since the arterials often move faster in the rush hour
direction due to signal timing. Try Union Turnpike instead of the
grand central at rush hour sometime.

>
> The Manhattan street grid is for the most part logical and easily
> grasped by outsiders. While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
> Staten Island is another matter, being essentially a suburb recently
> developed.
>
> One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
> from most directions that geography allows.
>
> Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
> in Boston. And the frustration of driving in New York doesn't begin to
> compare with that of Boston, where few through routes were ever
> completed, the street pattern is for the most part random, and nearly
> all corridors are served by only one decent route. Then there's the
> appalling lack of complete interchanges and complementary one-way
> streets -- par not to mention signs. Having spent good portions of my
> life in both areas, I can't see any sane defense of NY being more
> poorly laid out than Boston. Just spend a while driving here.

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:13:57 PM12/21/03
to
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message news:<20031220014527...@mb-m21.aol.com>...


Probably because people commute to the suburbs from the city, and vice
versa. Also, the inter-suburb commuters as well. While more Long
Islanders commute west then east, since the LIRR only serves people
commuting to the west decently, the eastbound traffic can be hellish
in the morning and westbound in the afternoon. Northern State, LIE
both jammed from Roslyn to the city line, and soutehrn state is bad
from Seaford Oyster Bay to Hempstead Lake.

Mike Tantillo

unread,
Dec 21, 2003, 10:15:20 PM12/21/03
to
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bs5afm$l58$1...@news.monmouth.com>...

I oft wonder what generates all this traffic...as manhattan outbound
traffic at morning rush hour is very very rarely heavy....so its not
manhattan residents commuting to jobs in the 'burbs....

LIE heading inbound is bad too at evening rush hour.

Froggie

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 1:08:07 AM12/22/03
to
> I like parkways. I hate trucks. I find trucks to be very rude and
> inconsiderate.

Which is the opposite of my 30K a year mileage experience. On the whole, I find
truckers to be a lot more polite and considerate than other drivers...

> Trucks also often drive recklessly...they ought to be held to a higher
> standard since they are inherently more dangerous then cars, since
> they weigh so much more.

They ARE held to a higher standard. It's a bit more difficult to get a CDL than
it is to get a regular driver's license...

> Trucks also block the view in front of them, which makes driving
> behind them dangerous and not fun, and lots of times, they make it
> difficult to pass them.

The same could be said of many SUVs and pickup trucks...

Froggie | Reporting from Liverpool, NY | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/


Nathan Perry

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 2:49:27 AM12/22/03
to
In article <e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com>,
mjtan...@yahoo.com (Mike Tantillo) wrote:

> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
>
> See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
> days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.

I didn't mean they should have to. I was just pointing it out as a
reason for residences being close to industries.

> most people get along fine, since we don't need to leave the island
> for anything. The island is self-sufficient, plenty of stores,
> employment, etc for the most part. But yes, people like me who like
> to travel to the outside world should (and in my case eventually will)
> avoid long island. Some people like the isolation though.

Yes, I would also go nuts not being able to escape. As long as the
island is self-sufficient, fine. It's unrealistic, however, for people
to complain about its isolation and inaccessability, as much so as
moving to East Boston and complaining about noise from Logan's runways.

BrianB4837

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 2:51:10 AM12/22/03
to
>Long
>Islanders commute west then east, since the LIRR only serves people
>commuting to the west decently, the eastbound traffic can be hellish
>in the morning and westbound in the afternoon. Northern State, LIE
>both jammed from Roslyn to the city line, and soutehrn state is bad
>from Seaford Oyster Bay to Hempstead Lake.
>
>
>
>
>
>

This is a good point, one morning I was heading out east from Brooklyn, the
Belt through Brooklyn and Queens moved just fine, but then the Southern State
through Nassau was hellish all the way to the Seaford Oyster Bay.

George Conklin

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:51:24 AM12/22/03
to

"Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com...

> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
>
> See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
> days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.
>

Fool...you don't know what is good for you. Workers, mere workers, must
live near the factory. Urban planners and the well-to-do will live on Nob
Hill, Mainline or wherever they want to, and demand workers pay a huge
subsidy to get them to and from work comfortably on trains.


George Conklin

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:52:45 AM12/22/03
to

"Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com...

You don't understand Smart Growth. Smart Growth wants to replace downtown
stores with people, and then place stores scattered all around the city,
presumably so you can walk to them. It is the opposite of downtown really:
scattered stores with concentrated people.


George Conklin

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:55:33 AM12/22/03
to

"Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:bs5n1e$cr40$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...

Boston and New York are located on the ocean, limiting access. Why?
Because in the distant past ports were very important. After the steam era,
ports were not the basis for organization of cities and most in the South
never developed the way urban planners today want to have a city develop.
Trying to superimpose obsolete technology on modern cities is dysfunctional,
but then planners apply the thought patterns of art criticism to technology
and fail. So keep roads out of the old cities. Let development move to new
areas where society can be efficiently organized.


George Conklin

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:57:09 AM12/22/03
to

"Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com...


The issue here is roads, not blaming roads for all ills, real and
imagined. Commute times in NYC are longer than in other cities because of
transit.


George Conklin

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 8:58:07 AM12/22/03
to

"Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com...
> brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message
news:<20031220014527...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> > >I'll give you that - Boston is probably worse. The Big Dig helped -
> > >but not enough.
> > >
> >
> > Data may not totally indicate how awful NYs traffic problems are, but
any NYer
> > knows how bad it really is. First of all, on NYC highways, there is no
rush
> > hour direction. Generally, in both directions in the AM and the PM, you
will
> > be sitting in traffic on most of the major commuting routes. Getting
into the
> > city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.
> >
> > In most of the other cities in the country, the traffic is near the
"downtown
> > area", and then goes into the suburbs. In NYC, not only is there bad
traffic
> > around Manhattan, and extending into the suburbs, but the boroughs
themselves
> > are also traffic nightmares.
>
>
> Probably because people commute to the suburbs from the city, and vice
> versa.


85% of the commutes in NYC are from suburb to suburb.


Pete from Boston

unread,
Dec 22, 2003, 10:53:30 AM12/22/03
to
twow...@email.com (DanTheMan) wrote in message news:<6a5931be.03121...@posting.google.com>...

> mass...@my-deja.com (Pete from Boston) wrote in message news:<b282e3e6.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote in message
> news:<20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > <cut out lots of stuff>

> > While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> > confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
> They do? Let's look at Queens - the numbered streets end in Street,
> Road, Drive, Avenue, Place, or Lane. Four-way intersections are few
> and far between - one way streets abound. Just about every street has
> a number of sections, and very few run continuously from one side of
> Queens to the other without a few blocks missing. Don't even get me
> started on Brooklyn - half a dozen sets of numbered streets which
> don't connect. How about those numbers in the "Bay umpteenth St."
> area? The numbers don't go in order: 14th Ave., Bay 7th St., Bay 8th
> St., 15th Ave., Bay 10th St., Bay 11th St., 16th Ave., etc. Those
> streets are all parallel, in order, from NW to SE.

You're right, but layout was the issue in question, not nomenclature.

Sean

unread,
Dec 19, 2003, 3:55:40 PM12/19/03
to
Again, I will have to vote for Philly

One crosstown highway with only 2 lanes for each direction, underpowered
exits and onramps and connected to New Jersey by signaled intersections.
I-676
One North-South highway under massive reconstruction without a direct
connection to either the PA turnpike (maybe rectified) or I-76
I-95
One <excuse> of an Northwest-Southeast highway, only two lanes in each
direction with dangerous sharp interchanges with I-676 and a really
dangerous junction at King of Prussia(the whole 202-422-76 mess) (And South
St a left lane exit/onramp non signaled SPUI)
I-76
South Jersey in general (Only North-South highways)
Route 1 (Roosevelt Blvd.) Anyone who has used this will understand

And as Jeff said no major bypass routes as these (476,295) are heavily used
by the residents.

But somehow our traffic never seems as bad as everwhere else.

Look for yourself...
http://www.traffic.com/Philadelphia/drivetime_1_3_2.html

"Jeff Kitsko" <webm...@tollspahighways.com> wrote in message
news:GUHEb.598566$Tr4.1564561@attbi_s03...


> "BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com...


> >
> > Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?
>

> Pittsburgh - only three expressways make it into the CBD. Most lanes on
an
> expressway honor goes to I-279, but its a 3-2-3 combo with the center two
as
> HOV only lanes, separated from the main travel lanes. PA 28 is an
> expressway almost to the city, but falls short (to be rectified). There
are
> no major bypass routes, unless you want to go out of your way and take the
> Turnpike, I-79, or I-70. So, all traffic gets funneled through the CBD
(for
> now until the Southern Beltway is built, but it will go only as far as 43
> and not I-76.
>
> --
> Jeff Kitsko
> Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
> Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/
>
>


TPH

unread,
Dec 23, 2003, 3:06:33 AM12/23/03