NationStates Jolt Archive

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
-Propagator of suburban sprawl
-Destroyer of local cultures
-Caused homogenization of America
-Despoils the environment
-Promotes America's addiction to cars
-Ugly

Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?

the autobahn/interstate, was hitler's secret weapon, with which, postumusly, western civilization has been destroyed.

TOLL ROADS COULD BE NICE. i like it personally American car culture > euro trash train culture.

tRoll roads would be even better.

TOLL ROADS COULD BE NICE. i like it personally American car culture > euro trash train culture.

Agreed. I like car culture too. However the car culture would be a much healthier one with privately owned turnpikes sprouting organically from free market processes

Agreed. I like car culture too. However the car culture would be a much healthier one with privately owned turnpikes sprouting organically from free market processes

this is known as fantasy.

Couldn't care less.
Private roads have been shown to be extremely difficult, as well as highly inefficient, but don't let that stop you.

I've never owned a car and hopefully never will.

this is known as fantasy.

How so? The first dirt roads in the northwest territory during the pioneering days of the early Republic were privately owned and built by pioneers who did the labor of clearing the trees and flattening the ground to facilitate trade, until their beloved road was confiscated by the government. The first paved car-only roads were also built by private developers and open to the public as turnpikes, and the story is the same, they were soon confiscated by the government jealous of maintaining a monopoly on roads.

Couldn't care less.
Private roads have been shown to be extremely difficult, as well as highly inefficient, but don't let that stop you.

Private roads are just as efficient as they need to be. If there's no private road running from San Francisco to Boston that lets a refrigerated tractor trailer haul Maine lobster from Maine to California, or haul blueberries from California to Maine, that's fine. People in Maine don't have to eat California blueberries and people in California don't have to eat Maine lobsters anyways.

How so? The first dirt roads in the northwest territory during the pioneering days of the early Republic were privately owned and built by pioneers who did the labor of clearing the trees and flattening the ground to facilitate trade, until their beloved road was confiscated by the government. The first paved car-only roads were also built by private developers and open to the public as turnpikes, and the story is the same, they were soon confiscated by the government jealous of maintaining a monopoly on roads.

Because back then, a road could be built and maintained with fairly little effort and cost.

These days, roads cost a fortune to maintain.
Ireland has two example of private roads (that I know of), both of them utter disasters.
The first is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_motorway_(Ireland), a ring-road around Dublin.
The problem with this road is that the company that owns it should have extended and widened it about a decade ago, but still hasn't. It's not their problem that the traffic usually doesn't move very much, they still get the profit, and most people have not other option than to use the road. There is no incentive whatsoever on their part to keep the road in good condition, or to do any additional work to it to ease traffic flow.

The other one is the N8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N8_road_(Ireland)), Cork to Dublin. This one has the opposite problem : because there is an alternative route via smaller roads, nobody in their right minds uses it and pays the toll. The small roads that should have become quieter after the N8 was built become busier every day, while the big project is mostly empty.

Because back then, a road could be built and maintained with fairly little effort and cost.

These days, roads cost a fortune to maintain.
Only government roads do, because of politically-motivated cost overruns and inefficiencies. Private roads tend toward the same or higher quality and are less expensive to maintain compared to the government roads.

Ireland has two example of private roads (that I know of), both of them utter disasters.
The first is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_motorway_(Ireland), a ring-road around Dublin.
The problem with this road is that the company that owns it should have extended and widened it about a decade ago, but still hasn't. It's not their problem that the traffic usually doesn't move very much, they still get the profit, and most people have not other option than to use the road. There is no incentive whatsoever on their part to keep the road in good condition, or to do any additional work to it to ease traffic flow.

The other one is the N8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N8_road_(Ireland)), Cork to Dublin. This one has the opposite problem : because there is an alternative route via smaller roads, nobody in their right minds uses it and pays the toll. The small roads that should have become quieter after the N8 was built become busier every day, while the big project is mostly empty.

Dublin probably has too many cars. In a free market I bet M50 would suffice. Now that Ireland's government-manufactured monetarist asset bubble has burst, I'd expect a decrease in traffic around Dublin and a lot less congestion. As for N8, not surprising it doesn't have traffic if it's competing against subsidized state roads.

Only government roads do, because of politically-motivated cost overruns and inefficiencies. Private roads tend toward the same or higher quality and are less expensive to maintain compared to the government roads.


Got an example? I provided two....


Dublin probably has too many cars. In a free market I bet M50 would suffice. Now that Ireland's government-manufactured monetarist asset bubble has burst, I'd expect a decrease in traffic around Dublin and a lot less congestion. As for N8, not surprising it doesn't have traffic if it's competing against subsidized state roads.

The purpose of a road is to allow for car to travel. There aren't too many cars in Dublin, the M50 is just too small and inefficiently run. It would need upgrading, but the private company will have no additional gain from that, so they're not investing. That's the free market for you.

And the alternative to the N8 are Irish country roads... it does say a lot that people prefer those to the newly-built road.

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
-Propagator of suburban sprawl
-Destroyer of local cultures
-Caused homogenization of America
-Despoils the environment
-Promotes America's addiction to cars
-Ugly

Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?

I think we should take advantage of it while we have it.

Picture a durable photovoltaic material embedded into the pavement turning the Interstate Highway system into the World's Largest Solar Panel. That, along with embedding a new national power grid under or alongside it would provide all the electricity this country would ever need.

They are a massive resource of already developed land. We might as well make the most of it.

Only government roads do, because of politically-motivated cost overruns and inefficiencies. Private roads tend toward the same or higher quality and are less expensive to maintain compared to the government roads.



Dublin probably has too many cars. In a free market I bet M50 would suffice. Now that Ireland's government-manufactured monetarist asset bubble has burst, I'd expect a decrease in traffic around Dublin and a lot less congestion. As for N8, not surprising it doesn't have traffic if it's competing against subsidized state roads.

What an ignorant argument. Because the road is crowded and overused, the problem isn't that the owner of the road has refused to invest in its infrastructure, it's that too many people are using it? Please tell me you see the completely broken logic contained in this line of thinking.

I think we should take advantage of it while we have it.

Picture a durable photovoltaic material embedded into the pavement turning the Interstate Highway system into the World's Largest Solar Panel. That, along with embedding a new national power grid under or alongside it would provide all the electricity this country would ever need.

They are a massive resource of already developed land. We might as well make the most of it.

You couldn't do it everywhere. And the durable PV material is still nonexistent, I presume.

But I like it.

You couldn't do it everywhere. And the durable PV material is still nonexistent, I presume.

But I like it.

So use a durable transparent covering over the PV material. Lexan, Plexiglass, or similar.


A less stupid idea would be to embed a layer of Piezoelectric material in the road itself, so every time a vehicle passes over it swipes some power.

So use a durable transparent covering over the PV material. Lexan, Plexiglass, or similar.

Wouldn't that greatly reduce the efficiency of the underlying PV material

Wouldn't that greatly reduce the efficiency of the underlying PV material

Absolutely. That's why I edited my post with a better idea.

Solar material will never be durable enough to put under a travelled surface. However, there is a lot of state owned land between two lanes of an interstate, and on the outskirts sometimes, that could be developed into a solar farm.

You couldn't do it everywhere. And the durable PV material is still nonexistent, I presume.

But I like it.

Well, there are some interesting possibilities now, including quantum dots and organic photovoltaics.

at least we are not aussies. they have to post signs reminding their drivers which side of the road they drive on
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Drive_on_left_in_australia.jpg

i think the interstates should stay as they are.

they shouldnt be changed to toll roads. they sure as hell shouldnt be privatised.

the only thing "wrong" with them is that they were a way to kill interstate rail service.

TOLL ROADS COULD BE NICE. i like it personally American car culture > euro trash train culture.
I'd take the train over driving any day.

The other one is the N8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N8_road_(Ireland)), Cork to Dublin. This one has the opposite problem : because there is an alternative route via smaller roads, nobody in their right minds uses it and pays the toll. The small roads that should have become quieter after the N8 was built become busier every day, while the big project is mostly empty.
And towns on these smaller routes get jammed with cars. Thus damn near every town between Cork and Dublin on the N8 have been or wants to be bypassed. So building the N8 has lead to.....more roads that aren't the N8.
Only government roads do, because of politically-motivated cost overruns and inefficiencies. Private roads tend toward the same or higher quality and are less expensive to maintain compared to the government roads.
Except the M50, apparently.



Dublin probably has too many cars.
You based this assumption on what?
In a free market I bet M50 would suffice.
Yeah, if we suddenly start a free market in Ireland I'm sure the M50 carpark will magically improve.
Now that Ireland's government-manufactured monetarist asset bubble
The what now?
has burst, I'd expect a decrease in traffic around Dublin and a lot less congestion.
Why?
As for N8, not surprising it doesn't have traffic if it's competing against subsidized state roads.

So is the M50.

i think the interstates should stay as they are.

they shouldnt be changed to toll roads. they sure as hell shouldnt be privatised.

the only thing "wrong" with them is that they were a way to kill interstate rail service.

i've seen successful toll roads with in cities. the toll system on Dallas Toll roads kicks the snot out of the free roads running similar routes for quality.
i am not certain toll roads can be successful between cities.
Oklahoma is the main state i have seen such attempted. However, all the toll roads there are run by the local Indian tribes and not really to maintain the roads. So Oklahoma may prove to be a bad example.

at least we are not aussies. they have to post signs reminding their drivers which side of the road they drive on
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Drive_on_left_in_australia.jpg

Doesn't every country have signs like that? You know, for foreigners?

Doesn't every country have signs like that? You know, for foreigners?

I've never seen one. Why the hell would you need them? Also wouldn't the sign be in a different language?

I've never seen one. Why the hell would you need them? Also wouldn't the sign be in a different language?

We have them on the roads leaving Dublin Airport, in English, German....and maybe something else.

Isn't it the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System or something?

It was originally built for defense. Good idea if you ask me.

Let me ask you something OP, isn't the interstate part of our freedom? You and you alone can travel anywhere in the country. Why take that away? Besides, the roads are there and they won't go away for a long time, even if left unattended.

Why do you hate freedom???

Isn't it the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System or something?

It was originally built for defense. Good idea if you ask me.

Let me ask you something OP, isn't the interstate part of our freedom? You and you alone can travel anywhere in the country. Why take that away? Besides, the roads are there and they won't go away for a long time, even if left unattended.

Why do you hate freedom???

One out of every five miles is straight to be used as emergency runways. So we've got the world's largest fucking airstrip. Except for the UK, AKA Airstrip 1

One out of every five miles is straight to be used as emergency runways. So we've got the world's largest fucking airstrip. Except for the UK, AKA Airstrip 1

No shit? That's awesome.

I learned something new, it was worth waking up today.

EDIT:

A widespread urban legend states that one out of every five miles of the Interstate Highway System must be built straight and flat so as to be usable by aircraft during times of war. Contrary to popular lore, Interstate Highways are not designed to serve as airstrips

Sorry Khadgar :(

Oklahoma is the main state i have seen such attempted. However, all the toll roads there are run by the local Indian tribes and not really to maintain the roads. So Oklahoma may prove to be a bad example.
Um... that's not true at all. The turnpikes are controlled by the state/local governments, they are named after tribes but they aren't run/owned by them.

Private roads are just as efficient as they need to be. If there's no private road running from San Francisco to Boston that lets a refrigerated tractor trailer haul Maine lobster from Maine to California, or haul blueberries from California to Maine, that's fine. People in Maine don't have to eat California blueberries and people in California don't have to eat Maine lobsters anyways.

So you're in favor of restricting trade and interstate commerce? I thought you were a free market capitalist. Your idea not only makes business harder, it also makes traveling throughout the country harder. Interstate highways are not little traveled roads or else they would not have been created or maintained. Also, you'd force commerce to take the route of trains, making it very hard to get products to where trains are not available. This leaves transport by airplanes and small fleet vehicles thereby driving up the price of all goods and services shipped. What happens to a private toll road if that corporation goes under and there's no one else to purchase and maintain it? Closing the world down to "our small town" ideals is nice for a little while. Then when you realize food, fuel, and clothing are going through the roof because there are woefully inefficient ways of transporting them it starts to piss you off.

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
-Propagator of suburban sprawl
-Destroyer of local cultures
-Caused homogenization of America
-Despoils the environment
-Promotes America's addiction to cars
-Ugly

Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?

-facilitates movement of military units and supplies during emergencies (its original justification)
-facilitates interstate commerce
-facilitates travel
-enhances freedom

The interstate highway system should be, and will be, maintained and enhanced.

I think it's a great idea.

Well, there are some interesting possibilities now, including quantum dots and organic photovoltaics.

My main problem with PVs, and these seem to continue the problem, is what you do with them when they wear out or get supplanted by better tech.

Because in terms of recycling, it's a mixture of toxic chemicals that are difficult to separate. The organics seem to have less toxic chemicals, but it seems to be a real stretch of the term 'organic'.

this is known as fantasy.
1950s Disney class fantasy.

A Jules Verne class fantasy is that private industry works for the common good regardless of the bottom line.

I've never seen one. Why the hell would you need them? Also wouldn't the sign be in a different language?

http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop/keepright.png

Never seen one of these?

One out of every five miles is straight to be used as emergency runways. So we've got the world's largest fucking airstrip.
I'm fairly sure I read that that was a myth, but I could easily be thinking of something else.

I'm fairly sure I read that that was a myth, but I could easily be thinking of something else.

You are correct. (http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp)

More good than evil. Still, more passenger rail would be nice, if only to get some jackasses off the roads so I can drive in peace.

http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop/keepright.png

Never seen one of these?Actually, those are not for those used to driving on a different side of the road. They're there for those roads with 2 lanes going in one direction. You're supposed to stay in the right lane and only use the left lane for passing, thus keeping it clear for that particular need or for making a left turn or what have you.

Edit: I recall many states having laws where remaining in the left lane for a certain length of time will get you a fine.

Actually, those are not for those used to driving on a different side of the road. They're there for those roads with 2 lanes going in one direction. You're supposed to stay in the right lane and only use the left lane for passing, thus keeping it clear for that particular need or for making a left turn or what have you.

I'm aware of what it's for - still tells people to drive on the right. There also "keep right" signs for when two lanes divide into a four-lane divided highway, although that should be obvious as there's only two lanes to begin with (splitting in two different directions).

Interstate Highway System.
-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
Know what they're so good for?


-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?
No.
The only thing I dislike about public roads is speed limits.

Would be very nice to have a slowpoke road for trucks, 80's relics, moms with 5 kids, trailer homes... - and alongside it a proper autobahn for cars and drivers who value their time. I would be ready to pay for that.


On the other hand that would work only with a less intrusive government. This one, I'm afraid, if private roads became common, would barge in with its rules onto private property, instead of letting the owners decide.

Public roads have the advantages of making it possible to eliminate the deadweight cost of toll collection, and another advantage of, well, actually being there.
While I'm generally libertarian, I believe that emergency, healthcare and roads are the three services which it makes sense to have as public. What makes them stand out is positive feedback for the entire economy.

I'm aware of what it's for - still tells people to drive on the right. There also "keep right" signs for when two lanes divide into a four-lane divided highway, although that should be obvious as there's only two lanes to begin with (splitting in two different directions).It's really just nothing more than standardizing what one should do when approaching that sort of thing. Depending on road conditions like fog or for those occassions where it will tell you to keep left (yeah, those certainly catch you off-guard), they just stick them there to be consistent.

And yeah, it tells people to drive on the right - the right lane that is. *shrug*

http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop/keepright.png

Never seen one of these?

those are normally for two lanes going the same direction. It is to remind slow people to stay out of the left lane.

those are normally for two lanes going the same direction. It is to remind slow people to stay out of the left lane.

I'm aware of what it's for. It also doesn't fucking work, but that's beside the point.

The flexibility of the interstate system for transporting goods and people makes it an excellent and necessary addition to the US transportation network. Its construction has no doubt played a massive role in the US's ongoing success as a major trading partner in the world economy.

Unfortunately, it came at the cost of rail transportation, which is itself a crucial part of the network, especially for freight and intercity transit that can capitalize on its economies of scale. A high-speed rail network is vastly superior to air or car travel in densely populated areas, complementing the interstate system by providing an efficient way to travel between major cities with the interstates providing the crucial transportation links to areas around them and areas that are not economically viable for rail transportation.

i've seen successful toll roads with in cities. the toll system on Dallas Toll roads kicks the snot out of the free roads running similar routes for quality.

20 years ago I would have agreed with you. Back then the Dallas North Tollway was my preferred route when heading north of downtown. But now I go out of my way to avoid it when possible. The way the toll booths are set up causes gridlock and long waits. It's bumpy in places, badly need to be widened, and has some rather unsafe curves on it's northern flank. It's a big parking lot during rush hour now. And don't get me started on the rising price of tolls. Central Expressway (US 75 north from downtown Dallas), on the other hand, is far superior now that the government has made extensive upgrades and widened it. I actually enjoy driving Central now. It's much faster.

Um... that's not true at all. The turnpikes are controlled by the state/local governments, they are named after tribes but they aren't run/owned by them.
but it IS true that the roads suck.

Typical libertarian "privatize it, thatll fix it" crock of bull.

They are necessary here in many places. But I have always wished they could build the things about 10ft or more off the ground so to not mess with wildlife.

They are necessary here in many places. But I have always wished they could build the things about 10ft or more off the ground so to not mess with wildlife.

*ponders the cost to raise the entire US interstate system 10 feet*

*ponders the cost to raise the entire US interstate system 10 feet*

I know. :tongue: It's just been long time thought of mine. Maybe they could build the new ones that way.. better than nothing.

I know. :tongue: It's just been long time thought of mine. Maybe they could build the new ones that way.. better than nothing.

Even from a new highway perspective, it will cost more - a LOT more - to build it raised as opposed to building it flat to earth.

Even from a new highway perspective, it will cost more - a LOT more - to build it raised as opposed to building it flat to earth.

Not to mention making it less resistant to wear and tear and considerably more dangerous when it is due for repairs.

Even from a new highway perspective, it will cost more - a LOT more - to build it raised as opposed to building it flat to earth.

I'm sure it would lol. I wasn't focused on cost of the construction but the environmental benefit. It would be cool.

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
You lose them and people are going to miss them.
-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
No that's just retarded.
-Propagator of suburban sprawl
Meh.
-Destroyer of local cultures
Hurrah.
-Caused homogenization of America
Hurrah.
-Despoils the environment
I thought they were hardly used a couple of arguments back.
-Promotes America's addiction to cars
Not a bad thing of itself.
-Ugly
They're just roads -_-
Your thoughts on the IHS?
It's a motorway, so eh hurrah.
Should we let it rot?
No, don't be silly.

I'm sure it would lol. I wasn't focused on cost of the construction but the environmental benefit. It would be cool.
I think that after about 50 years the environment has somewhat adapted. You raise that shit up and you're causing more havoc. Not to mention the environmental impact of a) rebuilding thousands of miles of roads and b) having to drive crane trucks all over the fucking place and probably build slip roads off the interstate for maintainance access for the whole way.

Privatize roads????

Why not? But the toll road users will have to pay to have them built. Cost up front of course......

Privatize roads????

Why not? But the toll road users will have to pay to have them built. Cost up front of course......
Because I'd much rather have cars owned by the public travelling on roads owned by the public.

Because I'd much rather have cars owned by the public travelling on roads owned by the public.

Oh I am not for toll roads.

A freeway is a rather expensive. What the toll road people want to do is to take away lanes on a freeway and declare them private. The fact taxes paid for them? We are supposed to ignore that part.

Ask them to pay; and they will say that's not fair.....

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads
-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow
-Propagator of suburban sprawl
-Destroyer of local cultures
-Caused homogenization of America
-Despoils the environment
-Promotes America's addiction to cars
-Ugly

Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?
No. I use it regularly. And I don't know what stretches you think are little traveled because every I-road I've been on has plenty of cars on it.

The system was created after WWII and after Eisenhower had seen roads like the autobahn because Eisenhower realized, "Shit, there is no way to move people or goods from one place to another in a hurry if there is an emergency."

There's a reason it's called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways".

We should ban trucking and exclusively ship by train, sinc etrucking is ecologically and financially wasteful. Problem with that is NIMBY city councils who won't let you build tracks anywhere near residential/business/damn near anything areas.

Also I have friends who are truck drivers who probably don't appreciate me advocating something that would put them out of a job, particularly when they are already hurting from the recession, but I'm just thinking pragmatically.

You couldn't do it everywhere. And the durable PV material is still nonexistent, I presume.

But I like it.

Actually... a far more efficient way of harvesting solar power is to make a small photovoltaic array, and 'bring the light to it', so to speak.

If someone comes up with a good, cheap, way of implanting fibre-optics in road surfaces, there's actually the potential to make road-surfaces a fairly profitable energy production device.




I should be saying this to a patent clerk, shouldn't I...

So use a durable transparent covering over the PV material. Lexan, Plexiglass, or similar.


A less stupid idea would be to embed a layer of Piezoelectric material in the road itself, so every time a vehicle passes over it swipes some power.

Actually, a better idea would be to implant paired coils in vehicles AND road-surfaces, and use Tesla's dream of remote electricity to power our cars - weaning us off of oil completely.

We should ban trucking and exclusively ship by train, sinc etrucking is ecologically and financially wasteful. Problem with that is NIMBY city councils who won't let you build tracks anywhere near residential/business/damn near anything areas.

Also I have friends who are truck drivers who probably don't appreciate me advocating something that would put them out of a job, particularly when they are already hurting from the recession, but I'm just thinking pragmatically.

Better environmentally, but it would be horrible as far as efficiency.

They are necessary here in many places. But I have always wished they could build the things about 10ft or more off the ground so to not mess with wildlife.
That's outright cost-prohibitive. Plus, not really worth it.

There are alternate solutions, as I've heard even used somewhere, as simple as semi-open underpass tunnels every now and then. Provides the opportunity to pass without being extremely expensive.

For less busy roads, that are safe to cross at night or at some other hours, even that isn't needed. It's not like the natural landscape is free of obstacles and dangers.

It's not like the natural landscape is free of obstacles and dangers.

No, but it is usually free of half-ton semi-guided metallic missiles, careening from hither to yon at breakneck speeds.

No, but it is usually free of half-ton semi-guided metallic missiles, careening from hither to yon at breakneck speeds.

If you consider 65-75 a breakneck speed, I want to take you to the track and show you what a real car can do.

If someone comes up with a good, cheap, way of implanting fibre-optics in road surfaces, there's actually the potential to make road-surfaces a fairly profitable energy production device.

I should be saying this to a patent clerk, shouldn't I...
Probably not. It's much cheaper, easier and more efficient to simply build whatever kind of solar power system on a separate piece of land. Right beside the road, if you wish.



We should ban trucking and exclusively ship by train, sinc etrucking is ecologically and financially wasteful.
Whatever you save at the tailpipe, you release at the power plant.

Rail transport is indeed more efficient for heavy bulk goods, such as steel and copper. However, it's less efficient for assorted lightweight cargo, such as consumer electronics. And it's completely wasteful for transporting humans.
[ One might argue, though, that a train provides more comforts than a car, being essentially a very compact hotel on wheels; but most people still go for the car or the plane. ]

If you consider 65-75 a breakneck speed, I want to take you to the track and show you what a real car can do.

Most collisions with an intrinsic velocity of more than 30 mph are likely to be fatal. A breakneck speed would be a speed at which a collision would have a reasonable expectation of - for example - breaking a neck (which requires mere hundreds of pounds per square inch of pressure).

65-75 mph is a more than sufficient range to qualify as 'breakneck'.

Probably not. It's much cheaper, easier and more efficient to simply build whatever kind of solar power system on a separate piece of land. Right beside the road, if you wish.


The solar power 'system' itself would be offroad - only the collection matrix (which would benefit from the cleared and level surface) would be 'in the road'.

at least we are not aussies. they have to post signs reminding their drivers which side of the road they drive on
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Drive_on_left_in_australia.jpg
Presumably, that's for fucking Yanks and other tourists.

Presumably, that's for fucking Yanks and other tourists.

The signs are for having sex with people from northern U.S. and tourists? Doesn't that HURT? o_O

All roads are already tolled, whether you realize it or not. You already pay about 25c per gallon federally and a varying amount to the state in gas taxes that go straight to the Highway Trust Fund that is spent directly on roads. And, eventually, when we get to electric cars, we'll be paying a mileage tax. An indirect tax it may be, it goes to pay for new road construction and repavement.

I'm in favor of a nationalized system, although I do feel privatized roads could work, because there is a set of standards designated by the FHwA and each state's DOT. It makes a uniform surface for drivers to travel on, which makes the road system homogenous and safe. I can drive from California to Florida and still see the same colored signs directing me to my destination, and possibly even see the same crown grade and superelevation transitions.

With a privatized system, a company or individual would only be responsible for his/her/it's own stretch of road, and they would be able to implement their own set of standards. I could go from one bit of highway with 12' lanes and a minimum of 3 lanes into a stretch with 11' lanes and a minimum amount of lateral clearance.

privatized road does not mean without standards.

privatized road does not mean without standards.

I didn't say without standards, I said differing stardards.

Take a look at the different systems used in malls or parking lots, for example.

I didn't say without standards, I said differing stardards.

Take a look at the different systems used in malls or parking lots, for example.

you can still have the federal government implement standard lane widths and such.

you can still have the federal government implement standard lane widths and such.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to do by creating a bunch of toll roads this way, though. You would essentially keep all Federal and State highway employees in business by maintaining a government-mandated set of standards to be enforced, but you'd increase the cost of private citizens to use their own mode of transportation. Depending on the cost, you'd drive everyone to public transportation, which is something you said you didn't like. And you wouldn't create the privatization of roads, since there'd still need to be some system of government oversight.

TOLL ROADS COULD BE NICE. i like it personally American car culture > euro trash train culture.
I like the car culture, too. And it existed long before interstates.

Cruising in a late model Charger with a 426 Hemi sure does beat the hell out of driving a Smart Car.

Interstate Highway System.

-Waste of Money, too many long stretches of little-travelled roads

Bullshit.

-Should be privatized today, not tomorrow

No, it shouldn't. It's toll freeway where it needs to be toll freeway. You're talking out of your anus.

-Propagator of suburban sprawl

Right. That was the fault of the multilane freeway -- greedy developers and lax land use regulations had nothing whatsoever to do with that. :rolleyes:

-Destroyer of local cultures

Again, how do roads do that? Seems to me the local cultures allow themselves to be destroyed by choosing cookie-cutter retail over local culture. How is that the fault of asphalt?

-Caused homogenization of America

You're repeating yourself.

-Despoils the environment

Once more -- how does a freeway do that? Shit, one of the most amazing coexistence construction projects was I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado. If anything, seeing that makes me MORE aware of the environment and its beauty, not less. Try again.

-Promotes America's addiction to cars

Right. The roads do that. Not cheap gas and bad loan practices giving auto loans to those who can't really afford them. Read much?

-Ugly

I'm sorry, I was unaware that it was called the Interstate Highway and Arts/Beautification Project. They're roads, plain and simple, and they're designed to carry freight, passenger vehicles and, in what was once perceived as a potential threat, defense assets. Where does it say that they have to be pretty? What's wrong with you?

Your thoughts on the IHS? Should we let it rot?

I think it's a great system, allowing freedom of movement across diverse regions of the nation. It's pivotal for transportation in the Western 2/3 of the country, and also for the transportation of goods by truck. You want to complain about transportation, how's about fixing up the damned railroad lines? Getting semis (lorries) off the road with an efficient train system makes freeways last longer & need less maintenance.

You've picked a strange and really unnecessary bone to worry.

Agreed. I like car culture too. However the car culture would be a much healthier one with privately owned turnpikes sprouting organically from free market processes

Right. 'Cause the "free market" has done so well of late. Do you really know what you're saying? Do you pay attention to anything that's happened in the last year or so? The "free market" has fucked the world in the ass.

I think we should take advantage of it while we have it.

Picture a durable photovoltaic material embedded into the pavement turning the Interstate Highway system into the World's Largest Solar Panel. That, along with embedding a new national power grid under or alongside it would provide all the electricity this country would ever need.

They are a massive resource of already developed land. We might as well make the most of it.

So very this.^

I'm aware of what it's for. It also doesn't fucking work, but that's beside the point.

Is that the sign's fault? Is it that serious an issue as to demand constant surveillance and enforcement?

The flexibility of the interstate system for transporting goods and people makes it an excellent and necessary addition to the US transportation network. Its construction has no doubt played a massive role in the US's ongoing success as a major trading partner in the world economy.

Unfortunately, it came at the cost of rail transportation, which is itself a crucial part of the network, especially for freight and intercity transit that can capitalize on its economies of scale. A high-speed rail network is vastly superior to air or car travel in densely populated areas, complementing the interstate system by providing an efficient way to travel between major cities with the interstates providing the crucial transportation links to areas around them and areas that are not economically viable for rail transportation.

*massive applause!*

No, but it is usually free of half-ton semi-guided metallic missiles, careening from hither to yon at breakneck speeds.

Half-ton? What kind of crazy, 500-pound cars do your people drive? Unless you meant metric ton. I agree with you on speeds, though. And 65? Only if there's lots of traffic. The interstates in North Dakota are routinely cruised on at 80+. Hell, that's how fast they go at rush hour in Houston, bumper proximity be damned.

but it IS true that the roads suck.

The turnpikes? Nah, they're nice. (nicer than the roads in any of the bordering states anyway) It's the public "free" highways that suck.... those are funded by mostly federal funds rather than tolls and sales taxes though, so not as much money to fix them.

Half-ton? What kind of crazy, 500-pound cars do your people drive? Unless you meant metric ton. I agree with you on speeds, though. And 65? Only if there's lots of traffic. The interstates in North Dakota are routinely cruised on at 80+. Hell, that's how fast they go at rush hour in Houston, bumper proximity be damned.

rigs-trucks (http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/wayne_crane/peterbilt_379_wc2.jpg)

I think that what he was referring to. (bad ass looking tho huh)

O nvm that's not what he meant .. I was thinking heavier .. lol

But rigs are of course on interstates all the time. Of course they would be. My thought about interstates being raised was a wish. Would be cool if they could be raised up. If they were built very well.. I myself see no reason as to why it would be a bad thing. It's been just a thought of mine. I'm no engineer. But money shouldn't be a reason to not do it. All this money that is going out. Why not make this the time to do it. Not to rebuild everything already laid out. But for future projects.

Is that the sign's fault? Is it that serious an issue as to demand constant surveillance and enforcement?

Relax, I was simply bitching that most people on the road are inconsiderate assholes. I wasn't fishing for a solution.

Half-ton? What kind of crazy, 500-pound cars do your people drive?

Do you know how much a ton is?

No, but it is usually free of half-ton semi-guided metallic missiles, careening from hither to yon at breakneck speeds.

Get in my Impala SS, I'll show you what a sports Sedan can do.

I normally set my cruise at about 85mph on the highway.


Privtise the highways? We'll just ignore that tax payers built them in the 1st place.

Fucking bullshit.

at least we are not aussies. they have to post signs reminding their drivers which side of the road they drive on
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Drive_on_left_in_australia.jpg
that's for idiot tourists who can't work out which side to drive on. One would think the amount of on-coming traffic and placement of the steering wheel would be enough, but nope. They need signs as well.

The only thing I dislike about public roads is speed limits.

Would be very nice to have a slowpoke road for trucks, 80's relics, moms with 5 kids, trailer homes... - and alongside it a proper autobahn for cars and drivers who value their time. I would be ready to pay for that.

I loved Germany for this very reason. Their autobahn rules. No cops and no speed limits.
And what was superb about it was that everyone knew their rightful place. Outside lane was for trucks and people wishing to dawdle, middle lane was for those wishing to drive a little faster (120-140km/hr) and trucks when passing. Inside lane was for people wanting to drive as fast as bloody possible.
There were no laws afaik that this was how it was to be done. And I never saw a cop on the autobahn the 10 days I was driving around Germany, so no-one to enforce the law, if there indeed was one. But everyone followed this tradition. And they would get out of your way if they saw you zooming up behind them.
It made for extreme pleasant, stress-free, driving. Then I get back home and are faced with some fuck in the inside lane doing 70 km/hr. :mad:

Private roads are just as efficient as they need to be. If there's no private road running from San Francisco to Boston that lets a refrigerated tractor trailer haul Maine lobster from Maine to California, or haul blueberries from California to Maine, that's fine. People in Maine don't have to eat California blueberries and people in California don't have to eat Maine lobsters anyways.

Wait, how did the lobsters get from Maine to Boston? Do you have to ship them? And forget getting to California, what if people in Vermont want lobster?

Wait, how did the lobsters get from Maine to Boston? Do you have to ship them? And forget getting to California, what if people in Vermont want lobster?
the invisible hand of the free market will make them magically appear.

Half-ton? What kind of crazy, 500-pound cars do your people drive? Unless you meant metric ton. I agree with you on speeds, though. And 65? Only if there's lots of traffic. The interstates in North Dakota are routinely cruised on at 80+. Hell, that's how fast they go at rush hour in Houston, bumper proximity be damned.

The half-ton was erring on the side of conservatism. :) My Caprice was something like 4 times that.

The half-ton was erring on the side of conservatism. :) My Caprice was something like 4 times that.

Wait - four times a half ton or four times 500 lbs?

Wait - four times a half ton or four times 500 lbs?

Ehhh... I think my 88 Caprice weighed in at just under 2 tons. I've not done the poundage calculations, so I couldn't tell you that, offhand.

Ehhh... I think my 88 Caprice weighed in at just under 2 tons. I've not done the poundage calculations, so I couldn't tell you that, offhand.

Well, a ton is 2,000lbs. My car is considered light on its feet (so to speak) for a four door sedan: curb weight of 3,100lbs. Most modern sedans weigh right around two tons.

Well, a ton is 2,000lbs. My car is considered light on its feet (so to speak) for a four door sedan: curb weight of 3,100lbs. Most modern sedans weigh right around two tons.

Seems reasonable.

So my conservative half-ton should cover everything from... like... mini's and the like up. Ish.

Seems reasonable.

So my conservative half-ton should cover everything from... like... mini's and the like up. Ish.

Because I didn't know, I looked up the curb weight of a mini:

Without options, manual transmission: 2315lbs.

Half ton would cover many trikes and up.

Because I didn't know, I looked up the curb weight of a mini:

Without options, manual transmission: 2315lbs.

Half ton would cover many trikes and up.

I was even more conservative than I thought.

I'll readily admit, I didn't do the math.

:D

I was even more conservative than I thought.

I'll readily admit, I didn't do the math.

:D

Nah, I'm not picking on you. When you said curb weight of a mini, and I didn't know what that was, I decided to look it up. Since I had already looked it up, I decided to share.

Yes, very conservative.

Nah, I'm not picking on you. When you said curb weight of a mini, and I didn't know what that was, I decided to look it up. Since I had already looked it up, I decided to share.

Yes, very conservative.

Oh, I didn't think I was getting crucified for it. :) I just threw a number out there for the sake of the imagery (thinking about it, I'd have accounted for the fact that not all car shells are metallic, also)... and never gave it a second thought.

The solar power 'system' itself would be offroad - only the collection matrix (which would benefit from the cleared and level surface) would be 'in the road'.
I'm sure it's still cheaper to built a separate "road" nearby rather than an extra-strong glass road surface with solar cells underneath. And it won't get rubber and dirt all over it (to get grip on glass, you need either soft slicks or a rough texture of the glass; the latter is a great dirt collector).


Most collisions with an intrinsic velocity of more than 30 mph are likely to be fatal.
For the animal, you mean? Cars are tested to be safe at 40, but many are safe at higher speeds as well. Good modern cars are even built to allow a decent chance of survival in accidents at 100+ mph.

Though what remains of the car may look like this.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2528/post86231216112032jc5.jpg

This one was about 190, though.

This one was about 190, though.

But the question is - was he wearing his seat belt?

Well, the car did what it could, but frontal 190 mph is a lot for the body. At least he looked nice in the coffin, and not spread in bits in a 200 yard radius as he would if driving an 80s car (and as the rest of this one got spread).

If it were a racing driver or a fighter pilot, however, with muscles trained to withstand g-forces, he would have a good shot at survival.

They are necessary here in many places. But I have always wished they could build the things about 10ft or more off the ground so to not mess with wildlife.

I saw your post referring to this and thought I might go back and answer your first statement about the engineering aspect.

I'm not apt to do any kind of load analysis on such a structure, but you'd probably be looking at pouring Cast-In-Drilled-Hole piles every 20-30 feet, which would be enormously expensive in itself. Tacking on the cost of the Portland cement concrete that it would take to be poured would be a nightmare.

But in any case, a lot of efforts are made to take the environment into consideration now, as opposed to when the Federal-Aid Highway Act was signed by Ike. Especially projects that are going to be funded by the stimulus package.

I loved Germany for this very reason. Their autobahn rules. No cops and no speed limits.
And what was superb about it was that everyone knew their rightful place. Outside lane was for trucks and people wishing to dawdle, middle lane was for those wishing to drive a little faster (120-140km/hr) and trucks when passing. Inside lane was for people wanting to drive as fast as bloody possible.
There were no laws afaik that this was how it was to be done. And I never saw a cop on the autobahn the 10 days I was driving around Germany, so no-one to enforce the law, if there indeed was one. But everyone followed this tradition. And they would get out of your way if they saw you zooming up behind them.
It made for extreme pleasant, stress-free, driving. Then I get back home and are faced with some fuck in the inside lane doing 70 km/hr. :mad:

Yes, it truly is a great thing having that many fatal accidents due to the lack of speed limits each year...

:(

I love American specific polls!11!!!

Oh and Cabra West I'm about to become one of you... An Irish person!

I love American specific polls!11!!!

Oh and Cabra West I'm about to become one of you... An Irish person!

Cool!
I'm not Irish yet, though. Don't have the citizenship yet.

I'm sure it's still cheaper to built a separate "road" nearby rather than an extra-strong glass road surface with solar cells underneath. And it won't get rubber and dirt all over it (to get grip on glass, you need either soft slicks or a rough texture of the glass; the latter is a great dirt collector).



For the animal, you mean? Cars are tested to be safe at 40, but many are safe at higher speeds as well. Good modern cars are even built to allow a decent chance of survival in accidents at 100+ mph.

Though what remains of the car may look like this.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2528/post86231216112032jc5.jpg

This one was about 190, though.


looks like an ancient spaceship.

Cool!
I'm not Irish yet, though. Don't have the citizenship yet.


Is it true germans have like no sense of humor? I've never wanted to believe that. But two older dudes who were stationed there in teh 50's or something said the same thing. One mentioned the Red Rooster and a fight.

Cool!
I'm not Irish yet, though. Don't have the citizenship yet.

Ahh sorry, just presumed. Indeed it's gonna be mint. Visiting in June too.

Is it true germans have like no sense of humor? I've never wanted to believe that. But two older dudes who were stationed there in teh 50's or something said the same thing. One mentioned the Red Rooster and a fight.

Dunno... I know plenty of German comedians and comedies.
Mind you, they don't really do the classic sit-com very well, so there's next to none of those produced in Germany.
They're very good at stand-up, though, especially political. Much better than anything I've seen so far from Ireland or the UK.

You are straight forward people. Nothing at all wrong with that. But it is a trait.

I'm sure it would lol. I wasn't focused on cost of the construction but the environmental benefit. It would be cool.

Tunnels would be easier if you want to allow for wildlife to live unmolested on the surface.

Actually... a far more efficient way of harvesting solar power is to make a small photovoltaic array, and 'bring the light to it', so to speak.

If someone comes up with a good, cheap, way of implanting fibre-optics in road surfaces, there's actually the potential to make road-surfaces a fairly profitable energy production device.

I should be saying this to a patent clerk, shouldn't I...

Actually, a better idea would be to implant paired coils in vehicles AND road-surfaces, and use Tesla's dream of remote electricity to power our cars - weaning us off of oil completely.

Are you talking about laying down a PV array, and then laying down your asphalt with fiber optics embedded in it, on the idea that this would allow for transmission of light?

And then using this electricity to power the cars above it.

If you consider 65-75 a breakneck speed, I want to take you to the track and show you what a real car can do.

From the point of view of the wildlife crossing the highway, I would think that it is.

Yes, it truly is a great thing having that many fatal accidents due to the lack of speed limits each year...
Do you have a figure for the yearly rate of 100+ mph accidents on unrestricted autobahns?

So that it can actually be looked at.

privatized road does not mean without standards.

Differering standards.

Wasn't there some hullaballoo around the 1870s or so with railroads and constantly differing standards being used by the various rail companies eventually forcing the federal government to intervene and declare a uniform standard?

Differering standards.

Wasn't there some hullaballoo around the 1870s or so with railroads and constantly differing standards being used by the various rail companies eventually forcing the federal government to intervene and declare a uniform standard?

you don't have to do it that haphazardly.
legislate standards to be required to lease the land from the government to build the roads.
I am not a fan of privatized roads, but privatized roads does not equal Anarchy roads.

you don't have to do it that haphazardly.
legislate standards to be required to lease the land from the government to build the roads.
I am not a fan of privatized roads, but privatized roads does not equal Anarchy roads.

Mad Max?!?!

*Dons motocross gear with added spikes and studs"

Do you have a figure for the yearly rate of 100+ mph accidents on unrestricted autobahns?

So that it can actually be looked at.


I don't have one offhand, but I can you the accident rate is not very high. The roads are much better maintained, wider and have much longer straight's.

I am for bringing the limit up to 85, most modern cars can handle that no problem.

I'm sure it's still cheaper to built a separate "road" nearby rather than an extra-strong glass road surface with solar cells underneath. And it won't get rubber and dirt all over it (to get grip on glass, you need either soft slicks or a rough texture of the glass; the latter is a great dirt collector).


You wouldn't need an extrastrong glass road surface, you certainly wouldn't need solar cells beneath it, and the tires wouldn't have to be specially adapted to driving on glass.

The solar cells, themselves, would be somewhere off the side of the road. The fibre-optics would be aligned vertically throughout the road surface, as a matrix, 'feeding' offroad some distance below the active interface.

I can't see how it could be cheaper to build a second road nearby, when the first road already exists and is constantly maintained. The expensive part of the solar cell arrangement is the cells themselves, and they wouldn't be on (or maybe, even near) the roadway.

Are you talking about laying down a PV array, and then laying down your asphalt with fiber optics embedded in it, on the idea that this would allow for transmission of light?

And then using this electricity to power the cars above it.


Not exactly.

The PV array, itself, wouldn't have to be under the road - the fibre-optics would be used to take the light to collectors, offroad... where an 'optimised' intensity would then be impacting on a relatively small area of PV cells.

The electricity from the solar collection would actually peak OPPOSITE* the time when it would be needed to power cars - so those two ideas are mentioned in isolation - but there would certainly be space for overlap in the technologies.

(*The problem being, when you have most traffic, and therefore, most energy drain on the 'active' coil of the paired coils - you also have the least EXPOSED road surface).

I am for bringing the limit up to 85, most modern cars can handle that no problem.

Someone doesn't understand the concept of intrinsic velocity...

Wasn't there some hullaballoo around the 1870s or so with railroads and constantly differing standards being used by the various rail companies eventually forcing the federal government to intervene and declare a uniform standard?

I don't know for sure but it is highly plausible. If you're all using different gauges, whenever the gauge breaks the trains are going to need to transfer to a different system; not surprisingly, this provides not only a business opportunity for the railroad by charging shippers for the break of gauge but also ensures that competitors won't be able to easily muscle their way in to their "territory" (as well as make it easier to form preferential agreements with shipping companies).

Also, it has strategic implications; using a different gauge would impede invading forces from easy moving men and supplies in to the country via rail.

I am for bringing the limit up to 85, most modern cars can handle that no problem.

Most, if not all, of the interstate highway system isn't designed for those speeds. And even if you raised the speed limit, in areas of high traffic volume, the speeds would remain low due to the surrounding motorists.

Yes, it truly is a great thing having that many fatal accidents due to the lack of speed limits each year...

:(
Germany's road death rate p/capita is one of the lowest in the world. It's less than 1/2 that of the USA.

Most, if not all, of the interstate highway system isn't designed for those speeds. And even if you raised the speed limit, in areas of high traffic volume, the speeds would remain low due to the surrounding motorists.
Indeed, raising the speed limit in high density spots can in fact lead to the reverse - overall average vehicle speed will decrease.
I think it's something to do with the wider range between top and bottom speeds. This causes more tailgating and more slowing & accelerating, causing bottlenecks. Having a lower speed limit causes the vehicles to move at a moore uniform speed, reducing the probability of bottlenecks.

Relax, I was simply bitching that most people on the road are inconsiderate assholes. I wasn't fishing for a solution.



Do you know how much a ton is?

Yeah, I fucked that one up, but y'all discovered on y'own that 1000 pounds is still too light by more than half.

Yeah, I fucked that one up, but y'all discovered on y'own that 1000 pounds is still too light by more than half.

Just thought I'd point it out. I feel it's my civic duty.

the invisible hand of the free market will make them magically appear.

Indeed, and at the appropriate free market price.

the invisible hand of the free market will make them magically appear.

the invisible hand of the free market touched me in my bathing suit area.

:(

the invisible hand of the free market touched me in my bathing suit area.

:(
The invisible hand of the free market gave me a 3 stooges noogie and stole my wallet.

this is known as fantasy.
This is known as stupidity.

The fibre-optics would be aligned vertically throughout the road surface, as a matrix, 'feeding' offroad some distance below the active interface.
The issue with such an arrangement is that it would only transmit a very small fraction of the light that falls on the road. At a pretty high cost.

Besides, the thing would get dirty, and be damaged by abrasives carried on tires. Think of it, a nick in the tip of the fiber, and it's useless.


I can't see how it could be cheaper to build a second road nearby, when the first road already exists and is constantly maintained. The expensive part of the solar cell arrangement is the cells themselves, and they wouldn't be on (or maybe, even near) the roadway.
Not an actual road, rather, just a strip of land for collecting the sunlight. No pavement, rather cells themselves under a glass cover. Or reflector devices.

That is if you have to have it by the road.