Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:27, 17 September 2005

I know that freeways are SUPPOSED to have traffic lights, by I know, at least in Perth, where I live, the Kwinana freeway had traffic lights down half of it. It was still the freeway. Only in the last 6 months have the remaining overpasses been built.

There are also several motorways in the UK with roundabouts on the main line (the M271, the A627(M) and the A601(M) come to mind, and arguably so does the M60 (at J18 all clockwise M60 traffic has to use a roundabout)); some of these have peak-time traffic lights. There are also several single carriageway motorways (A38(M), A601(M), A6144(M) and various link roads between "proper" motorways and ordinary roads) among other non-feats of engineering. Coversely, there are some (almost) fully grade-separated dual carriageway all-purpose roads (for example, the A42) and, bizarrely, some non-motorway "special roads" (to all intents and purposes, these are motorways, but they don't have blue signs or an M in the number).

This article does a fair amount of editorializing and sounds more like chit-chat than an article. I started whacking at it, but it needs more work. Daniel Quinlan 03:53, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

The recently-added graf about Santa Clara County expressways is both redundant (the term "expressway" is used there precisely as the definition above it states) and of marginal relevance. I'm inclined to delete it. 18.24.0.120 21:17, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I put that paragraph in and I think it ought to stay. For most of the article, the distinction between freeways, motorways, expressways, etc. is described as primarily a regional difference in terms that describes fundamentally the same type of roadway. The expressways in Santa Clara County are fundamentally different types of roadways from freeways because they have at-grade intersections, and thus form an exception to the general rule that "expressways" and "freeways" are the same thing in different regional dialects. -- Nohat 00:30, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)

I believe the definition in the second paragraph makes it quite clear that this is not true in the general case. The expressways in Santa Clara are exactly the same thing as are defined as "expressways" in both civil engineering jargon and U.S. and California law. I'll try to clarify other parts of the article where this is confused. 18.24.0.120 02:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've now done this. I commented your text out but left it in the article, as I believe this issue is adequately dealt with elsewhere in the article. 18.24.0.120 02:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the point about the differences being reflected in civil engineering jargon, but it seems to be the exception to non-civil engineers. Outside of the west coast area of the US, the word expressway (and variants like throughway, turnpike, etc.) are used to refer to what in California are called freeways, but not elsewhere. In other words, I-95 might be called an expressway or a highway or an interstate, but you'll get funny looks if you call it a "freeway" (or "the 95", but that's neither here nor there). "Freeway" is generally regarded as the term used by Californians. Admittedly, I have only driven around in 15 or so different states, but I have never encountered "expressways" like the ones in Santa Clara County, which is why I thought they warranted special mention. If the "Cross Bronx Expressway" were in California, it would be called a freeway. I recognize that technically freeways are a subset of expressways, but I don't think the article adequately deals with clarifying the dichotomy between nomenclatures, and as far as I can tell, roads which are expressways but not freeways are particularly uncommon. I could be wrong though. --Nohat 04:29, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)

Hrm, nevermind, your changes seem to be OK. I just think that because non-freeway expressways are uncommon, areas where they occur might deserve special mention. --Nohat

I-95 in North Carolina (or I-94 in Michigan, for that matter) is absolutely called a freeway, both officially and in common use (at least when it's not just "the interstate"). In fact, it really is only those states which I've mentioned that don't call a freeway a "freeway". You are correct in suggesting that roads which are technically expressways are less commonly called that; in most places, such roads do not have any particular name (at least not that is known to the public). Perhaps there ought to be a separate expressway article with disambig links back here for the northeast/Chicago sense?

The first superhighway in the US was the Pennsylvania Turnpike, built on the incomplete remains of a railway line started during the age of competition of that system of transportation. ("You won't lower your rates for me to ship on your line--very well, I'll build my own railway" was the motivation. The rates were lowered when it looked as though it would get finished.) That was in 1940; and so, before the Federal Interstate Highway System, a few turnpikes, that is, toll superhighways, were built in the Northeast. These are still called: "Mass Pike," "New Jersey Turnpike," "Garden State Parkway," "Merritt Parkway," etc. They aren't just built to anywhere, and you say which one you are taking; suburbs identify with major cities, rather than being amorphous transportation. By saying "freeway" you're just talking like the Firesign Theatre. Generically, such roads within the US are called "interstates"; worldwide, they are called "superhighways" here in New England or the Middle Atlantic States. -- Sobolewski, June 7, 2005 (there's no datestamp button on this machine!)

Actually, across the West Coast and Southwest states, freeway is the generic term. Superhighway was once common in West Coast publications as late as the mid-1970s but since then has become quite rare. "Interstates" is not the generic term in this region because several states, notably California and Arizona, have long sections of freeway that are not part of the Interstate system and are not up to interstate standard. For example, California State Route 99, the main highway through California's Central Valley, has many areas that are not up to Interstate standard because of poor-quality pavement, narrow shoulders, tight turning radii on ramps, and low overpasses. AASHTO after 1990 became much more hostile to grandfathering in such obsolete roads into the Interstate system, so many local politicians are still debating about where California can find the money to upgrade Highway 99 — the city of Fresno in particular is rather enraged that it is the largest American city that lacks a direct Interstate connection.--Coolcaesar 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, to my knowledge, in addition to the areas already mentioned "freeway" is in generic use in Texas and -- I seem to remember -- more of the Midwest than just Michigan. I'm thinking maybe Minnesota uses it, although I could be wrong. Also I believe much of Canada uses it -- isn't the 401 the McDonald-Cartier Freeway? At any rate, I've totally lost sight of the main point -- but then I checked the dates of this discussion and realized it goes back to early 2004! Why don't we start a separate discussion on "Where freeway is in use" or something, because the issue above seems to have long since died, no? -- PhilipR 21:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The California meaning of Expressway is used officially by engineers in the whole U.S., and is used in road names at least as far east as Indiana. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chinese nomenclature

As far as I know China, Japan and Korea all use 高速道路, lit. "high speed road", for freeways. What does the comment about China formerly using freeways refer to? Jpatokal 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Japan and Korea is 高速道路. Mainland China and Taiwan is 高速公路. Freeway and expressway both translate to 高速公路, although the English naming was different before. On a disused sign on the Jingshen Expressway, I found out that in the mid-90s, some routes were renamed, albeit unofficially/briefly, to highway. See Expressways of China for more on freeway/expressways. --DF08 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here it states that China has the 2nd largest freeway network, while the Autobahn article says it is the German network that is second to the US. Which one is true?

China's network is longer

Hello:

Just ran some Google searches. At the end of 2003, the autobahn network in Germany was at just under 12,000 total kilometers, while China's network was at 29,800. The U.S. Interstate highway network is at about 68,500 km. China's current official "build-out" goal is 82,000 km. Not bad for a country that built its first expressway in 1987.

If you've been following the international news over the past two years (I use Google News), you would notice that all journalists in China agree that the country is building expressways like crazy (while destroying enormous amounts of inner-city slums and farmland in the process). Basically, China is sick and tired of always being behind the rest of the world, which it has been for two centuries. Since everyone credits the Interstate highway system as being one of the key components of the American economy (in terms of facilitating commerce and tourism), China sees expressways as one way to catch up with the U.S., so that it will be a truly modern (and powerful) country.

--Coolcaesar 00:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy portion has been updated to include a more descriptive range of views and actions of anti-urban freeway critics. The original comments were not specific enough to merit consideration and needed serious revision. I also added a photo of a typical Houston traffic jam (most importantly, from driver's eye level) because the picturesque nature of the existing freeway photos presented POV problems and certainly serves to marginalize the existence of persistent traffic congestion on major urban freeways.

--Emersonbiggins85 21:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why I am putting back the I-5 picture at the top and moving the Tullamarine Freeway picture down

The main reason the I-5 picture should stay at the top is because it represents what the vast majority of freeways look like. That is, the vast majority of freeways are rural freeways that run through the countryside and have a broad separation between traffic going in both directions, and all cross-traffic is relegated to overpasses or underpasses.

The Tullamarine Freeway picture, while lovely, fails to illustrate this, because it does not show cross- or opposing traffic---it could be a picture of any freeway or non-freeway tunnel, ramp or viaduct anywhere in the world. For example, Canada has many short non-freeway road segments that look like that.

Also, I hate to sound U.S.-centric, but the truth is that freeways were invented in Germany (in the form of the autobahn) and refined into their modern form in the United States (during the construction of the Interstate system).

Australia is a relative newcomer to the freeway-building movement and has not yet even completed a true freeway between any two of its largest cities (e.g., a connection between Melbourne and Perth, or between Melbourne and Sydney). Most highway segments in Australia are still just ordinary roads or expressways. My point is that an article on freeways should lead with an illustration of freeways from where they were primarily developed into their modern form, since that would be most representative of the majority of freeways. --Coolcaesar 00:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Refined, defined

"Also, I hate to sound U.S.-centric, but the truth is that freeways were invented in Germany (in the form of the autobahn) and refined into their modern form in the United States (during the construction of the Interstate system)."

'Refined' is particularly subjective, and does sound rather U.S.-centric, even by your own admission. Autobahns and Autoroutes in Europe incorporate some of the newest engineering and technology that the world has to offer (see Millau Viaduct), obviously financed by some major toll/bond initiatives in place. Also, you would have a hard time arguing that the derivative, partially derelict U.S. interstate system is superior to a modern European system that continues to be expanded and upgraded (many rural sections are 6-8 lanes), all the while causing minimal interference with the scattered, isolated villages that dot the European countryside. Let's settle on the U.S. Interstate System being the most "refined" system that doesn't require tolling...yet.

--208.190.154.22 20:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was not trying to make the point that American freeways are the most refined at the moment---most of them probably are not---but from the 1950s to the 1970s, the United States was well ahead of everyone else when it came to rapidly building freeways and making design innovations like the stack interchange. Of course, most of Europe and Asia were still rebuilding after World War II during that period.

As for the concept of a single "European" road system, the European Union's continent-wide integration of roads into a single system (e.g. the E highway road numbering) is a relatively new development, while American road construction was coordinated from the 1940s onward through AASHTO, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Finally, many rural Interstate freeway segments are 6 or 8 lanes, including large portions of Interstate 5 and Interstate 80. Furthermore, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. It would make no financial sense to upgrade many rural portions of the Interstate system to 6 or 8 lanes because the population density of the surrounding communities is so ridiculously low. Try visiting Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming sometime; widening Interstate 15 in that region would be a complete waste of money until the population of Alberta (at 15's northern terminus) is much higher than it is today. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll concede that AASHTO's design standards are the basis for modern interstate design, especially in the areas of signage designation and high-speed interchanges. And I'll also concede that having 6 or 8 lanes on a rural American freeway is frankly ridiculous (or is it, with all that NAFTA traffic??) The point I should've made to indicate the relative refinement of U.S. vs. European systems is that certain technological innovations, such as the real-time display data on traffic signs & car audio displays in Europe are far ahead of our own traffic monitoring systems here, which amount to a little more than "traffic on the 8's" in the U.S. cities, and no monitoring at all on rural stretches of freeway. This allows government authorities to interrupt any audio system (even if turned off or playing CDs) to deploy civil emergency warnings, traffic delay warnings, construction info, etc. Perhaps this might be better referred to as the "refinement" of automobiles, but I believe there is a good deal of state interest in the monitoring and deployment of those ITS systems in Europe. Because of this single innovation, coupled with extremely limited access points, Autobahn traffic is likely to be faster flowing and smoother than on the U.S. system, even with our high-speed stack interchanges.

Cali-centrism

Why are the first five geographically-identifed photos (and 5 of the first 6 overall) from the same US state? I recognize the point made above about relative development of the US freeway system and all -- and I suppose you could apply the some logic to California in particular -- but there should really be more geographic diversity IMO. Thanks, PhilipR 20:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the nomenclature here is also very Cali-centric. "Freeway" is a California term used in much of the Western US, but not so much in the Northeast. I think the nomenclature section should reflect the distinction between "freeways" and "tollways" more emphatically, and have tried to start a change in that direction. --Bhuck 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not correct to say "a distinction is made between freeway and tollway". One, neither of those words is widely used in the Northeast. (Is "tollway" used anywhere?) Two, in areas where "freeway" is used, it doesn't mean 'highway that you don't have to pay a toll to drive on'; toll roads are also freeways. AJD 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Ajd's analysis. There are a few freeways in California which you have to pay a toll to drive on (mainly in Orange County), but they are called both toll roads and freeways, depending upon the context. "Toll road" refers to the fact you have to pay; "freeway" refers to the fact that through traffic can move unimpeded by cross-traffic entering from intersections controlled by traffic lights or stop signs. --Coolcaesar 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware there are tollways in California which locals refer to (in my opinion, incorrectly) as "freeways". To answer AJD's question, if Tollway is used anywhere, just look at Illinois Tollway or this link. --Bhuck 14:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

We should make the nomenclature section of this article be like a list! --SuperDude 20:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The UK

Since Motorway is the official term for freeway in the UK, do roadgeeks in the UK ever refer to the high speed dual carriageways with an "A" designation as freeways since people travel 70mph on them? --SuperDude 02:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I'm enough of a roadgeek to give a definitive answer, but I've never heard of a road of any sort in the UK being referred to as a 'freeway' jlang 11:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

pseudo-freeway

My mind thought of a term called "pseudo-freeway", I tested it on google and only got 48 hits. Should we still make it a redirect for RIRO expressway since an RIRO expressway can sometimes be a pseudo-freeway since some of them have a design speed of 65mph or more? --SuperDude 05:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV passage

I just removed the following passage because it appears to violate the POV and original research policies:

More importantly, the growth in private automobile ownership is inevitable. Alternative measures to freeways such as public transit and HOV lanes have failed to solve the problem of traffic congestion despite their high cost.

Although I personally love and support freeways, I do not think this passage can stay in the article because there are several problems with the assertions made within it.

First, growth in private automobile ownership is not necessarily inevitable. A rise in the cost of any of the commodities necessary for automobiles (steel, plastic, oil, etc.) or anything resulting in the stalling or reversal of population growth (epidemics, war, family planning, etc.) would result in a leveling out of automobile ownership numbers. If the cost goes high enough, people might simply shift to renting cars or trucks only when needed.

Second, HOV lanes are not really an alternative to freeways, but rather a method for boosting efficiency of existing freeways.

Third, the statement about public transit makes it sound like as if it is destined by design to fail. Actually, public transit could solve the problem of traffic congestion if population densities were high enough to support the construction of transit networks with very high service frequencies. The problem is that few people like to live in high-density areas because of other problems like noise, lack of privacy, and crime, and will escape to low-density areas as soon as it becomes practical (as demonstrated by the entire history of urban transportation). Of course, there are people who pay $20 million to live in high-rise penthouses in Los Angeles and New York, but then anyone with that much money can also afford good soundproofing, bodyguards, and bulletproof cars. So, until the density problem is solved, low density (and freeways) will be what people want. --Coolcaesar 02:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV passage

I just removed the following passage because it appears to violate the POV and original research policies:

More importantly, the growth in private automobile ownership is inevitable. Alternative measures to freeways such as public transit and HOV lanes have failed to solve the problem of traffic congestion despite their high cost.

Although I personally love and support freeways, I do not think this passage can stay in the article because there are several problems with the assertions made within it.

First, growth in private automobile ownership is not necessarily inevitable. A rise in the cost of any of the commodities necessary for automobiles (steel, plastic, oil, etc.) or anything resulting in the stalling or reversal of population growth (epidemics, war, family planning, etc.) would result in a leveling out of automobile ownership numbers. If the cost goes high enough, people might simply shift to renting cars or trucks only when needed.

Second, HOV lanes are not really an alternative to freeways, but rather a method for boosting efficiency of existing freeways.

Third, the statement about public transit makes it sound like as if it is destined by design to fail. Actually, public transit could solve the problem of traffic congestion if population densities were high enough to support the construction of transit networks with very high service frequencies. The problem is that few people like to live in high-density areas because of other problems like noise, lack of privacy, and crime, and will escape to low-density areas as soon as it becomes practical (as demonstrated by the entire history of urban transportation). Of course, there are people who pay $20 million to live in high-rise penthouses in Los Angeles and New York, but then anyone with that much money can also afford good soundproofing, bodyguards, and bulletproof cars. So, until the density problem is solved, low density (and freeways) will be what people want. --Coolcaesar 02:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Revising assumptive reasoning

The following excerpt from the freeway article is assumptive at best. It is pure speculation, and the de facto manner in which it is proclaimed is certainly misleading. I've revised it to become more hypothetical in nature.

Original entry:

"Finally, constructing new freeways in built-up urban areas would divert cars away from local city streets, and in turn would make communities safer. The closure of an existing urban freeway (or the imposition of tolls) would simply force traffic back onto local streets, instead of making it disappear."

Revised entry:

"Finally, constructing new freeways in built-up urban areas could divert cars away from local city streets, and in turn might communities safer. The closure of an existing urban freeway (or the imposition of tolls) could simply force traffic back onto local streets, instead of making it disappear. However, some studies have shown that the removal of urban freeways actually reduce traffic congestion by causing people to find alternate routes, use mass transit or simply reduce driving altogether."

Quote from Suburban Nation:

"The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy."

And I assume you are one of those New Urbanist anti-car maniacs?

First of all, I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack on anyone you deem 'opposed' to the automobile lifestyle. Very mature.

Now, getting back to a semblance of relevance, I am not anti-car. In fact, I have a love of the interstate system and 'the open road' fairly commensurate with your own. I am opposed to development that favors the automobile as the primary mode of transit, to be designed for above and beyond all other forms. The effect that the auto has on the urban landscape is appalling and inarguable, and it's no small wonder that the cities most traveled and romanticized are those that have refused to relegate their public realms to the supposed 'needs' of the car.

The kind who read Jane Jacobs and then twisted her ideas beyond recognition? By the way, she repudiated New Urbanism in an interesting interview with Reason.com a while back.

How exactly am I twisting Jane Jacobs' writing? She was adamantly opposed to Robert Moses' form of 'urban renewal', which meant the paving over of neighborhoods in New York City. Her 'repudiation' of New Urbanism had more to do the general arrangement of 'places of gathering' in new developments, as well as the overall outcome of new developments like Celebration, among the first NU developments developed on a large scale. Don't confuse yourself by assuming Jacob doesn't agree with the general tenets of New Urbanism, which only reflect the tenets, e.g. removal of government intervention & obstacles, of old urbanism. At any rate, you can be sure that NU is far more preferred by Jacobs than the CSD style of building. Remember, NU is only about 10-15 years old, and Jacobs' disdain for the community of Celebration is often shared by those in NU circles, anyways.

Anyway, I concur that the statement as originally worded was too conclusory, but I disagree with your new remarks claiming that freeway removal stimulates economic growth. People did not stop driving; they simply drove somewhere else.

The 'new' remarks praising the removal of urban freeways as a boon to economic growth aren't recent. I put those in at least two months ago. And, if you are referring to the above excerpt from Duany in regards to economic studies performed by Britain, might I remind you that those quotes only exist in this 'discussion' section (not in the main article).

Many California businesspeople deliberately avoid San Francisco due to its severe traffic congestion (the result of its 1959 anti-freeway policy) and high commercial space costs (the result of its mid-1970s anti-skyscraper policy). Last time I checked, the growth (and traffic) was simply pushed out to edge cities like Antioch, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Vacaville, Livermore, Tracy, and Gilroy. --Coolcaesar 03:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the 'growth' did not shift to the suburbs, as you suggest. SF is landlocked, so its 'growth' will always be somewhat limited without densification. However, the bigger issue at hand is 'why' did the other areas grow? Postwar suburbs obviously grew because of government intervention in the market with the development of freeways, segregated zoning, and quasi-governmental financing of the single-family home suburban lifestyle. When government stepped in to finance the suburban 'American Dream', it made the 'Dream' artificially affordable for all, thus causing the growing queue of sheeple at the feed trough of market manipulation.