Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main complaint is that the people who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but sprawl, so now the few remaining places that don't require a car are rare and super expensive. I'm even a car guy—I own a stick shift BMW—I just don't have much interest in getting into it to do literally any activity or errand other than walking around the neighborhood.
I think this is strongly overestimating the ratio of Americans who would be willing to walk to work, but that’s pure conjecture
Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
281–290 of 352 posts
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preface: I don't like this architecture. I think things need to change. I'm just describing what is . These are people coming from several dozen square miles and dispersing into several dozen square miles, flowing through these chokepoints. They're commuting 40, 50, or more miles. You'd need these people to change several bus lines and several train lines. Those busses would be snaking through messy suburbs for them…
> Potentially a 30 minute wait for the next train at peak times. See, that's already an issue. Even in small European cities, you'd expect the trains at peak time to arrive every 5min, in larger cities even every 1-2min A train every 30min is what I'd consider "3am on easter sunday" level of service, not peak service. Sure, right now there's not enough demand for that. But as they say, if you build it they'll come.
But change that wait, do the math, and compare it to the drive time again. Ok, we shaved a 15 minute average wait to 2 minutes or so. 13 minutes saved, awesome. We're still comparing a well over an hour public transit trip to a 30 minute drive on the tollways.
In the end you'll need to convince people the costs of the drive (all the many different types of costs there) are worth the trade for more than doubling the commute time.
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming the 500k people all commute between 6am-9am and 3pm-8pm, that means this interchange moves 160k people per hour. That's 1½-2½ commuter rail lines or about 3-4 subway lines. Such interchanges are truly a monument to stupidity.
You mean hundreds if commuter rail lines because the population isn't centered around dense points that make rail useful. We're in a catch 22 trap that will cost trillions and likely a century to get out of.
We've actually had similar issues in many post-war suburbs in Germany when trying to convert them to transit in recent years.
The solution isn't to remove all driving, just driving in areas with too much traffic. So park & ride concepts were created. You build train stations at major hubs and at locations at the edge of town and connect them.
e.g. my mum's commute changed from "drive for 45min in traffic" to "drive 5min to the neighborhood train station that shares its parking lot with the hypermarket next door, wait 10min, ride the train for 5min, arrive at the train station next to her office".
Her commute was cut in half, the business can collect revenue from their mostly unused parking lot during the week (it's sized for saturday shopping traffic), the train station doesn't have to build their own parking lot (the operator pays a few cents per train ticket to the business), and every person using this line is one less car on the road.
This model is already profitable (!), but you can expand further.
You can set up bus or tram routes that offer cross-connections between train stations to further connect schools, university dorms, malls, etc.
You can then improve connectivity within of suburbs. Introduce cross-connections between cul-de-sacs for pedestrians and cyclists, connecting suburbs, apartment complexes, local businesses and train stations.
The density won't be high enough to make walking to the train station viable, but cycling to the station certainly will be. That's not a solution for everyone, but it increases freedom of movement for teenagers and retirees.
So far, all of this is possible in the US today.
But we can dream beyond that:
You'd really want to change the zoning around these hubs over time.
Ideally you'd want to build 5-over-1s with an underground parking garage, shops and stores on the bottom floor, and apartments on the higher floors.
For businesses that need more space you can give the bottom floor a larger footprint and add a green roof which provides something of a community backyard for the occupants of the apartments. Bonus points if you build it as a courtyard in the middle with balconies facing the courtyard.
You'd really want to avoid high rises to ensure you get a growing circle of mid-density development around these hubs, somewhat reminescent of what main streets used to look like (or Disney's Main Street USA with two more floors ontop).
A few cities in the US have actually gotten this far already!
European cities, which suffered more destruction from post-war car-centric city planners than from the war itself, have been using these steps to slowly recover.
These steps are also how cities around the world grew during the industrialization, and how the US got the main streets of old in the first place.
Getting this far will take a whole generation, but where do we go from here?
While this would be the end for solving local commuters, it'd only be the beginning for inter-city journeys.
HSR is 2×-3× faster than cars and can be faster than flying for journeys below 1500-2000km, but it only works if you've already got local hubs with a dense transit network connecting them to the rest of the city.
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#284Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Potentially a 30 minute wait for the next train at peak times. See, that's already an issue. Even in small European cities, you'd expect the trains at peak time to arrive every 5min, in larger cities even every 1-2min A train every 30min is what I'd consider "3am on easter sunday" level of service, not peak service. Sure, right now there's not enough demand for that. But as they say, if you build it they'll come.
I agree, the service level on that train is pretty bad especially for peak. Hopefully they'll be convinced to run it more. But change that wait, do the math, and compare it to the drive time again. Ok, we shaved a 15 minute average wait to 2 minutes or so. 13 minutes saved, awesome. We're still comparing a well over an hour public transit trip to a 30 minute drive on the tollways. In the end you'll need to convince p…
By combining train and car you can usually end up faster and cheaper if done well as trains won't be stuck in traffic and commuter trains can reliably run at 120-160km/h.
See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41309489 for examples and details on how to solve this long-term.
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Highway building industry is in many ways a form of a state run social system. First of all the road construction and maintenance uses a huge amount of tax dollars and redistributes it to lower class construction site and road maintenance workers and some engineering bureaus. Secondly it gives everybody equal (highway) transportation access by continuously expanding capacity on existing roads and building new…
Can't this line of reasoning be applied to any transport infrastructure?
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#287It’s a shame this country is so obsessed with cars. There’s so much land yet we devote it to destroying lush ecosystems (that help reduce effects of Mother Nature) and replacing it with massive highway projects that end up costing everyone more in taxes/indefinite maintenance costs. Then the effect is 10X’d when useless suburbs are built. More car dependence. More time spent on roads. Traffic slows to a halt as subur…
US forces had hard time moving about in Iraq due to its lower land use and actual US is 7.7x sparse-er. There's no way American car culture could just stop being car dependent. Abundant fast cars is potentially the only way it can work.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#288So... > Q: Why are Texas interchanges so tall? > > Frontage roads need grade separation, adding a layer. > Texas has lots of frontage roads. OK, I buy that Texas has more grade-separated interchanges on average... but I'm not seeing how that turns into "Texas has more higher interchanges" which is what it feels like that question is asking. Frontage roads don't generally exist where 3+ highways intersect, so that sho…
Apparently no other country makes local stores directly accessible from the highway so 5 layer interchanges just don't exist anywhere else. This is why Texas interchanges are the highest, because they're the only interchanges in the world with 5 layers.
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
From european drivers perspective, what surprised me the most (aside from peculiar traffic rules - some actually good) was concrete highways instead of black asphalt. I was especially careful during rain, it "looked" slippery; Later I was told it does actually have some asphalt in it.
Texas highways will get very hot in summer, and with cheap asphalt it will last max. 5 years. Proper concrete will last 20 years. Also asphalt is more slippery than concrete. It will spill out oil. Only poor cities will do asphalt, and they are in constant reconstruction.
Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?
#290I can’t take an engineering article seriously when it leads in with bias-revealing invectives. Does EVERYTHING have to be politicized?