From browsing via Google News, it appears many roadway narrowing/freeway removals are getting awards:
* The Route 34 removal in New Haven, CT
* Study for removing I-895 in NYC
* Narrowing via lane removal Washington Street in Peoria, IL
[starts to make snarky comment about funding and decrepit bridges; thinks better of it]
I-895 has a lot of structures on it, and CT 34 has a few - it's possible that these are close to replacement age. No sense in tearing down a perfectly good freeway until its useful life is ending.
Sorry, but I don't see how removing a road, or reducing capacity, improves transportation infrastructure or makes life better for motorists.
Under some circumstances it can improve mobility. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_Paradox) However, proposals of this kind require careful study.
QuoteSorry, but I don't see how removing a road, or reducing capacity, improves transportation infrastructure or makes life better for motorists.
I've seen several cases where a "4-to-3" road diet (converting a 4-lane undivided street/road into a 3-lane...1 lane each way plus center left turn lane) has smoothed out traffic flow.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 16, 2010, 03:45:52 AM
Under some circumstances it can improve mobility. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_Paradox)
warning: supercritical link. on every page you read, you will find more than one link to open in new tabs for further reading. (see also: tvtropes.com)
As for the Tiger II grants, according to my sources the full announcement won't be until sometime next week. What Revive found was early announcements by the respective Congressmen or Senators, who got a "sneek peak" at certain projects in their districts/states from Ray LaHood the other day.
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2010, 07:20:23 AMI've seen several cases where a "4-to-3" road diet (converting a 4-lane undivided street/road into a 3-lane...1 lane each way plus center left turn lane) has smoothed out traffic flow.
The M4 Bus Lane in the UK basically hatched out a lane to smooth traffic flow (allowing taxis and coaches to use the closed off lane), moving a lane drop where the motorway goes onto a 2+2 elevated structure back to the junction before it. It does work (though is a big symbol of 'the war on the motorists', and most of the vitriol is purely a complete and utter misunderstanding of point of the bus lane), though the law of unintended consequences means that, as the lane drop moved back, the queue for it has as well, and it often ends up interfering with Heathrow traffic and other roads. Of course, the upcoming removal of it is for purely political purposes, and not traffic reasons. Given it would cost money to remove, the best plan of action, given our financial situation, must surely be to just say "we won't enforce it".
As far as the CT-34 rip up is concerned...here is a link:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/new_haven/doc4cb931277aa4d627218579.txt
New Haven Mayor John Destafano thinks highways are evil.
1) He almost derailed the I-95 Q-Bridge project as the fed threatened to remove funding as he wanted all this extra stuff for New Haven such as see-through railings to see the city.
2) NH rejected ALL 6 Long Wharf ring road proposals.
3) NH also killed the 4th I-95 lane NB between exits 45 & I-91. They wanted to remove the SB extra lanes as well but the DOT said no b/c of I-91.
All he cares about is economic growth but he doesn't want to build the roads to get there. Oh yeah, we're supposed to walk and bike to work. That's right!
Also, they just got done rebuilding the end of teh connector with a new signal and signs. All that money is now wasted as they will tear it down for a building!?!? Doesn't make sense.
It will be a traffic nightmare, after I-95, the Exit 1 ramp comes up quickly and traffic will back up. Where will it all go? Oh yeah....bike and walk to work.
For a city of it's size, NH should have some kind of bypass or spur expressway...smaller cities such as Worcester and Springfield have them!
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2010, 07:20:23 AM
QuoteSorry, but I don't see how removing a road, or reducing capacity, improves transportation infrastructure or makes life better for motorists.
I've seen several cases where a "4-to-3" road diet (converting a 4-lane undivided street/road into a 3-lane...1 lane each way plus center left turn lane) has smoothed out traffic flow.
Well I can agree there. Waiting behind a vehicle turning left on a four-lane undivided route can be a major pain.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 16, 2010, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2010, 07:20:23 AM
I've seen several cases where a "4-to-3" road diet (converting a 4-lane undivided street/road into a 3-lane...1 lane each way plus center left turn lane) has smoothed out traffic flow.
Well I can agree there. Waiting behind a vehicle turning left on a four-lane undivided route can be a major pain.
I'm from NJ and I drive like it. There's no waiting. You just have to be bold enough to break into the clear right lane. A few places in PA converted a four-lane undivided route to two lanes with TWO left turn lanes (this happens on US 30 through Dutch country), and the traffic in the two main lanes can be frightening. I think the real reason US 30 is two lanes is so that traffic stays on the Turnpike unless really necessary, but when you look at what's using 30 in a few areas, there is clearly a dire need for improvements and elimination of the center turn lane. (For crying out loud, there are no driveways on these segments!)
Quote from: hbelkins on October 16, 2010, 06:11:23 PM
Well I can agree there. Waiting behind a vehicle turning left on a four-lane undivided route can be a major pain.
Of course, if people would learn not to drive in the left lane except for passing or turning left as is legally required, four-lanes can still be bearable. I do prefer getting opposing left-turners directly across from one another if it can be done practically, but it comes down to what is more needed between passing and left-turning. MDOT had to go back to a four-lane from a three-lane diet because of congestion along US 2 in Bessemer. (Of course, the fact that the road on both sides of Bessemer is five-lanes probably would've indicated a higher volume of traffic, but MDOT tried the road diet there anyway.)
Quote from: doofy103 on October 16, 2010, 03:17:03 PM
As far as the CT-34 rip up is concerned...here is a link:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/new_haven/doc4cb931277aa4d627218579.txt
New Haven Mayor John Destafano thinks highways are evil.
1) He almost derailed the I-95 Q-Bridge project as the fed threatened to remove funding as he wanted all this extra stuff for New Haven such as see-through railings to see the city.
I actually wouldn't mind a free more see-through railings instead of the new double high jersey variants that are starting to pop up in some states like Indiana and Iowa.
But after driving on a pathetically maintained interstate today and at least two bridges that need new decks (though this might be due to poor project selection by the DOT), I'm downright outraged at the selection of this project - the developer can foot the bill for any highway changes there, spend my tax dollars on something better.
Tiger II capital grant list:
http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/tigerii/tiger2grantinfo.pdf (http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/tigerii/tiger2grantinfo.pdf)
Planning grant list:
http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/tigerii/tiger2planninggrantinfo.pdf (http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/tigerii/tiger2planninggrantinfo.pdf)
EDIT: From the planning list:
* Page 16/38: Uber pork.
* I-10/Claiborne teardown study is on Page 20/38