Why don't double decker freeways exist?

Are you too obese to walk?

I failed high school Algebra, ok?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake

Double decker highways and earthquake prone areas are a disaster waiting to happen.

There are short stretches of double-decker in the US. I-10 in San Antonio and I-35 in Austin come to mind but both of them are no more than about 5 miles long each.

>be in this
>run out of gas

I cant even imagine the embarrassment.

it's ok user.
the Cartesian Coordinates never meant to hurt you,
they just wanted to spread your asymptotes

the long and short of it is that if you let cars go wherever they want, you can't control the flow of traffic effectively, and so the flow of traffic will always be stopping and starting as people turn onto and off of roads.

In cities, you generally want lots of one-ways and small streets feeding to ever wider roads until you get to a local "main street" to keep traffic flowing in predictable and smooth patterns so people have to stop less.

Likewise, zoning has an impact on traffic management. For example, if all your commercial stuff is along Main Street, a lot of the traffic will flow onto Main Street as people go to work or try to buy things or go laze in cafes and bars or whatever. It also creates a focal route in people's minds and people are likelier to take it even if other roads are technically faster or more direct. How the roads around focal points of commerce or industry are arranged will impact traffic flow a lot. If every street around is the same size and has two-way flow, it's a waste of space and will result in start-stop traffic issues and bad congestion along the popular main line.

Pedestrian oriented towns are fucking fantastic for traffic management because you basically don't even have to try anymore as long as there's signage around. People are so good at dodging eachother and people are so small that it's pretty trivial to keep a pedestrian path moving. The major considerations move more to stuff that interior designers and people who make shooting games tend to care about -- sight lines, focal points, signage, that sort of thing. Pedestrian comfort is also an issue, things like wind and shade have to be managed.

Interestingly, though, that book I mentioned does go back far enough that walking was the main form of travel within a town. A lot of the earlier essays remark that they had trouble walking around american towns because the streets were so wide and almost completely shadeless.

I'm not sure why one would use an automobile in a dense urban area

Not the case in Hong Kong or Tokyo.

also I dunno about LA's situation specifically, but often it's a better idea to add new routes than to widen existing ones. A lot of the time, the problem with highway congestion is that you need to take that line to get onto a different, probably less congested one.

Like, if Area A connects to Area F, and Area F connects to Area C and Area D, the A>F route will have the combined traffic of everyone trying to get from A to literally anywhere. The solution then is to build a new highway between Area A and Area C or D to take those commuters off of the A to F line. Preferably you do both.

The usual problem with that is that there's a reason the line doesn't already exist, and tunneling and bridges are expensive.

People are lazy and cities are big.

Alright then, how about underground double decker freeways?

I think the problem with American cities is that they have a large enough population so you CAN and SHOULD build densely and shift to other forms of transport, but the car is so engrained in the public mind that they've been planned around it and as a result are very spread out and low density, creating low walkability, even low public transport potential, and on the other hand (combined with idiotic zoning) lots of travel distance and traffic and subsequently higher time efforts and costs. Nowhere else in the world do so many people simultaneously have to travel such great distances by car in urban areas as in the USA.

But the majority of the residents of those cities don't own or use cars.

I think mass car ownership is an anglo-exclusive thing, with all the sprawl going on here, and cheap costs of car ownership thanks to subsidies.

because these dense urban areas have become fucking huge.
Berlin is over 30km in diameter, without the surrounding cities. You can't walk through the agglomeration in one day least you start at sunrise and end at sunset.

The point is that American urban areas in particular aren't dense enough.

How'd they get all the red cars on the same side?

That's another big issue. Highways elsewhere aren't so congested because most people live and work in the same city. This isn't the case in the US, and is the source of a lot of problems. Modern suburbia is trash mostly because Americans are trash.

It's not really density that's the problem, it's the overly vast distances people have to go, and there being limited routes for making those trips. Most of the people who work in a given US city do not live in that city, and commute in from some far-flung suburb because cities are too icky for them and numale hipsters drive up rents and property prices too much anyway.

Why americans don't have commuter trains?

People in the US do in fact live and work in the same city, but often times the two locations are seperated by 30 miles of loose sprawl which are part of the urban area.

And the vast distances are a direct effect of the low density. If in most of the world a one million people urban area covers half as much area as in the US, then people there will only have to travel half as far as they do in the US to get to a given point. I do consider the suburbs part of the city area because they're economically dependent on it. If you transplanted the suburbs into the middle of nowhere without a city in the middle they would immediately die.

>I do consider the suburbs part of the city area
if I am and you're not we can't have a discussion because our words mean different things, but I think we largely agree -- suburbs are dumb and gay because people live way too far from where they work and do other errands.

Shorter errands would be possible in suburbs if the mid 20th century tier zoning didn't say that grocery stores can only be in the grocery store spot up to ten miles away from some residents.

They do, just go to Dallas

We do. People just refuse to use them if they can afford a car.

Why? Trains are comfy as fuck. Up here, if you pay an extra 15-20 bucks for a ticket on Via, they even serve you a decent meal and there's "free" booze (as in, it's all you can drink, sorta like being in first class on an air plane but with nicer seats and a working bathroom)

>about underground double decker freeways?
they are literally speculating a project like this for the LA or San Diego area right now, i think some section of the 405 freeway? cant remember exact location in California.

they already did a huge, regular above ground addition to existing freeway to the tune of several billion, and it literally improved nothing, maybe made it even worse they say

Let's take the train, which runs through every shithole people live in and is safe in every way

Or the bus, which can transport over 40 people comfortably and is never, ever late or delayed because it doesn't share the road with any other form of road-going transportation

>americans are LITERALLY afraid of public transport
l-lol?

And a once a decade train disaster makes trains more dangerous than cars then?

>he wants to ride in a metal tube that smells like piss and homeless people

Shiggy diggy

So instead of doing something against the homelessness you as a society collectively decide to avoid public transport instead? You disgust me.

either have cops around the station to hassle homeless people or have a functional city that actually has jobs and reasonable housing prices

Homlessness isn't about housing prices. It's mental illness mostly of the type that used to be institutionalized until Reaganomics threw them out onto the streets.

because more lanes doenst reduce traffic.

then defer to the cop solution + deport all abbos

>Be LA fag
>Spend tremendous amounts of funds
>Big one hits
>Die entombed in bumper to bumper traffic with leftists and beaners

No.

America isn't dense, thanks to homeowner associations which will chimp out if you try to change the zoning code and lower their artificially high prices.

We ought to ban homeowners associations. I'm not one for banning things but they're truly a cancer on society

>think some section of the 405 freeway
Jesus christ I can't imagine the 405 but underground
Absolutely fucking terrifying

i've only spent a little bit of time in California, around Sacramento, the LA & San Diego areas
but it was more than enough to tell me no way in fuck i want to live there. never going back if i can avoid it that's for sure.

LA area freeways fuck that shit. not to mention shit infested downtown areas in places like Stockton. last place i ever want to be in even the best of times, SHTF scenario would be horror

>SHTF scenario would be horror
But thats the thing, user
Shit is always hitting the fan in LA
Its how its been operating for decades now

>toyota drivers

Whats the book lad

the real problem is just too many people.
first we need to start a selective extermination campaign.
and a percentage those allowed to live must be strerilized.
its the only viable option

You can have 1 million lanes, but if everyone is trying to get into the same one lane bottle neck you have the same amount of people sitting in the same amount of traffic for the same amount of time.

Let's start with you

Washington DC area has them but its a full on bitch to expand them out. VRE want to expand operations to Richmond and MARC wants to go down to Southern Maryland but the political will isn't there for that.

There was also talk of integrating both MARC and VRE trains but once again it will be a pain in the ass.

ggwash.org/view/34771/marylands-marc-and-virginias-vre-talk-about-integrating-commuter-rail-service

Agreed. They just give nobodies a power trip

i'm the only one smart enough to think of the solution. i cant afford to leave everything in the hands of your maniacs.
however, i will pledge not to have children. that is enough of a sacrifice from myself for now.
As for the plan, we must first eradicate religion once and for all. once we exterminate all the religious nut-jobs, we'll have room to really get to work

This

One ways are cancer. All they do is force you to stay on the road longer and backtrack. If you're looking for an address and pass it then you have to go all the way around again. I don't understand what the benefit could possibly be. All they would do is congest traffic on neighbouring streets because people can't take the most direct way to get somewhere

Whoever's idea it was to route major highways THROUGH Urban areas should have been fired on the spot for stupidity.

The Interstates were supposed to go AROUND the cities, so traffic going to and from the highway would be handled by local roads. That's the sensible approach, since it:

A. doesn't turn city traffic into a daily nightmare,

B. doesn't create a huge damn eyesore and completely ruin real urban planning efforts by having a freeway cut theough the center of the city, and

C. doesn't shit pollution into a densely packed area where it actually becomes a health hazard

Instead, some retards had the idea of having the freeways cut right through the city for god knows what reason, maybe they thought it would allow people to escape a city faster in an emergency (which we know now it wouldn't) or support businesses in the city by allowing a near direct-route to major company buildings from distant suburbs (since major business offices and manufacturing plants are increasingly located away from city centers, that's turned out to be a bust too), or even replace local transit options (...yeah, about that...).

Burying the highways underneath the city or putting them on a double-deck to lessen their urban footprint is cute, but it doesn't solve the stupidity of routing them through the city in the first place.

you are a fat!

They built one in Omaha just before I moved out.

I would've closed my eyes and hoped it killed me.

>Modern suburbia is trash mostly because Americans are trash.

If what you said was actually true then America would have great foot traffic as it is the countries with the trashiest populations that have the best foot traffic, like London and other yurocum cities.

>muh reaganomics

Moron, it was libtards pushing the idea that keeping homeless people locked up was inhumane and that they should be immediately released from the psych wards. Then libtards exacerbated the homeless problem by promoting a massive welfare state that catered to homeless people's wants instead of addressing their root cause of homelessness. The state replaced the church and since the state is reliant on their votes they have an invested interest in never actually solving the homeless problem.

I don't even know how retarded you have to be to believe that adopting an economic model where people are taxed less in order to generate greater revenues via an increase in the GDP somehow caused the homeless problem. Last time I checked the homeless problem didn't explode in the 60s when JFK implemented the same economic model that Reagan did. Not to mention the problem only became a major issue during the Obongo years when he adopted a shitty Keynesian model which only managed to drive up the debt 10 trillion. If you are going to be a retarded berniebro, could you at least do it on reddit instead of here?

>public transportation
>aka no money for car
>wanting to ride a bus filled with smelly people
>wanting to ride an underground tube filled with smelly people
>wanting to walk and having to smell smelly people along the way
>wanting to bike and be smelly amongst the other smelly people

No wonder europeans smell bad.

Austin has it for the downtown portion of IH35. It makes it worse because traffic merges back together after a mile or so and it's a parking lot for hours every day.

Whatever committee thought that up should be lined up and murdered slowly and painfully with spoons.

Literally all the same problems but now you have to spend even more money to dig a giant hole first. Ask Seattle how well that'll go.

If you think building a bridge for double decker roads is expensive, wait until you find out the cost of digging a tunnel.

We don't build densely for a reason.

We build our cities intentionally spread out to keep the minorities away from the places actual people live, and we have intentionally crippled public transport for the same reason.

Nobody wants to live 30 miles from their job, but they want to live 3 miles from niggers even less.

>he purposefully lives in a relevant, economically bustling city where wages are higher
Haha what a stubborn idiot!

>If what you said was actually true then America would have great foot traffic as it is the countries with the trashiest populations that have the best foot traffic, like London and other yurocum cities.

As soon as I read this I knew the post would include some variant of libcuck, but fuck, it only took 4 words after it.

The minorities wouldn't be so dysfunctional without the illegal immigrants taking their jobs and artificially raising youth unemployment.

We have them for a small stretch of s highway in my city which is a pretty big city. It doesn't really do much. If anything it makes tourists confused because they've never seen it before. Might just be an American problem.

To solve the traffic issue a higher capacity road will not work sufficiently most of the time and is quite expensive to build since ground has to be bought from residents that will be moved.

A cheaper way is to route most traffic around the city, use traffic controlls and not concentrate it on one single highway in the city.
Traffic controll alone has been proven to increase road capacity by aproximately 20% while increasing average speed even further.

Additionaly a city toll could be collected by sieze of the vehicle, to pay for improvements in infrastructure as well as keeping unnessesary traffic out of the city.

Additionaly there should be alternative infrastructure, like tram, bus and train in high density areas, to reduce overall traffic.

Maybe one or multiple parking lots outside of the city and a light rail to the core, just as seen on many airports, would be a way to reduce traffic efficiently as well.

For the individual I suggest to ask your boss if working at a slightly different time would be a option, so you can avoid rush hour.

>inb4 you hate cars
No, I love them and tgey are a great way of transportation in rural areas and fun in the twisties, but traffic jam sucks.

Stacked freeways and tunnels are a hard sell in earthquake country, but LA is trying. The 2028 Olympic games in particular are fast-tracking some transit projects, like expansion of light rail. Not sure how much it will help, but it's something.

The shit part is that there's almost no large-scale planning, and residential and commercial centers are clumped all over the fuckhuge metro area. This makes it extremely difficult to serve a large segment of the population with practical public transit.

Along with its proximity to LAX, the famously bad 405 is also kinda fucked by geography. It's the only north/south freeway through the west side of LA, but the coastline swings outward to the north, so the 405 serves commuters from those areas also. Adding to this, alternate freeway routes going to the south or central parts of LA route through downtown, making the 405 a bypass (albeit a slow one).

And don't get me started on all the distracted drivers and rideshare shitheads clogging up the roads here. I try not to take my car out during the day.

The asylum system was inhumane, and the transition to an outpatient system was largely a response to reports of horrible conditions in asylums. However, it was (Governor) Reagan who cut funding for the outpatient care programs that were supposed to look after those newly-released patients.

I wonder what LA will do about its homeless ahead of 2028.

>ground has to be bought from residents that will be moved
This is a massive barrier in California especially, due to the high value of real estate and a political climate that makes large scale eminent domain projects nearly impossible.

As an example, the Century City area in West LA was developed in anticipation of a freeway that was ultimately shot down entirely by nearby residents. Now it's a clusterfuck because the large commercial buildings and mall generate a lot of extra traffic on the already-congested surface streets through the area

I took a look into that area, looks seriously fucked.
No sign of any urban planing, a serious lack of infrastructure and no real high density inner core.

It looks like they tried to just build more highways to compensate for increased traffic, failed to do so and therefore build even more.
Traffic jam must be horrible there.
There is not even a ring system in the city.

It would be much more easy if there was a somewhat walkable core with a railway station

>Seattle
WHHHHHHHHHHHHY?

I think there was a lot of bitching after the earthquake when that part of the 10 collapsed and killed all those people.