>New expensive bridge is being built over the Mighty Mississippi >Only two lanes What the fuck is wrong with the Midwest?
>>2010980https://www.modot.org/chesterbridge
I don't live there but I just looked it up where it is and no shit, it's a crossing for a tiny ass town and the road on both sides is 2 lanes, so there's no point making the bridge 4 unless they upgrade that entire highway.
>>2010980Too much traffic for a ferryNot enough traffic to justify 4 lanes now or decades further on>2 lanes it is
I swear bro, just let me build one more lane!We're gonna fix trafficWe're gonna fix trafficWe're gonna fix traffic
>>2010980Does it really need two lanes for traffic? It could have a single lane that reverses with a traffic light and use the extra space for two bike lanes
>>2010998should just be a railway bridge with two bike lanes
>>2010990>muh lanes bad
>>2011030Make the bridge load capacity just enough for the passenger trains, nobody needs those yucky freighters anyways.
>>2010980$274 million isn't all that expensive for an over-river bridge
>>2010980"shrink-flation". Like our food, things are getting smaller and more expensive.
It should've been 3 lanes, the middle lane is shared for overtaking in both directions. Make suicide lanes great again
>>2010986Why not two ferries then?
>>2011252Too much traffic for that to handle, there's river traffic to contend with, plus forecasts of future growth and needs in the region
>>2011261Makes sense then, thanks
>>2010980Honestly that should've been a three lane funicular bridge and then they could've made it double decker to let pedestrians and bikes travel underneath.
>>2011305sorry forgot picSince funiculars do really well on steep grades I figured we needed more grade for the bridge. Hopefully this pic helps visualize the concept
let me guess, you "need" more?
>>2010990>noooooo this small rural farm town can't have more infrastructure!!!
>>2010980Every road should only be two lanes. Fuck induced demand.
>>2011992I see you've never run into the phenomenon of people turning off to a common destination on a two lane road before.
>>2011992if induced demand worked the way urbanists thought it did you could create an economy out of nothing
>>2012031Urbanists only believe in induced demand when it fits their agenda. If you point out that the entire so-called "yimby argument" about supply and demand falls apart when freeways are brought up they just wave their hands and scream something about cagetrolls and how other people don't understand economics
>>2012085Unfortunately we're living through the fallout of everyone finding out, undeniably, that the pseudo-intellectual bullshit they made up to justify their actual policy goals is bullshit that only made things worse (which is also for the sake of their policy goals).
If you are going through all the trouble of building a bridge over one of the largest rivers in the world, tall enough to let barges and tugboats pass underneath, and long enough so that it can operate during flooding, then it doesn't seem like that much more effort and money to add just two more lanes.
>>2012249They can build a parallel second span when the highway needs to be widened. Chances are that planners and politicians looked at growth trends in the region and have concluded that it will be decades before that might be needed.
>>2012252Parallel spans are a legitimate choice for growth needs.
>>2012014>what are turn lanes
>>2012308Turn lanes are great, right up until the queue is too long for a reasonably long light cycle to accommodate, and traffic starts backing up regardless.
>>2010980add a few rope swings
>>2010998>two bike lanesIt has wide shoulders, which bicycles can use.
>>2010980don't have the money when half the midwest has to be locked up every year for DWI or meth possession
>>2010990>Just one more train bro
>>2011992induced demand is just a retarded way of saying constrained supply
>>2013422>add one more train for higher capacity>actually fixes it because trains don't bottleneck as easilyoops
>>2013423supply sure is constrained when even the mega highways are congested
>>2013519It is called the saturation point, build enough capacity and supply will exceed demand. Demand does not go to infinity. "Induced demand" is a retarded term because demand for more road network capacity already exists but is not being met. Demand for a road network does not need to be induced but supplied.Hell, when it comes to dealing with cars the strategy of modern urbanists revolves around constraining road networks to force/nudge people into other modes.
>>2013529other modes, if implemented properly with enough capacity, are vastly more efficient in every way than car travel so that makes total sense, though removing important automobile arteries should come with a bus lane or other transit improvements, also induced demand is real and it matters for cars because of that lack of efficiency, new space on the road is filled up so quickly because so many cars are single occupancy, and roads naturally bottleneck at certain points as every road cannot be 4+ lanes so it's nearly impossible to keep cars flowing like a proper train unless 90% of your city is roads.
>>2013532>new space on the road is filled up so quickly because so many cars are single occupancyHighways don't "fill up" unless there's people around it, and any example of "induced demand" is more population growth. If you were to simplify it, it would be a positive ratio of highway construction and population growth, because as population grows you need to add appropriate infrastructure.For some reason, this has been oversimplified to "if you add highway lanes/new freeways cars will just materialize" regardless of other infrastructure, population growth, and so on. Even when Francesco Redi proved that flies do not spontaneously generate from rotting meat, there must have been midwits for years that claimed the opposite.
>>2013538of course it's not spontaneous you fucking idiot, the road looks more appealing to drivers by having more lanes so people choose driving instead of other modes, if you have proper public transportation that fulfills travel needs then new road infrastructure will not induce so much demand, and nothing changes how inefficient car travel is for moving lots of people so anywhere that isn't a tiny town will have traffic eventually.
>>2013540>induced demandNo such thing.
>>2013540> the road looks more appealing to drivers by having more lanesPeople just don't drive more because they like it, they drive if they have some place to go. Likewise, they'll use anything available. If freeways and roads are being used, they'll drive through backroads instead.>instead of other modes, if you have proper public transportation that fulfills travel needsIt wouldn't be "instead of other modes"; what you're saying is that if public transportation doesn't exist, neither does induced demand.>nothing changes how inefficient car travel is for moving lots of peopleMass transit only is efficient when lots of people are going in the same direction. It falls apart with too many stops, and is inefficient when running empty.
>>2013632>inefficient when running emptyso are gigantic overbuilt arterials in suburbs>going in the same directionthat is most of travel in case you aren't aware, fun road trips are great but for the average person that is not 90% of trips so that's the reason trains and busses work, since travel trends are quite predictable and hundreds of cities across the world understand this>if public transportation doesn't exist, neither does induced demand.the opposite, if public transit exists and is better, induced demand doesn't happen since people won't switch to driving as quickly when road space opens up (I take transit on certain routes where I live even when roads are empty because it's simply easier and less hassle/cheaper)
>>2010980>>2010981I like how they rendered oil stain into the road surface, nice touch
>>2013641>so are gigantic overbuilt arterials in suburbsSo do roadways instantly fill up or do they stay empty because they're "overbuilt">since travel trends are quite predictableThere are inbound traffic hours and outbound traffic hours but everyone hops on and hops off at a different place. Only a small percentage of that can be replaced by mass transit.>if public transit exists and is better, induced demand doesn't happenOh, is that how urbanists justify when highways are widened in Europe?
>>2013727>hops on and off at a different placehmmm, almost like stations/stops and lines, you should tell tokyo that mass transit doesn't work and that their dozens of metro lines do nothing and should be replaced with highways
>>2013732I mean places where people continue off of the highways to their actual destination instead of endless transfers and last-mile issues, which is why American "car-centric" cities have average commute times of around 30 minutes each way instead of over an hour like in greater Tokyo.
>>2013632>Likewise, they'll use anything availableThere's more to factor in than availability: time, convenience, rider/user experience, and cost all matter a great deal, and availability will not attract ridership if it can't meet at least two of these requirements. More often than not, mass transit fails at time, convenience, and user experience, and cost is usually cheated by fees and tax dollars.
>>2013423Thank fuck. Can't be constrained enough. More roads means more traffic. Provide an endpoint or don't post again.https://youtube.com/shorts/eIfb7Gf136Y
>>2014501>more roads mean more trafficTraffic only increases if population increases. A lot of cities have congested roadways because of the idea of "if we stop building infrastructure we can stop sprawl" but it doesn't work that way; the freeways just get more congested.In extreme cases where population outpaces infrastructure you just get slums.
>>2013745greater tokyo is massive, the commute time would be longer than it already is without trains, the existence of super commuting and work issues in japan are not results of their excellent transit. the commute time in france is lower than the US
this is the only decent board on this website, really
>>2014559>the commute time in france is lower than the UStrannies lie, more news at 11
>>2014559>greater tokyo is massiveit's just as big as yiur typical amerishart city
>>2010980>he doesnt get the message the rich Chesterfield suburb and MoDot are trying to send.If they could make it 3 lanes headed to stl and 1 lane from STL with a license plate reader that runs warrants they would.Chesterfield is old money rich suburb. Probably IMO the only old money suburb city you find in the midwest outside of Oak Park, Illinois. Most rich suburbs in the midwest are new money and new houses.St. Louis is the most dangerous city in the USA per capita. Gun crime is 11x the national average. 30 per 10k. So in any year you have a .3% chance of getting shot.
>>2011030>>2011032Amtrak runs out of downtown stl union station and thru Maryland Heights. Commuter rail main line runs to Chesterfield IIRC (It may stop at wash u/clayton)
>>2013745>american cities have 30 minute commutesNormally you are correct. But STL combines the slow commute time and real estate prices of the NE corridor with the crime and culture of Milwaukee.The arch > Chesterfield Mall is 45 minutes to 1 hr
>>2017529According to Google Maps, even in rush hour traffic that's 26-45 minutes. I'm not sure where those numbers are coming from.
>>2017566Every time I see a map of STL I get irrationally angry that they didn't finish I-170 to I-55. There's a reason why the west suburbs are continuing to grow while the south is dying, and it's because it takes 2-3 time as long to get to places, so people don't want to live there.>>2017519 There are plenty of other old money suburbs. River Forest is more old money and right next door to Oak Park. Winnetka as well in Chicago. And University/Shaker Heights in Cleveland.
>>2017566>I'm not sure where those numbers are coming from.26 minutes would seem to be the "everything flowing as it should" numbers.45 looks more like the "normal congestion" numbers.60+ would be "unusually bad" I guess, and I've no idea how usual that is. It's not my goddamn continent.
>>2018033I mean where anon said "45 minutes to 1 hour"
>>2018180And you showed a 45 minute time. If there's one stalled truck its an hour. Plus the arch is downtown and it can be slowed by congestion on the exits. Its alright for a commute, thats why maryland Heights and Chesterfield iare nice
>>201823924-40 minutes in rush hour, and often Google Maps is quite accurate on times. 40 minutes is on the high end, so it's not like that every day.
