Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jezer
As others have pointed out, that is not the case. The M5 and M6 run through quite densely populated parts of Birmingham at the national speed limit for example.
Many motorways also criss-cross the Manchester conurbation- boy that can get confusing at times!
[quote=Glucorious;23758549]I just looked at the map. Where is there a highway right through London?
As can be seen by my original quote (above) which you highlighted, I never said there was
Most US cities with a motorway through the middle of them had the motorway well before they grew into such a large city, and they grew on both sides. The UK on the other hand tended to have the high street as the main road (so one lane in each direction) and very few of these were actually turned into motorways because there was nowhere to expand extra lanes into. So most UK motorways go around the edges of cities.
The congestion is all to do with population density. I know I could drive north or east from where I live and have no congestion. Heading south I'd hit loads until I cleared the cities, then it is free-driving until I hit the next block of cities. The UK doesn't have those long gaps between cities, you just hit one after the other. Adding extra lanes can help, but where are you going to get the land from? Compulsory purchase of even a few miles is huge.
Most US cities with a motorway through the middle of them had the motorway well before they grew into such a large city, and they grew on both sides. The UK on the other hand tended to have the high street as the main road (so one lane in each direction) and very few of these were actually turned into motorways because there was nowhere to expand extra lanes into. So most UK motorways go around the edges of cities.
The congestion is all to do with population density. I know I could drive north or east from where I live and have no congestion. Heading south I'd hit loads until I cleared the cities, then it is free-driving until I hit the next block of cities. The UK doesn't have those long gaps between cities, you just hit one after the other. Adding extra lanes can help, but where are you going to get the land from? Compulsory purchase of even a few miles is huge.
You make a number of very good points However, and I would add, slum clearance in the late 1960s and 1970s gave planners the opportunity to build motorways in a number of British cities. Generally, and for whatever reason, they chose not to.
You make a number of very good points However, and I would add, slum clearance in the late 1960s and 1970s gave planners the opportunity to build motorways in a number of British cities. Generally, and for whatever reason, they chose not to.
Maybe their foresight was accidental, but I can tell you the "motorways" as you call them through most major U.S. cities, particularly the densely populated ones, are a god-awful mess. My wife uses one to get to and from work which is 7 miles away and it can take her up to an hour to get home. It doesn't help that the same motorway is the one that links up downtown to our Heathrow-sized airport.
Maybe their foresight was accidental, but I can tell you the "motorways" as you call them through most major U.S. cities, particularly the densely populated ones, are a god-awful mess. My wife uses one to get to and from work which is 7 miles away and it can take her up to an hour to get home. It doesn't help that the same motorway is the one that links up downtown to our Heathrow-sized airport.
This is why urban freeways/motorways criss-crossing through the city's core do not work. They also end up segregating parts of the city and suffocating city centres in some cases. The one good thing with Boston's urban freeways is that they're underground now and do not blight the city centre. I don't mind the freeway bridges so much because they add to the cityscape.
Maybe their foresight was accidental, but I can tell you the "motorways" as you call them through most major U.S. cities, particularly the densely populated ones, are a god-awful mess. My wife uses one to get to and from work which is 7 miles away and it can take her up to an hour to get home. It doesn't help that the same motorway is the one that links up downtown to our Heathrow-sized airport.
The Kennedy is notoriously bad for traffic.
I think an earlier poster is mistaken, however. In fact most American cities were pretty well developed before the interstates were constructed in the city centers. Now those center-city freeways are pretty hemmed in. Take the aforementioned Kennedy Expressway. From the Junction to O'Hare, there's pretty much no way it could be widened. The land acquisition cost alone, I'd think, would be astounding.
The discussion is not about the EU. God knows that horse has been beaten to death. Oh, and before someone brings up the evil Conservatives, don't go there either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, and I would add, slum clearance in the late 1960s and 1970s gave planners the opportunity to build motorways in a number of British cities. Generally, and for whatever reason, they chose not to.
