Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you like to see an American Autobahn?
I'd Love to have German-esque highway speeds 60 66.67%
I'd Hate to have German-esque highway speeds 19 21.11%
I don't really care one way or the other 11 12.22%
I'm still trying to look up the word Autobahn 0 0%
Voters: 90. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2013, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Waterworld
1,031 posts, read 1,445,451 times
Reputation: 1000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Big government programs are not all the rage now, and that's a good thing considering the monstrous debts and deficits. However, you can tackle the deficit and upgrade the infrastructure by balancing the budget and then redistributing the remaining funds to favor infrastructure repairs upgrades. Interestingly, an upgrade of the Interstate Highway System, at $500 billion, would have actually been cheaper than the stimulus package we ended up with in 2009 that cost $700 billion.

As for the Tea Party, they aren't fans of big new programs, but they might support the prioritization approach. Also, Tea Partiers and Republicans seem to really like higher speed limits and higher speed roads, so an American Autobahn might be an attractive prospect. Most bills that would raise the speed limit are sponsored by Republicans.

Although this is improbable with many states near bankruptcy, it is conceivable that such a program could be enacted at the state level and be fully funded by the state government. It wouldn't be the same as a federal program, but the end result would be similar.
In a perfect world, it would be great if the states could afford to do their own segments. But like you mentioned, in our current economy the system would start and stop between states too sporadically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2013, 06:43 AM
 
16 posts, read 28,140 times
Reputation: 17
Default Facts, not fear, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2 View Post
I routinely drive 80-100 between Detroit and Cincinnati.
I just drove Cincinnati to Colorado and back generally 75-90 mph on the rural stretches of I-70 and I-64. Not a big deal in my Honda Fit. Looks like I got the usual 30-35 mpg.

At the risk of gumming up debate with those things called facts, here's some. Most of western Europe lacked motorway speed limits until the Great Gas Price Crisis of '73-'74. Even Germany imposed a temporary speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) then.

So what is the autobahn fatality rate? In 2011, it was 2.0 deaths per billion-travel-km -- less than a quarter the 8.7 rate on national/main roads in Germany. http://tinyurl.com/autobahn2010 -- that's a link to the English version of the statistics published by the German Federal Institute for Highway Research (Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen)

The impressive autobahn safety record is unsurprising. The main causes of crashes are eliminated by design on interstates/autobahns; causes like crossing traffic at intersections, opposing traffic in-the-next-lane, sharp curves and unforgiving objects like trees and telephone poles.

Aren't unlimited rural superhighway speeds the cause of numerous deaths? Probably not: in 2011, autobahns accounted for 453 of 4,009 German traffic deaths (11%). Since 1970, the number of Germany traffic deaths has plummeted by 80% from 19,193 to 4,009. Not too shabby return-on-investment for wasting little on speed enforcement on rural superhighways, in my opinion.

We spend a lot of money on super-safe superhighways. Eliminate the common crash causes and you simultaneously improve fuel economy, safety, and travel time. For example, in my home State of Ohio -- renown for ham-fisted enforcement and low speed limits -- the rural interstate fatality rate in 2011 was 0.54 deaths per 100-million-miles; that's much lower than the 1.50 to 3.87 rates on other rural roads in Ohio.

It's hard to fairly compare the U.S. and German statistics. For example, the U.S. has a lot of "urban" interstates. With European cities being hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years old, most motorways are rural or suburbanized. However, converting the German autobahn fatality rate to U.S. units (divide by .62 mi/km and multiply by 10), that's 0.32 deaths per 100-million-travel miles. Which compares favorably with the Ohio rural interstate rate of 0.54 deaths.

Probably why those facts aren't publicized much.

Table FI-30 â
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 06:58 AM
 
17,487 posts, read 17,349,511 times
Reputation: 25473
Several problems with this idea. First off, it's too easy to get a driver's license here. Some driving skills test are no more than driving around the block, literally! Secondly, the road would have to be religiously maintained to be perfectly smooth. Pot holes, ripples, dips, and other imperfect road conditions hit at such high speeds could be deadly to you or seriously damage your vehicle depending on the level of road damage. Who pays for such regular repair work if it crosses several states? Federal government or each individual state paying for the cost of repairing their section within their state? Who monitors the condition as regularly as the Germans? Will states raise the standards of yearly vehicle inspections to some European standards? Who pays to have emergency response vehicles stationed along such a road for when accidents do happen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 07:17 AM
 
17,487 posts, read 17,349,511 times
Reputation: 25473
Locally several years ago I traveled on a section of I-49 in south Louisiana in which the speed was posted at 85 MPH. Though my car was in good condition (engine, struts, tires), it felt too dangerous to drive at such speeds on this road. The reason why was the poor quality of the road. The road is made with concrete sections. When new, the road was smooth. But as it ages, the sections become uneven with the oncoming sections sinking and the other side rising up. Around 70 MPH, it's just an annoying noise and vibration. But when you lock it in at 85 MPH, it becomes dangerous. I could literally feel my tires loosing contact with the road from the regular bumps in the road. Simply changing lanes became dangerous because it felt like the car was floating over the road. I ended up dropping my speed down to 70 MPH and parking in the right hand lane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Saint Louis, MO
3,483 posts, read 8,964,925 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
Several problems with this idea. First off, it's too easy to get a driver's license here. Some driving skills test are no more than driving around the block, literally! Secondly, the road would have to be religiously maintained to be perfectly smooth. Pot holes, ripples, dips, and other imperfect road conditions hit at such high speeds could be deadly to you or seriously damage your vehicle depending on the level of road damage. Who pays for such regular repair work if it crosses several states? Federal government or each individual state paying for the cost of repairing their section within their state? Who monitors the condition as regularly as the Germans? Will states raise the standards of yearly vehicle inspections to some European standards? Who pays to have emergency response vehicles stationed along such a road for when accidents do happen?
Costs are one of the biggest items to overcome. But there are more questions.

If road quality was improved to German standards how much would we save in yearly maintenance and upkeep to our vehicles? How much would we save from ER visits, life flight crews, or ambulance calls for severe accidents? How many dangerous vehicles are removed from the road, or put back in well working order resulting from the increased and more in depth inspection procedures? How much fuel is saved from better flowing traffic and less bottlenecks?

I've always thought that a nice cross state route between St. Louis and Kansas City would have been nice...get away from the major interstate, follow the lay of the land, and make it a toll road. Even still, it would take AGES to recoup the investment costs to drive without or greater speed limits. I think it'd still be great to do, and might reduce travel time across the state for those interested...might even make my little midwest state an attraction for automotive enthusiasts who'd like to drive there car at unrestricted speeds every once in a while. :P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 09:17 AM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,551,603 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeGanote View Post

For example, in my home State of Ohio -- renown for ham-fisted enforcement and low speed limits -- the rural interstate fatality rate in 2011 was 0.54 deaths per 100-million-miles; that's much lower than the 1.50 to 3.87 rates on other rural roads in Ohio.

That is what everybody ignores - the current roads which handle the highest vehicle speeds have the lowest fatality rate. So the theory that "speed kills" is totally bogus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,642,947 times
Reputation: 36642
You can have them if you want them, but I don't want to drive on them. They'd better be toll, too, because I also don't want to pay for them.

Anybody who can afford a car that can comfortably cruise at 100 mph at 10-15 mpg has no right to come to me and demand that I build them a special road.

Given that, I can see where it might be useful, say, from Boston to Washington, with one exit each at Providence, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-10-2013 at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Saint Louis, MO
3,483 posts, read 8,964,925 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You can have them if you want them, but I don't want to drive on them. They'd better be toll, too, because I also don't want to pay for them.

Anybody who can afford a car that can comfortably cruise at 100 mph at 10-15 mpg has no right to come to me and demand that I build them a special road.

Given that, I can see where it might be useful, say, from Boston to Washington, with one exit each at Providence, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
Not sounding pompous, but I own a car capable of cruising between 90-100 mph while returning 40 mpg...and that vehicle only cost me $23k USD...not exactly a high dollar figure. We seem to have some fixation with 100 mph in this country, there's no a problem with average vehicles getting up to, and maintaining those speeds...heck, every new Buick sedan we're currently putting on market was designed to drive at those speeds, and does so in Europe on a regular basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 12:16 PM
 
2,341 posts, read 11,982,680 times
Reputation: 2040
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj View Post
So I know we saw the article a few months back about the strip of Texas interstate that was given an 85 MPH speed limit. These speed is about equal to the 120 MPH speed limit found on much of Germany's autobahn, with smaller areas being "speed unlimited in sparsely populated places". Why hasn't an American Autobahn been pushed here in the States? Why would it succeed, and why would it fail...and furthermore, would you be interested in one?
Too many miles of road, with too little funding. It won't work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Twin Lakes /Taconic / Salisbury
2,256 posts, read 4,471,571 times
Reputation: 1869
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj View Post
Not sounding pompous, but I own a car capable of cruising between 90-100 mph while returning 40 mpg...and that vehicle only cost me $23k USD...not exactly a high dollar figure. We seem to have some fixation with 100 mph in this country, there's no a problem with average vehicles getting up to, and maintaining those speeds...heck, every new Buick sedan we're currently putting on market was designed to drive at those speeds, and does so in Europe on a regular basis.

BS.. MAYBE just TOUCHING 90-100mph.. but NOT maintaining that speed for a whole tank full. Especialy since there isnt anywhere in the US where you can do 90-100mph for 300-400 miles while traveling exclusively downhill, and with a tailwind...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top