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.
Most cars can go to around 90 mph without pushing the engine hard, which is a "sweet spot" for freeway cruising, assuming that there's excellent pavement and the road is long and straight. So my guess is that 90 mph will be the average, which is supported by some surveys done on the unrestricted sections of the Autobahn. Obviously you will have slowpokes doing 80 and speed demons going 150, but that's what for "keep right except to pass" is for. Such an unrestricted speed environment encourages lane courtesy, because slowpokes doing 65 in the left lane are discouraged from doing so if traffic is whizzing by at over 100 mph over to the left. Also, the justification of driving the speed limit and being entitled to the use of the left lane goes out the window. That alone would take care of half the left lane hogs even if the Interstates weren't upgraded. Upgrades that would permit speeds of 100+ in the left lane would likely take care of most of the other half, and ticketing and education campaigns would take care of the remainder .
As for the American Autobahn, absolutely it should be built. In fact it should have been built 20 years ago at the latest. I give the idea two thumbs up . An unrestricted high-speed environment where traffic flows efficiently in multiple lanes represents the culmination of millennia of evolution in road design, and it represents the logical next step in freeway design worldwide.
What I would propose for implementation is for a next-generation freeway design standard which would include no speed restrictions, at least 3 lanes in each direction, thicker pavement, zero tolerance for potholes, and a design speed (curves, visibility, etc.) of at least 100 mph in rural areas and 70 mph in urban areas. This design standard wouldn't be required, but would represent the best class of roads in the country, somewhat similar to current Interstate highway standards. A system of roads that met this standard wouldn't need to be built in one fell swoop across the country, but rather could start with one or two sections and be added onto over time. A section such as I-15 in its entirety, I-80 in Wyoming, I-10 in Texas, or I-55 in Illinois would be the best place to start.
Also, the road infrastructure across the U.S. is decaying and is in desperate need of repairs and upgrades to break the rush hour gridlock that plagues American cities, gridlock that will only get worse in coming decades. If we're already going to repave the surface, add lanes, and replace bridges, why not reconstruct the roadway to a higher design standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
Why hasn't an American Autobahn been pushed here in the States?
Well, it has been pushed for but it hasn't gained traction. I attribute it to laziness and fear. The laziness part of it is not wanting to expend the necessary effort to build it, and the fear part is the fear of blood on the streets if drivers are not cowed.
well makes owning a Corvette more fun since a GT-500 blows by you at close to 200MPH in the fast lane and a normal cars are just not made to driven at those speeds since proper and inspected and inflated tires performance tires are important.
As are aerodynamics, elevation , down force, lift, outside temperature and drag as well as horsepower factors into it all and car made to gety the most cargo and best fuel economy and are not all out low slung all out sport scars that were from day one designed with high speed driving in mind should not go beyond d the seed rating of their tire in perfect conditions even in optimal conditions without going through the car to make sure it is able for those speeds and everything is in perfect condition and everything is check and the rechecked to be tight and within factory recommended specs.
so unless the the car is set up for those speeds a bad aliment or any visible damage like curb rash and even a small tear of the sidewall on the tire leaking any fluids and then you are not going to get cleared at a NHRA or SCCA pre-race safety and vehicle Inspection to get the go ahead to be allowed to participate which is why cars have the highly visible numbers circled to the track officials put on the windows by the inspection your car has to pass depending on how fast or what class you race in.
Then and sign the forms that the track is not liable or accountable if you wreck or throw a rod or your tranny blows so they are saying that you are liable to race and meet all mandatory safety requirements to be allowed on any track and if something goes wrong your factory warranty is void on the track.
If you leave a mess on the track and it takes a long time to clean up something lets go and is very expensive to do it right and has to be cleaned and inspected and reheated and many times before racing resumes and since people do not maintain their daily drivers to the factory recommended checks then it puts people at risk.
I have no idea what you're talking about...Most folks aren't going to be driving 200 mph anyway, and if you are more power to you. I'll guarantee you that I wouldn't be going that fast, even if I owned a corvette or GT-500. Pucker-factor would get me huge at those speeds, so I can assume I wouldn't be touching them nearly that often if ever.
Even at 200 mph, you need to be able to control the car, and plan accordingly. If you're in an unrestricted section of road, and traffic is fairly steady, it might be smart to not drive at your vehicles top speed...if traffic is light, feel free.
What I found interested was that folks going 130+ MPH on the Autobahn will still move out of the left lane in case the Porsche coming up behind them wants to go faster...then, they reintegrate into the left lane when clear. Smart road manners at work in that country.
well makes owning a Corvette more fun since a GT-500 blows by you at close to 200MPH in the fast lane and a normal cars are just not made to driven at those speeds since proper and inspected and inflated tires performance tires are important.
"Normal" cars do not drive 200, or even 100mph, on the Autobahn. Just like you do not have to drive 70mph on an American Interstate with a 70mph speed limit. Slower traffic keep right except to pass.
I think it would be cool to have one, but I don't think it would ever work.
Like others mentioned, and by looking at even other threads posted on this forum you can see why it wouldn't work. Mainly people not feeling like they should move out of the left lane when someone is coming up behind them, and people finding it rude for others to flash their lights at them as a way of asking them to move over. So drivers education is a big obstacle in the way.
Not only that, but our social attitudes get in our way. There is no way that Americans would be willing to front such money through taxes or whatnot to fund such a roadway. Even a hint at some new form of tax is taken way out of proportion in this country and seems like the start of The Boston Tea Party II. So because of this, our infrastructure completely sucks for the most part. If you were to travel that speed on most of our roads, your car would more than likely bounce off of the pavement with all of the uneven surfaces.
Not only that, but our social attitudes get in our way. There is no way that Americans would be willing to front such money through taxes or whatnot to fund such a roadway. Even a hint at some new form of tax is taken way out of proportion in this country and seems like the start of The Boston Tea Party II. So because of this, our infrastructure completely sucks for the most part. If you were to travel that speed on most of our roads, your car would more than likely bounce off of the pavement with all of the uneven surfaces.
How did Americans pay for the current Interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s?
"Normal" cars do not drive 200, or even 100mph, on the Autobahn. Just like you do not have to drive 70mph on an American Interstate with a 70mph speed limit. Slower traffic keep right except to pass.
There were some stats from the 1990's that indicate a 50th percentile speed of 80 mph and a 85th percentile speed of 96 mph. The flow of traffic usually prevents speeds of 200 mph because you'll plow into someone if you go that fast. Besides, most cars have top speeds well below 200 mph.
How did Americans pay for the current Interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s?
Quote:
What did it cost? [LEFT] The final estimate of the cost of the Interstate System was issued in 1991. It estimated that the total cost would be $128.9 billion, with a Federal share of $114.3 billion. This estimate covered only the mileage (42,795 miles) built under the Interstate Construction Program. It excluded turnpikes incorporated into the Interstate System within the mileage limitation and the mileage added as a logical addition or connection outside the limitation but financed without Interstate Construction funds. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] In all, Federal-aid legislation authorized a total of $119 billion to pay the Federal share of the cost of Interstate construction. (Interstate Construction funds were authorized through Fiscal Year 1996.)
Quote:
Why does the Federal Government pay 90 percent of the cost?
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized designation of a 40,000-mile "National System of Interstate Highways," but did not establish a program or special funding for its construction. The first such funding came under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952, which authorized a token amount of $25 million a year for the Interstate System in Fiscal Years (FY) 1954 and 1955. The 1952 Act retained the standard matching ratio (Federal share: 50 percent). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 authorized $175 million a year for the Interstate System (FYs 1956 and 1957), with a Federal-State matching ratio of 60-40. The increased Federal share reflected the common understanding that the Interstate System is vitally important to national goals. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] As President Dwight D. Eisenhower began to promote creation of a program to build the Interstate Construction Program, the Nation's Governors made clear to him that they did not want to be forced to increase State taxes to pay the additional matching funds for the national program. Therefore, the President proposed to increase funds for the Interstate System, while boosting the Federal share to 90 percent. Under his proposal, the States would continue paying the same amount in matching funds for the Interstate System that they had been paying under the 1954 Act. When the program took shape in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it differed in some ways from the President's proposal, particularly with regard to the source of funding for the program, but Congress retained the Federal-State matching share of 90-10 as a reflection of the Interstate Construction Program's importance to national goals. (In the western States with large amounts of untaxed public land, the Federal share could be increased to 95 percent.)
Quote:
Did construction of the Interstate System contribute to the national debt?
President Eisenhower insisted that the financing mechanism for the Interstate System be "self-liquidating," so that it could not add to the national debt. The president favored a toll highway network financed by bonds, but his aides convinced him that traffic volumes would not generate enough revenue in most corridors to repay bondholders with interest. Therefore, the plan the President submitted to Congress called for establishment of a Federal Highway Corporation to issue bonds to pay for the Interstate System up-front, with the Federal excise tax on gasoline and lubricating oil (which then went to the general Treasury without a linkage to highways) was dedicated to bond retirement. Congress rejected this plan, but adopted a proposal to finance the Interstate System on a pay-as-you-go basis with revenue from highway user taxes. The revenue was credited by the Department of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] The Interstate Construction Program, like the Federal-aid highway program of which it is a part, operates on a reimbursement basis. After FHWA authorizes a State to proceed with a project, the State pays the bills for eligible activities, and then submits bills to the FHWA, which reimburses the State for the Federal share. The FHWA makes a commitment (or "obligation") to reimburse the Federal share, but Interstate development takes several years. As a result, the FHWA obligation results in reimbursements to the State for the Federal share over several years. The 1956 Act included a provision named after Senator Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to ensure the Highway Trust Fund would contain enough money to pay the bills. If sufficient funds are not available, the program must be reduced administratively in proportion to the imbalance. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] The Highway Trust Fund financing mechanism established in the 1956 Act satisfied President Eisenhower's "self-liquidating" demand. As a result, construction of the Interstate System did not contribute to a Federal deficit. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] (In 1982, the Highway Trust Fund was divided into a Highway Account and a Transit Account, which also receives some highway user tax revenue.)
Do you think with our modern Tea Party that anything like this would ever be approved again?
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?
I always wanted for the States to place high-speed dedicated lanes in the middle of certain roads with extremely limited exits and you have to pay to ride in it. I wouldn't mind paying $10 to floor it at times.
Do you think with our modern Tea Party that anything like this would ever be approved again?
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.
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.
