Let me engage in the "EU-vs-US-at-the-same-scale" comparison in a slightly different manner, hopefully more informative about the different trajectories car-dominated planning took in the postwar years
Because the problem is not only how many freeways the US built, but how 🧵
A premise: Italy engaged in one of the most extensive freeway building program in Europe starting from the 1950s. The 1955 so-called "Romita Plan" for the development of a nation-wide motorway network actually slightly predates the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956
The single main difference is maybe less in the quantity and rapidity of the development, but how it was developed: the Italian one, was essentially intended as an intercity network that barely brushed past cities quite far from the core. A few examples >>
Florence vs Hartford, similarly sized metro areas (800k)
In Florence, the A1 ring is on avg. 5-7 km from the city center. In Hartford is actually through the city center
Milan and Boston, similar in population. In Milan, the "Tangenziale Est" is at most 5km from then Duomo. In Boston, I93 run at 150m from the Faneuil Hall
Turin and Providence, both having a metro population around 1.5 million. Average distance of Turin's Tangenziale from the Center: 8-9 km. Providence...well, you know: right in the middle.
Final example: Rome vs Philly (Philly metro is larger though, 5 vs 4 million). The G.R.A. ring motorway in Rome is between 7-11 km from the center. In Philly the freeway cross through the center.
The rational for the development of Italian motorways was mainly for intercity traffic. Rings and "tangenziali" (i.e. tangential roads, a common feature in Italy), actually came later as by-passes/ connections between freeways terminating at the edge of the then built-up area
Of course the size of those infrastructure is also quite different on both sides of the continent. But it is how they relate to the city that really makes the difference, not only the fact that the US has more of them or larger ones
That said, the history is a bit more complex, as there are forms of grade separated double-carriageways arterials/urban fast roads in Italy that are sort of mini or light urban freeway, see for example the uncomplete "tangenziale Est" and the "Circovallazione Interna" of Rome.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's always interesting to note how, unsurprisingly, the history of transportation planning is nested in the shifting larger paradigms of urban planning.
The only two sizable "greenfield" outlying sections of Frankfurt U-Bahn follow two different paradigms of urban integration.
The only greenfield section part of the overall pre-metro scheme built in the initial phases run either underground or in a freeway median, within an area of interwar (Romerstadt) and postwar modernist development.
Grade-separation was the "gold standard" for everything back then
The 2000s addition to the U-Bahn network, serving the large greenfield development of Riedberg, whose own urban design reverts to the "traditional" perimeter block, run as a tramway on a street tree-lined median with signal-controlled intersections. Quite the change of paradigm.
One of the reasons why French tramways tend to be relatively slow is that they often have very curvy and zigzagging alignments. There are two main reasons for that, one linked to the history of urban development in France, the other to how and when French networks developed.
The historical reason is that France, outside of Paris intramuros, it's not a country of Grand Boulevards and large urban schemes. With one of the most property owners-friendly land regimes, French cities mostly grew with chaotic street patterns during both the 19th and 20th c.
Streets, even major radial arterials, tend to be narrow until the postwar era, outside of a few isolated redevelopment schemes, such as Grenoble's 20th c. boulevards or Bordeaux 18th c. Triangle. Provincial elites never indulged in the grandiose schemes of the capital city.
Not only Seattle (and many other cities) opt for mined stations in city-center areas, but they also do it in the most bloated way, with full-length mezzanines and wide off-street access shafts.
Let's look at a more sober approach to mined stations from u/c Vienna's U5
First, the Seattle approach (veru common in NA mined stations) is to go with a large cavern encompassing both tracks, a central platform and a "full-length mezzanine, that is a slab above the platform level allowing for horizontal circulation outside of platform space
The wide two-level single cavern is connected to the vertical shafts via two "transepts" (mined tunnels perpendicular to the cavern), as the shafts are built rigorously off-street. Additionally, a diagonal mined tunnel can host escalators.
Today, the much-awaited, 5, 5 km, 8 station, metro line 6 in Naples was finally (re)opened* (with limited service) after a 40+ years-long saga that is emblematic of how the bad choices and habits of the 1980s still haunt Italy today.
A 🧵
Naples' line 6 has a very troubled history. It was initially planned in the early 1980s as the "Linea Tranviaria Rapida", an LRT-like system mixing at-grade and grade-separated segments crossing the city East-West roughly along the coast.
It was planned following the approval of a national law encouraging the construction of "LRT-like" systems, to be built with local and national funds with the involvement of the state-controlled IRI conglomerate, via non-competitive 30 years "concessions of sole construction"
A recent exchange in here reminded me that historically there has essentially been two main paths toward level boarding of mainline rail.
The prevalence of one type or the other in a country depends a lot of when and how the railway became a commuter-oriented mobility tool.
A🧵
The 19th c. railways had very low platforms, just slightly higher than the tracks, either in wood, masonry, or simply a stone curb filled with gravel. Essentially, a glorified sidewalk.
That was ok for a railway with sparse traffic and generous dwelling times.
But platforms that require passengers to climb several steps to get into the trains, whose boogie-mounted floors are often >100 cm high above the track, are unfit for the need of the higher frequency, high traffic railway catering to the hinterland-to-city commuters.
How does Zurich achieve consistent running times and an elevated average speed on its legacy tramway network despite the fact that it's not fully running on dedicated lanes?
An example of urban integration and conflict management strategies along a segment of line 3
A🧵
Tramway line 3 covers the 4.3 km, 11-stop section between its terminus at Albisrieden to Sihlpost /HB in 16 minutes, with consistent running times throughout the say, averaging a pretty good 16 km/h speed.
How does it achieve these performances?
Let's start from line 3 western terminal loop, where the tram enters the general circulation protected by a traffic light and then continues along the central lanes of a suburban street. All lateral streets yield to the main arterial which is a "priority street"