> A flying junction or flyover is a railway junction at which one or more diverging or converging tracks in a multiple-track route cross other tracks on the route by bridge to avoid conflict with other train movements. A more technical term is "grade-separated junction". A burrowing junction or dive-under occurs where the diverging line passes below the main line.
> The alternative to grade separation is a level junction or flat junction, where tracks cross at grade, and conflicting routes must be protected by interlocked signals.
The examples you gave are all from the US, which as I mentioned has been designed around cars for almost a century.
We (in the US) are a local minimum where it is hard to switch to a mass transit system because we've spent so much time optimizing for cars.
That doesn't mean that mass transit systems are inherently less efficient. We have only to look to NYC (to say nothing of other countries) to see numbers far in excess of what you mentioned.
So if rayiner's assertion is correct, that the government has an obligation to optimize the limited use of public land - which I disagree with - then I still argue that it means we should be doing a transition to a different way of organizing our cities and towns so they are better optimized for mass transit instead of personal vehicles.
> A flying junction or flyover is a railway junction at which one or more diverging or converging tracks in a multiple-track route cross other tracks on the route by bridge to avoid conflict with other train movements. A more technical term is "grade-separated junction". A burrowing junction or dive-under occurs where the diverging line passes below the main line.
> The alternative to grade separation is a level junction or flat junction, where tracks cross at grade, and conflicting routes must be protected by interlocked signals.
The examples you gave are all from the US, which as I mentioned has been designed around cars for almost a century.
We (in the US) are a local minimum where it is hard to switch to a mass transit system because we've spent so much time optimizing for cars.
That doesn't mean that mass transit systems are inherently less efficient. We have only to look to NYC (to say nothing of other countries) to see numbers far in excess of what you mentioned.
So if rayiner's assertion is correct, that the government has an obligation to optimize the limited use of public land - which I disagree with - then I still argue that it means we should be doing a transition to a different way of organizing our cities and towns so they are better optimized for mass transit instead of personal vehicles.
Like what The Netherlands started in the 1970s.