Re:Phantom traffic jams, and why lane expansion isn’t really...
by hedora on Monday July 02, 2018 @11:18AM
(#17442367)
I was hoping for more detail. The argument against adding more lanes is that making the freeway faster than surface streets causes people to prefer the freeway to surface streets.
Tying lane count back to fuel economy, average door to door time, and number of vehicles served would be much more productive.
Similarly, the article recommends hov meters on freeway entrance ramps, but doesn’t mention that they create jams sbout a half mile after the entrance. Again, some sort of metric involving “how many people”, “how long”, and “how much gas” would go a long way.
Fun fact about the Bay Area: my car gets about 75% of epa freeway mileage driving from SJ to Santa Cruz (over a mountain), but only 50% from San Jose to Mountain View (in traffic). This is if I try my best to conserve fuel in the traffic case. If I drive aggressively, the gap widens.
So, reducing conjestion could substantially increase the miles per gallon of the existing silicon valley fleet of cars.
Instead, the “environmentally friendly” nimbys keep voting in people that pay for traffic quiescence “upgrades” that further snarl traffic and increase the local carbon footprint.
Tying lane count back to fuel economy, average door to door time, and number of vehicles served would be much more productive.
Similarly, the article recommends hov meters on freeway entrance ramps, but doesn’t mention that they create jams sbout a half mile after the entrance. Again, some sort of metric involving “how many people”, “how long”, and “how much gas” would go a long way.
Fun fact about the Bay Area: my car gets about 75% of epa freeway mileage driving from SJ to Santa Cruz (over a mountain), but only 50% from San Jose to Mountain View (in traffic). This is if I try my best to conserve fuel in the traffic case. If I drive aggressively, the gap widens.
So, reducing conjestion could substantially increase the miles per gallon of the existing silicon valley fleet of cars.
Instead, the “environmentally friendly” nimbys keep voting in people that pay for traffic quiescence “upgrades” that further snarl traffic and increase the local carbon footprint.