How to fix rush hour traffic once and for all?

[mikegg]

http://www.autolust.com/how-to-fix-rush-hour-traffic-start-charging-drivers/

Are you guys in favor of adding a fee to driving on the high way during rush hours?

 

[LTC8K6]

We already pay plenty of fees to drive on the roads.

 

[Howard]

Where do the drivers who don't go on the highway drive? Are they now backing up local roads?

 

[NutBucket]

London has congestion charges. That's one way to discourage ppl from driving.

 

[jlee]

Where do the drivers who don't go on the highway drive? Are they now backing up local roads?

This. Traffic doesn't magically disappear, and I'm not taking a 35min-in-traffic (17min no traffic) commute and turning it into a 1.5hr public transportation fiasco.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

The only thing that will fix this is to the end to the 8-5 work day. Staggered start times by employers would help - but realistically will never happen.

Traffic has gotten worse - during the last 4yrs of severe lay-offs, people who lived close to work are now commuting due to being laid off and having to take work no matter the location.

Very evident in the Bay Area.

 

[phucheneh]

Give people a driving test; tax them more depending on how poorly they do. At a certain threshhold, you just can't drive.

Said test must be harder than the 'can you operate the vehicle for five minutes without crashing' license test that we have in the US, with a strong emphasis on situational awareness, reflexes, and general ability to not fuck up the road for everyone else.

 

[masteryoda34]

Said test must be harder than the 'can you operate the vehicle for five minutes without crashing' license test that we have in the US, with a strong emphasis on situational awareness, reflexes, and general ability to not fuck up the road for everyone else.

:thumbsup:

 

[LTC8K6]

Any sort of an extra fee will be considered unfair to "the poor". It will be called disenfranchising.

So, "the poor" will not have to pay any such extra fee.

They will be subsidized, if such a fee ever happens.

 

[LTC8K6]

Give people a driving test; tax them more depending on how poorly they do. At a certain threshhold, you just can't drive.

Said test must be harder than the 'can you operate the vehicle for five minutes without crashing' license test that we have in the US, with a strong emphasis on situational awareness, reflexes, and general ability to not fuck up the road for everyone else.

Tough tests for anything are "disenfranchising" to those who cannot pass them.

They are almost always challenged, and almost always ruled to be "discriminatory".

 

[phucheneh]

Tough tests for anything are "disenfranchising" to those who cannot pass them.

They are almost always challenged, and almost always ruled to be "discriminatory".

I agree with that assessment. I wasn't exactly saying it would happen- just that I wish it would. I really do think traffic can pretty much be nailed down to lack of driving ability and general idiocy.

Although said traffic tends to be aided by a 'passive idiocy' of sorts that is not coming from the drivers. Namely, civil engineers or others in charge of road design, timing of lights, ect that I would not trust to assemble a Lego X-Wing and/or TIE fighter. Give them a Deathstar and their heads would explode.

The light thing is big here. We have sets of lights along some roads that essentially operate in ways that keep traffic nearly stationary. If cars are backed up through three lights, and at least one is always red...well, problems arise.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

This is essentially what toll roads do.

The only real solution is greater road capacity. Often this comes in the form of toll roads, due to lack of funding for standard highways. Toll roads are actually a nice solution because when the people who are willing to pay for the convenience (i.e. whose time is valuable enough) use the toll road, they are taking traffic away from the free routes. So the people on the toll road get there much faster, and the people on the free roads get there faster too.

 

[Railgun]

London has congestion charges. That's one way to discourage ppl from driving.

Ha. Have you ever driven in London?

Doesn't discourage anyone from anything other than sanity.

 

[hans007]

Any sort of an extra fee will be considered unfair to "the poor". It will be called disenfranchising.

So, "the poor" will not have to pay any such extra fee.

They will be subsidized, if such a fee ever happens.

gas going up is basically the same thing.

just make a giant gas tax.

when gas prices were $5 a gallon + in LA there were less people driving.
its $4 or so now. if it was $2 i'm sure thered be more traffic all else being equal

 

[jlee]

gas going up is basically the same thing.

just make a giant gas tax.

when gas prices were $5 a gallon + in LA there were less people driving.
its $4 or so now. if it was $2 i'm sure thered be more traffic all else being equal

It's actually $3.30-something. You already have a giant gas tax.

 

[LTC8K6]

gas going up is basically the same thing.

just make a giant gas tax.

when gas prices were $5 a gallon + in LA there were less people driving.
its $4 or so now. if it was $2 i'm sure thered be more traffic all else being equal

No, increasing the tax would be called the same thing. A tax on the poor, because the rich don't care...

If the price of gas just goes up due to market forces, it's not the same.

I'm personally waiting for the mileage tax.

That will mean those presently avoiding some or all highway taxes, hybrids, electrics, alternative fueled, etc., will have to pay up for using the highways as much as the rest of us do.

It's never going to happen, though...

 

[EagleKeeper]

As stated, to many companies rely on the 8-5 model.

Part is the need to interface with other companies on that time; other is just habits and the dislike of driving in the dark if it can be avoided.

Flex hour encouragement will help a little; but if one person comes in at 6 and someone they needs to talk to comes in at 10; that it a 4 hr down time for the company.

Companies need to build trust in their people and encourage telecommuting if possible.

 

[nerp]

The solution is self-driving cars and they're coming in the next 30-50 years. That way people will finally properly fucking merge onto the highway and not cut other people off 2 seconds before their exit causing bottlenecks.

Manually-controlled cars will require a special permit.

 

[Jimzz]

As stated, to many companies rely on the 8-5 model.

Part is the need to interface with other companies on that time; other is just habits and the dislike of driving in the dark if it can be avoided.

Flex hour encouragement will help a little; but if one person comes in at 6 and someone they needs to talk to comes in at 10; that it a 4 hr down time for the company.

Companies need to build trust in their people and encourage telecommuting if possible.

Yep my wife teleworks for the past 5years and still got promoted and has a job.
I have to change her oil based on time, not milage now.

Also telework saves the company money due to power, water, etc...
I took my current job as it was 5-10 minutes from my house. I turned down more money as on paper I would make more but the end result was less per hour I was away from home.

 

[kache]

More flexible schedules, telework, self-driving cars.
Flying cars would help as well.

 

[Ferzerp]

No, increasing the tax would be called the same thing. A tax on the poor, because the rich don't care...

If the price of gas just goes up due to market forces, it's not the same.

I'm personally waiting for the mileage tax.

That will mean those presently avoiding some or all highway taxes, hybrids, electrics, alternative fueled, etc., will have to pay up for using the highways as much as the rest of us do.

It's never going to happen, though...

Fuel taxes are a regressive tax. Typically we consider raising those to prohibitively high levels a no no. Of course, gas taxes are already crazy high, but if I remember correctly, it's mostly used for the roads anyway, so that's ok. At least around here.

 

[mvbighead]

Incentives should be available for pushing work from home/telecommuting. There are many office jobs where it could be possible, but the big draw back there is security and cost. Some companies don't want to invest in the infrastructure to support that many more telecommuters.

Varying shift hours would be another great way, but as others mentioned, it can really mess things up. Personally, I work 7-4 instead of 8-5. The difference in commuting? About 50% travel time. IE - The closer I leave to 8, it gets closer to 45 minutes than the current 30 minutes. In bigger cities, I am sure that is much, much worse.

It's definitely a tricky thing to deal with, but the single biggest problem is the 8-5 work day that 80% of people seem to have. If you could blend that to some 6-3, some 7-4, some 8-5, some 9-6, and some 10-7, you'd nearly completely minimize "rush hour." But, there is no simple way to make sure this happens, and it can have adverse affects in terms of B2B communication.

 

[Nintendesert]

No, increasing the tax would be called the same thing. A tax on the poor, because the rich don't care...

If the price of gas just goes up due to market forces, it's not the same.

I'm personally waiting for the mileage tax.

That will mean those presently avoiding some or all highway taxes, hybrids, electrics, alternative fueled, etc., will have to pay up for using the highways as much as the rest of us do.

It's never going to happen, though...

That's exactly it and why it confuses me that certain groups favor high gas prices. Rich people and poor people drive the same, poor people are disproportionately hurt by those higher prices than rich people.

You're absolutely right on a mileage tax, it was a system setup when cars weren't electric or hybrids. Cars could be counted on to use a certain amount of gas, hybrid, electric or beater all destroy the roads the same. Now, mileage tax plus vehicle weight would probably be something of a compromise for those with little dinky eco-mobiles.

 

[Ferzerp]

That's exactly it and why it confuses me that certain groups favor high gas prices. Rich people and poor people drive the same, poor people are disproportionately hurt by those higher prices than rich people.

You're absolutely right on a mileage tax, it was a system setup when cars weren't electric or hybrids. Cars could be counted on to use a certain amount of gas, hybrid, electric or beater all destroy the roads the same. Now, mileage tax plus vehicle weight would probably be something of a compromise for those with little dinky eco-mobiles.

No, he's not right on a mileage tax. We already have that. If my vehicle gets 10 mpg and I drive 100 miles, I pay twice the taxes of someone whose vehicle gets 20 mpg who drives 100 miles. It is already that way.... Honestly, it's already skewed, and electric vehicles need to be taxed *more* because they wear the road but don't contribute to maintaining it.

edit: derp! I think I am arguing against what I am agreeing with. No coffee yet.

 

[LTC8K6]

I only want to see the mileage tax to watch the weeping and gnashing of teeth among those currently paying little or no tax.

I don't drive much, so neither the gas tax, or gas price, or a mileage tax, would bother me too much.

I drive less than 5K miles a year. More like 4K.

However, I know that a mileage tax will be in addition to the gas tax. It will not replace it, as those who are selling it often claim.

So I really don't want to see the mileage tax, unless it's set up for those who currently pay little or no highway use taxes.