How to fix rush hour traffic once and for all?

[LTC8K6]

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.

If both went 100 miles, both used the road the same amount, both should pay the same road use tax.

Does a 29mpg 4000 pound Taurus really wear the road much less than a 20mpg 4500 pound Grand Cherokee?

Even a Prius weighs 3000 pounds...

 

[Ferzerp]

If both went 100 miles, both used the road the same amount, both should pay the same road use tax.

Does a 29mpg 4000 pound Taurus really wear the road much less than a 20mpg 4500 pound Grand Cherokee?

Even a Prius weighs 3000 pounds...

Go back and see my edit from 3 minutes before you replied.

 

[LTC8K6]

Go back and see my edit from 3 minutes before you replied.

The board created a new page with my post... :biggrin:

 

[Ferzerp]

Well, I agree with you in theory.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The board created a new page with my post... :biggrin:

Change your page settings :\

 

[LTC8K6]

Change your page settings :\

Unfortunately, I'm not clairvoyant...

 

[amdhunter]

Give everyone Police sirens.

 

[ElFenix]

If both went 100 miles, both used the road the same amount, both should pay the same road use tax.

Does a 29mpg 4000 pound Taurus really wear the road much less than a 20mpg 4500 pound Grand Cherokee?

Even a Prius weighs 3000 pounds...

the only things that actually wear the road are heavy trucks.

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. won't be allowed on the interstate

fixed.

and yes, this is badly needed. people have no clue what to do with exit ramps. the left lanes on the highway will be going 70, the feeder will be doing 50, and people on the ramp will be exiting at 25 because some ass tapped his brakes at 4:45 for no reason. combine that with people sitting in the rightmost lane even though they're not exiting and you've got accidents waiting to happen.

though, the computers should be programmed to merge late because that's the most optimal way to do it.

Using speed-sensing devices that display different messages depending on the speed of traffic, Minnesota DOT engineers developed what they call a "zipper," which meshes cars quickly. Signs advise drivers of the upcoming lane closure, tell them to use both lanes up to a point and then direct them to take turns merging. When traffic is flowing, drivers merge early to avoid unsafe maneuvers. But when traffic is congested, motorists make full use of both lanes. The data revealed that the change reduced traffic lines by 35 percent and also brought down "lane changing conflicts," says Craig Mittelstadt, Minnesota DOT's work zone safety specialist.

http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-dont-hate-the-sidezoomer.html

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

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

Technically, we don't pay enough. The DOT is massively underfunded. States spent billions expanding the road infrastructure as people sprawl from one place to another. Now they can afford the upkeep. It's especially bad since the gas tax hasn't changed in about 20 years. Hasn't even kept up with inflation.

 

[1nf1d3l]

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

People have a hard enough time controlling their vehicle in mainly 2 dimensions as is...give them 50% more and I can only see problems.

 

[JTsyo]

Technically, we don't pay enough. The DOT is massively underfunded. States spent billions expanding the road infrastructure as people sprawl from one place to another. Now they can afford the upkeep. It's especially bad since the gas tax hasn't changed in about 20 years. Hasn't even kept up with inflation.

Isn't the gas tax on the dollar amount? Not per gallon.

 

[ElFenix]

Isn't the gas tax on the dollar amount? Not per gallon.

no

 

[Chiropteran]

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

Do you live in a magical fantasy-land where drivers don't already do this?

If we could fix traffic on interstates I'd call it a net gain, even if it doesn't stop preexisting traffic on local roads.

 

[KeithP]

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?

First let me say I didn't watch the entire video. But while the speaker calls the fee imposed a congestion charge to reduce rush hour traffic, he seems to be specifically citing a charge that was imposed on the use of bridges. From what I saw, the charge always applied not just during "rush hour." Such a charge might work in this type of situation because much of the travel is probably discretionary.

I really doubt this would work for reducing traffic at rush hour. Most people on the road at this time are there because they are heading to or from work. Charging them a couple of bucks won't make them go into work 2 hours early or stay 2 hours late. It won't make them take public transit and quadruple their travel time. It might make them take a somewhat longer route to avoid the charge which would then cause congestion on other streets.

Why am I not surprised some egghead from Europe sees the answer to a problem as another government fee?

-KeithP

 

[Chiropteran]

Why am I not surprised some egghead from Europe sees the answer to a problem as another government fee?

The thing is, traffic is not a zero sum game. 100,000 people trying to get to drive down one road at the same time cuts the speed to a crawl and it may take each them 2 hours to travel 15 miles. 100,000 people driving down the exact same road, but spread out such that 10,000 people use the road every half-hour, and suddenly the drive only takes 20 minutes.

There are measurable benefits to forcing stupid people to not do stupid things. If money is the one stick that works to get the stupid people to do what is needed, then we must use money, in the form of a fee.

 

[Zap]

The only thing that will fix this is to the end to the 8-5 work day. Staggered start times by employers would help

This really does help. I used to work at a place that I could go in early and leave early. My wife currently works at a place where she gets in late and leaves late. Only traffic congestion comes from incidents, not rush hour. Example of an "incident." Yes, my wife was really pissed at the extra hour+ to get home. She gets grouchy when hungry.

 

[Railgun]

The thing is, traffic is not a zero sum game. 100,000 people trying to get to drive down one road at the same time cuts the speed to a crawl and it may take each them 2 hours to travel 15 miles. 100,000 people driving down the exact same road, but spread out such that 10,000 people use the road every half-hour, and suddenly the drive only takes 20 minutes.

There are measurable benefits to forcing stupid people to not do stupid things. If money is the one stick that works to get the stupid people to do what is needed, then we must use money, in the form of a fee.

Your logic works on the assumption that those people don't actually have to be somewhere at the same time. If you have 100,000 people that need to get to point B at about the same time, and it will still be faster than taking an alternative route, they will pony up.

I used to live in NW Indiana. I worked in downtown Chicago. I could take 94 all the way in, or I could take 41 up to the skyway, fork over $3.50 and knock out 20 min on my commute. In this case, I'm the opposite as I'd gladly fork it over if it benefits me in time. As they say, time is money.

Now imagine if they put a toll on the Ford...

A similar thing happened many years ago in SoCal. They opened a stretch from south of the 405, off the 5 if I recall that was a bypass. I don't remember where it went anymore but it too was a toll and barely a soul was on the thing.

Adding a toll will only work if they do it everywhere.

But...here's the thing. The infrastructure in most cities aren't setup for public transportation. And by that I mean rail. Yeah, in places like Chicago it exists, but compared to NY, London, Paris, Singapore...can't touch it. America is a driving nation. Everything was built on it, especially since the 50s.

If you want to ease congestion, build better, longer lasting roads. Build better interchanges. Build secondary, smaller capacity systems for national traffic (ie completely bypassing major cities with only emergency access). Build better merges and double wide exchange ramps.

There's so much that can be done. Simple tossing a charge it won't fix it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The board created a new page with my post... :biggrin:

Change your page settings :\

Unfortunately, I'm not clairvoyant...

Not intended as being a criticism, but a friendly reminder

 

[LTC8K6]

Technically, we don't pay enough. The DOT is massively underfunded. States spent billions expanding the road infrastructure as people sprawl from one place to another. Now they can afford the upkeep. It's especially bad since the gas tax hasn't changed in about 20 years. Hasn't even kept up with inflation.

40% of the federal highway tax revenue is siphoned off...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html

MARY PETERS: Well, Gwen, the problem is, I think we have to examine where we're spending money today. And if we think that we're spending money today in the highest and best use, then perhaps we would need to make that discussion, but I don't believe we are.

You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas.

And as we don't -- we're not disciplined today to say, are we spending that money where it is the highest and best use of that money? Are we giving the American public the best return on investment for that money? And we owe it to ourselves to answer those questions before we ask Americans to dig down in their pockets and pay even more gas tax.

GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?

MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.

GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.

MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.

GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

No doubt something similar happens with the state funds as well...

 

[Throckmorton]

Bike paths and trails and lighthouses are infrastructure...

 

[LTC8K6]

Bike paths and trails and lighthouses are infrastructure...

This was after that bridge collapse, and everyone was all heated up about our crumbling roads and bridges...so I'd cut her some slack there.

She was asked about roads and bridges.

And my gas tax money shouldn't pay for that other stuff, anyway...

 

[Throckmorton]

The only real solution is rail. You can move many more people more easily than highways, and without being slowed down by other traffic. Right now I use Houston's park & ride bus system, and it sucks because the bus gets stuck in traffic even on the HOV lane.

 

[LTC8K6]

Rail is almost always a money pit, iirc.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The only real solution is rail. You can move many more people more easily than highways, and without being slowed down by other traffic. Right now I use Houston's park & ride bus system, and it sucks because the bus gets stuck in traffic even on the HOV lane.

Rail is very very expensive and only works on high concentrated point to point areas. People are not going to walk more that 3-4 blocks. You have to also have a feeder system from the rail as well as a feeder system into the rail. Auto parking and bus frequency need support to get people out of the car.

Land is expensive; unless you have the right of way already.

 

[Ferzerp]

Mass transit doesn't work except for extremely population dense areas.

The US is 176th in population density (out of 242 nations). The top 100 nations are between 3 and a number so high that it's meaningless more dense than the US.

It works in your NYCs, etc. It doesn't work in your metropolitan areas with 60+ miles of sprawl that feed the jobs in that city.