🚀 go-pugleaf

Joel Garry wrote:

>Argh!  The problems only become serious when traffic is high.  The 
>solutions must cover most all situations.  If you expect people to adhere
>to one set of standards when there is a lot of traffic and another when
>there is little, you exponentiate any problems, and add state-transition
>problems.

That's just plain wrong.  Driving is dynamic.  One set of rules would
have to cover the best conditions and the worst, including hurricane
class storms.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  A low volume road
can quickly become congested if two people drive side by side at a
pace slower than is normal for that road.  Move one of them out of the
way and everything begins flowing again.  Even a high volume road can
flow traffic quickly if people follow slower traffic keep right.

>The real problem is the freeways are (quite literally) hard-coded for a
>maximum volume, and in many urban areas are far beyond that volume.  The
>bay area isn't even the worst (Atlanta [for time] and LA [for volume] are 
>in general, and many specific problems can be found in many places).  The 
>hard part to grasp is where to get the money to design and build a freeway 
>that allows for more than you will see under most circumstances.

The problem is in population density.  If you live in a densely
populated area, you deal with more traffic.  That doesn't mean the
standards developed for that particular area are applicable to low
density areas.
-- 
Brandon

"Spoooooooon!"