🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> Dave Close writes:

> Rick Damiani <rdamiani@newsguy.com> writes:
>> Identifying peak traffic times in L.A. is pointless, as most of the
>> freeways are in a near-perpetual state of congestion.

> I can personally attest that this is not true. Driving from Glendale
> to Costa Mesa starting about 2030 last Friday evening, the 50-mile
> trip took almost exactly 50 minutes. I can't complain about
> that. And the route passed through the East LA Interchange, so it
> certainly should have met congestion if there were any.

Maybe you were lucky?  It happens now and then...

> However, had I departed earlier, I am certain the congestion would
> have been severe. It is also true that, with much construction being
> done at night, the lower traffic volume at night does not
> necessarily mean less congestion.

The interesting thing (to me) was that, in June, I almost took an
offer for a job in Nashville.  They were complaining (somewhat) about
a 1/2 hour (morning or afternoon) commute window where the traffic on
the highways gets heavy.  They couldn't understand what it would be
like in the Bay Areas 3+ hour commute window of heavy traffic.

> Still, there is something contradictory about allowing use of the
> HOV lanes by anyone at off-peak times. Those are, by definition, the
> times when you really don't need the extra capacity. And if you
> justify the opening by saying that unexpected congestion can happen
> at any time and deserves to be allieviated, then why shouldn't
> expected congestion during rush hour also deserve to be allieviated
> by opening the HOV lanes to all traffic?

There is an old principle in computer science -- give the user twice
the capacity he had before and he'll be looking to fill three times
the capacity.  By personal observation, the same seems to apply to car
traffic on the roads.  Therefore, giving the HOV lanes up to everyone
at all times would seem not to lead to more people moving, but rather
more people stuck in traffic.  With the HOV lanes, at least those
people who do ride share move at a reasonable pace.

> Someone is sure to respond with the tired mantra, "You can't build
> your way out of congestion." Heard it, it fails the logic test. Of
> course, you can reduce congestion by building more and better
> roads. Does anyone think that airport congestion would get worse if
> we built new and better airports? Would freeway congestion stay the
> same if we hadn't rebuilt the Santa Monica Freeway after the
> Northridge earthquake?

Hmmm.  Your proposal is that you can never have too many roads?   And
you can never have too many cars on those roads?  Sounds short-sighted
to me.

> At this time, with the failure to build responsibly for the last
> thirty years, it will take a lot of building to solve the
> problems. And the building will have to be faster than the rate of
> traffic growth. If you build a tiny fraction of what's needed, you
> won't solve anything.

Wouldn't it be nice if the responsible building was done statewide or
nationally.  Imagine an environment where:

* you lived in a rural location as much as 100 miles from work
* your rural community consisted of <100,000 people
* the rural communities were arranged as spokes around work centers
* your "commute", therefore, was:
        ** walk to the community light-rail
        ** light-rail to the HSR train at community center
        ** HSR to downtown work location
        ** Segway HT (Ginger) or Zap Scooter to work
        ** Total time: <1 hour (maybe much less)
* you communicated with your co-workers and sales contacts via VR

If we built "responsibly" along these lines, how much would traffic
congestion on highways be cut when the only traffic they need to carry
is truck traffic for the delivery of goods?

-- 
David Masterson                dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA