I don't see how the intersection affects road-widening calculations at all. Doubling the lanes will double the throughput, to 1200 cars per hour. We weren't expecting widening the road to also eliminate red lights.
The lane widening and whatnot basically acts as a cache for the bottleneck intersection (or other feature).
A good example is getting the small % of left turning traffic out of a lane where much of the traffic wants to go straight and there is much oncoming traffic. When there's a break, you've got a car cached right there. When there's not you can push any left turning traffic into the cache for later. Massive improvement, even if all the out flows from the light are the same throughput.
At high speeds, bicycles also have to spread out. Add the bike trailers mentioned, and it seems even more unlikely.
There have been more academic studies. e.g. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/5_Zhou-Xu-Wang-and-Shen... estimates 2512 bicycles per hour per meter of road width, or 7536 bikes per hour on a 3-meter (10 feet) wide lane. That's only 4.2x car throughput, versus those kids who managed 5.5x.
You are right about the trailers, but at least where I ride, they are not common-case for carrying things, lots more cargo bikes instead, and those are "better" than trailers -- it's possible to ride two cargo bikes side-by-side even in a US protected lane (specifically on Garden Street in Cambridge, MA), though this of course assumes competent riders.
Due to the effects described in the article, entering a road that's close to congested imposes negative externalities due to the delay on everyone behind you, even higher if you are pushing the road below optimal throughput. Push that externality into the price, and suddenly drivers will change their behavior in the desired fashion:
1. People will move their travel to less expensive times. Even if no other change occurs than people waiting for prices to fall, the roads operate at much higher throughput due to never getting into the region of diminishing throughput.
2. People will carpool/vanpool/mass transit- no need for any special treatment for transit, a bus with 50+ people can simply outbid most cars on the road for space, even accounting for the difference in road space taken by the bus. With the economic incentive in place, you'd even expect private buses/etc to pop up spontaneously. Right now, its rarely worth it to pool/bus- it adds extra time for you, but the benefit to the road you never see. With proper pricing, its still faster to take a car, but a lot more expensive- and the carpool/bus/etc is still probably faster than driving would be with congested roads.
3. Similarly, the high prices will incentivize alternatives such as biking, subways, etc, and give very good information on exactly what routes are in high demand when, estimates of how much an improvement would be worth, etc.
But say this does happen a lot-this means rich people pay enormous road use fees, which can then be used for road maintenance, construction, and improvement, as well as other transit infrastructure!
So, the rich willingly subsidize infrastructure for everyone? Seems like a win-win!
You'd set the congestion charge, by law (at least on public roads), to the minimum required for efficient road use- not the revenue maximizing price, which would likely be much higher due to monopoly.
Why do people insist on this tired unimaginative trope. We have the past and present to look at. We know how these things work.
The rules will be crafted, the commas in the laws placed, the contracts handed out, to support those who supported the endeavor. If the plumber's trade group agrees to support it their vans will be exempt. If Palantir supports it, the RFP will be written to make it nigh on impossible to not buy their stuff. No matter how flagrant the badness of the system, if the tech industry makes even a cent, the comment section full of techies will engage in olympic level mental gymnastics and not just do bending over backwards but doing full on backflips to justify the goodness of the system. If the bus drivers have such a comment section they'll do it too.
This is how things were. This is how they are. This is how they will be. Well, right up until the point where the rest of society gets sick of our shit and leaves us in a big communal hole or gives us a free shower or whatever happens to the fashionable way to do that thing is at that point in the future...
But I suppose maybe you're right and they'll throw a few pennies of tax cuts at it if they just need a little upper middle class support to drag it across the finish line.
London in particular uses congestion pricing money to fund more buses and ridership exploded as a result
What traffic-reducing policy would you suggest such that all people are affected equally?
But does a vehicle with several people in it pay for the max, min, median, average, or the driver's time? I suspect "driver" is easiest, it seems like it might work but I'll bet there are some screwy ways to game that rule, too.
Think about a hose. If you have it at a certain flow and then increase the flow the water doesn't go out faster because it wants it. It flows faster because it's being pushed.
Same thing with cars, as more cars get onto the highway you want them to go at a higher speed so that the throughput matches the on ramp. We just need to cut down the number of 4 lane highways so that we have space to put exit ramps on both sides of a 2 lane highway but the increased speed will make up for it.
That way when people visit from the future, they dont get the most recent article
* Drivers who can't just drive at at _least_ the speed limit. Flow is mentioned several times in the article, but flow is also a major part of traffic issues I face daily. Every time drivers refuse to merge right to allow others to pass (state law here). Every time drivers slow down instead of speeding up because they're unsure. Every time there's traffic enforcement for revenue rather than enforcing the laws that would promote a smooth and steady commute. That causes the rate of flow to decrease. It lets other slower drivers merge into the gaps opened in front (which pushes the stack of cars further back and further slows the flow, compared to just going down the road). The only way to clear a log jam in a river is to get the logs out, down the river in the case of traffic. After the block clears up traffic should go slightly _faster_ to pull the flow forward, removing the pressure and restoring safety and expediency for drivers behind.
* Freeways built to hub and spoke main city designs, when I need to cross around major geographic features (lakes, 'very big hills' with a couple mounts along the most obvious paths).
* No where NEAR enough housing built in the last 40+ years anywhere near jobs. (Solution: have good building codes and auto approval if code conditions are met, and build build build.)
* Family with roots in an area far from where jobs are today... the suburbia of my childhood is not a center of well paying white collar jobs. (That's what hub and spoke to the big city used to be; before businesses escaped to other outlying areas.)
I don't mind people who drive under the speed limit (it is, after all, meant to be a limit and not a minimum speed), but they need to not hang out in the passing lane. Nobody should be hanging out in the passing lane in general, but you especially don't get to do it if you aren't even driving the speed limit.
I fail to see the problem with "we built something and people used it because they preferred it to their other options"
The problem with this is that if your goal is to build a liveable city where people can reach their destinations in predictable time without pulling their hair out, simply building more lanes does not usually help, for the reasons outlined very clearly in the article.
And that isn't exactly a wild guess, we have decades of data on the subject.
Ie. we built something, people used it because they preferred it, and now everyone gets a worse experience.
It's not cost effective to have a bus line that stops at everybody's house.
However, when you start to have 3 lanes of traffic then a lot of that traffic can be handled by a bus at a cheaper cost to both the drivers and the relevant department of transportation than expanding the road to handle the current traffic.
There is on particular phenomenon I ponder about my commute to work on 45 MPH "stroads" involves the interplay between speeders, slugs and the many stop lights.
I strictly keep to the speed limit during day light and good weather (slower otherwise) and start slowing well in advance to an oncoming red followed by accelerating briskly when red turns to green if not blocked by other users of the road.
The vast majority of the other users have the opposite speed profile. They go well above the speed limit (60+ is not uncommon to see), often passing me at the last second before safely or not so safely stopping at a red and then take their sweet time getting up to the limit (and then beyond) after a green. The fact that most of them drive enormous apartments on wheels perhaps explains some of this behavior.
The main hypothesis I am interested in is that their strategy of speeding to the next red light and lazily getting going at green (if they notice the light change) is actually counter productive to throughput and maximizing average speed. The speeding and the bunching at red coupled with glacial acceleration up to and beyond the limit is far slower than keeping to the speed limit, gradual slowing down (sometimes catching red->green before stopping) and brisk speed up is the winner, assuming not blocked by lumbering behemoths.
That is, stopping is slower than speeding is fast.
If you want to win the race, max acceleration, max speed, max deceleration. Anything else is sub optimal.
I know this is bad for my fuel/electric efficiency, but I enjoy being the first car at the stop bar during a red light because of this. Means I can accelerate faster and merge lanes without waiting for other drivers to make a spot, even if those other cars ultimately end up passing me a mile later.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF•3mo ago
That's funny. That means that the interstates are optimized for speed, not throughput. I believe it, it's just counter-intuitive.
Noumenon72•3mo ago
rahimnathwani•3mo ago
BeFlatXIII•3mo ago