Don't get me wrong: I am all for carpooling. It's good for the environment. It builds comradeliness. It saves gas (i.e., money). It puts fewer cars on the road. Which is good for everyone. Yay carpooling! What I am against is carpool lanes. Especially now that any hybrid owner can get himself a fast pass. This isn't Disneyland, folks. (I do confess I will hate carpool lanes slightly less when I am carpooling with Rachel to work next month).
OK so I have a better solution. It's not free but it is relatively cheap. I realize it is expensive to widen the freeway by building more lanes. And land has to be purchased and businesses scooched over. That is no good is it. Since we really have an issue of resource mismanagement the issue can be resolved by managing our resources smarter. I don't know anything about business or engineering but I have common sense. I know that it is better to maximize the utility you get out of your resources, in this case freeway lanes.
I drew up these very detailed (haha) plans. The freeway would consist of three sections. One section (with 3 lanes) permanently rides north. One section (also 3 lanes) permanently rides south. This is where it gets tricky. The third section (in the middle with 2 lanes) is designated for northbound traffic in the morning and south during rush hour when traffic is heavy going away from the city. Between the morning time and evening switch, there is a long buffer period where no cars will be allowed in the center lanes. With the possible exception of police and other emergency vehicles (maybe). If they were then emergency vehicle drivers would be trained to know to stay to the right of the middle two lanes as if it were a normal street. Violators of course would be hit with a steep penalty as violation of this law could be dangerous.
Signs would be posted clearly, which would be automated to switch during alternating periods. The middle lanes would be separated by concrete barriers and entered though by designated points. Entrance signs would dictate hours of operation. Anyway I think my design would save lots of money for the American people in the long run. It is the cheapway to go. Haha good pun, no? Yeah no.
Another possible variation. Have the two lanes revert to 1 lane northbound and 1 lane southbound during non heavy traffic period. This may incorporate some extra precautions to avoid accident by confused morons who think they own the road. I don't see any necessity in it though.
They do this in the DC area, it seems to work quite well, but traffic is still terrible.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know they do it around San Francisco too. You're a genius! Just a bit of a belated genius - although, to be fair, still ahead of Salt Lake.
ReplyDeleteDang it. I also have an idea for a flying machine.
ReplyDeleteGood idea, though. Great minds think alike?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the minds I am like.
ReplyDeleteAlso I bet they didn't come up with the phrase "cheapway."
yeah I hate traffic. where are you commuting to? Salt Lake? Let me just tell you son, about DC. My commute takes an hour and a half and I live 10 miles from work. No ifs ands or buts. No way around it, and believe me I've run through a lot of permutations between buses, cars, bikes, trains, subways, and flying machines. The magical lanes don't unclog the traffic either. 90 minutes for 10 miles!! I could RUN faster than that, if it didn't mean I'd get hit like on the froggie game. Which I play instead on my smartphone for an hour and a half every morning and night as I sit in a subway trying to go 10 miles.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there are varying systems in different cities that do this, but studies have shown that adding more lanes doesn't help. The most proven way of reducing traffic is to increase mass transit use.
ReplyDeleteThere is a catch-22 with reducing traffic however. When traffic becomes lighter, whether by commuters finding alternate routes or using mass transit, commuters then flood back to the first basic and easiest mode of transportation. It's been shown when new routes are created, or as in the past few years with the economic slowdown when mass transit use rose. In the latter case, people took mass transit for a short time, then when traffic was reduced they went back to the car. Ridership spiked to it's highest since the 1950's, then plummeted within a year later to just above what it was. Still, the rise of ridership has been steady over the last few years as more and more lines are added in more cities(including Salt Lake.) Mass transit has shown to be the most effective way of reducing transportation cost and congestion over the long-term, not adding more highway lanes.
Nicole, yes the traffic only turns a 35 minute drive in 1 hour 10 minutes (sometimes only 45 minutes if I leave before 5) but I know it can be improved somehow. I know its way worse in bigger cities. LA sucks. Blagh.
ReplyDeleteNick, I like mass transit in theory but don't like taking it when its crowded or by myself. I also had an idea while I was stuck in traffic for freight transportation by using a a cross country canal system. If you build it so it runs downhill you could save on energy costs in the long run.
Also I think the best solution is over deliver. Add lots of lanes and cheap mass transit so there is more than enough for everyone. We just need to invent the hover car.