If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at55 mph.
Go Slow To Go Fast
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at 55 mph. Slate Magazine By Tom Vanderbilt | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM ET There is no more common lament voiced by the American driver than of the one about the “idiot” in the “fast lane” who’s slowing down traffic. If everyone could just drive faster, the thinking goes—if we could only cull the weak gazelles in our furiously charging migration— we could stamp out congestion. We equate speed in traffic with efficiency. In the U.K., the Tory government is currently advocating raising the speed limit on certain motorway sections to 80 MPH, anticipating a massive windfall in economic productivity and time saved. It’s speed as the health of the state! (Though not all projections are so rosy.) But one thing that tends to be lost on the individual driver, who through the proscenium of his windshield commands what he believes to be an empirically incontrovertible perspective on the ground truth of traffic, is that sometimes you have to go slower to go faster. Full article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...i_.single.html ----- - gpsman |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at 55 mph.
"American Association of Surface Highway Transportation Officials"
I guess when a highway is elevated or below grade it comes under different departments. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
On Oct 16, 6:26*am, gpsman > wrote:
> Go Slow To Go Fast > Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at > 55 mph. > > Slate Magazine > By Tom Vanderbilt | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM ET > > There is no more common lament voiced by the American driver than of > the one about the “idiot” in the “fast lane” who’s slowing down > traffic. If everyone could just drive faster, the thinking goes—if we > could only cull the weak gazelles in our furiously charging migration— > we could stamp out congestion. > > We equate speed in traffic with efficiency. In the U.K., the Tory > government is currently advocating raising the speed limit on certain > motorway sections to 80 MPH, anticipating a massive windfall in > economic productivity and time saved. It’s speed as the health of the > state! (Though not all projections are so rosy.) > > But one thing that tends to be lost on the individual driver, who > through the proscenium of his windshield commands what he believes to > be an empirically incontrovertible perspective on the ground truth of > traffic, is that sometimes you have to go slower to go faster. > > Full article:http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...lling_speed_ha... > *----- > > - gpsman lots of print space used to sum up what has been known since way back. "If everyone would just "go with the flow" traffic would move a lot better". Harry K |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
On Oct 16, 9:26*am, gpsman > wrote:
> Go Slow To Go Fast > Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at > 55 mph. > > Slate Magazine > By Tom Vanderbilt | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM ET > > There is no more common lament voiced by the American driver than of > the one about the “idiot” in the “fast lane” who’s slowing down > traffic. If everyone could just drive faster, the thinking goes—if we > could only cull the weak gazelles in our furiously charging migration— > we could stamp out congestion. > > We equate speed in traffic with efficiency. In the U.K., the Tory > government is currently advocating raising the speed limit on certain > motorway sections to 80 MPH, anticipating a massive windfall in > economic productivity and time saved. It’s speed as the health of the > state! (Though not all projections are so rosy.) > > But one thing that tends to be lost on the individual driver, who > through the proscenium of his windshield commands what he believes to > be an empirically incontrovertible perspective on the ground truth of > traffic, is that sometimes you have to go slower to go faster. > > Full article:http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...lling_speed_ha... > *----- > > - gpsman The only reason this holds is because the road they cited has numerous engineering problems. Eliminate the merges, and add climbing lanes on the steep grades, and I'm sure it would be different. They are right that speed difference is the problem though, but instead of slowing everyone down, they should just post a minimum speed and ticket everyone who doesn't follow it (unless conditions require it). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
On 10/16/2011 12:44 PM, deanej wrote:
> The only reason this holds is because the road they cited has numerous > engineering problems. Eliminate the merges, and add climbing lanes on > the steep grades, and I'm sure it would be different. They are right > that speed difference is the problem though, but instead of slowing > everyone down, they should just post a minimum speed and ticket > everyone who doesn't follow it (unless conditions require it). Ticketing those who don't maintain minimum speed isn't practical. It's better to restrict which vehicles are allowed on the highway. If a given vehicle isn't capable of maintaining the minimum speed, then they shouldn't be allowed to even enter the highway. Just like bicycles aren't allowed on interstate highways in the east, you could disallow vehicles like tractor-trailers that can't maintain speed on upgrades. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
On 2011-10-16 13:08, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Ticketing those who don't maintain minimum speed isn't practical. It's better > to restrict which vehicles are allowed on the highway. If a given vehicle > isn't capable of maintaining the minimum speed, then they shouldn't be allowed > to even enter the highway. Just like bicycles aren't allowed on interstate > highways in the east, you could disallow vehicles like tractor-trailers that > can't maintain speed on upgrades. I prefer George Carlin's idea. Give every driver a paintball gun. Then when somebody accumulates five paint splats, he gets pulled over and written a ticket for being an asshole. If you **** off the majority of drivers, then you're doing wrong. Period. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at 55 mph.
Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 12:44 PM, deanej wrote: > >> The only reason this holds is because the road they cited has numerous >> engineering problems. Eliminate the merges, and add climbing lanes on >> the steep grades, and I'm sure it would be different. They are right >> that speed difference is the problem though, but instead of slowing >> everyone down, they should just post a minimum speed and ticket >> everyone who doesn't follow it (unless conditions require it). > > Ticketing those who don't maintain minimum speed isn't practical. It's > better to restrict which vehicles are allowed on the highway. If a > given vehicle isn't capable of maintaining the minimum speed, then they > shouldn't be allowed to even enter the highway. Just like bicycles > aren't allowed on interstate highways in the east, you could disallow > vehicles like tractor-trailers that can't maintain speed on upgrades. Considering that the article was about I70 in the Colorado mountains, none of the above suggestions are really practical. The Eisenhower/Johnson tunnels are only two lanes each way, and it is unlikely that they will be enlarged in our lifetimes. Climbing lanes already exist on the steeper sections, but the CDOT often stops traffic completely at the tunnels when traffic gets backed up to control the flow. The stops can be up to 20 minutes to allow the tunnels to clear. The gradients on the highway are 6 to 7 percent in places, which limit the speeds of heavy trucks to 25 or 30 mph in both the uphill and downhill directions. Putting a minimum speed on the route would simply add costs to support the communities along the highway. Alternate routes, like Loveland Pass, and regularly closed because of the weather. Longer distance trucks already use the Interstates through New Mexico or Wyoming. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at 55 mph.
"deanej" > wrote in message ... On Oct 16, 9:26 am, gpsman > wrote: > Go Slow To Go Fast > Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at > 55 mph. > > Slate Magazine > By Tom Vanderbilt | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM ET > > There is no more common lament voiced by the American driver than of > the one about the “idiot” in the “fast lane” who’s slowing down > traffic. If everyone could just drive faster, the thinking goes—if we > could only cull the weak gazelles in our furiously charging migration— > we could stamp out congestion. > > We equate speed in traffic with efficiency. In the U.K., the Tory > government is currently advocating raising the speed limit on certain > motorway sections to 80 MPH, anticipating a massive windfall in > economic productivity and time saved. It’s speed as the health of the > state! (Though not all projections are so rosy.) > > But one thing that tends to be lost on the individual driver, who > through the proscenium of his windshield commands what he believes to > be an empirically incontrovertible perspective on the ground truth of > traffic, is that sometimes you have to go slower to go faster. > > Full > article:http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...lling_speed_ha... > ----- > > - gpsman The only reason this holds is because the road they cited has numerous engineering problems. Eliminate the merges, and add climbing lanes on the steep grades, and I'm sure it would be different. They are right that speed difference is the problem though, but instead of slowing everyone down, they should just post a minimum speed and ticket everyone who doesn't follow it (unless conditions require it). ============ Based on that article, traffic would be even better at 25 mph. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
>aren't allowed on interstate highways in the east, you could disallow
>vehicles like tractor-trailers that can't maintain speed on upgrades. Take a look at a map of Colorado. There's no plausible alternate route for trucks than I-70 unless you're going to force them to go hundreds of miles out of their way via I-80 in Wyoming. I suppose they could ban trucks during peak traffic times, but even that would be a hard sell. By the way, note the place in the article where they say that the highway can handle more vehicles at 55 than at 80 because the cars can travel closer together. The marginal quality of the highway (which was pretty much unavoidable due to the terrain) is part of the problem, but even on an entirely unchallenging highway, the capacity is greater when everyone's going 55, much though speed demons might wish otherwise. R's, John |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl alongat 55 mph.
On 10/16/2011 9:26 AM, gpsman wrote:
> Go Slow To Go Fast > Why highways move more swiftly when you force cars to crawl along at > 55 mph. > > Slate Magazine > By Tom Vanderbilt | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM ET > > There is no more common lament voiced by the American driver than of > the one about the “idiot” in the “fast lane” who’s slowing down > traffic. If everyone could just drive faster, the thinking goes—if we > could only cull the weak gazelles in our furiously charging migration— > we could stamp out congestion. > > We equate speed in traffic with efficiency. In the U.K., the Tory > government is currently advocating raising the speed limit on certain > motorway sections to 80 MPH, anticipating a massive windfall in > economic productivity and time saved. It’s speed as the health of the > state! (Though not all projections are so rosy.) > > But one thing that tends to be lost on the individual driver, who > through the proscenium of his windshield commands what he believes to > be an empirically incontrovertible perspective on the ground truth of > traffic, is that sometimes you have to go slower to go faster. > > Full article: > http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...i_.single.html > ----- > > - gpsman Total BS. There are a lot of contributing factors to congestion but higher speed isn't one of them. The problem is business and short sighted design criteria. They need to keep businesses a lot further from exits of Interstates. They need to place more emphasis on exit deigns and getting traffic off the Interstates. No traffic signals or impediments at exits farther from the Interstates or other roadways. More exits also. It seems, a lot of times you can get on the road but you can't get off. Improve the exit capability and raise the speeds. the roadways can then handle a lot higher load. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EU to ban petrol and diesel cars from cities to force drivers togo 'green' | Lil Abner | Driving | 0 | March 29th 11 03:51 AM |
Spain Gets Smart - Cuts Highway Speed Limit to 50 mph, City to 25 mph | Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] | Driving | 164 | August 23rd 08 05:40 AM |
On Topic? Cars, anyway: 55 MPH speed limit... | Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B[_2_] | Technology | 193 | August 5th 08 09:06 PM |
NSJC '04 Fall Crawl Video | 4X4PLAY | Jeep | 3 | September 9th 05 08:54 PM |
Snow-crawl on steep incline--LONG | [email protected] | Jeep | 61 | January 17th 05 03:30 PM |