Replies

actually, in the state you mention, 3 lanes going 25, one lane let’s say completely empty, opening up that lane to all traffic would make only a minor change in total flow.

And that is even if we assume that a “2-person” rule has been useless in encouraging anybody to double-up.

IF you assumed that the 2-person rule was useful, and that eliminating it would make the 2-person cars into 1-person cars, then “opening up” the lane,even if it has only 10% of the traffic of the other lanes, doubles the traffic in that lane before you add anybody from the other lanes.

The question is why more people don’t double-up to avoid that 25-mph road situation.....

Here’s an interesting thing. If you presume people will follow the 1-car-length per 10 mph rule, and you compare a “fully packed” lane going 25 mph with a “fully-packed” lane going 60 mph, on the 25 mph lane you get 25 cars per minute past a point, while in the 60-mph lane you get 30 cars per minute.

In other words, even if people give the correct following distance, if you have a lane moving 25 mph, and you can FORCE that lane to go 60 mph, you’ll actually “thin out” the number of cars in a lane by 5 cars per minute by pushing them faster.

Meaning that the only reason they go slower is because the lane is overwhelmed. On the other hand, it shows that if you push more than 5 cars more into that lane, than the 25 on the other lanes, it will slow down to 25 mph.

There’s also a theory of road management built around this, that if you can slow traffic down just a little bit, you can get more cars through per minute, and avoid the overfull state that causes traffic to grind to a halt. This theory is being successfully used with some roads where they put speed limits every tenth of a mile for each lane, and if everybody obeys them, traffic moves quickly and smoothly.

These are reasoned alternative views. Let me respond on point.

actually, in the state you mention, 3 lanes going 25, one lane let’s say completely empty, opening up that lane to all traffic would make only a minor change in total flow.

As much as anything, it's an insult to everyone whose tax dollars went to pay for the freeway, to tell them NO YOU CAN'T USE THIS LANE BECAUSE I SAID SO. That is totally unacceptable on the face of it. If there needs to be more lanes, then build them and hurry up about it.

Along these lines, we have the power companies, the water companies, the gas companies, and the state telling us they can't provide the services we need. If our grandparents generation had said this, we'd be in even bigger trouble. We will continue to have to plan and build adequate resources for the present and for the future. This generation of leaders have their heads so firmly implanted, you wonder how they dress themselves in the morning. If you don't think it's your duty to provide the services needed, why are you in a leadership position where the requirements are just that? People are relying on you. Do your fricken job! (not you personally)

Let's move on to the idea that increasing the traffic flow by 33% wouldn't improve things much. I used to drive on a freeway 25 miles each way to work. At 25 miles per hour that drive took 60 minutes. At 33 mph it would have taken 45 minutes. That's a full half hour less driving per day. With tens of thousands of other motorists on the same road, think of the tens of thousands of hours of productivity would be returned to the public each day. Is that significant? Think about the more than 25% savings in gasoline for every vehicle out there. One, you travel faster and get better mileage. Two, you get there faster and don't have to burn gas for a full hour anymore.

So yes, this would be significant. What would be the fastest way to drive up gasoline wastage? I submit it would be to jam pack as many cars into three lanes with one underutilized. This hasn't cut down on gas usage. It has caused it to grow exponentially.

And that is even if we assume that a “2-person” rule has been useless in encouraging anybody to double-up.

Take a good look at the people who ride in the car-pool lane. The vast majority are families or friends. They may not even be headed to work. I know that when I travel with retired friends, we carpool to save money and wear and tear our cars. It just makes sense. We're headed to the same place ten to one hundred miles away. Did car pooling cause us to do this? The idea the car-pool lanes are some big boon to energy consumption is just plain idiotic. I've already pointed out how the cars jammed into fewer lanes burn massive extra amounts of gasoline needlessly. The idiots who come up with great sounding ideas, NEVER admit to themselves that they are doing nothing more than driving up gallons burned by the millions of gallons, while reducing gallons of gasoline burned by the tens of thousands of gallons.

IF you assumed that the 2-person rule was useful, and that eliminating it would make the 2-person cars into 1-person cars, then “opening up” the lane,even if it has only 10% of the traffic of the other lanes, doubles the traffic in that lane before you add anybody from the other lanes.

This would make sense, if it wasn't based on pure fantasy. One, very few people car-pool based on the idea they are doing it for the environment. They do it because it happens to work well for them. Someone who works at the same company lives nearby. They join up to do this out of personal interest. If they are doing it to save the environment, I'd advise them not to do it. I've already touched on the idea these car-pool lanes cause massive amounts of extra fuel to be burned off daily.

The question is why more people don’t double-up to avoid that 25-mph road situation...

No, that's the Leftist lunatics pipe dream argument. It's pure falicy.

The question is, why don't more Leftists understand that people don't live and work right next door to each other? DUH! Is that really so hard to grasp?

People here in Southern California drive anywhere from 1 to 100 miles each way daily. They do so because jobs have opened up far away, and the need for employment requires them to go where the jobs are. What a novel idea...

My old job used to cause me to make side street connections to a freeway, drive 25 miles on that freeway, drive another ten miles on side streets making turn after turn to get there. Unless I wanted to add 20 minutes to my drive each morning or evening in rush hour traffic, I would drive alone.

Here’s an interesting thing. If you presume people will follow the 1-car-length per 10 mph rule, and you compare a “fully packed” lane going 25 mph with a “fully-packed” lane going 60 mph, on the 25 mph lane you get 25 cars per minute past a point, while in the 60-mph lane you get 30 cars per minute.

Good grief the power of imagination... That one car-length per 10 mph rule is a fantasy.

Where do you live, in the farmlands of Iowa? When I drove to work we were traveling anywhere from 10 to 70 mph, and we were not by any stretch of the imagination driving one to seven car lengths behind each other. We were driving at most about 20-35 feet behind each other at speed.

In other words, even if people give the correct following distance, if you have a lane moving 25 mph, and you can FORCE that lane to go 60 mph, you’ll actually “thin out” the number of cars in a lane by 5 cars per minute by pushing them faster.

This was so outlandish I won't respond on point. Thanks for the mention.

Meaning that the only reason they go slower is because the lane is overwhelmed. On the other hand, it shows that if you push more than 5 cars more into that lane, than the 25 on the other lanes, it will slow down to 25 mph.

You're living in a fantasy land. People car-pool for self interest. They will do so because it is convenient. Period. You won't see major movement to or from single cars if you eliminate the car-pool lanes.

There’s also a theory of road management built around this, that if you can slow traffic down just a little bit, you can get more cars through per minute, and avoid the overfull state that causes traffic to grind to a halt. This theory is being successfully used with some roads where they put speed limits every tenth of a mile for each lane, and if everybody obeys them, traffic moves quickly and smoothly.

That theory is asinine.

Having driven in freeway traffic for 45 years, I can tell you this theory is idiotic to the max.

In real world circumstances cars travel very fast at distances much less than 1 car length for every ten miles per hour. I have driven all the way from Los Angeles to San Diego four lanes at 65 mph plus with very little room between cars. If these brilliant thinkers think they can move more cars traveling at slower speeds, their grasp of reality is non-existant. And frankly, the whole idea of car-pool lanes is based on just such illogic.