FReep This Poll! What Is The Best Way To Reduce Traffic Congestion?

North County Times/The Californian ^ | September 19, 2007 | North County Times/The Californian

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Stupid question. Highway traffic grows as the population grows, and as business and commerce increase. It is stupid to cut back on the population and/or business activity.
Mass transit will help, and so will improving highways.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Agreed. Carpool lanes don't work when there are no mass transit alternatives.

If people could go to work with someone at the same time and take mass transit back that might make it viable. I would be interested in seeing a survey on places where it does work.

I have seen cities where car pool lanes really do work, but all do have Public Transport too.

Otherwise it is a pipe dream and should be opened to all cars.

An incentive that no one takes is not really an incentive; just stupidity.

[gidget7]

“I’d like to see more mass transit and rail transportation. These work great for commuting and for intermediate-distance trips between cities. “

I agree when it comes to rail. Transporting products via rail would save on a lot of road and bridge repair/wear and tear. Truckers wouldn’t like that idea, but a train engine can pull countless freight cars, each one eliminating the need for a truck. The vast number of accidents that happen involving trucks would be cut dramatically. We would still need them from the RR station or drop off zones, to the destination, but it would drastically cut traffic.

Same as rail as a means of commute, if the services were available and the quality improved. Even cross country, a lot of people would elect to go via rail, if it didn’t take 10 times as long (exaggeration)

[going hot]

"An incentive that no one takes is not really an incentive; just stupidity."

The incentive is less traffic, less congestion, and quicker transit time. The solution is the carpool lane. (In thier minds). It is however, the wrong solution, borne out by the fact that it is in fact ineffective, except for the few who use it.

Therefore, there is incentive, only not enough to sway a sufficient number of motorists to accept the solution.

That is why the lane should be abolished, because, in fact, as it is presented as a solution, it fails miserable for the general public.

[NathanR]

“North County” (north San Diego county) is not densely populated at all, consisting of mostly single family homes and condos. In Orange County (the county to the north, and thus next to North County.) the main people who use mass transit are people who don’t have driver’s licenses, like illegal aliens.

Also, Orange County has been widening the freeways, which has helped much more than other solutions.

[calcowgirl]

Deport illegals wasn't on the list.

BUMP!

IMO, that is THE major cause. Illegal immigration has caused an unnatural growth in population, a growth that states and municipalities could not keep up with as far as traffic, housing, etc. Instead of enforcing the law and eliminating the cause, the government has resorted to massive borrowing to try to keep up. Now, they are selling off the highway concessions to private industry to build highways in exchange for up-front cash to sustain or further grow a bloated Government. I'm not a fan of toll-roads, but selling off concessions (some for 50-99 years) for potentially revenue generating programs, while accumulating massive debt at the same time, is a sure fire formula for economic disaster.

[calcowgirl]

You cannot be a fiscal conservative and favor more highways that are empty most of the time

You obviously haven't travelled on the same highways I use. I don't believe anyone is talking about "empty" highways. They are talking about the ability to travel on a freeway (65 mph speed limit) at a speed greater than one is required to travel in a school zone (25 mph). It is currently not uncommon to travel for two hours on that freeway, in stop and go traffic, only to make it 50 miles.

BTW, there is hardly such a thing anymore as "rush hour" in some of these areas. You can experience the same thing most any time of day.

[US at Risk]

o subsidizing mass transit is better? Mass transit is inefficient by it’s nature - you can’t possibly have something going to every place that people need to go from every place they come from. It’s hard to retrofit one anyway, if a city is built from the start with mass transit, or in a very dense city, it works. In DC it works OK, because a large chunk of people work in the central city...in many areas that’s not the case.

Even with the rise in fuel prices we've seen so far, taking a train or bus to work has become much more attractive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see future development evolve back towards the central city model. I agree that mass transport is only effective along high-traffic corridors.

I'm not for subsidizing anything, though loaning funds for interstate rail projects would be OK, IMO.

Speaking of subsidies, I suspect that if fuel prices bore the full cost of highway infrastructure and maintenance, the market would step up to fuel conservation a lot faster. I'm no greenie, but oil imports are weakening the dollar and involving us excessively in the Middle East.

[dynachrome]

Whichever choice doesn't raise my taxes higher! Darned if I know which that is. (voted for widening highways. cut spending elsewhere. Ha.)

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

[RockinRight]

Mass transit isn’t an option for me and only a roundabout option for my wife, that would require more travel to get to the place of transit than just driving in the first place. She would have to drive to a Metro (DC) station and I’d have to take 4 buses (I work in a suburb of Baltimore, MD and she works in DC) and by that time, just drive!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I’m just speculating that some kind of pull system (like in a car wash) would work best. The downside is that most folks would be very wary of giving up control of the vehicle.

The problem would be how you get people off at the exits they choose and how you phase in such a system with cars that aren't properly equipped for it. Mercedes is building a car with a radar cruise control system that maintains a distance from the car in front it. Combine with a GPS navigation and an autopilot system and you might get something workable.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

In places where there is no city center, traffic is not as congested.

Clearly you've never been to Los Angeles.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

“BTW, there is hardly such a thing anymore as “rush hour” in some of these areas. You can experience the same thing most any time of day.”

And what about at 10pm, 11pm, midnight, 1 am, 2am, 3am etc.? They are empty.

[Between the Lines]

And what about at 10pm, 11pm, midnight, 1 am, 2am, 3am etc.? They are empty.

As is mass transit.

[numberonepal]

Yea, something digital would probably be the way to go. Retrofits on newer vehicles shouldn’t be all that costly after a while. I also think private highways would be a way to vet the system. But the main goal I believe would be matching speeds. It’s the only way to avoid spacing and dumba$$ issues.

[toldyou]

Widen and/or build more freeways
(101 Votes, 34%)

Add more carpool only lanes
(2 Votes, 1%)

Improve mass transit options
(69 Votes, 23%)

Encourage working from home
(24 Votes, 8%)

Limit new housing development
(100 Votes, 34%)

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

As is mass transit.

Absolutely true. Concurrently, the major operating costs for mass transit are the labor and power needed to keep it going. The initial investment, and maintenance are far lower than for roads. The total costs in terms of efficiency of public transport are much higher.

Naturally there are no 100% certainties and every city has different conditions. Maitenance costs in places where it snows are far far higher for highways than in places where it doesn't.

Factors to consider are:

Initial investment - type of public transport (bus lanes are cheapest, subways most expensive, light rail in between)

Cost of land - a few acres in the city for a light rail could cost more than thousands of highways acres

Pollution - noise and air.

Maintenance costs as previously discussed.

Ultimately decisions on public outlays for transport should be made on based on cost/benefit analysis and not on political ideology. The same is true with most public goods. Unfortunately people are too frigin stupid and politicians too willing to take advantage of that stupidity to let the right decisions for be guided by professionals. And so we get gridlock.