Mr. Gary Richards AKA Mr. Roadshow of the San Jose Mercury News recently reported that the new southbound 680 express lanes have added on average a minute to the commute time. The study cited was done by the Alameda County Transportation Agency.
What that means is the results of the new lanes are an absolute and total failure contributing MORE pollution from idling vehicles than before. I would also like to know just how bad the spikes are and how badly the statistics show the real story every day.
ALSO, on southbound 680 AFTER the express lanes end during the evening rush hour, traffic slows down while there is a very large median area next to the center divider that could easily accommodate another lane. Why it hasn’t been made into a useful lane is beyond me.
Finally northbound 680 during the late afternoon and evening looks horrible as well, observed during late afternoon drives southbound.
Why California continues to mandate harmful and/or useless fuel additives, lower octane rating for premium gas, draconian restrictions for vehicle modification despite extra clean burning engines while cramming as much traffic as possible into as few lanes as possible is absolutely stupid beyond all measure and environmentally criminal. Surely there are representatives trying to stop this?
I strongly urge you to contact your government representatives and demand cleaner air and less fuel consumption by banning carpool and express lanes with use requirements.
Mr. Roadshow article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_17438165?nclick_check=1
Find and contact your state representative: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
Previous article urging a ban on carpool lanes from 3/2009: http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-san-jose/ban-carpool-lanes
Showing posts with label carpool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carpool. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, January 30, 2009
BAN Carpool Lanes!
They WASTE gas. They are BAD for the environment.
This is long, long overdue. It doesn't matter what we drive, just look at the consequences. The intent of the expressway system is to move as much traffic as possible in as little time as possible (at or close to the speed limit).
In this day and age of gasoline price changes, inflation, 3% raises (IF you're lucky!!), no raises at all, high cost of living, $25,000 sedans, etc., people WILL carpool and rideshare IF they are able. The incentive of rewarding that with a faster moving lane is counter-productive to the total need of all commuters.
The original intent of the carpool lanes is to encourage or reward people who share rides going to work. Let's look at who it penalizes:
1. Small company employees who statistically don't have co-workers living near them.
2. Families and people whose schedules require them to do things outside of the normal commute to work and home. This could include classes, errands, appointments, etc.
3. Any employee whose job requires travel (sales, repair, etc), regularly or sporadic.
5. "Flex-hour" employees who drive before 9am or after 3pm. It's unlikely a "flex-hour" employee is ride sharing but they still will encounter back-ups during those hours!
6. Any person who is "off" that day or works weekends and must plan on traffic back-ups during the week.
Now let's look at the NEGATIVE aspects of MORE cars forced into LESS lanes
means:
1. Longer back-ups burn more gas. Far more than the gas saved by the carpools
2. Longer back-ups cause more pollution.
3. Delays, pollution and burning more gas negatively effect the economy. The money spent could be channeled elsewhere.
4. Speed differentials in 2 different lanes is very dangerous due to visual perception, merging, etc.
Now, what about motorcyclists, electric vehicle and hybrid owners? Give them discounts in terms of taxation, registration fees, etc. The ride-sharing public? They already receive discounts by their act alone! They save money on gas and vehicle depreciation! They already benefit!
There is a real hypocrisy with hybrid SUVs and luxury sedans that become more efficient, but do not "save" gas vs. a smaller engine, smaller size sedan or minivans.
Germany saw an 80% REDUCTION in congestion on the Autobahn when a 3rd lane was added.
Here is another study I found, "
According to a 1995 State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program report
(the most recent year available), there was a total of 315,476 VHDPD
(vehicle hours of delay per day) on urban area freeways in California due
to "recurrent" congestion. Recurrent congestion is defined as a condition
lasting for 15 minutes or longer where travel demand exceeds freeway
design capacity. That typically means freeway speeds were 35 mph or less
during peak commute periods on a typical incident-free weekday.
"Non-recurrent" congestion is defined as backups caused by special
circumstances, such as accidents, stalled vehicles, sporting events, etc.
Studies show that non-recurrent delay can be equal or greater than
recurrent delay. The report found that recurrent and non-recurrent
congestion combined meant California motorists in 1995 used an extra 1.1
million gallons of fuel per day due to urban freeway congestion. The
increased travel time and extra fuel cost motorists about $5.9 million per
day. "
This is long, long overdue. It doesn't matter what we drive, just look at the consequences. The intent of the expressway system is to move as much traffic as possible in as little time as possible (at or close to the speed limit).
In this day and age of gasoline price changes, inflation, 3% raises (IF you're lucky!!), no raises at all, high cost of living, $25,000 sedans, etc., people WILL carpool and rideshare IF they are able. The incentive of rewarding that with a faster moving lane is counter-productive to the total need of all commuters.
The original intent of the carpool lanes is to encourage or reward people who share rides going to work. Let's look at who it penalizes:
1. Small company employees who statistically don't have co-workers living near them.
2. Families and people whose schedules require them to do things outside of the normal commute to work and home. This could include classes, errands, appointments, etc.
3. Any employee whose job requires travel (sales, repair, etc), regularly or sporadic.
5. "Flex-hour" employees who drive before 9am or after 3pm. It's unlikely a "flex-hour" employee is ride sharing but they still will encounter back-ups during those hours!
6. Any person who is "off" that day or works weekends and must plan on traffic back-ups during the week.
Now let's look at the NEGATIVE aspects of MORE cars forced into LESS lanes
means:
1. Longer back-ups burn more gas. Far more than the gas saved by the carpools
2. Longer back-ups cause more pollution.
3. Delays, pollution and burning more gas negatively effect the economy. The money spent could be channeled elsewhere.
4. Speed differentials in 2 different lanes is very dangerous due to visual perception, merging, etc.
Now, what about motorcyclists, electric vehicle and hybrid owners? Give them discounts in terms of taxation, registration fees, etc. The ride-sharing public? They already receive discounts by their act alone! They save money on gas and vehicle depreciation! They already benefit!
There is a real hypocrisy with hybrid SUVs and luxury sedans that become more efficient, but do not "save" gas vs. a smaller engine, smaller size sedan or minivans.
Germany saw an 80% REDUCTION in congestion on the Autobahn when a 3rd lane was added.
Here is another study I found, "
According to a 1995 State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program report
(the most recent year available), there was a total of 315,476 VHDPD
(vehicle hours of delay per day) on urban area freeways in California due
to "recurrent" congestion. Recurrent congestion is defined as a condition
lasting for 15 minutes or longer where travel demand exceeds freeway
design capacity. That typically means freeway speeds were 35 mph or less
during peak commute periods on a typical incident-free weekday.
"Non-recurrent" congestion is defined as backups caused by special
circumstances, such as accidents, stalled vehicles, sporting events, etc.
Studies show that non-recurrent delay can be equal or greater than
recurrent delay. The report found that recurrent and non-recurrent
congestion combined meant California motorists in 1995 used an extra 1.1
million gallons of fuel per day due to urban freeway congestion. The
increased travel time and extra fuel cost motorists about $5.9 million per
day. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)