More On Left Lane Driving

On 11 Dec 2004 10:03:38 -0800, "Carl Taylor" > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> >Multiply you
>> >a few thousand times and that's why we have traffic jams much worse
>and
>> >longer than they need to be.
>>
>> We have traffic jams 'cuz they don't build enough roads around here,
>that's
>> all.
>
>Most traffic jams are really the result of overpopulation, not a lack
>of roads.

Duh! Year 1900 population would have been "overpopulation" for a road system
existing in 1500. The idea is, you build roads to _keep up_ with the
population.

Only now, we try to say the population is the problem, and not really the lack
of will to get the concrete trucks out there and build as many roads as we
need.

The population is _always_ going to increase, barring some natural or man-made
disaster. Its up to us to build enough infrastructure to serve it.

Nonsensical ideas like, "You can't build your way out of congestion" only
exacerbate the problem. Build the damn roads, so there are alternatives to get
to the same place you're going using different ones, and the congestion will be
conquered.

'Fer instance, I was in a 20 minute backup when a car stalled in
Fredericksburg, Va. on route 3. There was a backup because there were no
parallel roads to choose to go around it.

Put that same stalled car on Washington Street in Indianapolis, my former area
of residence, and people would simply take an intersecting street, drive .1
mile north, and take 10th street to where they were going, possibly dropping
back down to Washington Street sometime later. If 10th street jams up, the'll
drive north to 21st st. and continue. The key is to have alternatives.

>Building more roads is a temporary fix

Sure it is. That's been true from the time the 1st road was built. It will
always be true as long as the population increases, which it normally will.
But a temporary fix is a fix _today_ which is all we really need _today_. For
tomorrow, we just need more concrete.

>unless growth finally
>ends,

You gonna be the one to tell people that they can't have babies?

>but there's little hope of that with our immigration levels.

Immigration hell. Its sex...

>Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
>and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
>without a cessation of growth.

That's not gonna happen. Next.

Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.

>But people are reluctant to think at
>that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
>and it will keep getting worse.

It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
increase faster.

Dave Head

>C.T.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/

On 11 Dec 2004 10:03:38 -0800, "Carl Taylor" > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> >Multiply you
>> >a few thousand times and that's why we have traffic jams much worse
>and
>> >longer than they need to be.
>>
>> We have traffic jams 'cuz they don't build enough roads around here,
>that's
>> all.
>
>Most traffic jams are really the result of overpopulation, not a lack
>of roads.

Duh! Year 1900 population would have been "overpopulation" for a road system
existing in 1500. The idea is, you build roads to _keep up_ with the
population.

Only now, we try to say the population is the problem, and not really the lack
of will to get the concrete trucks out there and build as many roads as we
need.

The population is _always_ going to increase, barring some natural or man-made
disaster. Its up to us to build enough infrastructure to serve it.

Nonsensical ideas like, "You can't build your way out of congestion" only
exacerbate the problem. Build the damn roads, so there are alternatives to get
to the same place you're going using different ones, and the congestion will be
conquered.

'Fer instance, I was in a 20 minute backup when a car stalled in
Fredericksburg, Va. on route 3. There was a backup because there were no
parallel roads to choose to go around it.

Put that same stalled car on Washington Street in Indianapolis, my former area
of residence, and people would simply take an intersecting street, drive .1
mile north, and take 10th street to where they were going, possibly dropping
back down to Washington Street sometime later. If 10th street jams up, the'll
drive north to 21st st. and continue. The key is to have alternatives.

>Building more roads is a temporary fix

Sure it is. That's been true from the time the 1st road was built. It will
always be true as long as the population increases, which it normally will.
But a temporary fix is a fix _today_ which is all we really need _today_. For
tomorrow, we just need more concrete.

>unless growth finally
>ends,

You gonna be the one to tell people that they can't have babies?

>but there's little hope of that with our immigration levels.

Immigration hell. Its sex...

>Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
>and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
>without a cessation of growth.

That's not gonna happen. Next.

Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.

>But people are reluctant to think at
>that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
>and it will keep getting worse.

It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
increase faster.

Dave Head

>C.T.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:45:51 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:33:17 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Most traffic jams are really the result of overpopulation, not a lack
>>>of roads.
>>
>>Duh! Year 1900 population would have been "overpopulation" for a road system
>>existing in 1500. The idea is, you build roads to _keep up_ with the
>>population.
>
>Like they do in Japan?
>
>If they tried to build enough roads to keep up with their population,
>the entire archipelago would be covered in asphalt. Fortunately they
>were smart and built bullet trains and subways instead.

That serve a very small country. We have too much expanse here for that to be
a solution. Only if you build enough public transport such that people aren't
stranded at the other end, and have to rent cars anyway, is it worth doing.

>>The population is _always_ going to increase, barring some natural or man-made
>>disaster. Its up to us to build enough infrastructure to serve it.
>
>That can only work for so long.

It can work so long as we can come up with more concrete.

>>Nonsensical ideas like, "You can't build your way out of congestion" only
>>exacerbate the problem.
>
>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.

Gimmie a break. You can't have induced traffic without more people. Go ahead
and induce some traffic - we'll pour more concrete to service that too. The
only thing lacking to with this war is the will to fight it.

>>>but there's little hope of that with our immigration levels.
>>
>>Immigration hell. Its sex...
>
>Mostly Hispanic sex.

>According to the last census, "post-1990 immigrants and their children
>accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade."
>
>http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm
>
>In other words, the majority of the population growth in the US comes
>from immigrants and their offspring. This trend can only accelerate as
>long as we continue to allow these people to stream across the border
>unchecked. If we wait too long they will outnumber us native-born
>people; then the southwestern US really will become "Aztlan."

This situation is going to be cured at the next big Al Queda attack. The
politicians will have no choice but to get on the ball and control the influx.
Hope the next one isn't thermonuclear, that's all.

>>>Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
>>>and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
>>>without a cessation of growth.
>>
>>That's not gonna happen. Next.
>
>Next what? Where are you going to put more roads in LA county? It
>already has more freeways than many states.

I'm looking at my map, and seem to see surface-street type roads on either side
of most of the freeways. If surface streets can be built, then they can be
knocked down and limited access highways built in the same space - just 1000
feet off to the left and/or right of where the freeways are now. Give people
alternatives. Oh, BTW, build 'em twice as big as you think you need 'em - it
might delay further building in the future.

>>Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
>>congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
>>Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
>>highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
>>in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
>>south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.
>
>They have been fighting for 20 years to extend the 710 freeway through
>South Pasadena, but the NIMBYs who live there refuse to allow it. And
>that's just a 6 mile section of freeway; imagine duplicating every one
>of the hundreds of miles of freeways in LA?

One has to have the will to build 'em, for sure. When they finally get next to
the idea that there's no other way to fix this, they'll fix the political
obstructionism and do the right thing.

>>>But people are reluctant to think at
>>>that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
>>>and it will keep getting worse.
>>
>>It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
>>building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
>>increase faster.
>
>That's not gonna happen. Next.

Fine. They can live in a hell-hole of their own making, then. Its not gonna
get cured with buses and trains, tho. Buses don't move any faster than cars,
they tear up the road like big trucks, and trains aren't going to go where you
want to go. You need cars for that.

Dave Head

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:45:51 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:33:17 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Most traffic jams are really the result of overpopulation, not a lack
>>>of roads.
>>
>>Duh! Year 1900 population would have been "overpopulation" for a road system
>>existing in 1500. The idea is, you build roads to _keep up_ with the
>>population.
>
>Like they do in Japan?
>
>If they tried to build enough roads to keep up with their population,
>the entire archipelago would be covered in asphalt. Fortunately they
>were smart and built bullet trains and subways instead.

That serve a very small country. We have too much expanse here for that to be
a solution. Only if you build enough public transport such that people aren't
stranded at the other end, and have to rent cars anyway, is it worth doing.

>>The population is _always_ going to increase, barring some natural or man-made
>>disaster. Its up to us to build enough infrastructure to serve it.
>
>That can only work for so long.

It can work so long as we can come up with more concrete.

>>Nonsensical ideas like, "You can't build your way out of congestion" only
>>exacerbate the problem.
>
>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.

Gimmie a break. You can't have induced traffic without more people. Go ahead
and induce some traffic - we'll pour more concrete to service that too. The
only thing lacking to with this war is the will to fight it.

>>>but there's little hope of that with our immigration levels.
>>
>>Immigration hell. Its sex...
>
>Mostly Hispanic sex.

>According to the last census, "post-1990 immigrants and their children
>accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade."
>
>http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm
>
>In other words, the majority of the population growth in the US comes
>from immigrants and their offspring. This trend can only accelerate as
>long as we continue to allow these people to stream across the border
>unchecked. If we wait too long they will outnumber us native-born
>people; then the southwestern US really will become "Aztlan."

This situation is going to be cured at the next big Al Queda attack. The
politicians will have no choice but to get on the ball and control the influx.
Hope the next one isn't thermonuclear, that's all.

>>>Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
>>>and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
>>>without a cessation of growth.
>>
>>That's not gonna happen. Next.
>
>Next what? Where are you going to put more roads in LA county? It
>already has more freeways than many states.

I'm looking at my map, and seem to see surface-street type roads on either side
of most of the freeways. If surface streets can be built, then they can be
knocked down and limited access highways built in the same space - just 1000
feet off to the left and/or right of where the freeways are now. Give people
alternatives. Oh, BTW, build 'em twice as big as you think you need 'em - it
might delay further building in the future.

>>Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
>>congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
>>Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
>>highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
>>in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
>>south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.
>
>They have been fighting for 20 years to extend the 710 freeway through
>South Pasadena, but the NIMBYs who live there refuse to allow it. And
>that's just a 6 mile section of freeway; imagine duplicating every one
>of the hundreds of miles of freeways in LA?

One has to have the will to build 'em, for sure. When they finally get next to
the idea that there's no other way to fix this, they'll fix the political
obstructionism and do the right thing.

>>>But people are reluctant to think at
>>>that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
>>>and it will keep getting worse.
>>
>>It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
>>building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
>>increase faster.
>
>That's not gonna happen. Next.

Fine. They can live in a hell-hole of their own making, then. Its not gonna
get cured with buses and trains, tho. Buses don't move any faster than cars,
they tear up the road like big trucks, and trains aren't going to go where you
want to go. You need cars for that.

Dave Head

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>If they tried to build enough roads to keep up with their population,
>the entire archipelago would be covered in asphalt. Fortunately they
>were smart and built bullet trains and subways instead.

And they still can't keep up, so they have people to shoehorn you onto
the trains.

>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.

Induced traffic is largely a myth.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>If they tried to build enough roads to keep up with their population,
>the entire archipelago would be covered in asphalt. Fortunately they
>were smart and built bullet trains and subways instead.

And they still can't keep up, so they have people to shoehorn you onto
the trains.

>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.

Induced traffic is largely a myth.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:44:53 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>>>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.
>>
>>Induced traffic is largely a myth.
>
>http://userpages.chorus.net/burleigh...affic_bib.html

Most of the links on that page are dead.

>Go ahead, prove your statement. I'm listening.

Prove the negative? Before I could even try, you'd have to give a
concrete definition of the phenomenon. Your earlier description of
greater traffic _without an increase in population_ is part of the
myth. Anyway, to accept the "induced travel" phenomenon is to accept
that closing and narrowing roads will not make traffic worse.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:44:53 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>Induced Traffic is a scientifically validated fact. I'm surprised that
>>>an expert on nonsensical driving such as yourself doesn't know that.
>>
>>Induced traffic is largely a myth.
>
>http://userpages.chorus.net/burleigh...affic_bib.html

Most of the links on that page are dead.

>Go ahead, prove your statement. I'm listening.

Prove the negative? Before I could even try, you'd have to give a
concrete definition of the phenomenon. Your earlier description of
greater traffic _without an increase in population_ is part of the
myth. Anyway, to accept the "induced travel" phenomenon is to accept
that closing and narrowing roads will not make traffic worse.

Dave Head wrote:
>
> On 11 Dec 2004 10:03:38 -0800, "Carl Taylor" > wrote:
>
> >Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
> >and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
> >without a cessation of growth.
>
> That's not gonna happen. Next.
>
> Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
> congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
> Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
> highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
> in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
> south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.

Unfortunately, those nice through highways are mostly residential
streets, and the residents whine about the traffic so much that the city
councildroids apply "calming" techniques, which just **** the drivers
off because there are no alternates.

Screw the residents. The roads were there before the homeowners bought
their homes.

> >But people are reluctant to think at
> >that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
> >and it will keep getting worse.
>
> It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
> building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
> increase faster.

I keep saying we should pave South Pasadena border to border for
Pasadena parking, but nobody listens.

--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
When cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws will
qwertzuio asdfghjk pyxcvbnml -- M. O'Dorney

Dave Head wrote:
>
> On 11 Dec 2004 10:03:38 -0800, "Carl Taylor" > wrote:
>
> >Witness Los Angeles County, an area with few places left to put roads,
> >and tremendous congestion. I don't see a solution to traffic jams
> >without a cessation of growth.
>
> That's not gonna happen. Next.
>
> Now, as for LA, you do have a problem with that many roads and still that much
> congestion. Still, is there nothing more that can be done? I bet there is.
> Like most cities, the mix of roads is important. How about more limited access
> highways? Yeah, the ones that are there are full. Double the highways - put
> in the same highways all over again, 1000 yards to the east or west, north or
> south, paralleling the existing roads. IOW, build alternatives.

Unfortunately, those nice through highways are mostly residential
streets, and the residents whine about the traffic so much that the city
councildroids apply "calming" techniques, which just **** the drivers
off because there are no alternates.

Screw the residents. The roads were there before the homeowners bought
their homes.

> >But people are reluctant to think at
> >that level. They'll try in vain to build the problem out of existence
> >and it will keep getting worse.
>
> It always gets worse if people sit around and talk about it, rather than
> building. The population is increasing faster, so the construction has to
> increase faster.

I keep saying we should pave South Pasadena border to border for
Pasadena parking, but nobody listens.

--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
When cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws will
qwertzuio asdfghjk pyxcvbnml -- M. O'Dorney