hybrids get out of the fast lanes!

Fighting is not necessary, but lively debates are welcome!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that. But an opinion that is well-founded on fact and offers practical, workable solution options for those involved in the debate is tough to argue with. That is why so many people argue with NoSUV. NoSUV offers selfish, ego-centric opinions (buses only in HOV, perpetual hybrid exemptions, HOT advocacy, among others), that serve the interests of a few who make specific decisions to follow NoSUVs train of thought. NoSUV's ideas consider a very narrow POV, one that does not advance the issues facing the majority of the commuting public.

There is no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion, only several versions of best compromise solutions. Ultimately, the best solutions should strive to serve the needs of the majority; those that involve small changes in habits for specific gains in the goals of improved traffic management, reduced fuel consumption and polution, and are condusive to changes in fickle individual preferences.

Marketers do not have a dog in this hunt! And that is what hybrids are, a marketing phenomenon designed to appeal to "green wanabees" who commute. As with any other vehicle, anytime a hybrid travels SOV in the HOV lanes it becomes part of the problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoanA
[br]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NoSUV
If the regular lanes moved at a the same speed as the express lanes, then more people would move in the regular lanes because of the higher concentration/density.

---

Just to follow up on your statement with an anecdote from college. My queuing theory professor in college was involved in a traffic study conducted by the NY Port Authority to improve traffic movement through the Lincoln tunnel. Based upon their study of the tunnel they determined that the maximum number of cars which could pass go through the tunnel at any time was x (it was a few years back so I do not remember the figure). The Port Authority Police disagreed with the number. They maintained that it has been their experience that the number could be doubled if there were sufficient personnel positioned along the tunnel to encourage the drivers to maintain speed. This proposition was tested and the police number was validated. High speed and high volume is possible but the personnel requirement is prohibitively and high and is highly stressful to the police and the drivers.

---

Grenburg, H., "An Analysis of Traffic Flow," Operations Researdch 7, 79-85 (1959)

"...the data indicates that increasing the traffic density results in lower car velocities (although there is an exception in the data). The Merritt Parkway in Connecticut was also studied in this report. There were two separate measurement techniques. One for the Lincoln Tunnel, the other for the Merritt Parkway. The Lincoln Tunnel maximum flow was 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour traveling at a velocity of about 19 miles per hour at a density of 82 cars per mile. Merritt Parkway data was inconclusive as the velocity range of maximum flow was not observed.

From yet another report:

Flow into the Holland Tunnel was controlled to maintain density that provided maximum flow. "...momentarily stopping traffic would actually result in and increase flow!" Herman, R. and Gardels, K., "Vehiclular Traffic Flow," Scientific American 209 NO.6 December 1963, pp. 35-43.

Choke points upstream of bridges and tunnels ot insure maximum flow (or at least prevent congestion) are used for safety reasons. Properly designed, motorists don't even notice the choke points.

Agreed, the flow in a tunnel can be increased if motorists are forced to increase speed on the uphill sections. But no diesels, and no trucks in the mix, please. The increase might be 50%, from 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour to 2,400 vehicles per lane per hour. But that flow is possible for maybe 15 minutes before breaking down to all cars stopped, zero flow.

dickboyd@aol.com

NoSB: If the regular lanes moved at a the same speed as the express lanes, then more people would move in the regular lanes because of the higher concentration/density. Imagine the bumper-to-bumper traffic in the regular lanes moving at the speed limit, while the quite spacious (generally and relatively) distance between cars remains in the express lanes. You can check it by estimating how many cars would fit in those long stretches of few cars in the express lanes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by raymond
[br]I am suggesting that they add reversible lanes to the existing reversible HOV lanes. For example: with nine reversible lanes the traffic flow could be reduced to two lanes or increased up to 7 lanes in either direction. Imagine a rush hour with two lanes of SOV traffic in each direction and five lanes of HOV traffic; now we're talking about moving people! ... Like you, I get frustrated with some narrow, self-centered views, and I fear those views may dominate in conversations when decisions are made. We need not be so critical.

---

raymond - changing regular lanes to HOV lanes only exasperates the problem for the majority of commuters. Although express lanes move more people than regular lanes, it is because those lanes are MOVING - the regular lanes have a far higher concentration of people than the express lanes. Just look to your right!
Use the slug system to have one count cars and the other to keep time. See how many cars in the regular lanes you pass per minute. Do it when the regular lanes are moving and when they aren't. The rationlae for improving the regular lane commute becomes obvious - and there are far more voters in those regular lanes than the express lanes. Especially when you add the hybrid owners - who have enough cash to make nice contributions to state legislators.

Thanks Sponge, I have been reading and contributing to these forums for some time now and am well aware of their content.

I am suggesting that they add reversible lanes to the existing reversible HOV lanes. For example: with nine reversible lanes the traffic flow could be reduced to two lanes or increased up to 7 lanes in either direction. Imagine a rush hour with two lanes of SOV traffic in each direction and five lanes of HOV traffic; now we're talking about moving people! There is certainly enough existing asphalt to allow for that many lanes (or possibily more) without increasing the I95 footprint. The darned-blasted barracades and shoulders waste lots of potential lane space, they could use that space to increase the traffic capacity on I95 by adding HOV lanes.

And despite your arguments, HOV4 is a viable alternative that offers relief without any cost. And there is lots of unused commuter parking at places like Springfield Mall, Potomac Mills, the Gambrill Rd lot, and Rolling Valley lot just to name a few. But likely this option will get little consideration; there's no money in it for anyone.

Know what Sponge, I am just brainstorming, I don't know the answers, but I've got some ideas, no better or worse than your's or anyone else's, just ideas. I think the system is very workable and don't want to see it ruined by those who think only of their interests or the profit potential. Like you, I get frustrated with some narrow, self-centered views, and I fear those views may dominate in conversations when decisions are made. We need not be so critical.