4 ms·

Not to sound like a radical libertarian but imagine a world in which roads were operated with some sense of incentives to actually MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. Lets h

Not to sound like a radical libertarian but imagine a world in which roads were operated with some sense of incentives to actually MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. Lets have Tolls - but you get a refund when you are delayed. I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. Traffic light systems would be heavily automated/AI so that there isn't much traffic. Instead they give out construction contracts to the "cheapest", which ignores all of the wasted time and gas the public endures in traffic, a secondary cost of the project.

Anechoic 16y ago
I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. You would be trading one set of inconveniences for another - in the case of nighttime construction you're typically paying the construction workers more (anywhere from time-and-a-half to triple time IME) plus the environmental mitigation for the nighttime activities (noise in particular).
- krschultz 16y ago
  Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night. It is generally less noticable because if you aren't driving at 1 or 2 in the morning you don't see it, but I do a 100 mile drive about once a week at night and it is noticably different than the daytime. The biggest loss is not working weekends. And why do you have to pay so much? Construction workers have one of the highest unemployment rates, I bet if you start offering 3 shifts at day you would have people sign up for time or time and a half max.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night IME (having worked on several NYC-area construction noise assessments) that's not true, and when it is true, it's usually because the traffic disruption would be so severe, the project has no other choice. MTA/NYCT work also tends to occur at night because that's when train schedules are reduced and workers can have room/time to work. And why do you have to pay so much? Because working such a physically demanding job at night for extended-periods, especially in cold/wet weather sucks (again, speaking from experience). Looking at the Big Dig night work, younger guys were likely to sign up for night work to make a quick buck while the older, more experienced guys (usually with families) would use their seniority to get on day shifts so they could lead normal lives. This causes problems because you want the more experienced guys working nights so they get things right the first and don't have to wake up project engineers when they encounter problems, so you wind up upping the hourly wages to try to attract those experienced workers.
brudgers 16y ago
What matters is moving people, not traffic. http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-bus-vs-bikes.jpg?w=640&h=305 http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-b...
- mmt 16y ago
  That's a bare assertion, and the link doesn't support it. There's a very important vehicle missing from the list: trucks. Add "cargo" to "people" and, suddenly, it's no longer easy to measure. How many cars are carrying cargo in addition to persons, thereby being partially a truck in function?
  - brudgers 16y ago
    Most freight does not need to move during peak traffic flow, and of course much of it already does. I'd be curious to hear your speculation about how much cargo is actually move by cars during peak traffic volume.
    - mmt 16y ago
      Don't confuse "freight" with cargo, which I use to include everything that's physical stuff. I don't have a guess as to the magnitude, but, anecdotally, even[1] at peak commute times, I see plenty of dedicated delivery vehicles, as well as people visibly carrying something large and bulky, such as sports equipment[2], changes of clothes, baby stuff[3], and gardening tools. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the vast majority of peak commute trips are just trying people going "from point A to point B," but even a single, unpredictably time, cargo-carrying trip per week for a particular individual is adequate incentive for having the cability the rest of the time. [1] or especially, since that's mostly when I'm moving slowly enough to gaze at other vehicles at length. [2] a friend of mine commuted by train and/or bike for a while and eventually abandoned it, in part, because it meant he could no longer play ice hockey mid-day on workdays. [3] strollers and diaper bags I've come to recognize, and, if one can extrapolate from child safety seats, there are even more unseen.
njharman 16y ago
Almost every place I've lived in the US construction does occur 24 hours, but maybe not 7. Commute and daily traffic require it. Maybe you're just not out 24/7 to see it? Most traffic systems are automated and their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. The minimal use sensors in the roads to help determine when to switch lights. The most advanced are integrated and use many metrics and algorithms in controlling traffic signals http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/html/atsac_1.html http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/html/atsac_1.html
- snarkyturtle 16y ago
  While their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH, they move it in the worst possible way. Ask any traffic official, they program the system to limit the speed of the vehicles, rather than help them find the most effecient. This "safety feature" leads to exactly what the article cites: stop lights that inhibit someone from going too far without stopping or at least slowing down.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  Almost every place I've lived in the US construction does occur 24 hours, but maybe not 7. Commute and daily traffic require it. Maybe you're just not out 24/7 to see it? There have been a lot of places/projects where all I ever saw were closed lanes with some inactive construction equipment parked nearby. Last month was the first time I ever saw a construction project with crews working all three shifts -- it was quite the novelty, since I had never even heard of such a thing before.
stretchwithme 16y ago
Incentives are great but will be lost on bureaucrats. Its not their money. Now if it were a private system, that would be another matter But there would be plenty of incentive to move traffic through as fast as possible, just as there is to move people through theaters and restaurants as fast as possible. And, as with theaters and restaurants and motels and many other things, private roads would charge you more at peak times. People would try to travel at cheaper times if possible and try to reschedule activities. Traffic would actually keep flowing at the pace that gets the most cars through the network. And this would actually reduce the amount of road building required. People would have more incentive to take mass transit. And we'd have less smog and less stress because people wouldn't be stuck in traffic on a daily basis. And we could lower taxes. Road building is expensive and so is defending the oil. People who use the roads the most would be the ones paying for them.
khafra 16y ago
I don't know if I would want my driving managed by Comcast.

Anechoic 16y ago

I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. You would be trading one set of inconveniences for another - in the case of nighttime construction you're typically paying the construction workers more (anywhere from time-and-a-half to triple time IME) plus the environmental mitigation for the nighttime activities (noise in particular).

krschultz 16y ago
Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night. It is generally less noticable because if you aren't driving at 1 or 2 in the morning you don't see it, but I do a 100 mile drive about once a week at night and it is noticably different than the daytime. The biggest loss is not working weekends. And why do you have to pay so much? Construction workers have one of the highest unemployment rates, I bet if you start offering 3 shifts at day you would have people sign up for time or time and a half max.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night IME (having worked on several NYC-area construction noise assessments) that's not true, and when it is true, it's usually because the traffic disruption would be so severe, the project has no other choice. MTA/NYCT work also tends to occur at night because that's when train schedules are reduced and workers can have room/time to work. And why do you have to pay so much? Because working such a physically demanding job at night for extended-periods, especially in cold/wet weather sucks (again, speaking from experience). Looking at the Big Dig night work, younger guys were likely to sign up for night work to make a quick buck while the older, more experienced guys (usually with families) would use their seniority to get on day shifts so they could lead normal lives. This causes problems because you want the more experienced guys working nights so they get things right the first and don't have to wake up project engineers when they encounter problems, so you wind up upping the hourly wages to try to attract those experienced workers.

brudgers 16y ago

What matters is moving people, not traffic. http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-bus-vs-bikes.jpg?w=640&h=305 http://commontragedies.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cars-vs-b...

mmt 16y ago
That's a bare assertion, and the link doesn't support it. There's a very important vehicle missing from the list: trucks. Add "cargo" to "people" and, suddenly, it's no longer easy to measure. How many cars are carrying cargo in addition to persons, thereby being partially a truck in function?
- brudgers 16y ago
  Most freight does not need to move during peak traffic flow, and of course much of it already does. I'd be curious to hear your speculation about how much cargo is actually move by cars during peak traffic volume.
  - mmt 16y ago
    Don't confuse "freight" with cargo, which I use to include everything that's physical stuff. I don't have a guess as to the magnitude, but, anecdotally, even[1] at peak commute times, I see plenty of dedicated delivery vehicles, as well as people visibly carrying something large and bulky, such as sports equipment[2], changes of clothes, baby stuff[3], and gardening tools. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the vast majority of peak commute trips are just trying people going "from point A to point B," but even a single, unpredictably time, cargo-carrying trip per week for a particular individual is adequate incentive for having the cability the rest of the time. [1] or especially, since that's mostly when I'm moving slowly enough to gaze at other vehicles at length. [2] a friend of mine commuted by train and/or bike for a while and eventually abandoned it, in part, because it meant he could no longer play ice hockey mid-day on workdays. [3] strollers and diaper bags I've come to recognize, and, if one can extrapolate from child safety seats, there are even more unseen.

njharman 16y ago

Almost every place I've lived in the US construction does occur 24 hours, but maybe not 7. Commute and daily traffic require it. Maybe you're just not out 24/7 to see it? Most traffic systems are automated and their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. The minimal use sensors in the roads to help determine when to switch lights. The most advanced are integrated and use many metrics and algorithms in controlling traffic signals http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/html/atsac_1.html http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/html/atsac_1.html

snarkyturtle 16y ago
While their goal is to MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH, they move it in the worst possible way. Ask any traffic official, they program the system to limit the speed of the vehicles, rather than help them find the most effecient. This "safety feature" leads to exactly what the article cites: stop lights that inhibit someone from going too far without stopping or at least slowing down.
kd0amg 16y ago
Almost every place I've lived in the US construction does occur 24 hours, but maybe not 7. Commute and daily traffic require it. Maybe you're just not out 24/7 to see it? There have been a lot of places/projects where all I ever saw were closed lanes with some inactive construction equipment parked nearby. Last month was the first time I ever saw a construction project with crews working all three shifts -- it was quite the novelty, since I had never even heard of such a thing before.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Incentives are great but will be lost on bureaucrats. Its not their money. Now if it were a private system, that would be another matter But there would be plenty of incentive to move traffic through as fast as possible, just as there is to move people through theaters and restaurants as fast as possible. And, as with theaters and restaurants and motels and many other things, private roads would charge you more at peak times. People would try to travel at cheaper times if possible and try to reschedule activities. Traffic would actually keep flowing at the pace that gets the most cars through the network. And this would actually reduce the amount of road building required. People would have more incentive to take mass transit. And we'd have less smog and less stress because people wouldn't be stuck in traffic on a daily basis. And we could lower taxes. Road building is expensive and so is defending the oil. People who use the roads the most would be the ones paying for them.

khafra 16y ago

I don't know if I would want my driving managed by Comcast.