3 ms·

> According to the bill, money for construction of two new lanes on each side of I-5 and CA-99 would be drawn from California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

by bdamm 8y ago

> According to the bill, money for construction of two new lanes on each side of I-5 and CA-99 would be drawn from California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Wait, what? > The bill is being pitched as a way to cut idling in traffic and therefore reduce greenhouse gases This looks like next level reality distortion field to me. Increasing speed limits cannot possibly decrease greenhouse gases, nor can adding lanes (which increases capacity and therefore use.) The most optimal speed for reducing greenhouse gasses appears to be 40-60mph, so any discussion of speeds outside that range is therefore not about lowest GHG emissions. Having high-speed lanes seems OK to me, but drawing that effort out of funds tagged for GHG-reduction seems like a court challenge waiting to happen, and is morally unacceptable anyhow.

soheil 8y ago
If you're getting when you're going faster there is less congestion on the road therefore less pollution form other cars, there are other advantages too but please do not make this a moral argument.
- manicdee 8y ago
  You won’t get where you are going faster just because a lane has no speed limit. There’s a reason the other lanes are moving at 5mph or less. Congestion isn’t about what happens on straight stretches of road, it’s about what happens at exits and junctions. I mean sure, you get “standing waves” is traffic caused by people changing lanes or braking suddenly, but when an exit lane is full because the traffic ahead is held up by a red light or a busy stop/yield intersection, no speed limit is going to help. What will help is fewer (yes, fewer) lanes on the main road, more lanes (or “holding space”) at intersections, and mechanisms for allowing exiting traffic to enter side roads without using intersections.
- omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago
  It's just physics, not a moral argument. Drag increases as a function of velocity squared, and increasing speeds above some point requires more energy per mile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation If there isn't a lot of traffic on a section of road, people can move through that section faster at higher speeds, so there can be less congestion. On the other hand, if there is enough traffic, high speeds reduce the throughput of a given section of road because braking distances as a function of speed increase faster than speed. https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Speeding-August2015_812008.pdf https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_S...
- Spartan-S63 8y ago
  Actually, there’s less congestion on the road if you follow at a safe distance from the car in front of you. Congestion is caused by following too closely and braking too hard. If everyone followed at the minimum safe distances, your average speed would likely be faster than it would be in stop-and-go congestion.
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    Congestion can also be caused by too little free capacity to even maintain that distance... Which is what typically happens where I live. There's a bridge with four lanes. Two of the lanes split off to an exit which includes another highway junction. Two other lanes continue, and are joined by a third lane from the other highway. This turns almost the entire bridge into a parking lot every afternoon. Even on the weekend, this interchange will typically be backed up. https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/da...
glitchc 8y ago
Electric cars are, on average, much faster than typical ICEs. Edit: Added the usual caveats. And yes, they are.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  Faster, or quicker? And "on average" depends on what population you're averaging. There are things arguably describable as "electric cars" that don't even go highway speed.
HissingMachine 8y ago
Granted, the reasoning is fairly dubious, comparing the two emissions side by side would obviously render the reasoning that higher speeds create fewer greenhouse gases false. But having said that, the opposite isn't actually that "green" either, reducing every vehicle despite its optimal torque range to certain speed limits isn't an instant reduction to carbon production since you will generate more of it by running a lower powered engine at higher rpm's than it was designed to run optimally. So you can't make an absolute statement in either way actually. You can only adjust to the vehicle base in use currently if you want to optimize efficiency, speed, fuel consumption and emissions.
- huebomont 8y ago
  making it less desirable to drive will reduce greenhouse gases. making it more desirable to drive will increase them.
bdamm 8y ago
Potential resolution could be to limit use of the lanes to just zero emissions vehicles.

by bdamm 8y ago

soheil 8y ago

If you're getting when you're going faster there is less congestion on the road therefore less pollution form other cars, there are other advantages too but please do not make this a moral argument.

manicdee 8y ago
You won’t get where you are going faster just because a lane has no speed limit. There’s a reason the other lanes are moving at 5mph or less. Congestion isn’t about what happens on straight stretches of road, it’s about what happens at exits and junctions. I mean sure, you get “standing waves” is traffic caused by people changing lanes or braking suddenly, but when an exit lane is full because the traffic ahead is held up by a red light or a busy stop/yield intersection, no speed limit is going to help. What will help is fewer (yes, fewer) lanes on the main road, more lanes (or “holding space”) at intersections, and mechanisms for allowing exiting traffic to enter side roads without using intersections.
omgwtfbyobbq 8y ago
It's just physics, not a moral argument. Drag increases as a function of velocity squared, and increasing speeds above some point requires more energy per mile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation If there isn't a lot of traffic on a section of road, people can move through that section faster at higher speeds, so there can be less congestion. On the other hand, if there is enough traffic, high speeds reduce the throughput of a given section of road because braking distances as a function of speed increase faster than speed. https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Speeding-August2015_812008.pdf https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_S...
Spartan-S63 8y ago
Actually, there’s less congestion on the road if you follow at a safe distance from the car in front of you. Congestion is caused by following too closely and braking too hard. If everyone followed at the minimum safe distances, your average speed would likely be faster than it would be in stop-and-go congestion.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  Congestion can also be caused by too little free capacity to even maintain that distance... Which is what typically happens where I live. There's a bridge with four lanes. Two of the lanes split off to an exit which includes another highway junction. Two other lanes continue, and are joined by a third lane from the other highway. This turns almost the entire bridge into a parking lot every afternoon. Even on the weekend, this interchange will typically be backed up. https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/da...

glitchc 8y ago

Electric cars are, on average, much faster than typical ICEs. Edit: Added the usual caveats. And yes, they are.

perl4ever 8y ago
Faster, or quicker? And "on average" depends on what population you're averaging. There are things arguably describable as "electric cars" that don't even go highway speed.

HissingMachine 8y ago

Granted, the reasoning is fairly dubious, comparing the two emissions side by side would obviously render the reasoning that higher speeds create fewer greenhouse gases false. But having said that, the opposite isn't actually that "green" either, reducing every vehicle despite its optimal torque range to certain speed limits isn't an instant reduction to carbon production since you will generate more of it by running a lower powered engine at higher rpm's than it was designed to run optimally. So you can't make an absolute statement in either way actually. You can only adjust to the vehicle base in use currently if you want to optimize efficiency, speed, fuel consumption and emissions.

huebomont 8y ago
making it less desirable to drive will reduce greenhouse gases. making it more desirable to drive will increase them.

bdamm 8y ago

Potential resolution could be to limit use of the lanes to just zero emissions vehicles.