Quote:
Quote by: Compugasm  No, lets look at the current plan; increase the existing problems by scale. Build more roads, and more more more more... I know you live in San Diego; how wide can they possibly make the 15 or the 5 freeways? Building can not outpace population growth, when everyone is traveling at the same time! Meanwhile, traffic is delayed further by road construction. Accidents cause jams, which backs up the onramps, then the sidestreets where all the traffic lights are. It's a cascading effect.
Now you're just being rediculous. A law and enfocement wasn't what I had in mind. There should be an incentive for business to find a solution to 9-5 commutes if applicable. I don't know what "incentive" should be. But, the government could turn a few propaganda resources to promoting alternate schedules. All it will cost, is advertising dollars. Businesses can impliment the system that works best for them.
Huh? Nevermind, don't even try to explain it.
I agree. I'm not saying do not build more roads. I'm saying get people off the roads during peak hours. When I go shopping at night, these 4 lane roads feel like they were built just for me. Spread out traffic density, It will have an measureable impact on traffic and the environment within 2-3 years.
What is annoying about debating you, is your search to find the handful of people who will not benefit. I'm pretty sure ports and supermarkets operate 24hrs a day. And for everyone else, how do you know it wouldn't have a positive effect on family relations, and work productivity? Okay, fine. Dock workers then. Lets just say dock workers will be miserable working at midnight. Meanwhile, millions of other people are sitting on the freeway, and six guys in hardhats watch one guy dig a hole. |
I do not live in the city anymore. Where I live we have mostly dirt roads and some paved streets. Only one freeway passes by our community. Last weekend they closed the freeway down compeltely because the police were having a stand off some guy on the freeway who had a gun and a hostage, the freeway was closed for 7 hours and everyone had to sit in their cars and wait. I would agree that most of the back-ups (when the freeways turn into parking lots) is because of accidents, road construction projects, or emergency prolems like when a brush fire is close to the highway.
Our coastline cities have harbors and most of the goods coming from Japan are transported from our harbors through-out the state and country. So trucks are in fact a big problem. Perhaps trucking by train would be a solution but not sure if anyone has looked into that to see if we need more railroads or not or if that would ease the truck traffic.
The plan you advocated was tested in L.A. when we hosted the Olymics games here. Trucks were not permitted on the freeways except at night.
It worked. Everyone was amazed how easy it was to move quickly on the freeways in spite of the fact that we had perhaps a million tourists here to see the games. The Supermarket trucks were allowed to use the freeways during that time because they also transport prescription drugs. But all other trucks had to use side streets or park until night time. The plan worked for a week or so and so you got proof that your idea (an old idea) is very workable.
Another major problem with freeways are the interchanges where freeways connect with each other. Poor planning perhaps in the orginal designing because they merge many lanes down to one or two lanes to make the transfer from one freeway to another, and that causes back-ups. It would seem to me the only solution for that is new construction to allow more people more lanes for making transfers from one freeway to another.
Back ups due to accidents might seem unavoidable, but if people took the time to learn about what side streets they could use to by-pass that blockage they would be "wise". Also we could fund for a better means to clear off those finder bumpers faster from the freeways, expecially during peak hours.
Another problem is that no one wants to live where they work because they do not like the run-down neighborhoods "downtown" so they drive into work from a-far (where the new houses are being built). Spending as much as one hour in good traffic to get to work every day (with one person per vehicle).
Carpooling failed as an idea.
The idea about companies changing their hours so that everyone is not getting off work at the same time was suggested but I do not know if the city governments offered any perks for those who adopted the idea. Some of the big companies in fact did adopt the idea but so far it has not been a success because not enough companies did so via free will. Also, no one centrial point of organization between all companies and businesses. In most of the L.A. areas the freeways are heavy all day long, even on the weekends when most people are off work. The freeways are wide open at 3 in the morning however, so it would be logical if half the workers went to work then instead of at 6 in the morning. Which would amount to more then a "few" dock hands.
But people are not used to those hours, they are in the habit of being sound alseep at three in the morning. And they do not like a lot of cars on nearby roads honking and making traffic sounds where they snooze ( ever try sleeping in the daytime with all that racket?). They want to watch prime time TV shows and not the junk they show at other times. Not all men are Oprah fans. It would take a lot of adjustments for your normal day person to adopt such new hours for going to work. Now the freeways are open at night and the supermarkets have less shoppers (and fewer check out clerks) and so I sort of liked working nights my self (which I did for 10 years). And "night people" are "cooler" then some of those daytime jerks.
So that plan would be good if you can get people to make the phychological adjustments for becoming a night owl. It works for nature, half the animals roam around at night and the other half roam around in daylight hours. So perhaps humans can do the same thing with our city populations. It is not like we must get up at dawn to feed the chickens.
I think perhaps Arnold might hope to "kill two birds" with one stone (so to speak) because freeway construction for more roads would create more jobs and more income tax resources for the state budget - which money comes in each year - next year. And needless to say, once finished, more roads or freeway lanes would solve some of the traffic jam problems. The thing is we have enough traffic right now to fill up three more freeways going in the same direction as the ones we got, and still little room for the millions of new folks he expects will be arriving in California ten years from now.
One fellow suggested that we should have multi-use transprotation systems.
Cars that can contain a bike, and rapid (train) transits that can contain cars. So you drive your car to the train station, drive it onto the train, zoom into L.A. and then park your car and get out your bike and peddle a mile to your work site. (or use a tiny motor bike). Now that is "thinking into the future" eh? Great in nice weather conditions anyway.
But I hope they do not pave the dirt roads where I live, I can walk the dirt roads and I know what I am going, those freeways are a fast track to the big "California Dream" and who knows how that will end up?