 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2005LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016
This story was also broadcast on the KTLA Morning News. In the televised story, they interviewed some guy who whined "I wish they'd do something about it" (referring to the traffic congestion on SoCal freeways). Well, "they" aren't gonna do JACK about it for at least 10 years, so if you want a solution you'll need to take matters into your own hands. MOVE from your isolated, accessible-only-by-automobile suburban sprawl home and find a place close to where you work or, if your office is near a station, move close to a public transit stop. Sitting there whining while you're stuck in gridlock isn't going to help you. http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-transport30nov30,0,5564705.story?coll=ktla-news-1 In north Orange County, Interstate 5 is a 10-lane superhighway, with the broad shoulders, terra-cotta sound walls and attractive landscaping one might expect along California's main north-south artery. Just short of Los Angeles County, however, the artery clogs. It narrows to six lanes, three each way, and sheds its modern features, becoming a 1950s-vintage roadway. Right about there, many northbound motorists get mad. "The commute out of Orange County is impossible," fumed Paul Samarin, a Newport Beach lawyer, while gassing up near his home in Norwalk. "It bottlenecks and it stops." Drivers pay the price in time and frustration. According to plans, commuters will have to wait until 2016 to see what is predicted to be a $1.4-billion expansion from the Orange County line through the L.A. County cities of La Mirada, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs and part of Downey to the junction with the 605 Freeway. > According to plans, commuters will have to wait until 2016 to see > what is predicted to be a $1.4-billion expansion from the Orange > County line through the L.A. County cities of La Mirada, Norwalk, > Santa Fe Springs and part of Downey to the junction with the 605 > Freeway. And after several YEARS of construction to widen the road, they will realize that the newly-widened roadway is way too narrow. That happened with a roadway near where I used to live. It was two lanes each way, always jammed one way in the morning and the opposite way in the evening (two hours to go about 10 miles). They announced plans to widen it to THREE lanes each way. Took several years. When they were done, the road was three lanes jammed in the morning and the opposite three lanes jammed in the evening. The backup and commute time were identical to what it was before the road construction was even out of the planning stage. Adding one or two lanes does NOTHING to a road that is seriously congested, unless it was only one lane each way to begin with. This project planned for OC and LA counties in 2016 probably should have been completed *****no later than 1986****, and the next expansion should be to DOUBLE or TRIPLE that once again. But no . . . . the taxpayers will have billions wasted on yet another expansion project that is too little, too late. -Dave > was even out of the planning stage. Adding one or two lanes does NOTHING to > a road that is seriously congested, unless it was only one lane each way to > begin with. I've argued the same thing here many times. I am consistantly told I am wrong. The problem is that on a road that has so many users on it is that there is always another lane blocking sloth to screw up the additional lane(s). So many that they can easily establish blocking. The lane growth has to out pace the traffic by a very significant margin. This is why driver behavior is so important to capacity. I came to this conclusion when I experienced traffic that would have crippled a flat straight chicago 4 lane arterial with such frequent traffic lights flow smoothly on a 4 lane road in Germany laid out along a winding path probably laid out in 16whatever. Brent P, <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:07:04 -0600: > I've argued the same thing here many times. I am consistantly told I am > wrong. The problem is that on a road that has so many users on it is that > there is always another lane blocking sloth to screw up the additional > lane(s). So many that they can easily establish blocking. The lane > growth has to out pace the traffic by a very significant margin. For which you can thank people like "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," and the reso of its naderite ilk. > This is why driver behavior is so important to capacity. I came to this > conclusion when I experienced traffic that would have crippled a flat > straight chicago 4 lane arterial with such frequent traffic lights flow > smoothly on a 4 lane road in Germany laid out along a winding path > probably laid out in 16whatever. Well, if the cops here would concentrate less on a number on a sign and more on truly dangerious drivers - like the afore mentioned killer - we could also have roads like you described in the paragraph above... > For which you can thank people like "Laura Bush murdered her > boyfriend," and the reso of its naderite ilk. Are you really that naive? Judy is nothing more than a weak troll - not even disgused well at that - and you and the rest of her long term post humpers seem to think she's for real. It's funny to read responses from those in their first week of usenet, after that it's just sad. >> For which you can thank people like "Laura Bush murdered her >> boyfriend," and the reso of its naderite ilk. > >Are you really that naive? Judy is nothing more than a weak troll - not even >disgused well at that - and you and the rest of her long term post humpers >seem to think she's for real. First of all, Aunt Judy is a "he." Second of all, we all know he's a troll and doesn't actually believe what he posts here. However, there ARE people who are exactly like that FOR REAL out on the roads. These a.sholes think they're doing a "good deed" by "pacing" traffic in the passing lane and slowing down "those evil speeders." If you think I'm wrong, it is you who is naive. >>> For which you can thank people like "Laura Bush murdered her >>> boyfriend," and the reso of its naderite ilk. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > First of all, Aunt Judy is a "he." And you know this how? Secondly, how can a fake person have a proper gender? > Second of all, we all know he's a troll and doesn't actually believe > what he posts here. However, there ARE people who are exactly like > that FOR REAL out on the roads. These a.sholes think they're doing a > "good deed" by "pacing" traffic in the passing lane and slowing down > "those evil speeders." Sure - they exist - however Judy doesn't. Judy is just a game; a troll to get a rise out of the simple minded. It's interesting and pathetic to see the factory issue right winger go into action in their replies to her. Some of them are obsessed with her; the ones who change their nyms to mock her and the ones who maintain a database of what she said. >> First of all, Aunt Judy is a "he." > >And you know this how? Someone will be along presently to post the links. ;) >Secondly, how can a fake person have a proper gender? Rest assured, there is a real person with a real gender behind Judy's keyboard. >> Second of all, we all know he's a troll and doesn't actually believe >> what he posts here. However, there ARE people who are exactly like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Sure - they exist - however Judy doesn't. Judy is just a game; a troll to >get a rise out of the simple minded. Did I stutter? >> First of all, Aunt Judy is a "he." > > And you know this how? Secondly, how can a fake person have a proper > gender? check it's yahoo profile(s) >>> First of all, Aunt Judy is a "he." >> >> And you know this how? Secondly, how can a fake person have a proper >> gender? > > check it's yahoo profile(s) What would that prove? And who has so little life to chase trolls around anyway? JohnH, <johnharlow@gmail.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:45:11 -0500: > Some of them are obsessed with her; the ones who > change their nyms to mock her and the ones who > maintain a database of what she said. So nice to see that you have so much time on *your* hands as to worry about what I and a few others do. Don't like what we have to say, don't read our posts. > JohnH, <johnharlow@gmail.com> was motivated to say this in > rec.autos.driving on Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:45:11 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about what I and a few others do. Don't like what we have to say, > don't read our posts. Heh - just how black is that kettle? > > was even out of the planning stage. Adding one or two lanes does NOTHING to > > a road that is seriously congested, unless it was only one lane each way to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > smoothly on a 4 lane road in Germany laid out along a winding path > probably laid out in 16whatever. Driver behavior isn't always acceleration. Driver behavior isn't always high speed. Driver behavior IS, however, at least using a large enough following distance so that others can merge or change lanes. In fact, just focusing on Norwalk, that traffic jams up frequently on the I-5, because of two major factors: 1) Drivers trying to merge onto the freeway, being blocked out by thru traffic that won't create sufficient gaps. As the right lane force-ends, thru traffic and merging traffic jam with merging traffic trying to force its way into narrow gaps while thru traffic still refuses to open up larger gaps. This jams the right lane. 2) Drivers trying to merge into the right lane from the left lanes, to access the I-605 junction, while again, thru traffic refuses to open up suitable gaps to allow these lane changes. As lane changing traffic starts to slow as they approach the junction so they can try to force the lane change, this also slows at least the middle lane. The partial solution, of course, is to engineer every merge as a protected merge/exit only lane, so that merging traffic can at least go from onramp to onramp if thru traffic won't let them in. The other solution, regulating following distances so that traffic can lane change, is something the drivers must (unfortunately) do on their own, until close proximity forced throttle cutoff/forced engine braking is incorporated into newer vehicles as an sensor/ECU function. And yes, there are occasions where--even though certain group members may disagree--it is completely necessary to let someone into a lane. When that breaks down, using technology to govern that behavior does become a viable secondary solution. > Driver behavior isn't always acceleration. Driver behavior isn't always high > speed. Driver behavior IS, however, at least using a large enough following > distance so that others can merge or change lanes. And driver behavior isn't always dumping the bodies of dead hookers on the side of the interstate. The merging and lane changing problems go away when sloth and MFFY are eliminated. What is the major reason for making it difficult for someone to get in front of you? 1) That driver is sloth and will drive 5,10,15,20mph or more under the flow speed or your present speed. We can thank absurdly low speed limits in great part for this. 2) That driver has been passing on the shoulder or conducting any number of other assholish behaviors. 3) the driver is just plain incompetent, using a cell phone, watching TV, reading a book, whatever. When people are almost entirely competent drivers the need to block out vanishes. There's nobody racing up on the shoulder, there isn't someone reading a book not paying attention to the road and most of all there isn't someone trying to merge into 70mph traffic at 40mph. > And yes, there are occasions where--even though certain group members may > disagree--it is completely necessary to let someone into a lane. When that > breaks down, using technology to govern that behavior does become a viable > secondary solution. Competent drivers don't require anyone to 'let' them in under normal flowing circumstances. Even in bumper to bumper traffic needing someone to 'let' me in is very rare. I learned early on that driving in such a way that it is dependent on the kindness of others is foolish at best. >Competent drivers don't require anyone to 'let' them in under normal >flowing circumstances. Even in bumper to bumper traffic needing someone >to 'let' me in is very rare. I learned early on that driving in such a >way that it is dependent on the kindness of others is foolish at best. Counting on the idiocy of others is much more reliable, though. If everyone was competent, things like passing a long line of traffic at a light and merging back in in front of the inevitable sloth wouldn't work. But then again, they wouldn't need to.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Counting on the idiocy of others is much more reliable, though. If > everyone was competent, things like passing a long line of traffic at > a light and merging back in in front of the inevitable sloth wouldn't > work. But then again, they wouldn't need to. Exactly. >Counting on the idiocy of others is much more reliable, though. If >everyone was competent, things like passing a long line of traffic at >a light and merging back in in front of the inevitable sloth wouldn't >work. But then again, they wouldn't need to. Heh. Amen to this, too! -Kenny, wishing I could assemble all the r.a.d posters into our own little country, but I suspect it already exists- and contains an Autobahn SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 > -Kenny, wishing I could assemble all the r.a.d posters into > our own little country Mmm, I believe it would be better if some r.a.d. "posters" were left out of that group. >> -Kenny, wishing I could assemble all the r.a.d posters into >> our own little country > > Mmm, I believe it would be better if some r.a.d. "posters" were left out > of that group. Why? Natural selection would cull them out quickly enough. -Dave >>> -Kenny, wishing I could assemble all the r.a.d posters into >>> our own little country [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why? Natural selection would cull them out quickly enough. -Dave It hasn't worked so far... Although it HAS been a while since I've seen a post from Carl Troller... >>Why? Natural selection would cull them out quickly enough. -Dave > > It hasn't worked so far... > > Although it HAS been a while since I've seen a post from Carl > Troller... That's because they've been mixing with the public at large, not JUST RAD regulars. (evil grin) Sometimes natural selection gets a little push, y'know? -Dave Kenneth Crudup, <kenny@panix.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Thu, 1 Dec 2005 04:47:31 +0000 (UTC): > -Kenny, wishing I could assemble all the r.a.d posters into > our own little country, but I suspect it already exists- > and contains an Autobahn I rather doubt that judy is in Germany. And despite its faults, I like the USA just fine, so I'll be staying put. :) > I rather doubt that judy is in Germany. And where do you think Judy lives, other than in your own mind? >Competent drivers don't require anyone to 'let' them in under normal >flowing circumstances. Even in bumper to bumper traffic needing someone >to 'let' me in is very rare. I learned early on that driving in such a >way that it is dependent on the kindness of others is foolish at best. Amen! -Kenny, who makes his own way SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 >2) Drivers trying to merge into the right lane from the left lanes Exacerbated by the fact that Californians are evidently genetically driven to the left lane at all costs. You don't get this kind of bad traffic w/o the help of millions of sloth drivers. I suggest you look at the people around you in that particular section of the '5 (where it's even slow late at night) and see what kinds of people are driving around you. It's telling, and relevant. Early today on the '73 I was hauling a.s 'till I came across three drivers blocking each lane near the MacArthur exit, all braking as they went downhill. For a clue, they were all driving beat-up pickup trucks. -Kenny SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 > Early today on the '73 I was hauling a.s 'till I came across three > drivers blocking each lane near the MacArthur exit, all braking as > they went downhill. I've been on chicago area expressways at 2:30am and been blocked by the only 3 other vehicles in visual range. It just doesn't take much to screw everything up. > I've been on chicago area expressways at 2:30am and been blocked by the > only 3 other vehicles in visual range. > > It just doesn't take much to screw everything up. Clueless drivers are everywhere. I remember one time where I finally got past a LLB going 10 mph under the limit (65 mph where most traffic goes 70 to 75 mph). I got in front of him and let go of the accelerator. Even when my speed dropped down to 10 mph, the idiot wouldn't pass me on the right (in fact, several of his passengers were making obscene gestures from what I could tell in the rear view mirror). As for the reason I did this, I was under the impression that the driver would get the message and try to pass me on the right (at which point I would floor it and resume my original cruising speed). Arif Khokar wrote: <brevity snip> > As for the reason I did this, I was under the impression that the driver > would get the message and try to pass me on the right (at which point I > would floor it and resume my original cruising speed). > ----- It sounds like you're kinda busy when you drive. And in a hurry. But suddenly... you found time to slow to attempt to send said driver a "message"? Without regard to any drivers to your rear that your temporary "slothness" may have affected? If you were in such a yank why didn't you just "get on down the fuckin' road"? Do you feel you were performing some service of civic responsibility? Where *did* you find the time for the "message" that you lacked prior to attempting to send it? ----- - gpsman > It sounds like you're kinda busy when you drive. And in a hurry. But > suddenly... you found time to slow to attempt to send said driver a > "message"? Without regard to any drivers to your rear that your > temporary "slothness" may have affected? Often, slowing down in front of an LLB is doing a lot of other drivers a favor. I've gotten in front of LLBs and slowed down, opening up a gap on the right that everyone trapped behind can then pass. I wait until all the trapped vehicles are gone and then accelerate away. It's just one of the good deeds I perform. Most people see me pass and seem to understand the concept and take advantage of it. The ones I catch up to don't LLB. > I've gotten in front of LLBs and slowed down, opening up a gap on the > right that everyone trapped behind can then pass. I wait until all the > trapped vehicles are gone and then accelerate away. It's just one of > the > good deeds I perform. Right. All these people pass, seeing YOU in the lead as the LLB. You're making lots of friends there. The highway is NEVER a place to teach someone a "lesson". >> I've gotten in front of LLBs and slowed down, opening up a gap on the >> right that everyone trapped behind can then pass. I wait until all the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right. All these people pass, seeing YOU in the lead as the LLB. You're > making lots of friends there. If that were the case, I would get 'payback' from some of them as I have seen many do to LLBs. > The highway is NEVER a place to teach someone a "lesson". One of the big problems with roads in the USA is that there is no social correction of rude MFFY types. In fact, their behavior is tolerated, encouraged, and rewarded. Then again, that's now going on society wide. > If that were the case, I would get 'payback' from some of them as I > have seen many do to LLBs. Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing this great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will teach you a lesson and give you an award for blocking the left lane and teaching someone a lesson. He'll enjoy your reason, I'm sure. >> The highway is NEVER a place to teach someone a "lesson". > > One of the big problems with roads in the USA is that there is no > social correction of rude MFFY types. In fact, their behavior is > tolerated, encouraged, and rewarded. Then again, that's now going on > society wide. I'm sure as many of "them" think *you* need to be corrected. >Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing this >great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will teach you a >lesson and give you an award for blocking the left lane and teaching someone >a lesson. He'll enjoy your reason, I'm sure. You're on crack. Cops drive fast as hell 'cause the chances they'll get a ticket that sticks is relatively *nil*. They don't LLB. -Kenny SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 >> Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing >> this great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're on crack. Cops drive fast as hell 'cause the chances they'll > get a ticket that sticks is relatively *nil*. They don't LLB. I'm referring to the one who eventually makes it up the conga line to see our teacher holding up the works. >>> Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing >>> this great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm referring to the one who eventually makes it up the conga line to see > our teacher holding up the works. Again, who's teaching? LLBs cannot be taught, it's a pointless excerise to try and teach them. Allowing others out of the trap is public service. Now if that LLB is blocking for the express purpose of trapping other drivers behind them, well then that's just too bad that his little plan was foiled. It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind of LLBs. > It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind of > LLBs. That's downright hilarious. >> It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind of >> LLBs. > > That's downright hilarious. Then why are you so against letting people out of their trap? >>> It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind >>> of LLBs. >> >> That's downright hilarious. > > Then why are you so against letting people out of their trap? I just think it's a worthless cause. The clueless will remain that way, and people passing on the right see YOU doing 35 in the left lane, and won't recognize this favor your're doing for them. But keep us posted as to how well this works. > >>> It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind > >>> of LLBs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But keep us posted as to how well this works. Funny this thread went this way. Just yesterday I got a nice thumbs up from a CHP after I weaseled my way in front of an LLB, then created a gap for the officer and the cars behind him. Cops aren't stupid, they can figure out when you're doing them a favor just as anyone else with any awareness can. Dave >>>> It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind >>>> of LLBs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >people passing on the right see YOU doing 35 in the left lane, and won't >recognize this favor your're doing for them. Only the clueless ones. Then again, if I gave a sh.t about what other drivers think of me, my car would never leave the garage. >>>> It seems by the way you are posting, that you're one of those kind >>>> of LLBs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people passing on the right see YOU doing 35 in the left lane, and won't > recognize this favor your're doing for them. I don't go that slow on the interstate unless forced to by conditions or to avoid running into morons ahead of me. Keep in mind I live in north east IL, a region that is still in the nixon era NMSL. Freeing people from the clutches of an LLB requires slowing to 65mph or so. > But keep us posted as to how well this works. It worked just fine when I used to do it. >>Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing this >>great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will teach you a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're on crack. Cops drive fast as hell 'cause the chances they'll get > a ticket that sticks is relatively *nil*. They don't LLB. Also, this year, LLBing tickets are way up in IL. Up to a 162 state wide for 2005 thus far. That's right 162 for whole freaking state, 81 of them in the chicago area. They are really doing a crack job enforcing it.... LLBing is frequent enough still that cop could spend an 8 hour shift only write tickets for blocking the passing lane should he chose to do so. >Keep it up. Eventually one of the anonymous "friends" you are doing this >great service for will be a cop; one can only hope he will teach you a >lesson and give you an award for blocking the left lane and teaching someone >a lesson. Not bloody likely. The next time you're in Traffic School, and the teacher asks everyone what infraction brought them to the class, make a note of how many people are there for speeding (~99%) and how many are there for LLBing (0%). Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip> > The next time you're in Traffic School, and the teacher asks everyone > what infraction brought them to the class, make a note of how many > people are there for speeding (~99%) and how many are there for LLBing > (0%). > ----- That sure sounds like the voice of experience to me and I'd have to admit your percentages sound right on according to my observations. I estimate I see roughly 99% of traffic speeding... and 0% LLB'ing. So... what's the problem...? ----- - gpsman >> If that were the case, I would get 'payback' from some of them as I >> have seen many do to LLBs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lesson and give you an award for blocking the left lane and teaching someone > a lesson. He'll enjoy your reason, I'm sure. Who's teaching a lesson? It's letting the snarl of traffic by. But fine, I won't do it again. (I haven't done it since IL passed a more proper lane usage law anyway) I'll get by the LLB and let the LLB continue to f.ck over everybody else. >>> The highway is NEVER a place to teach someone a "lesson". >> >> One of the big problems with roads in the USA is that there is no >> social correction of rude MFFY types. In fact, their behavior is >> tolerated, encouraged, and rewarded. Then again, that's now going on >> society wide. > I'm sure as many of "them" think *you* need to be corrected. Of course. But they never read the vehicle code. They can think they are right all they want, but they are still wrong. >Often, slowing down in front of an LLB is doing a lot of other drivers a >favor. Yup. Getting rid of an LLB is like unstopping a clog from a drain- it's so nice to see everybody go by the now-properly-laned driver. Of course, 80% of the time once everyone's passed, these clueless f.cks head right back into the left lane. -Kenny SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 >>Often, slowing down in front of an LLB is doing a lot of other drivers a >>favor. > >Yup. Getting rid of an LLB is like unstopping a clog from a drain- it's >so nice to see everybody go by the now-properly-laned driver. Believe it or not, I've had Truckers run precisely this sort of interference for me - slowing down an LLB so I could pass on the right. If I had a CB, I'd have given that Trucker a big ten-four. > As for the reason I did this, I was under the impression that the driver > would get the message and try to pass me on the right (at which point I > would floor it and resume my original cruising speed). I never let my speed fall below 45mph on the interstate to try and give an LLB a clue, but I've found the vast majority to be clue resistant. I've practically given up on it. Some will get very very angry that someone is going slower than they are in the passing lane, not for a moment grasping the fact that's exactly what they are doing to others. > I never let my speed fall below 45mph on the interstate to try and give > an LLB a clue, but I've found the vast majority to be clue resistant. It wasn't on an interstate (relatively light traffic). I actually went through a series of green lights at that speed. As for the clue resistant part, I have to agree with you there. I decided it's not worth the hassle of trying to get them in the right lane. > Some will get very very angry that someone is going slower than they are > in the passing lane, not for a moment grasping the fact that's exactly > what they are doing to others. My theory is that their IQ is close to a standard deviation below the median value. Arif Khokar, <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Thu, 01 Dec 2005 05:28:28 GMT: > Clueless drivers are everywhere. I remember one time where I finally > got past a LLB going 10 mph under the limit (65 mph where most traffic > goes 70 to 75 mph). I got in front of him and let go of the > accelerator. Even when my speed dropped down to 10 mph, the idiot > wouldn't pass me on the right (in fact, several of his passengers were > making obscene gestures from what I could tell in the rear view mirror). Not a good idea. You never know if that mentally unstable LLB (is there such a thing as a mentally *stable* LLB?? I'll leave that question for the philosophers) might be packing a gun and decide to use it on you. > As for the reason I did this, I was under the impression that the driver > would get the message and try to pass me on the right (at which point I > would floor it and resume my original cruising speed). Got a lotta time on your hands, dontchya? ;-) >Not a good idea. You never know if that mentally unstable LLB (is there >such a thing as a mentally *stable* LLB?? Something that doesn't move (or moves very slowly) is the very essence of stability... >As for the reason I did this, I was under the impression that the driver >would get the message and try to pass me on the right (at which point I >would floor it and resume my original cruising speed). As you discovered, these clueless f.cks never learn. However, by slowing them down and preventing them from pacing another vehicle, you allow other vehicles trapped behind to escape on the right. THEN you floor it and leave the LLB SLoth in the dust. >Early today on the '73 I was hauling a.s 'till I came across three >drivers blocking each lane near the MacArthur exit, all braking as >they went downhill. > >For a clue, they were all driving beat-up pickup trucks. With Sonora and/or BC license plates, right? >>For a clue, they were all driving beat-up pickup trucks. In article <tp6to1p90g6h7q9p3f14qftm3io63hbg32@4ax.com>, newsgroup says: >With Sonora and/or BC license plates, right? Close enough; you've got the right idea. -Kenny SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 Kenneth Crudup, <kenny@panix.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Thu, 1 Dec 2005 04:45:34 +0000 (UTC): > Exacerbated by the fact that Californians are evidently genetically > driven to the left lane at all costs. Ever seen the snowbirds over here? Genetically programmed to put the 7+ ton RV in the left lane (or worse the center lane of three lane highways) and 10MPH below the speed limit ot the flow of traffic (which ever is lower) at any and all costs and travel in flocks - its truly a disgusting sight. >Ever seen the snowbirds over here? I used to live aong them. They make SoCal traffic look downright pleasant. >And yes, there are occasions where--even though certain group members may >disagree--it is completely necessary to let someone into a lane. When that >breaks down, using technology to govern that behavior does become a viable >secondary solution. I have posted here many times that I believe technology is the only thing that can save our transportation system. As the story that started this thread proves, we have neither the funds nor the political will to build our way out of traffic congestion. The ONLY way we will ever get out of this mess is to use the roads we have as efficiently as possible - and that means taking the control of the vehicles out of the hands of humans (especially Sloths and a.sholes). When the computer controls everyone's steering and throttle, suddenly there are no more LLBs, everybody merges perfectly, there's always a gap when you need one (and it immediately closes up when you don't), following distances are always optimal, and safety is maximized because all the vehicles communicate over a redundant mesh wireless network and KNOW when, for example, a vehicle up ahead is about to slow down - and they all change speed in perfect unison. I call this configuration a "virtual train" because the individual cars on the road will be "coupled" together in an optimal phalanx like railroad cars in a regular train. We'll have all the advantages of today's trains and yet maintain the complete flexibility of the personal automobile. I just hope I live long enough to see it. ;) >I have posted here many times that I believe technology is the only >thing that can save our transportation system. As the story that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >trains and yet maintain the complete flexibility of the personal >automobile. While I would like to believe that things will work out as your have described, I suspect that the vehicle control computers you envision will run flawed Microsoft software and the result will be even worse than today. SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Greed is to the moralists of the dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 left what sex is to the moralists dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu of the right." - Cathy Young -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke > While I would like to believe that things will work out as your have > described, I suspect that the vehicle control computers you envision > will run flawed Microsoft software and the result will be even worse > than today. Gives blue screen of death an entirely new meaning, don't it. :( -Dave >> was even out of the planning stage. Adding one or two lanes does NOTHING >> to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lane(s). So many that they can easily establish blocking. The lane > growth has to out pace the traffic by a very significant margin. Yes you are totally wrong. If you go by your reasoning there should be no increase in freeway capacity and the problem would go away. Oh wait, that is exactly what happened, LA reduced freeway building per resident way below the national average and got some of the worst traffic in the country. So you are seeing the results of your total misunderstanding of what is happening and you call for even more of the failure that caused the problem. >>I've argued the same thing here many times. I am consistantly told I am >>wrong. The problem is that on a road that has so many users on it is that >>there is always another lane blocking sloth to screw up the additional >>lane(s). So many that they can easily establish blocking. The lane >>growth has to out pace the traffic by a very significant margin. > Yes you are totally wrong. Scenario: A six lane divided road with free flow traffic speed around 70 mph. Question 1: What effect do 3 cars (essentially) driving side by side for 10 miles at a speed of 55 mph (the speed limit) have on overall throughput of the road? Question 2: What effect do 3 cars driving 55 mph all in the right hand lane for 10 miles at a speed of 55 mph have on overall throughput of the road? Question 3: Which of the first two scenarios has a greater effect on throughput? >>> was even out of the planning stage. Adding one or two lanes does NOTHING >>> to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yes you are totally wrong. If you go by your reasoning there should be no > increase in freeway capacity and the problem would go away. Never said that mr. strawman. Lessened in sevarity and duration != go away. >> According to plans, commuters will have to wait until 2016 to see >> what is predicted to be a $1.4-billion expansion from the Orange [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And after several YEARS of construction to widen the road, they will realize >that the newly-widened roadway is way too narrow. -Dave Widening roads sucks. The real solution is to build whole _other_ roads. They might be parallel, 300 yards over one way or the other, but just widening the road is of really limited value. One jacknifed truck, or one life-flight helicopter, and the whole thing is hosed even if it has 27 lanes in each direction. The cops generally close 'em all, no matter how wide it is. We need _more_ roads, not wider roads. Dave Head >>And after several YEARS of construction to widen the road, they will realize >>that the newly-widened roadway is way too narrow. -Dave > Widening roads sucks. The real solution is to build whole _other_ roads. They > might be parallel, 300 yards over one way or the other, but just widening the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We need _more_ roads, not wider roads. Actually the grid system is needed. Grid systems are far less prone to total failure because they have redundancy. However, far too many areas were developed with no thought put to the road system, and no grid to absorb a single closure. > We need _more_ roads, not wider roads. That is how the Internet expands capacity without reaching some saturation limit. It is a hierarchical network which is the solution to minimizing congestion. Dave Head, <rally2xs@att.net> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:38:33 GMT: > Widening roads sucks. The real solution is to build > whole _other_ roads. They > might be parallel, 300 yards over one way or the other, > but just widening the > road is of really limited value. I've thought about that a bit with the widening of Cocaine Lane (I-95) here in GA the last few years. Instead of adding lanes to 95, why not run another interstate between 95 and 75 instead of all this construction to widen 95 (and presuming the same thing on 75), only to have to do it again about a nano second after the job is finished? A logical idea (to me anyway) would be to extend 77 from its current southern end in SC between 95 and 75 in GA and FL (it could parallel US 301 and put Ludowici, GA, Lawtey, FL and the infamous Waldo, FL out of business) and let it connect with the turnpike or 4 in Orlando (since ratworld is where most of these people from the western part of the rust belt are going anyway). > One jacknifed truck, or one life-flight > helicopter, and the whole thing is hosed > even if it has 27 lanes in each > direction. The cops generally close 'em > all, no matter how wide it is. Hell, a car with a flat tire on the side of the road is enough to clog the road for hours around here. (sicko rubberneckers hoping to see a fatality) -- "Mickey Mouse to a three-year-old is a six-foot f*cking rat!" --Robin Williams Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip> > In north Orange County, Interstate 5 is a 10-lane superhighway, with > the broad shoulders, terra-cotta sound walls and attractive > landscaping one might expect along California's main north-south > artery. ----- Every vehicle on I-5 has to be in one of two lanes heading into or out of the LA area and SoCalifornians have bitched about this fact since long before you were born. There's no reason to fix I-5 since any attempt will prove woefully inadequate and a waste of money. CA planners always design major highways to accomodate the traffic of "today, if not "yesterday". If any thought is given to "tomorrow" it is a perpetual assumption that the traffic density will probably decrease since that's what it's never done. Inadequate highways = construction savings + longer commutes = more fuel taxes paid. When Californians become smart enough to not elect morons and movie stars as governor, perhaps you'll see a change. From wherever you think you're going to end up when you die... ----- - gpsman Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip> > In north Orange County, Interstate 5 is a 10-lane superhighway, with > the broad shoulders, terra-cotta sound walls and attractive > landscaping one might expect along California's main north-south > artery. ----- >Inadequate highways = construction savings + longer commutes = more >fuel taxes paid. When Californians become smart enough to not elect >morons and movie stars as governor, perhaps you'll see a change. From >wherever you think you're going to end up when you die... The Govenator is putting a $10B initiative on the ballot to build infrastructure. So far he has mentioned only roads and apparently has no transit in his plans. Apparently he is a lot smarter than the professional politicians that came before him > Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > transit in his plans. Apparently he is a lot smarter than the > professional politicians that came before him ----- Duh, he'd have to be if he can remember to breathe. Actually, I've a lot of respect for Arnold since reading his first book and what CA doesn't need today is more experienced, career politcians. Too bad about Duke tho, I hope they aren't too hard on him. He's not the man I thought he was but he's still sacrificed a lot for our country (in that "goddamned" war). ----- - gpsman > > Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > thought he was but he's still sacrificed a lot for our country (in that > "goddamned" war). Duke should be judged on his current actions, not his past, since that's what everyone else seems to want. As one of his constituants, I say throw him in jail and lose the key. He did some good in his past, but he's now been shown as another white collar criminal. Dave > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity > snip> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > transit in his plans. Apparently he is a lot smarter than the > professional politicians that came before him Fascinating. The Govenator of CA, a state with more than twice the area and 7 times the population of WA state, thinks that $10B can solve it's transportation problems. WA just rejected an initiative to roll back a $12B gas tax increase for road infrastructure. (That amount is actually only about 1/2 of what even the politicians know is needed but more wouldn't fly.) Tell me again how smart he is? FloydR > Fascinating. The Govenator of CA, a state with more than twice the > area and 7 times the population of WA state, thinks that $10B can solve > it's transportation problems. WA just rejected an initiative to roll back > a $12B gas tax increase for road infrastructure. (That amount is > actually only about 1/2 of what even the politicians know is needed > but more wouldn't fly.) It is probably more about the reality of getting a bond passed than what is actually needed to get California back to rational spending levels for roads. > > "gpsman" <gpsman@driversmail.com> wrote Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity > > snip> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Tell me again how smart he is? San Diego County has a plan to spend around $14b over the next 40 years on its transportation systems. The $10b would be a start, but nothing more than a start. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.