Yeah, if they do that, then they suck.
That reminds me of something that bugs me: the whole modern, planned, overengineered community idea. You know, the kind of newer developments where everything is so rigidly structured that you have to go six blocks out of your way because they won’t allow you to make a left turn anywhere. Those kinds of places always seem to have just the same traffic problems as everywhere else, while still managing to be incredibly inconvenient.
I remember the old “SimCity” game incorporating this into the simulation. Namely, the game was programmed so that traffic would grow to fill the space provided. It was an unsolvable problem, and deliberately set up to be so. I seem to remember that several urban planners thought that this was the most realistic aspect of the game.
It would be interesting to try and set up a market to allocate the resources for driving during rush hour. Basically, anyone who wanted to drive on road X during rush hour would have to purchase a certain number of “traffic credits” in order to do so. If someone chooses to forego the privilege of driving in order to take mass transit, they would save the expense of purchasing credits or could sell any credits that they purchased to those who chose to drive. Carpooling would also be more attractive because multiple people could share the cost of the credits. It would require a retooling of how people think of driving (in the U.S., it’s viewed as an entitlement up there or perhaps above free speech, right to be free from unreasonable search & seizures, etc.) But I don’t think it could make matters much worse.
Been there, done that. I lived within biking distance 5 years ago and it was great. Exercise, fresh air… However, I needed to change jobs and the new one was further away. Your advice reminds me of the flippant advice many eco-frienndly people use around here along with take the bus and so on. Well, people can’t just always pick up and move when they get a different job or always find the best job near where they live. Your advice, though sounding reasonable to a few, is not helpful and unreasonable.
I spent a few months in Los Angeles many moons ago. The traffic there is nothing to be proud of but they did have a system of limiting left handed turns during rush hour. At first I was irritated but it really does seem to work and, once used to it, could get to where I wanted without turning left. I think traffic flowed much better without it.
Also Blowero, the red left turn arrows bug me. I mean WTF??? I can’t turn left when no traffic is coming? I can see some intersections having red left turn arrows but here in MN almost ALL of the lights have them. Do other areas of the country have them?? I have been around when younger and don’t remember them.
Jevmon, I played Simcity1-3 and loved it. My cities never had any traffic problems. Even in dense areas I designed them so that traffic was never ‘heavy’.
Highway 169 in the western suburbs. I dare you to try to go north from 62 to 55 around 4 to 6 pm.
My objection to this idea is the same as my objection to toll roads. When you think about it, it’s really a system of entitlement for the wealthy. Any plan which allows you special privileges for a fee is in effect giving wealthier people exclusive access to that which has historically been available to everyone. It seems unfair that people of modest income should be taxed, and have their tax money go towards building roads, only to be denied access to those roads. I also think you’re forgetting that there are a lot of places in the U.S. that are currently inaccessible by public transportation, and that many jobs require that the employee bring their car to work in case they need to run errands for the company. And finally, I would think that building an extensive series of toll booths in order to monitor how often each person uses a particular road would cause as many traffic problems as it might help.
Besides, isn’t positive reinforcement always better than negative? If you want people to take public transportation and use carpools, the best way is to make these alternatives MORE attractive than driving. Why force people to make the choice? If traffic becomes bad enough, and public transit and carpooling become viable alternatives, people WILL start to use them. The incentive is already built into the system.
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Well, I wasn’t really talking about downtown Los Angeles. That’s an older area, and most of the streets don’t have controlled left turn lanes, or even turn lanes at all, so they need some sort of stopgap measures to avoid total gridlock. I just think they go TOO far the other way in newer suburban areas, like Thousand Oaks, for example. There’s a particular mini-mall there that has a Starbucks, which I occasionally like to stop at. As I’m coming down the main street, it’s on my left. But I can’t turn left. Instead, I have to go another block, wait at the red left turn arrow, make a left turn (U-turns are disallowed), go two more blocks to one of the few places where a U-turn is allowed, make a U-turn, come back two blocks, make a right turn back onto the main boulevard, and come back one block to the Starbucks. Is this really helping the flow of traffic? I’m skeptical.
Blowero hits this right on the head, IMO.
I know I would use the bus without hesitation if it were available. I dislike driving. In fact, I once worked in downtown Minneapolis and was surprised how convenient and fast the bus service was. Now I work in one suburb and live in another and do not work for a large company. To get from there to here and back again is essentially impossible.
Ino, I’ll see your 169 and raise you a Hwy 100 in those same western suburbs. I refer to the Edina/62/7 area as “the bottleneck.” It’s a treat.
While we’re bitching about Minnesota roads (and why not?), I’d like to take this space to complain about Twin Cities on-ramps. We’ve taken to calling them “suicide clovers.” Let me on, ya bastid! I feel like Gandalf - I’m not trying to rob you, I’m merely trying to merge on. Assmasters.
Thanks for that.
Snicks
Then get the hell moving! Stop trying to merge while driving 20-30 mph below the speed limit. You have an accelerator, use it! 
Snickers, the area you mentioned made the worst 10 in the United States. I can’t remember when I read this but it was in the Star Tribune.
Yup. Building more roads to solve traffic is like trying to cure fleas by buying another dog.
I’d rather take 100 north than 169 – 100 has three lanes up until highway 7, at least.
I think the solution to solving traffic woes is to install a rocket launcher on the front of my car, with a large enough warhead to blow the wreckage of the destroyed car in front of me well onto the shoulder. And enough ammunition for me to clear a path to go from Eden Prairie to Plymouth.