A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 30th 05, 04:20 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA 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-trans...ll=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.

Ads
  #2  
Old November 30th 05, 05:06 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

> 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


  #3  
Old November 30th 05, 05:34 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

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

  #4  
Old November 30th 05, 06:07 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:
> 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.


  #5  
Old November 30th 05, 08:08 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

Brent P, > 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...
  #6  
Old November 30th 05, 09:44 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article ews.net>,

Mike T. wrote:
> > 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.
>
>

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.


  #7  
Old November 30th 05, 10:11 PM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

> 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.


  #8  
Old December 1st 05, 12:38 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:06:30 -0500, "Mike T." > wrote:

>> 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. -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
  #9  
Old December 1st 05, 01:30 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> 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.


  #10  
Old December 1st 05, 01:31 AM posted to ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,la.transportation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA County: You're Stuck in a Traffic Jam Until AT LEAST 2016

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>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.


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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help with first traffic ticket please........ [email protected] VW water cooled 4 December 9th 04 03:21 AM
Beating a Traffic Ticket [email protected] VW air cooled 3 December 7th 04 03:32 AM
Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 01:17 PM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.