SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
All over the world, gridlock, stop and go driving and constant and sometimes dangerous lane changes are a daily frustration for highway motorists. However, new research by Dr Xiaobo Qu from Griffith University in Queensland ( http://www.griffith.edu.au ), Australia, in collaboration with Dr Shuaian Wang from Old Dominion University, USA, may provide the means to improving traffic safety, capacity and efficiency between cities.
Dr Qu and Dr Wang have used the M1 Motorway between Queensland's two biggest cities—Gold Coast and Brisbane—as the basis for computer modelling assessing the viability of a Long Distance Commuter lane (LDC).
"Because so many people live on the Gold Coast and work in Brisbane, a large proportion of M1 commuters travel during morning and evening peaks," says Dr Qu. "At these times, each lane of the M1 carries up to 2300 vehicles every hour and bottlenecks are common. "However, this modelling demonstrates that a dedicated LDC lane, with not only maximum but also minimum speed limits, could accommodate much higher traffic volume - up to 3000 vehicles per hour—by eliminating or at least minimising disturbances currently caused by lane changing, low speed vehicles and use of on-ramps and off-ramps.
[Abstract]:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mice.12102/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261515000041
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:52AM
Before I reply to your comments, I want to say that I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I have concerns that you could be polarized on this issue and would like to present an alternate viewpoint outside of the common polarized views circulating today.
Agree 100%. This is a big problem. Everyone wants to argue and by focusing on the details of the problems, but people have to look at the big picture too.
Everyone should be looking at costs, ease of use, speed to get places, safety, the environment, and the ability to govern and regulate it all. Safety and the environment are important and shouldn't be dismissed. See my next comment.
I don't have that choice. It's incredible the impact asthma has on my life. I'm no power lifter and I don't do marathons, but I'm in good shape. On my good days, I workout with 60 pound dumbbells in each hand. I'm not the best runner (due to the asthma), but I can crank out a couple of kilometers without stopping. When it doesn't rain for a few days, my asthma reduces my ability to breathe such that I have trouble going up and down the stairs in the apartment where I live. (I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and neither of my parents were smokers.)
I'm not advocating for this or that. I'm saying that most of the time, I don't hear things that takes into account both your needs and mine. And when I hear comments such as the one you make, I feel excluded and marginalized. The words you use are polarizing. It isn't just you, though. 90% of the people I speak with use polarizing words to argue with one another on difficult topics. Spouting polarizing words is the one thing everyone seems to be able to agree on. (Unfortunately.)
Although I don't live in Boston, I fully agree with you as this has plagued the several major cities I've lived in during my life. This is a lack of a holistic approach. For instance, sky scrapers encourage higher density traffic which then slows down the ability for the traffic to move. The opposite problem is the surburbs where everything is spread out forcing more people to use cars instead of public transport.
A solution can be worked on when all view points are heard and looked at by all parties without polarization and without putting others' views down. Science could help a lot here too. I can think of a few solutions, but without other viewpoints and without solid science, my ideas are worthless.