leopetr
Active Member
Are you going to fine people for driving too slow?
|
|
|
- Status
Are you going to fine people for driving too slow?
Mapleson
Active Member
As that's currently the law, I don't see any reason to change it. "Unnecessary slow driving" under the HTA.
HTA said:
Last edited:
leopetr
Active Member
Ok, say there's 100 cars in a row doing 20 km/h on the DVP. Are you going to charge all of them? Just the lead car?
Unless your plan is to encourage drivers to seek other modes of transportation through spurious fines, I don't see how this will speed up traffic.
Mapleson
Active Member
You seem to be taking things to ridiculous levels, when I've never mentioned increasing speeds though ticketing.
One solution would be to use dynamic speed limits to slow traffic down approaching a traffic jam, reducing the length of time for the congestion to clear. Another solution is Radio Frequency tags in bumpers to detect the position of a car ahead or behind you and to accelerate/decelerate enough to avoid a collision (cars without a RFID would be right-lane only and a visual detection system for tail/head lights as a back-up). Another solution is left-lane truck bans. There are lots of other alternatives.
None of these are a panacea for congestion, but each of them could increase the efficiency of what infrastructure we already have. Decrease headways, decrease braking distances, etc. and you can continue to drive at speed, even if that speed is 40 kph.
One solution would be to use dynamic speed limits to slow traffic down approaching a traffic jam, reducing the length of time for the congestion to clear. Another solution is Radio Frequency tags in bumpers to detect the position of a car ahead or behind you and to accelerate/decelerate enough to avoid a collision (cars without a RFID would be right-lane only and a visual detection system for tail/head lights as a back-up). Another solution is left-lane truck bans. There are lots of other alternatives.
None of these are a panacea for congestion, but each of them could increase the efficiency of what infrastructure we already have. Decrease headways, decrease braking distances, etc. and you can continue to drive at speed, even if that speed is 40 kph.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
In stop-and-go traffic, it's the people that speed way the hell up whenever there's a gap and then brake so they're only inches behind the car in front of them that drive me nuts. It's like, dudes, if we all just drove at approximately the same speed and didn't hit our brake pedals, we'd be able to get moving.
dsantesteban
New Member
No, the point is if one car is going much, much slower than the traffic flow, they'll fine that one car. After all, it's a huge safety risk. Imagine coming around a corner on a highway and finding a car going 100 less than you. Both of you guys are probably dead.
The point of low-speed fines is to stop people with a fear of driving on highways from using them. I know somebody with a huge fear of driving on freeways. She got ticketed for going 25 km/h on the 401. Some people are great drivers on normal roads (albeit she isn't), but they just have a fear of the huge size of highways with people changing lanes all over the place and stuff like that, and aren't able to go at high speeds on freeways. That's why they have those fines. They aren't anything too crazy (this person got $60.00), but they get a point across.
nfitz
Superstar
They did. I think they call it Detroit. The expressways there are generally congestion free ... as are the vacant houses, streets, parks ...
TKTKTK
Senior Member
omg, can we stop with the "Detroit was killed because of its highway infrastructure" canard? The downtown hollowed out because of white-flight and a level of racial tension nearly unheard of north of the border, which was then exacerbated even further by the auto-industry going into a tail-spin.
There are plenty of reasons to object to tearing down neighbourhoods and putting highways in their place without needing to resort to distortions.
There are plenty of reasons to object to tearing down neighbourhoods and putting highways in their place without needing to resort to distortions.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Yeah I know, which is why I also mentioned the Auto Industry. No amount of clever planning, or 'zoning controls' can overcome what Detroit went through — so just stop
Go and read about the 12th Street Riots, race riots unsurpassed in American history until the LA riots in '92. I think after '67, people would have left the downtown core by oxcart if they could – nevermind the extra ease of being able to do it by highway. In a way, it would be like pointing to Montreal's contractions as a result of THEIR highway construction, rather than, you know, a similar culture war But anyway, if it was meant tongue-in-cheek I don't know why you didn't just make a cute little post clarifying that, rather than trying to justify what you said with an argument about zoning. Maybe the above post was tongue-in-cheek too. Probably.
dsantesteban
New Member
Small continuity error. It isn't thet the people left so they could build freeways. That's backwards, they built freeways to make it look less empty.
Alternatively, instead of displacing people, you could cram them into massive high-rises, built freeways everywhere, and charge hugely exhorbitant tolls. And call it the Florida Tri-Counties. They don't have congestion problems. Except on the two freeways that are reasonably priced, those get congested. But if you're a fan of Highway 407 to the max, and you're feeling elitist, Miami has an amazing network.
EDIT: I posted this right after the comment that I quoted, those other ones got typed in the meantime. And yeah, I SEEDED A QUOTE
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
No single factor would have fixed Detroit ... but it could have been mitigated. There are other major US cities that have similiar downtown abandonment problems, that have actually increased in population when you include all the suburbs. There's no way you should be letting new developments be built in the suburbs when there is such an oversupply downtown. And this is still occurring even in Detroit!
Uhh ... first it was a joke about the highways ... I already explained that.
Second, Montreal's contraction??? Montreal hasn't contracted. The metropolitan area's population has grown steadily. Some parts of Montreal have lower populations than they used to, but that's not because of vacant housing, but because of smaller family sizes, and conversions of duplexes to single family residences, etc. Similiar patterns are seen in some Toronto neighbourhoods.
Besides, Montreal's highway network downtown is just about as barren as Toronto's. A slightly better network perhaps, but fewer lane - and these days worse congestion than Toronto, particularly heading to the South Shore and on the back river bridges. And they did tunnel the major downtown expressways ... so you don't get the Gardiner-type problems downtown.
dsantesteban
New Member
I'd like to point out to a solution for the problems with the Gardiner. Why not do something like the MI-10 Freeway in Detroit. As it approaches downtown, they sink it, and have a road (their equivalent of Lakeshore) on the side with the urban network running above it.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
yeah, and then you went on to explain why it wasn't really a joke, or was that part of the joke too?
Hmmm, I'm no Canadian Historian but even I know the impact of the October Crisis — and it wasn't status quo.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
... and then there's the New Orleans approach to congestion.
Ooop ... here's the
Maybe if you were actually funny it would be easier to seperate the wheat from the chaff? "The New Orleans approach to congestion" ? Is that like a Tsunami of Hilarity solving overpopulation in the Indian Ocean?
nfitz
Superstar
It didn't cause contraction in Montreal ... it may have slowed growth, but it didn't cause a contraction. That seems to be some strange view the Anglo media seems to have, based on many of the Anglos (including myself) leaving.
- Status