here's how you fix gridlock traffic without changing infrastructure

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

this is the negative response I expected. but to all haters, there's a fundamental flaw to your reasoning. Instead of thinking of this as a penalty, think of it as PAYING to not sit in gridlock. I agree that most people will need to continue their usual commutes due to job, kids, etc. and will now need to pay a new toll. but let's say the toll incentivizes 20% of ppl to travel at off hours. you're ignoring the benefit: a 60 minute commute might now take 30 mins b/c 20% of traffic is eliminated. so yes, in this system I might now face $40 in monthly tolls. but 20 hrs less sitting in traffic. is $40 worth 20 hrs of my life?? you bet.
what really frustrates me is the attitude of "this is just how it is." well, let's do something about it. its absurd the lost productivity attributable to gridlock. but ppl are so stuck in ways they'd rather take the daily beatings than evolve.

Where do you get the 20% number from? You're saying that 1/5th of the people out there sit in hours of traffic for no particular reason? And where do you get the $40 in tolls? $3 x 2 (each way) x 250 (approximate working days/year) / 12 (months) = $125.

I suspect if you want this to work, you need to make driving more expensive than the effective cost of the alternative. I don't think this simple scheme accomplishes that goal. I think it mostly just penalizes people that are forced--for whatever reason--to commute for normal business hours.

The best thing that can be done is to make public transportation more attractive than driving, at least for those for whom public transportation is already a reasonable option. I think the lowest hanging fruit in terms of commuters are the people commuting into Boston, not the people hopping from suburb to suburb. If you live in Westwood, say, but work in Waltham, it's technically possible to commute using public transportation, but a 30 minute drive on 128 becomes a two hour slog through Boston. Driving would have to prohibitively expensive for someone to make that choice.

One idea is to designate certain areas well-served by public transportation and make it more expensive to park in those areas. Perhaps even to the point of charging people who receive free parking at their place of work. Concurrently, use those additional revenues to lower the cost of commuter rail and subway parking. That will shift more people from the road to public transportation and hopefully reduce the gridlock for those who don't have public transportation as a reasonable option.

[tribechamy]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

this is the negative response I expected. but to all haters, there's a fundamental flaw to your reasoning. Instead of thinking of this as a penalty, think of it as PAYING to not sit in gridlock. I agree that most people will need to continue their usual commutes due to job, kids, etc. and will now need to pay a new toll. but let's say the toll incentivizes 20% of ppl to travel at off hours. you're ignoring the benefit: a 60 minute commute might now take 30 mins b/c 20% of traffic is eliminated. so yes, in this system I might now face $40 in monthly tolls. but 20 hrs less sitting in traffic. is $40 worth 20 hrs of my life?? you bet.
what really frustrates me is the attitude of "this is just how it is." well, let's do something about it. its absurd the lost productivity attributable to gridlock. but ppl are so stuck in ways they'd rather take the daily beatings than evolve.

Since when is using reason "hating"?

Your idea would be a tax on the people who have the least amount of flexibility in their employment options, i.e. those who could least afford to pay it.

[flowbe202]

The systems side of me loves the simplicity of your solution.

The urban planning side of me agrees with others - Boston is not London or even NYC. We don't currently have the public transportation systems for the people who rely the most on the roadways -- people outside the city. Yes, we have NIMBYs and town planning committees and minimum acreage town proponents to thank for that.

[495neighbor]

Staggered schedules makes much sense. Most corporations do business on a global scale and these corporations would benefit financially having round the clock employees available for teleconferences to fit the time zones of the countries they have satellites and customers in. Early schedules for the parents and late for the singles.