Difference between revisions of "Carpool lanes"
From iGeek
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
* http://web.archive.org/web/20140611061527/http://paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/~varaiya/papers_ps.dir/HOV.pdf | * http://web.archive.org/web/20140611061527/http://paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/~varaiya/papers_ps.dir/HOV.pdf | ||
− | {{/ref}} | + | {{/ref|Unintended Consequences|Anti-Science|Mass Transit}} |
− | [[Category: Unintended_Consequences]] [[Category: Terms]] [[Category: Anti-Science]] | + | [[Category: Unintended_Consequences]] [[Category: Terms]] [[Category: Anti-Science]] [[Category:Mass Transit]] |
</noinclude> | </noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 08:22, 29 May 2020
These monstrosities cost California $2.5B+, to get a 20% capacity loss, which increases pollution, a decrease in carpooling, and 50%+ increased injuries (both accident frequency and severity). It turns out a high speed lane right next to a parking lot increases accidents and injury on entry/exit, and not allowing drivers to use the entire road only decreases traffic flow from optimum. Supporting them is anti-environment, anti-economics and anti-science.
| ||||||