Drive through a community in the Chicago area and you see a lot of signs. One small set of these direct travelers toward religious congregations. Here is one example from Google Street View:
Image from Google Street View
See the small blue sign on the traffic light pole? It directs people to a church a half a mile down the road.
A few observations in seeing such signs:
Not all congregations have a sign. Could all congregations request one and then have at least one pointing toward them?
The signs are pretty small. How many drivers see them.
The signs tend to be posted at busier intersections. Some drives from those intersections are shorter and easier to navigate than others. For example, a driver might see a sign pointing in a direction but it may take a little while before finding the congregation roughly in that direction.
Given that these signs are likely provided as a community good, can their use be improved in significant ways?
Above all, though, the problem seems to be us — the American public, the American driver. “It’s not an exaggeration to say behavior on the road today is the worst I’ve ever seen,” Capt. Michael Brown, a state police district commander in Michigan, told me. “It’s not just the volume. It’s the variety. There’s impaired driving, which constituted 40 percent of our fatalities last year. There are people going twice the legal limit on surface streets. There’s road rage,” Brown went on. “There’s impatience — right before we started talking, I got an email from a woman who was driving along in traffic and saw some guy fly by her off the roadway, on the shoulder, at 80, 90 miles an hour.” Brown stressed it was rare to receive such a message: “It’s got so bad, so extremely typical,” he said, “that people aren’t going to alert us unless it’s super egregious.”
In 2020 and 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has calculated, approximately a quarter of all fatal wrecks in the United States involved vehicles traveling above the posted speed limit; a significant percentage of the dead, whether passenger or driver, were not wearing seatbelts. In line with the trends documented by Kuhls in Nevada — and observed firsthand by Brown in Michigan — national intoxicated-driving rates have surged to the extent that one in every 10 arrests is now linked to a suspected D.U.I. And aggressive driving, defined by AAA as “tailgating, erratic lane changing or illegal passing,” factors into 56 percent of crashes resulting in a fatality. (Distressingly, this statistic does not cover the tens of thousands of people injured, often critically, by aggressive drivers, or the 550 people shot annually after or during road-rage incidents — or the growing number of pedestrians and cyclists deliberately targeted by incensed motorists.)
Take the bad behavior and add the perils of distraction by smartphone — responsible, by one conservative estimate, for about 3,500 deaths annually — and you’re left with what Emily Schweninger, a senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Transportation, described to me as a “genuine public-health crisis” on the level of cancer, suicide and heart disease.
Much could change in the coming years to address this issue. Safety features in vehicles. Changed designs of roadways and spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists. Other efforts need more time and capabilities: self-driving vehicles, a changed culture around roads, driving, and community life.
But, part of the issue is whether these accidents and deaths are a problem or not. Americans like to complain about other drivers and tend to see their own driving as okay. Driving is required in many places. Some drivers might even enjoy driving. The delivery of many of our goods requires driving. Are deaths via vehicle just the price Americans are willing to pay for driving?
Addressing this issue is a long-term project. All of daily life contains some risks but Americans tend to not think much about the risks of driving even as it impacts many lives on a daily basis. Does this mean a national safety campaign is needed? A serious conversation about how necessary driving should be? A need to invest in new technologies and options? On one hand, plenty of people would have experience with this issue. On the other hand, it will take a lot of work to convince people to support significant changes to American driving and all that goes with it.
The “American Dream” costs about $3.4 million to achieve over the course of a lifetime, from getting married to saving for retirement, according to a recent analysis from financial site Investopedia.
Meanwhile, median lifetime earnings for the typical U.S. worker stand at $1.7 million, earlier research from the Georgetown University has found.
Such figures underline the financial pressures that many families face trying to afford a middle-class life as expenses like child care, college tuition and buying a home continue to climb. The Investopedia analysis tallies the average cost of achieving other aspects traditionally associated with the American Dream, such as owning a house and raising two children to age 18.
Another analysis, from USA Today, found that funding the American Dream costs about $130,000 a year for a family of four. Median household income stands at about $74,450, according to the Census Bureau.
One key facet of the American Dream is that it is supposed to be available to all. That never meant everyone would achieve it, particularly as Americans often emphasize individual hard work and taking advantage of opportunities. But, it should be reachable in a society where many Americans value and see themselves as middle-class.
Perhaps this is why there is a market or demand for particular experiences that provide part of the American Dream or a taste of it. One traditional marker of the American Dream in the United States is owning a home. This is displayed on TV, illustrated in toys, and promoted by presidents. If people can just own a home, they have a strong case to make for attaining the American Dream. Or, consider the freedom of driving down the road in your vehicle to wherever you want. This experience offers a taste of the larger American Dream.
If large numbers of Americans cannot obtain the American Dream now and in the coming years, this could mean the Dream becomes redefined. Maybe it will have different elements. Or, perhaps it will be more commonly viewed as attainable only by some. It could be a status symbol of the elite. Or, new policies and conditions could renew aid and efforts toward achieving the American Dream. Politicians could run on this idea while grassroots movements could promote it.
Under the plan, passenger car drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street during daytime hours would be charged $15 electronically, while the fee for small trucks would be $24 and large trucks would be charged $36.
Cities such as London and Stockholm have similar programs in place, but New York City is poised to become the first in the U.S.
Revenue from the tolls, projected to be roughly $1 billion annually, would be used to finance borrowing to upgrade the city’s mass transit systems…
Officials say that in addition to funding needed transit improvements, congestion pricing will result in improved air quality and reduced traffic…
“The Traffic Mobility Review Board’s recommended credit structure is wholly inadequate, especially the total lack of toll credits for the George Washington Bridge, which will lead to toll shopping, increased congestion in underserved communities, and excessive tolling at New Jersey crossings into Manhattan,” Murphy, who filed a federal lawsuit over congestion pricing in July, said in a statement.
In the US city with the highest rate of mass transit usage, this makes some sense. The roadways are crowded. Mass transit systems need money. At least some of the vehicles entering the city can afford the fee.
If this goes forward in Manhattan, how soon until it comes to other American cities? Those places may have fewer alternatives to driving but the revenue – and other benefits – might be hard for other places to pass up.
McDonald’s has several advantages in encouraging a smooth zipper merge process:
A shorter runway to merging. You often go around a turn, order, and immediately merge. In contrast, highway merges can sometimes be seen from a mile or more away and some want to block all that space.
A physical separation of the lanes before merging. The vehicles are ordering before merging and the need to have a display board and speaker means the lanes cannot be crossed into. Even if a driver wanted to block the other lane, the physical barriers make that difficult.
People want to get their food. While driving on the highway, the goal is to get somewhere quickly. Different motivations.
Might it matter that McDonald’s is private property while highways/roadways are more of open or public space?
Some of these principles could be applied to highways. Imagine temporary physical barriers between the lanes to force a merge closer to the end of the lanes. Or, reminders that blocking lanes has (legal?) consequences even though it is more public space.
The situation poses a commuting challenge that L.A. has not seen in years, with hundreds of thousands of commuters facing detours and heavier-than-normal traffic. Starting Monday, some worked from home and others took mass transit, but many simply endured the delays.
The closure caused gridlock in some areas, but there was general sentiment that L.A. survived the first morning and evening commute without too much chaos thanks in part to warnings sent to residents’ cellphones…
Federal, state and local agencies are scrambling to determine what happens next after the sudden closure of the mile-long section of the heavily trafficked freeway between Alameda Street and the East L.A interchange, a key east-west route through downtown. Mayor Karen Bass said that U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg called and reassured her that federal officials were aware of the impact from closing one of the busiest freeway corridors in the country.
“Losing the stretch of the 10 Freeway will take time and money from people’s lives and businesses,” Bass said. “It’s disrupting in every way. Whether you were talking about traveling to and from work, or your child care plans, and the flow of goods and commerce, this will disrupt the lives of Angelenos.”
Los Angeles and the region depend heavily on highways. This is true of all metropolitan areas in the United States but Los Angeles is famous for its driving and its lack of mass transit within a sprawling region.
While I am sure the focus here will be on getting this highway going again as soon as possible, why not think as well as future transportation options? The initial Carmageddons in Los Angeles went rather smoothly but this is another chance to think about additional travel options and building an adaptable and redundant system. If for a variety of reasons residents of the region cannot drive to work or where they need to go, do they have viable alternatives? Fires like this are rare but individuals face all sorts of challenges in getting where they need to go.
More broadly, can more people in the region regularly shift their transportation away from driving alone to other options? As the population of the region grows, the traffic is not going away. Roads do need to be maintained. Accidents will happen on the roadways. When I rode the LA subway on a recent visit, it worked okay one-way (the return trip was derailed by a long delay that pushed me to walking several miles) but it had limited options of where I could go. Are many people willing to ride buses and other forms of mass transit when they might drive?
The highway detours will end at some point but will driving return to normal immediately? Probably yes…but there will likely be more opportunities to consider other transportation options in the years to come.
The Lake County Division of Transportation (LCDOT) closed Darrell, Neville and Case roads in Wauconda to through traffic for 110 days to construct a roundabout and realign the intersections…
This is the ninth roundabout in the Lake County Division of Transportation system. The $8.1 million project is the first of three roundabouts to be built as part of the Darrell Road corridor improvement.
Suburbanites are used to traffic lights and stop signs. Adding roundabouts or diamond interchanges presents a new dimension to driving. The roundabout offers the possibility of a smoother journey – if there is not too much traffic – but requires a different level of attention as there are multiple yield points.
Suburbanites can come to like roundabouts with experience. But, local drivers will likely need some time to get used to them. I am curious to see how many roundabouts will eventually populate the suburbs. They are likely not possible in many places due to existing land uses. However, if they help move traffic, are safe, and people can drive through them, we will probably see more of them in the Chicago region.
According to Donald Shoup, an urban planner and parking research pioneer at the University of California, Los Angeles, the government doesn’t track the number of parking spaces. But speaking with WSJ, he estimates that on the low end, the U.S. has at least 700 million parking spaces, and on the high end, the estimate is more like 2 billion. That works out to somewhere between 2.5 and 7.0 parking spaces per registered vehicle in America.
As this article goes on to note, some believe that is way too many parking spots. (Hence, the /s tag on the post title.) All of that parking takes up a lot of space, continues to further the commitment in communities to driving, and has negative environmental consequences.
At the same time, I could imagine many drivers in the United States like having all of this available parking and might even want more spots. In a car-dependent society, people need a place to park. People expect to be able to find parking quickly and close to their destination. If parking is limited and/or costly, drivers will express frustrations. Some might note that even if they wanted to use other forms of transportation (and avoid parking issues), these are not always available or convenient.
Commitments to reduce the number of parking spots in the United States long-term probably requires a lot of small changes to different parts of planning and communities. Just as a quick example, increased mass transit use and service would help reduce the number of drivers and reduce the need for parking spots. But, that chain does not happen quickly and there are multiple levers to move. I wonder if one of the important moves would be for some key communities to change their parking guidelines, find that it works or is successful (and also enables other good opportunities for land use), and this becomes a model for others to follow.
When school started in our area in mid-August, I noticed more signs on streets near schools asking drivers to slow down and pay attention because children are present. But, we are now weeks past this and I wonder at what speeds drivers are going.
I am guessing the signs had limited effect, if any at all. School zones may be important to a few drivers, particularly with increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic at certain times in the morning and afternoon..
Many communities struggle with people driving fast through residential streets with speed limits of 20-30 mph. These suburban roads can often be wide, fairly straight, and have limited obstacles on the sides. Even the possibilities of children being present may not be enough to
Communities have multiple techniques to try to address this. There are warning signs, signs that flash the speed of oncoming drivers, and traffic control devices like speed bumps. The presence of crossing guards on foot and/or police vehicles can help reinforce the need to slow down.
As long as driving is the dominant mode of transportation and communities prioritize the fast flow of cars, it will be hard to slow down drivers around schools. Fewer students walk or bike to school than in the past but those who do and those who might if it could be safer would benefit from safer pathways.
-The delayed start from a traffic light. Vehicles at the start of the line may not move for a few seconds after the light turns green, even when the path is clear. This slows down the rest of traffic, particularly when there are a lot of traffic lights in a row.
-The increased distance between vehicles. If drivers think they need more margin because they are not fully paying attention to the road, vehicles will be further spaced out.
-Not paying attention to directions or turns might mean people have to cut across lanes or make alternative paths.
Since traffic can act like waves, then even a slight disruption can have a ripple effect.
If all drivers took the “most efficient” or “fastest” routes according to their apps, would these hits to traffic be cancelled out?
It might also be worth remembering that one of the appeals of self-driving vehicles is that they could better address these issues. They could better safe themselves and adjust to changes in conditions around them.
Legally Sociable 