10 gastados Mitos de Tráfico que no descansaron en 2015

via 10 Tired Traffic Myths That Didn’t Get a Rest in 2015 – CityLab.

El carril de al lado realmente no está avanzando más rápido.

ERIC JAFFE @e_jaffe

Oran Viriyincy / Flickr

La percepción errónea del tráfico que presenté para el post del personal de CityLab  sobre los persistentes mitos que nos gustaría jubilar fueron sólo algunos de los muchos con los que nos topamos, una y otra vez, durante el 2015. Aquí hay una lista completa para leer, mientras no-estes-conduciendo.

Via the staff myth post:

Mito 1.  Mas calles (carreteras) significan menos trafico

El más perdurable y popular mito sobre el tráfico sostiene que construyendo más carreteras siempre lleva a menor congestión. Esta creencia es perfectamente lógica : si hay 100 coches empacados en un carril de la carretera, entonces, la construcción de un segundo carril debe significar que habra 50 coches en cada uno. El problema, como los investigadores del transporte han encontrado una y otra vez, es que cuando se agrega este nuevo carril el número de automóviles no permanece igual. Por el contrario, las personas que dejaron de conducir debido a la frustración con el tráfico ahora atacan la carretera con un entusiasmo desconocido para la humanidad.

Mientras que los residentes de zonas metropolitanas muy congestionadas tienen una serie de palabras de cuatro letras para describir este efecto, los expertos le llaman “demanda inducida.” Lo que esto significa, en pocas palabras, es que construir más carreteras con el tiempo (aunque no siempre de inmediato) lleva a más tráfico, no menos. Afortunadamente, los líderes locales están sempezando a distinguir  la realidad del mito cuando se trata de la demanda inducida. Por desgracia, la mejor manera de abordarlo -el el cobro por congestión- sigue siendo políticamente imposible en los EE.UU. Eso te deja solo una cosa que hacer: lidiar con el

Mito 2.  Mas transporte publico significa menos trafico

Public officials love to promise that a new public transport system will relieve congested roads. But over the long term (again, if not the short), this belief is just as misguided as the idea that more roads mean less traffic. Some residents will indeed leave their cars at home and take the bus or metro; others will see this new space on the road and fill it. A 2015 analysis of the new Expo light rail line in Los Angeles, for instance, found no change in travel times along nearby Interstate 10.

Of course, reliable transit is still an integral part of the ultimate traffic solution: congestion fees. And strong bus or rail systems offer other benefits to cities, from better overall better to more economic might, regardless of whether or not rush-hour remains a nightmare.

Mito 3.  Carrilles Bici empeoran el trafico

Bike lanes are all too often the punching bags of the transport planning world, and in 2015 they once again took all sorts of shots from local residents,retailers, and religious groups alike. One mainstay anti-bike argument holds that converting general road space into a bike lane is bad for traffic.

But to respond in rhyme: when good design’s in place, that’s just not the case. New York City proved as much with bike lanes recently installed on Columbus and Eighth avenues. By reducing the width of car lanes from 12 to 10 feet and adding protected left turns, the city was able to preserve vehicle volume and actually reduce travel times by 35 and 14 percent, respectively.

Adding a bike lane to Columbus Avenue in New York City actually reduced travel times by 35 percent. (New York City DOT)

Mito 4.  Una calle mas ancha es una calle mas segura

Speaking of 12-foot lanes versus 10-foot lanes, the common perception holds that the wider option is a safer design, since it gives drivers a bit more room to maneuver. But what some new research published in 2015 showed quite clearly was that wider lanes also invite cars to drive faster—erasing whatever safety benefits might be gained by additional space, and actually leading to more dangerous streets.

An evaluation of intersections in Toronto and Tokyo found lower crash rates in lanes that were closer to 10 feet, compared with those that were wider than 12 feet. “Given the empirical evidence that favours ‘narrower is safer’, the ‘wider is safer’ approach based on intuition should be discarded once and for all,” wrote the researcher who conducted the study. Oh, and the 10-foot lanes still moved plenty of traffic.

Mito 5. El carril de al lado avanza mas rapido

On average, drivers change lanes every 1.25 miles. But the routine nature of these moves belies the basic risk involved in making complex decisions about speed and distance involving multiple enormous moving objects. And while it might seem like the next lane over on the highway is always moving faster, the truth is that’s usually not the case.

Instead, researchers have shown that what you’re seeing is a visual illusion created by the fact that it takes longer to be passed than to pass someone else. In other words, you spend more time being overtaken by three cars in the next lane than you do zipping past three other cars. That gives drivers the general impression that they’re losing ground even when both lanes have similar average speeds.

Mito 6.  El mal conducir de todos es razon para tener trafico

The super fun game Error-Prone that came out in 2015 reflects the basic principles behind “shockwave” traffic jams. What this means is that every imperceptibly imprecise move in a car—tapping the brake a bit too hard, or holding the gas a bit too long—sends a ripple effect of congestion back through the rest of the road. As Traffic author Tom Vanderbilt has said: “You’re not driving into a traffic jam. A traffic jam is basically driving into you.”

So it’s not all those other terrible drivers holding things up. It’s everyone’sinability to hold a steady speed and following distance—a failure that test trials on closed courses has confirmed. Autonomous vehicles won’t experience much of this problem, but human drivers suffer through it every day.

Mito 7.  Necesita sacar muchos coches de la calle para reducir el trafico

The much-feared Popemageddon traffic jams that were supposed to snarl New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. didn’t happen during Francis’s 2015 U.S. tour. One reason was that public officials, with the help of social media, alerted people about the potential problem. But the bigger explanation is that removing just a few cars from a road has a disproportionate impact on congestion.

The Pope’s 2015 visit to Washington, D.C., didn’t lead to crippling traffic. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

Experts would call this traffic being “non-linear.” What they mean is that the relationship between cars and delay is not one-to-one. If you remove just 1 percent of commuters off the rush-hour road in especially high-traffic corridors, as some work has shown, you can reduce travel times by 18 percent. So when a few drivers stay home during, say, a Pope’s visit, a lot of others benefit.

Mito 8. Demoler una autopista urbana seria una pesadilla de trafico 

This summer Toronto became the latest city to consider tearing down an urban expressway that cut through the center of town. Though city planners wanted to remove the highway, others (including the mayor) worried that removing it would result in a crippling amount of traffic. That mindset eventually won the day (though the fight isn’t over).

It’s true that not every urban interstate can be torn down without having a major short-term impact on traffic. But drivers adapt extremely quickly to changes to the road network—a phenomenon that experts refer to as “disappearing traffic.” Some people shift their routes, travel times, or modes when an existing road closes; others simply decide not to make a trip at all. As the authors of one study put it, “predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist.”

Mito 9. No hay consecuencias negativas de tener gasolina barata

It was hardly a painful year for Americans at the pump. Gas prices started 2015 incredibly low and they ended it even lower, with average fuel costs in the U.S.dipping below $2 this month. That’s great for middle-class bank accounts, but it’s bad for all the hidden social costs of driving, which have been estimated at some $3.3 trillion (with a “T”) a year. Of that total, at least $1 trillion represents time lost to congestion both at home and at work.

Mito 10. Los Conductores pagan el costo total del mantenimiento de calles 

The point of the gas tax is to cover the cost of keeping American roads in a state of good repair. In its early days, back in the 1960s, this road user fee did handle the vast majority of maintenance expenses (though not all of them). But since that time its powers have steadily eroded, with Americans now paying some of the lowest gas taxes in the world.

Who Pays for Roads?

The federal highway bill passed in late 2015 made the situation even worse. Instead of raising the gas tax for the first time in more than 20 years, officials raided yet more money from other funding pots, further destroying the relationship between driving fees and road repair costs. The result is a significant infrastructure maintenance crisis with little end in sight.

Sobre el autor

Acerca de salvolomas

Asociación vecinal, cuyo objeto es preservar la colonia habitacional unifamiliar, sus calles arboladas con aceras caminables, con trafico calmado, seguras para bici, parques, areas verdes, centros de barrio de uso mixto accesibles a pie y oficinas solo en áreas designadas.
Esta entrada fue publicada en Movilidad, Trafico, Transporte y etiquetada . Guarda el enlace permanente.


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s