How Much Does a Mile of Road Cost?

Don't we already weigh trucks as they enter and leave the state, as well as sometimes in the middle of the state? I don't know what goes on there already, but we could certainly charge trucks based on loaded miles in the state, which should be pretty easy to calculate since they have very predictable driving patterns and take fairly detailed logs. For local deliveries, we could just charge based on the max load and allow drivers to prove anything otherwise.

And yes, consumers will pay regardless, but at least the difference is reflected in the cost of goods. It could very well be that certain local goods are cheaper than imported goods after road costs are properly factored in, which could change how much is imported.

However, this feels a bit regressive since poorer people will pay more of the cost since roads are largely funded by income tax, but that can be accounted for by shifting other taxes. The idea isn't too punish poor people or shipping customers, but to allow the market to work more efficiently.

Light rail has a lot more destinations, and most rail systems are designed to complement bus systems.

I live in Utah, and our "urban" area (SLC) is similar to many "suburban" areas in terms of population density. We have a commuter line that intersects with light rail, which intersects with the bus system. Rail hits most of the important business areas, and buses hit most of the residential areas, and each runs every 15-20 minutes. If you know the system, you can get around fairly well without a car. It was expensive to build, but it is used quite a bit so it is absolutely worth it.

I drive at the speed limit as well - the number of people you see doing 60mph in the middle lane though is worrying. I see that as the dangerous thing (and would argue that it inherently makes changing lanes more dangerous as you have 3 trafficked lanes, rather than 2 with a usually empty middle).

If you stick to the middle when the slow lane is even going faster than you, that's definitely the time to move over.

My aim is to be a good road citizen and obey by rules and convention to ensure everyone's journey is smooth, not only my own.

> cars meeting to enter shouldn't affect you

But they do, because when they don't it's potentially your life on the line.

> an exiting car shouldn't affect you

But they do, because there's always a reason.

> just change lanes to overtake, and then pull back into the right lane afterwards

I look at the act of driving on the freeway as gambling with my life. Every single action I take (or don't) has the potential to kill me. This is anecdotal, so I'm happy to take actual facts and change my opinion, but I see a much higher order of accidents (or near misses) caused by changing lanes than I see from people staying in their lane. My conclusion is that staying in a lane is inherently safer than drifting from lane to lane based on its occupancy level.

> Driving in the middle lane is optimal from each driver's own perspective

I generally stay in the middle lane when the load on the freeway is low to moderate. When the load is high it doesn't matter which lane you're in; they're all sub-optimal. But if there are so many people driving in the middle lane that journey times are increased, then people will start to pass more often and the lanes will even out. If they don't, then you're in high load.

> it reduces road capacity

It doesn't reduce road capacity. It could reduce road capacity utilization, but if you're hitting that point then the utilization has already taken a hit, and driver patterns change to utilize the road more fully (for better or worse).

Ultimately the lane choice of each driver doesn't matter, because drivers won't sit in bumper to bumper traffic with a wide open lane next to them.

In fact, changing lanes reduces road capacity utilization. For the duration of the lane change and for a short period before and after the car is effectively taking up two cars places (their place in the old lane and the new).

The Highway Code says you shouldn't do it unless you're in slow moving traffic. RAC article here: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/undertaking/

The problem with undertaking for me is that it reduces options when you need them the most.

If I'm in the middle lane doing 70mph and thinking "I can't pull into the inside because that car is only 30 foot off my bumper", that driver deciding to keep up with me at 70mph or undertaking reduces my outs in the event of a tyre blowout or other incident (e.g. a broken down car or debris in the middle lane ahead).

Where there is a dynamic hard shoulder or all-lane running, options become fewer still and the chance of a problem even higher.

And then there are the lorries on the inside of a 50mph average speed check contraflow undertaking in narrow lanes at 0.25mph more than the outside lane - that's just an accident waiting to happen.

I've also been on the outside lane overtaking somebody who was doing 65mph in the middle lane with an empty inside lane who as I moved to overtake sped up. Not undertaking: just blocking me from moving past and back into the middle lane.

I then had a boy racer come in behind me at 90mph and have to throw the anchor out whilst flashing his lights at me, and my options are basically "hope for the best". We were on a relatively tight corner for a motorway (it's that horrid section of the M60 that runs through Stockport), so deciding to accelerate to get out of this would have meant potentially losing control of the car, and the guy in the middle lane was likely going to pin me there anyway...

For me then - especially in the narrow lanes of UK motorways - it is not just about using middle and outside lanes for passing only, there is a responsibility of the drivers on the inside to allow that to happen and give those around them enough options if they need them, and not doing so should be considered just as much a case of careless driving as undertaking in most other scenarios.