Obligatory XKCD Reference
Green Wave
51–56 of 56 posts
Re: Green Wave
#52To help pay for tuition, one summer I drove a university shuttle in the evenings after finishing my work-study job. At that time, the lights on Walnut and Chestnut streets in West Philly were set up with green waves. The best place to ride the wave was obviously at its tail, entering each intersection a little before the light would turn yellow. Traffic there was light-to-none, and its flow far smoother and safer tha…
There were people in your wave who would have slowed down too much if those cars running ahead were in the pack.
Re: Green Wave
#53Sadly, our green wave is synchronized with a 50 mph speed, but the posted (and reasonable) limit is 35 mph.
Re: Green Wave
#54To help pay for tuition, one summer I drove a university shuttle in the evenings after finishing my work-study job. At that time, the lights on Walnut and Chestnut streets in West Philly were set up with green waves. The best place to ride the wave was obviously at its tail, entering each intersection a little before the light would turn yellow. Traffic there was light-to-none, and its flow far smoother and safer tha…
> ..., wastefully approaching each red light far too fast, ...
Oh, you want to save gas? Joke's on you:
> In the UK, in 2009, it was revealed that the Department for Transport had previously discouraged green waves as they reduced fuel usage, and thus less revenue was raised from fuel taxes.
Re: Green Wave
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what would be the better pay-off on aggregate: more tax revenue from extra fuel use or -- presuming people get to where they need to be more efficiently -- more tax revenue from the increased productivity/consumerism? I wonder which is better in terms of pollution and other potential negatives? So, which is net cheapest? (My money's on green waves.)
You are assuming increased taxes from productivity/consumerism would affect the Department of Transportation's Budget. They overvalue fuel tax specially because a portion of it is earmarked directly to them. This was real by the way, not just a libertarian talking point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7998182.stm
Showing my ignorance, but I didn't even realise that tax revenue from a certain stream (e.g., fuel tax) went directly to the government department (e.g., DfT) that instigated it, rather than it being absorbed centrally by the treasury and then redistributed according to fiscal policy. That's interesting. Doesn't that mean that certain departments will be more flush with cash simply by virtue of attracting more tax?
(...and, yes, it's upsetting that this happened in real life.)
Re: Green Wave
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really cool. Though it does seem to remove almost 50% of the benefits listed in this entry, but those seem to be focused on fuel-consuming vehicles rather than bikes.
If it gets more people to bike instead of drive, it still has those benefits.
You're absolutely right. I didn't think about it like that, thanks.