<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Highway Economics Presents: Pareto Optimality</title>
	<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/</link>
	<description>0</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: prez2401</title>
		<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-432</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-432</guid>
					<description>Its like Tron! Only less corny and more violent. Yay violence! Then you can make cool catchphrases like, &quot;May the Pareto be with you&quot; or &quot;A Pareto is forever&quot; or &quot;Hasta la Pareto, Baby&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its like Tron! Only less corny and more violent. Yay violence! Then you can make cool catchphrases like, &#8220;May the Pareto be with you&#8221; or &#8220;A Pareto is forever&#8221; or &#8220;Hasta la Pareto, Baby&#8221;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: bigi</title>
		<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-431</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-431</guid>
					<description>i always think our freeways need a lot more work ever since i started driving to folsom to work daily from davis.

first of all, the easiest solution is, the freeway through sacramento downtown needs 10 lanes on each direction. that would solve everything. (that would also mean during off hours like 12am you could drift the hell you want on the road even on slight turns, which is what everybody wants to do, i know) however that isn't likely to happen in the near future.

so i think sac needs to implement that &quot;limited entrance carpool lane&quot; just like LA and San Diego freeways have. i never knew such thing existed until i went to LA/SD in June. basically through the busiest parts of the freeway, the entire lane is blocked out by double yellow lines (some parts even have a low wall to divide them make sure no cars can violate the rule). the lane is only &quot;enterable&quot; and &quot;exitable&quot; in certain parts of the road. so for people who need to travel long distance but just happen to have to go through that busy part of the freeway, they can go through quickly. now the difference is we need to make this without the &quot;carpool&quot; part in sacramento. reason 1 being i don't carpool now, reason 2 being most people who need this lane are people who DON'T work in sacramento, like those living in davis and working in folsom, and so on. and these people don't carpool. having such lane with the carpool requirement is as good as having a non-existent lane because no one would drive on it. it'd also be nice if the speed limit of this lane is 80mph so that everyone can drive legally at 90 and wouldn't get caught.

side point:
i think the &quot;comfortable speed&quot; of people change over time. by this i don't maen over years. i mean over the course of the travel over the freeway. at least this is the case for me. the first 1~5 mins as i enter the freeway (especially when i woke up blurry everyday) my comfortable speed is 60~70. as i start to get into &quot;the mode&quot; my comfortable speed would be 80. i'm sure during long drives (e.g. from SF bay area to LA or something) through those plains of nobody anybody's comfortable speed would be 100.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i always think our freeways need a lot more work ever since i started driving to folsom to work daily from davis.</p>
<p>first of all, the easiest solution is, the freeway through sacramento downtown needs 10 lanes on each direction. that would solve everything. (that would also mean during off hours like 12am you could drift the hell you want on the road even on slight turns, which is what everybody wants to do, i know) however that isn&#8217;t likely to happen in the near future.</p>
<p>so i think sac needs to implement that &#8220;limited entrance carpool lane&#8221; just like LA and San Diego freeways have. i never knew such thing existed until i went to LA/SD in June. basically through the busiest parts of the freeway, the entire lane is blocked out by double yellow lines (some parts even have a low wall to divide them make sure no cars can violate the rule). the lane is only &#8220;enterable&#8221; and &#8220;exitable&#8221; in certain parts of the road. so for people who need to travel long distance but just happen to have to go through that busy part of the freeway, they can go through quickly. now the difference is we need to make this without the &#8220;carpool&#8221; part in sacramento. reason 1 being i don&#8217;t carpool now, reason 2 being most people who need this lane are people who DON&#8217;T work in sacramento, like those living in davis and working in folsom, and so on. and these people don&#8217;t carpool. having such lane with the carpool requirement is as good as having a non-existent lane because no one would drive on it. it&#8217;d also be nice if the speed limit of this lane is 80mph so that everyone can drive legally at 90 and wouldn&#8217;t get caught.</p>
<p>side point:<br />
i think the &#8220;comfortable speed&#8221; of people change over time. by this i don&#8217;t maen over years. i mean over the course of the travel over the freeway. at least this is the case for me. the first 1~5 mins as i enter the freeway (especially when i woke up blurry everyday) my comfortable speed is 60~70. as i start to get into &#8220;the mode&#8221; my comfortable speed would be 80. i&#8217;m sure during long drives (e.g. from SF bay area to LA or something) through those plains of nobody anybody&#8217;s comfortable speed would be 100.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: J.Liu</title>
		<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-430</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-430</guid>
					<description>We're assuming everyone else on the highway doesn't matter to keep the example simpler.

Note: Pareto optimality doesn't mean it's the best solution. Giving one person everything and everyone else nothing is a Pareto optimal solution.

The point of this whole exercise is that if the car behind you wants to go faster and the lane to your right is going the same speed you are, you should &lt;em&gt;get the hell out of your lane&lt;/em&gt;. =)

I think highways need a graded (as in not constant) speed limit; like higher in the left-most lane, then step down to the right-most lane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re assuming everyone else on the highway doesn&#8217;t matter to keep the example simpler.</p>
<p>Note: Pareto optimality doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s the best solution. Giving one person everything and everyone else nothing is a Pareto optimal solution.</p>
<p>The point of this whole exercise is that if the car behind you wants to go faster and the lane to your right is going the same speed you are, you should <em>get the hell out of your lane</em>. =)</p>
<p>I think highways need a graded (as in not constant) speed limit; like higher in the left-most lane, then step down to the right-most lane.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Xero</title>
		<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-429</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-429</guid>
					<description>...i think my brain just died</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;i think my brain just died
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: emmy</title>
		<link>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-428</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://duality.quadoshock.com/archive/2005/09/25/highway-economics-presents-pareto-optimality/#comment-428</guid>
					<description>but if everyone has their own comfortable speed then if everyone is driving at the same speed than a lot of ppl are worse off cause they are being forced to drive faster or slower respectively.... unless you are saying that we arbitrarily change all these peoples comfortable speed, but then that's even worse, cause you're not restricing the speed at which they drive you are not allowing them to be comfortable at any other speed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but if everyone has their own comfortable speed then if everyone is driving at the same speed than a lot of ppl are worse off cause they are being forced to drive faster or slower respectively&#8230;. unless you are saying that we arbitrarily change all these peoples comfortable speed, but then that&#8217;s even worse, cause you&#8217;re not restricing the speed at which they drive you are not allowing them to be comfortable at any other speed!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
