Also, here in L.A., “mobility” is officially defined based on how far a car can drive in a set period of time (5-, 10- or 15-minute chunks of time). One can argue as to the value of such a measure, but it is a measure nonetheless.

To make up two examples…

“The level of service is adequate” could mean that it’s an LOS A and that’s great; or it’s an LOS F but there’s nothing that’ll be done about it. Given financial restraints, I’m sure many are reluctantly finding themselves meaning the latter.

Or something that “significantly” impacts delay could mean you’re waiting to out of your neighborhood & onto an arterial, but you’re waiting 2 minutes in an urban area vs 30 seconds in a rural area… both significant delays if you consider context. Statistics isn’t a factor; Einstein’s relativity is a better fit. Regardless, the exact meaning is hidden and can be altered as needs change.

EPA research clearly shows that motor vehicle efficiency is best at 55mph.

It may be lower for traffic if lower speeds increase the road capacity (the threshold for this is 45mph, below that the reduction in vehicle spacing doesn’t make enough room to make up for the reduction in speed). Also if stops are frequent, the energy needed to get up to a more efficient speed may not be worth it if the time at the more efficient speed isn’t long enough.

The more I read and think about it, the more these PC policies frustrate me. Most of these “anti bias” policies are a small legitimate quibble, used to open the door to redifine efficiency and muddy waters and ultimately prevent prosperity.

“Typically, efficiency issues are raised when dealing with motor
vehicles operating at slow speeds. The assumption is that if changes were made that increase the
speeds of the motor vehicles, then efficiency rises. However, this assumption is highly
debatable.”

Just wrong. Timing has to do with throughput and does increase efficiency. Higher speeds are the result of the improved vehicle traffic efficiency. It’s technically true that higher speeds don’t necessarily lead to better efficiency, but totally irrelevant. The relationship is the other way around. Increased efficiency is what leads to the higher speeds. The follow on effects are just ways that people choose to put the increased productivity to use. We consume more because there is more to consume.

However good the first part of the policy was, the most important part is very wrong. I’m still very pleased, so low my expectations for goverment policy are.

…And another motto of mine is in line with what John said. You’re not a professional & you’re not adept at your job if you aren’t capable of explaining what you do to a 5 year old. *Anything* can be explained in simple everyday language if you try, from transportation networks to quantum mechanics to rocket science to politics to economics. Er, well so far I haven’t quite found anyone capable of the last one.