Okay, here's one of my pet peeves.  Congress passed a law mandating states to have right-turn-on-red laws, yet no state has ever designated far-right lanes for right turns.  We seldom take advantage of this fuel-saving concept because some nimrod planning to continue straight always blocks the lane.  If we have three lanes going in one direction, why not reduce them to two following an intersection, then flare back to three before the next.  Presto: We increase the carrying capacity of the road by using LESS asphalt.  Why are no states doing this?

Another pet peeve:  Traffic lights going from green to red in the dead of night, with cars senselessly idling without another car in sight.  Why not put these on flashing red late at night?

Ken Duble

The only solutions that will help the planet are for us to drastically lower our numbers (DUH!, too many people causes congestion of all types) and to live more simply, such as living close to work and shopping, and to give up driving altogether where possible.  The latter must be accomplished not only by personal choice, which is important, but by electing only politicians who will not stand for ecologically harmful developments like suburbs.

I was late to work this morning because of a traffic jam created by collard greens. Or rather, by a terrible driver who upended his load of produce going over a bump, then chose to block both lanes of traffic while picking up his precious green cargo. My point is not that sensitive souls shouldn't move to Nairobi (though they shouldn't), but that the explosion of cars in the developing world does not, alas, necessarily imply an increase in competent drivers. Inept driving creates traffic jams, which lead to wasted fuel and avoidable air pollutant and GHG emissions. I bet driver's ed, along with the traffic calming measures someone mentioned earlier, could make a big difference in traffic flow and so in transport emissions.