Depends how you define "equal". One approach is simply to scale the charge by income -- effectively, convert time to money, and charge you a congestion tax of some amount of money-earning time. "6 minutes" is 1/10000 of your annual income -- $2 for someone earning $20,000 per year, $20 for someone earning $200,000 per year.

But does a vehicle with several people in it pay for the max, min, median, average, or the driver's time? I suspect "driver" is easiest, it seems like it might work but I'll bet there are some screwy ways to game that rule, too.

author here, you are right, I missed that. In my pathetic defense, the normal argument around here (Cambridge, MA) is about literal lane widening and narrowing, and not adding and subtracting.

Hi, author of the article. I'm assuming urban traffic speeds, which is what I observe all the time myself, but you can look at the video of those kids, and count, and look at the seconds. 125 bikes in 45 seconds, between 0:02 and 0:47. Understanding it is another issue, but it's a fact. (This is one of those things that I do myself and would not claim that I exactly understand the details, I just do it.)

There have been more academic studies. e.g. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/5_Zhou-Xu-Wang-and-Shen... estimates 2512 bicycles per hour per meter of road width, or 7536 bikes per hour on a 3-meter (10 feet) wide lane. That's only 4.2x car throughput, versus those kids who managed 5.5x.

You are right about the trailers, but at least where I ride, they are not common-case for carrying things, lots more cargo bikes instead, and those are "better" than trailers -- it's possible to ride two cargo bikes side-by-side even in a US protected lane (specifically on Garden Street in Cambridge, MA), though this of course assumes competent riders.

The way to view it is "unless there is syntactic sharing, it is a for loop, same as before". The compiler uses a syntactic test (with little knowledge of control flow or value use) to exclude loops from the change. This excludes most loops.

After the change, escape analysis figures out if the changed iteration variable actually needs heap allocation; in an internal sample of code that was actually buggy (i.e., biased, guaranteed to have at least one loop like this) for 5/6 of the loops escape analysis decided that heap allocation wasn't needed.

The reason this optimization isn't part of the language change proposal is that escape analysis is "behind the curtain"; ignoring performance, a program should behave the same with or without it, and it is removing heap allocations all over the place already. Escape analysis is also extremely difficult to explain exactly, so you would not want it in the spec, and "make escape analysis better" (that is, change it) is one of the prominent items in the bag of things to do for Go.

How do you get mm-wave radiation to an aquatic plant? Skin depth at that frequency is tiny. Are they doing studies on duckweed? (Look up the plant, indeed, they are.) And I can see how pine needles might be more affected, what with size and pointy tips.

Speaking both pedantically and based on my experience riding a bicycle, when traffic speed is reduced all the way to zero, it is in fact safer, at least for me. I am of course, not counting the risk of drivers stroking out from frustration-induced high blood pressure, but that's what we on bikes call a lifestyle choice.

I think it's a three-part problem. One, it is a flow problem, and by removing congestion at one bottleneck you mostly deliver traffic more efficiently to the next bottleneck. Actually increasing traffic flow is much more expensive than the cost of any single project. Second, over time, you end up with induced demand -- if you actually do get rid of all the congestion, longer commutes will become more practical, and traffic will increase until the marginal-next-commuter is discouraged from adding his car to the scrum.

Third, economic arguments are a little dicey for driving because driving is filled with externalized costs, subsidies, overoptimistic assumptions, and dependent utility. Driving creates noise and pollution (and it appears that the pollution is more deadly than crashes) but drivers don't pay that cost. There's personal crash risk, but people tend to assume that they are careful drivers and hence less likely to crash than the norm. The cost of the roads themselves is currently subsidized from the general fund; it's not a huge external cost, but it's a cost. Driving also creates (perceived) danger to people biking and walking; that tends to encourage them to also drive for their own (perceived) safety, even when they otherwise would not, and the congestion costs of driving also delay bus transit, making it less useful (it's already slower because of all the stops; traffic jams make it slower yet).

As someone else pointed out, reducing peak speeds does not necessarily increase travel time. See this report on the Prospect Park West redesign: http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/

I commute-by-bike on a road with bike lanes in Somerville and Cambridge. At rush hour, no matter what the speed limit, the fastest way from point A to point B is a bicycle (unless A and B are stops on the red line), almost never exceeding 20mph. The reason cars are slow is that they take up too much space and have to wait in line, again and again and again.