Level Of Service is is really a poor guide to practical transportation planning as it is very much based on what a self centered individual would rate the accommodations. Who would not like having a fast highway all to themselves? How to plan and fund such a system is highly problematic, the typical cost of providing one individual car the 191' of the required space to travel 60mph is $1.4M as the gap grows between peek travel time volumes and average travel volumes more individuals are "demanding" that government pay that out for their individual use and that just is not sustainable.

Our Highway Safety Office reports that most crashes happen in areas between congestion. Though its been about 15 years since I have ridden in NYC most of its congestion was around the bridges and tunnels with the rest of the island moving fairly well, which translates to a lot of gaps between congestion per square mile. Another way to look at this is you can imagine someone coming around a corner of a highway and encountering stopped traffic and a crash resulting. Similarly after congestion there is some "need" to make up lost time so people drive faster and take more risks. While in the midst of congestion people are resigned to their fate and take less risks.

In Baltimore they are improving 95 so more people can barrel toward Baltimore at a high speed with no allowance with what to do with all these people once they get here. This goes against my principle of smoothing out the transition into dense development. But "improvements" are called for as a lot of crashes happen on this stretch so some how they think more of the same will make a difference. While I hear you on cooperation if accommodations do not encourage cooperation it is a huge up hill battle to encourage otherwise. So I see cooperation more of a minor point as the individual driver has a hard time seeing the big picture and predicting future of traffic flow.