> Actuated signal control [...] inductive loop sensors embedded into the road surface
It blows my mind how many people don't realize that's what those circles near the stop bar of an intersection are for, and will then stop 3+ car lengths behind the stop bar, and then can't figure out why the light is never going green.
> two signals closely spaced in a row on a major roadway. If one signal gives a green but the next one doesn’t, cars can back up
This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them, and MOST traffic during rush out coming from just one of the directions, yet the lights were often exactly out of sync. The first light would be red while the next one was green. Then the first would go green while the other went red, and traffic would only move about 500 feet then stop for 2 minutes. The backup would last well over a mile.
> The obvious next step in efficiency is coordination of most or all the signals within a traffic network. This is the job of adaptive signal control technologies, or ASCT. [..] These types of systems can dramatically reduce congestion
My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
> This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them
In San Francisco (as well as other cities I've lived in) they put police in the middle of intersections during rush hour to guide traffic (i.e., stop cars before they drive into an intersection that they'll get stuck in the middle of). Seems woefully inefficient
When traffic is really heavy humans are better than machines at getting traffic through. However they cost a lot of money and so are only rarely worth the cost.
It might be more about drivers respecting the signals than about the efficiency at which the signals are handed out. Plenty of people will try to squeeze into a yellow light even if they might get stuck on the intersection if the road is backed up but they are less likely to do so with a police officer watching them.
There is that, but also the police can see that the road will backup and stop traffic before that happens. They let someone who is going to a non-backed up road go instead. They also can see a road is backing up and give that high priority if there is a place for the cars to go.
> The cyclists also tend to wander out of the bike lane into the car lane
This sentence alone tells me that it's not a bike lane. A painted line is not a bike lane.
Walter I'm seriously fighting the urge to write a wall of text in response. Why the knee-jerk reaction and the hyperboles? It's not interesting conversation...
Curious...in the UK, is the implementation of something like that done by government employees?
In the USA, a significant amount of tax-funded infrastructure is actually built out by contractors, which means there's profit going to a corporation, and there's often a cynical idea that the contracts go out to whoever will send a kickback in the form of a campaign contribution to whoever makes the decision on which contractor to use.
The local councils (local Authority) usually get external companies to design the systems, but there are standard, off the shelf solutions that are specified to be used. These systems range from time synced junctions (with Vehicle attenuation) up to full Urban Traffic Control systems, the protocols used are mostly standard (UTMC), so the local Authority just needs to say what they need. For a UTC system it used to be that the council would run the instation, but with cloud computing, that's mostly run for them now as a hosted system. Usually this is all controlled by the standard local council procurement rules, and run by council employees not elected officials. The elected officials can say a scheme is needed and approve costs, but not who does it.
UK council election spending limit is £960, so not a lot of scope for big "contributions" as bribes. <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-government-elections-england/candidate-spending/how-much-can-you-spend" rel="nofollow">https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-a...
That means all the bribery has to be firmly under the table instead, rather than legalized.
If I had a nickle for every time I’ve had to get out of my car and walk up to the person in front of me and explain that they need to pull forward for the light to change - I’d have two nickels, yadda yadda yadda.
> My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
I don't think you need a vast conspiracy to point out that connecting traffic signals costs more (fancier signal equipment, running cable, maintaining the cables, etc) and the benefits may be subtle, hard to predict, and maybe even hard to measure.
Additionally, you have a lot of people that would prefer to slow traffic. Depending on local culture, investing in traffic control can be difficult (although upgrading traffic signal systems may be better able to accomodate priority for transit and bicycle detection)
Back when I rode I had to add a giant hunk of iron to the bottom of my motorcycle so these fuckin things could see me. Sometimes that still isn't enough and after a few minutes of shimmying back and forth over it I'd just run the red
Sohcahtoa82 · · focus · HN ↗
It blows my mind how many people don't realize that's what those circles near the stop bar of an intersection are for, and will then stop 3+ car lengths behind the stop bar, and then can't figure out why the light is never going green.
> two signals closely spaced in a row on a major roadway. If one signal gives a green but the next one doesn’t, cars can back up
This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them, and MOST traffic during rush out coming from just one of the directions, yet the lights were often exactly out of sync. The first light would be red while the next one was green. Then the first would go green while the other went red, and traffic would only move about 500 feet then stop for 2 minutes. The backup would last well over a mile.
> The obvious next step in efficiency is coordination of most or all the signals within a traffic network. This is the job of adaptive signal control technologies, or ASCT. [..] These types of systems can dramatically reduce congestion
My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
at1as · · focus · HN ↗
In San Francisco (as well as other cities I've lived in) they put police in the middle of intersections during rush hour to guide traffic (i.e., stop cars before they drive into an intersection that they'll get stuck in the middle of). Seems woefully inefficient
bluGill · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
bluGill · · focus · HN ↗
WalterBright · · focus · HN ↗
Imagine how much gas would be saved if the city spent a little effort on the traffic lights.
andrepd · · focus · HN ↗
WalterBright · · focus · HN ↗
The bike traffic remains 1% of the car traffic, and 0% when it's cold/rainy.
andrepd · · focus · HN ↗
WalterBright · · focus · HN ↗
andrepd · · focus · HN ↗
This sentence alone tells me that it's not a bike lane. A painted line is not a bike lane.
Walter I'm seriously fighting the urge to write a wall of text in response. Why the knee-jerk reaction and the hyperboles? It's not interesting conversation...
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
It's not really saving gas if your alternative doesn't achieve even remotely the same thing.
mlaretallack · · focus · HN ↗
Sohcahtoa82 · · focus · HN ↗
In the USA, a significant amount of tax-funded infrastructure is actually built out by contractors, which means there's profit going to a corporation, and there's often a cynical idea that the contracts go out to whoever will send a kickback in the form of a campaign contribution to whoever makes the decision on which contractor to use.
mlaretallack · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
That means all the bribery has to be firmly under the table instead, rather than legalized.
mock-possum · · focus · HN ↗
toast0 · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think you need a vast conspiracy to point out that connecting traffic signals costs more (fancier signal equipment, running cable, maintaining the cables, etc) and the benefits may be subtle, hard to predict, and maybe even hard to measure.
Additionally, you have a lot of people that would prefer to slow traffic. Depending on local culture, investing in traffic control can be difficult (although upgrading traffic signal systems may be better able to accomodate priority for transit and bicycle detection)
monster_truck · · focus · HN ↗
euroderf · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
acheron · · focus · HN ↗
This is a bizarre conspiracy theory that you just invented. Stop making up things to get angry about.
Sohcahtoa82 · · focus · HN ↗