h a l f b a k e r yStill more entertaining than cricket.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
UNSTOPPABLE TRAFFIC THEORY
Cars never stop, if they don’t cross intersections.
Part 1
People think of traffic intersections from an archaic point-of-view. They cling to the notion that cars must cross paths. Actually, it is NOT necessary for cars to ever cross
paths, especially at intersections.
I’m not talking about building bridges and tunnels, or magnetic levitation, or flying taxies. But, I simply must say there is something utterly obsolete about cross-traffic.
Are you getting the idea?
Well, guess what. Would you believe we already have the infrastructure in place for efficient, non-stop city traffic flow in every direction? No new construction is necessary. No new bridges, tunnels, stoplights, or even stop signs are required for this to work effectively. We wouldn’t need to change a thing. That is, with the exception of tearing down every signal light and stop sign on the planet. And, we might even get by without having to repaint all the street lanes.
Is it becoming clear now?
That’s right, the solution is that no one goes straight, through an intersection. You either turn left or right. The tired practice of driving down a city street, through one signal light after another, no longer applies. There is a better way. All it takes is looking at our entire system of paved roadways, from another angle.
Everything we need is already there: the streets, the sidewalks, the bike lanes, the crosswalks, and the “intersections.” We don’t even realize what we have, because we haven’t yet looked at it in a way that fulfills its potential.
It goes a lot like this. Every street is just a string of one-way segments. The traffic direction for each roadway alternates (flip-flops) every block. It’s kinda like the cities with alternating one-way streets, but on a micro-level. There is no need for traffic to stop, except for pedestrians. At every intersection, all the cars on one of the streets converge from opposite directions, and onto the other street they all diverge in opposite directions.
[Sketch out a few adjacent intersections on a grid, it helps to visualize it. This works for triangular blocks, five-way and six-way intersections, anything. Very few streets (about 3%) are left-over in the re-organization process. They either repeat the last direction in their sequence, or simply become a two-way avenue with a dead end.]
It may sound confusing but, all you need to know is that there is no more two-way traffic in most areas. And, to reach your destination, you must turn either right or left at every intersection. Think of the shortest distance between two points as a zig-zag line. Yet, the beauty is that you don’t have to stop for traffic. And yes, bikers and pedestrians can have their diagonal crosswalks.
What we have is a knitted mesh of roadways. For an ordinary street grid, just think in terms of zig-zagging to get where you want to go. There is a lot of merging, but it’s pretty straightforward (so to speak). After every turn, you are merging onto a very wide street that has plenty of room for merging safely, without having to slow down. Once in the center lane, you can turn either left or right at the next intersection.
With minimal cooperation, cars can simply time their merges to blend in with any cars coming from the other side. We do that all the time, as it is. At many places on our freeways, cars swap lanes with each other so that some get on while others exit. And that’s an even more difficult situation because the exiting cars are going much faster than the cars coming on. Nothing else changes, nor is this plan a departure from what we already know.
Getting further into the details of this, lane markers may not be necessary, except for what used to be the center divider, maybe. In this setup, business traffic pulls off to whichever side it needs, while thru-traffic stays in the center of the roadway. No surprises there, right?
Turns signals are always nice, as they will become much more useful. It may be good to have two lanes through the turns, which would indicate your intentions for the next block. But, that may also not be advantageous, and it might limit higher speeds.
It may be better to use the turns as efficiently as possible, by starting wide, then hugging the turn and swinging out wide to maximize the radius. All that is really needed down any given avenue is three lanes: one on each side of the roadway for access to and from it, and one thoroughfare down the middle.
It’s not difficult to illustrate how a network of single-lane roads can effectively accommodate any volume of traffic. At the outskirts of any of these "zig-zag” zones, two-way streets can remain as they are, continuing to interconnect districts, towns, and newer developments (the old-fashioned way).
It is a well-regulated integration, using a simple system of green, red, and yellow road signs to indicate right-way, wrong-way, and two-way streets, respectively.
So what we’ve done is, we’ve gone and taken a vast jungle of signal light fixtures all over the city, and replaced them with maybe an oak tree in the middle of every intersection.
This has been staring right at us, for a long, long time. Many people have known somehow, that there are better ways to moderate traffic. We’ve all had a hunch that we’ve been going about this all wrong, but couldn’t quite put a finger on it. Well, I‘ve gone with my hunch, and now it’s under my thumb.
Kenneth Paul Campbell
Mechanical Design Engineer
PO Box 551 Fair Oaks, CA 95628
KenjiCampbell@hotmail.com
Traffic Circles
http://www.usroads....j/9801/rm980102.htm
Take your idea a step further. [Worldgineer, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
(?) http://geocities.yahoo.com
Unbelievers and the squeemish need not enter. [Worldgineer, Oct 05 2004]
(?) U.T.T. webpage
http://www.geocitie...ampbell/UTT-WP.html
Unbelievers and the squeemish need not enter. [K-trein, Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Seems like you'd get lost really easily, and it will take much longer to get from point A to point B, but I like your idea for it's creativity. How does this idea beat traffic circles? |
|
| |
It doesn't take any longer to get somewhere because you never stop! |
|
| |
So straight line trips take 16
blocks for every 10 blocks you
need to go. Diagonal trips will be
the same. A significant amount of
extra fuel will be consumed. |
|
| |
And what if I just want to drive
down main street for the heck of
it? Now I have to zig zag all over
town? |
|
| |
I usually enjoy small amounts of breathless prose, but I couldn’t finish reading this idea. As a member of the M-TV generation, I simply lack the attention span. |
|
| |
//So straight line trips take 16 blocks for every 10 blocks you need to go.// [oxen crossing] I count 20 blocks for every 10. |
|
| |
[K-trein] Sounds innovative. Another solution is to have every other street going one-way north and every other one-way south, all the way. The east-west streets would be as in your idea. This would also result in no crossings and would make life much easier for those going north or south, but diagonal trips would be more difficult. |
|
| |
Even more important would be location, location, and location ... wouldn't the number of ways to get there from here be reduced by, say, a factor of four? |
|
| |
You are ignoring a major part of traffic signals at intersections. Allowing pedestrians to cross. Are they to make a dash wherever they feel like it? If you put in signals for them to cross then you stop traffic regardless. Most major cities (the very place where your idea would be most needed) have large numbers of pedestrians crossing at all intersections on major routes and almost as frequently on "quieter" streets. |
|
| |
933 words to advocate changing inherent human behavior. I'm taking a diagonal path to go fishing. |
|
| |
The problem is that in order for the model to work you need two lanes at each segment, and then if you turned right and then left, you need to change lanes, in opposite manner to other drivers, this clogs traffic just as much.
(if yo have just one lane per segment than merging will take place at intersections). |
|
| |
I'd love to see the emergency services get through in rush hour. |
|
| |
Matter transporters would solve this! |
|
| |
This plan gives each road equal priority, which in real life they do not. Our current road system is a grid/artery system where the major through-fares are very large roads and the supporting grid, much smaller. I don't imagine you could dump freeway size traffic loads onto just any road. |
|
| |
With you systems I think we'd end up with bottle necks on the small roads and under capacity loads on the freeways. |
|
| |
//cars never stop if they don't crosss intersections//?! |
|
| |
Ever seen the movie "Speed"? |
|
| |
[FJ, I just recounted and got 18
blocks/10, if the first direction is
with you, 22/10 if it is against. |
|
| |
More fun is figuring out the route
to a specific block. |
|
| |
Nice idea, but I think the solution probably lies nearer what [l3ackEyedAngels] suggested. Cars simply take up too much space on the road.
|
|
| |
Is that about it for the first set of remarks? Anyone? Bueller? |
|
| |
Okay, stay tuned for part 2 (originally at 400-some-odd words). |
|
| |
By the way, UnaBubba, If you significantly reduce the number of personalities inside your head, there will be much less in-fighting. Please CC: this to as many of them as you can. |
|
| |
On second thought, I’m not sure if y’all are ready for part 2. But the good thing is that a few of you already get the idea. Let me just respond to some of your comments. |
|
| |
[UnaBubba] maybe I’m being a little hard on you. Your “Traffic Woof & Warp” is indeed a solution, and one that many bright people find. However there would be monumental tasks involved in making it safe, let alone cost-effective. I think you’ll see that it would be simpler and much more economical to route pedestrians over traffic, than vice versa. We’re talking about supporting pounds, as opposed to tons. |
|
| |
[gootyam] I’m with you. Don’t stumble over some of these lifers, because I think some of them get paid to be negative. |
|
| |
[oxen x-ing] the correct ratio is 14 blocks/10 blocks. But, much less fuel would be used. A fair estimate is 25% of the fuel we use in the cities now. Try calculating it yourself. But, use math. See, this is where the rubber meets the road. Some people are here to do good. Some people here try to do good, but could not to save their lives. Some people here have many more answers than the world is ready for. Which one are you? Now, as far as driving down main street just for the heck of it, I…I…I…feel your pain. |
|
| |
[AO] sorry. Maybe try one of the road signs you DON’T see. How about this one: WHEREVER YER GOING, YOU CAINT GET THUR FROM HEER. |
|
| |
[Farmer John] you are right. That is a workable solution. (I tried it, but it seems like some shorter routes would require twice as many blocks as the one I’m suggesting.) Thank you for your regard. |
|
| |
[dpsyplc] you have an uncanny ability to form complete sentences that don’t mean a thing. That’s a telltale sign of artificial intelligence. Do you rent or own? |
|
| |
[Nitehawk] (if that is in fact your real name) with all due respect sir or madam, your comment has nothing to do with the merit of my premise. There will be pedestrian traffic regardless. The key is deciding which is most important. Then, the scope entails what can be done to minimize obstructions. Words to live by, I guess. |
|
| |
[normzone] I didn’t know counting words was an inherent human behavior. I gotta know which method you used though. Was it counting every letter, and then divide by five? Or do you have some kind of automated word processor? |
|
| |
[Blackeyed] Mmm…a case for 4-wheel drive. |
|
| |
[gamb] the problem is that the model does work. The reality is that most people tend to look at things from a familiar perspective. Keep in mind that there would be much less congestion everywhere. You would rarely be close enough to another vehicle to have to merge, even during the peak of what we now call rush hour. But, you are definitely thinking this through. I swear to God I appreciate that. |
|
| |
[saker] something tells me you love that now. |
|
| |
[iceman] yes, but they’re not ready for it. |
|
| |
[System] nothing changes. As it is, roads are bigger where more people go. That’s exactly what will be required. Also note that much less traffic will use the freeways. This idea should now be starting to sink in for more and more people. There will be two groups when this takes place, those who had faith…and everyone else. I think some people call it the seven-ten split. |
|
| |
[echo] a little comedy relief goes a long way. Please, hang in there. |
|
| |
[oxen] the number is still 14, try it again. You make a good point, though. The more convenient routes there are, the less likely it is that everyone tries to take the same route. That means more evenly distributed traffic, and less bottlenecks. |
|
| |
[Ling] the bottom line is this works right now. Anything else takes a transition that would last for many years. Do you remember the late nineties, when there was a law that by 2007, something like 90 percent of all cars would have to be electric? We’d better hurry up. Otherwise, there’s an awful lot of people that are gonna be in big, big trouble. |
|
| |
I still get 20 blocks to go 10 blocks in a staight direction. Is there something wrong with my visualization below (blocks = I and _)? |
|
| |
I_
_I
I_
_I
I_
_I
I_
_I
I_
_I
|
|
| |
great not, what about cities that are not laid out in a grid patern? |
|
| |
The ratio of distance traveled to distance as the crow flies would be 2 for travel along the direction of a road and 1.4 (root two)for a 45 degree diagonal. Since this distance would be root 2 for a conventional road, it makes sence to compare the distances in the direction of a road. |
|
| |
1. Pedestrian traffic should not be an afterthought, for many reasons, including road safety and efficient traffic flow. Allowing pedestrians to cross at traffic junctions allows you to efficiently combine the splitting and merging of traffic with the passage of pedestrians. |
|
| |
2. Contrary to the idea description, red lights at intersections are not the only cause of traffic stoppages. Simple volume of traffic is also a factor, which is why it's better to have a combination of fast straight roads with smaller side-roads. |
|
| |
3. This would greatly increase the number of accidents, because of the additional turns and lane-changes required. |
|
| |
4. Going round bends requires cars to slow down, taking additional time. The braking and acceleration would increase fuel usage. |
|
| |
5. Cornering also causes additional wear and tear especially on tires. |
|
| |
6. This would only work in cities with regular grid systems. |
|
| |
7. Buses would be particularly affected by many of the above factors, since they corner at lower speeds in wider circles and take more time to accelerate. It would therefore render public transport much less efficient. |
|
| |
For me the biggest issue is that we
continually have to cross lanes...about
50% of the time! This means 50% of the
cars in those lanes want to cross into
the one you are in and 50% of that time
you want to get into their lane while
they are doing it. |
|
| |
Ouch. Someone owns shares in a body
shop. |
|
| |
I'd prefer to see all city car traffic in
subterranian roads, one way,
alternating directions like in Manhattan
with one level for E-W and another for
N-S. Each intersection would be very
simple with 3 choices - stay on route,
90deg change in direction (and one
level up or down) or break surface. |
|
| |
The surface would be the immediate
block and access to parking - no
through routes except for public
transport/fire/ambulance and
pedestrians. Green, open. Public
transport would of course be electirc
trams and trolleys and very reliable due
to the removal of inconsiderate,
impatient and selfish private car drivers. |
|
| |
This has the advantage that any fire or
ambulance response is also quick, even
to accidents underground, as they will
be able almost always get within one
block very rapidly. |
|
| |
I'm a little bit hurt that [K-t] didn't respond to me. I don't see this as an improvement to traffic circles at all. |
|
| |
Hey, [world], I'll respond, if it
makes you feel any better. Traffic
circles won't fit in all intersections. |
|
| |
[K], let's see a diagram so we can
all get on the same page. I also
want to see your magical 14 block
route in red on the map. (My
problem was counting the blocks
for a 5 block trip and doubling it.
I now agree with [FJ]. |
|
| |
The extra miles travelled endlessly
driving in convoluted around-the-
block trips will add significantly to
congestion. Imagine if you have to
get to the 500 block of main
street. You are across town. You
have to guess which direction the
block is, then construct a
complicated map in reverse in
your head, detailing the last few
blocks of the trip, and then do the
same thing for the few blocks
before that, and etc., without
forgetting it. And if you guessed
wrong? This massive
complication alone shoots this
idea down for me. Pile on all the
other thoughtful criticisms, and
you've lost me forever. |
|
| |
Allright, can I have everyone's attention, please. |
|
| |
I had originally skipped [Worldgineer's] comment intentionally, to give him or her time to think about what he or she has done. Allow me to pretend it was an accident… |
|
| |
Mr./Mrs./Ms./Ph.D./B.S./GED [Worldgineer], I must have overlooked your comment. I looked at the link you gave, and all I got was a pretty picture of a planter box in the middle of an intersection. Someone must have re-directed the link or something, because what I saw didn't have much to do with what I'm suggesting. But, it gives me a great opportunity to boil this whole thing down to what it is essentially. Essentially speaking, my idea boils down to a well-synchronized fabric of traffic roundabouts. The huge difference between my idea and the roundabout systems in European countries is this: |
|
| |
My idea allows cars to use an entire city block as a roundabout. That's fundamentally superior to forcing anything to cross anything else at an intersection. In fact, I think that is the definition of "bottleneck"…1 n. the result of cramming. 2 v. the act of cramming. |
|
| |
[Dear, Dear Farmer John] you are correct again. But, if you think about it, people would rarely take that kind of a route to get to their destinations. It would almost always be more of a "zigzag diagonal" route. In other words, to get to someplace on 10th street from the freeway, you wouldn't take the 10th street exit…you would take the 4th street or the 16th street exit. Do you see what I mean? |
|
| |
[engineer1 - Sketch out a few adjacent intersections on a grid, it helps to visualize it. This works for triangular blocks, five-way and six-way intersections, anything. Very few streets (about 3%) are left-over in the re-organization process. They either repeat the last direction in their sequence, or simply become a two-way avenue with a dead end.] |
|
| |
[st3f] have you been getting your sentences from [dpsyplc]??? |
|
| |
[UnaBubba] I… I… I… feel your pain. Can I use some of those? |
|
| |
[Kropo], [Kropo], [Kropo]. First, I want to extend my appreciation of your intelligence. Now, if I may, I'd like to treat your comments like responses to a quiz, to make it easier: |
|
| |
1a. True
1b. True
2a. True
2b. False. That [for city streets, I presume] has never been proven.
3. False. No one said lane-changes were necessary.
4a. False. Taking turns safely at 30 mph is a blast.
4b. N/A in this case.
5. True. Ouch!
6. False. False. False.
7a. False. We would call buses "turning parties," serving alcohol and crumbcakes. |
|
| |
So, adding up your score, it looks like you have a total of 4 correct out of a possible 10. Mmmmmm… Next! |
|
| |
[timbo] who said cross lanes?? Excellent use of available factors, but try to stay with the living. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to dig a tunnel for your own driveway, much less a whole city???!!! [TIMBO!!!] |
|
| |
[oxe] how am I supposed to put a diagram on this page? |
|
| |
BTW, is anyone up for part 2? |
|
| |
I'm seeing a scary city wide steady-state because of one broken down truck. |
|
| |
I'm still here. I was just working
on your fuel consumption
calculations, but as you are
making assumptions about how
people will change their driving
habits that you can not prove, and
I can not disprove, I give up. |
|
| |
//Traffic circles won't fit in all intersections.// Just about all intersections. The streets near my house are small enough to require one car to pull over to let the other pass, yet there's a traffic circle on every corner (retrofitted in as per the link). |
|
| |
re traffic circles (or roundabouts as we call them in the UK). Here we can fit them into arbitrarily small streets thanks to the simple technique of painting a circle in the middle of the road which vehicles may optionally drive over. The net effect is similar to a 4-way stop junction (e.g. with everyone waiting for someone else to go first), except the priority rules are slighty different. |
|
| |
Good points regarding traffic
circles. Sounds a lot better than
unstoppable traffic proposed here. |
|
| |
I spent a few hours running
errands today, thinking about this
idea. Every time I had to change
lanes before turning, I noticed how
much more of my concentration
was required. I can't imagine
having to do that every block. |
|
| |
This exists near my home. Two traffic roundabouts and a limited access highway interchange are separated into a sort of triangle. It is a little disconcerting to move through the system quickly, because that requires staying in the outside lane. For example, if you are traveling east and want to be going west, you essentially have to make two very fast exits from an eastbound lane; you are then travelling west, but you are still further east that when you began you turning. Or something like that. |
|
| |
Drivers have problems with this. The directional arrows painted in the roadways are illogical, the zone is florid with yield signs, the rule of survival is to be courteous, and this is one place I've been that hand signals seem to be appreciated above any other information. |
|
| |
ahh-phhhwhy do I abuse myself like this!? |
|
| |
For the most part, you never change lanes! |
|
| |
And you never have to merge unless it's with someone going the exact same direction, at the exact same speed!!! How hard is that to friggin visualize??? |
|
| |
All you need to know is that everyone else belongs in the same lane as you, unless they've already found a safe place to leave. It's this thing called co-operation with other people...me being one of those...people. |
|
| |
I'd kill for a telestrator, right now. But that's just me. |
|
| |
Belonging in a lane and getting
into it are two different things, and
you've admitted above that you'll
need more that one lane on busy
streets. Still sounds messy. |
|
| |
And by the way, you can post .jpg
's pretty easily for free at several
sites. Being an ME, you should be
able to create a jpeg of your
autocad (or similar) sketch and
figure out how to post it, and then
using the link button above, give
us access. |
|
| |
//[timbo] who said cross lanes??
Excellent use of available factors, but
try to stay with the living. Do you have
any idea how much it would cost to dig
a tunnel for your own driveway, much
less a whole city???!!! [TIMBO!!!]// |
|
| |
***I*** said crossing lanes (ie changing
lanes) as YOU did not think of it! Behave
yourself, [cretin]. |
|
| |
As your idea appears to me: A=up north
V down south, <> guess. |
|
| |
Imagine you want to go in a straight
line...I know this is hard for you [cretin]
but
please try. |
|
| |
You must first turn left, then right, right
again, then left then left again then
right etc. 2 times one turn, 2 times
another to weave your way across town
in a straight line. |
|
| |
Considering these are one way streets
and you need to merge, we have at a
minimum of 2 lanes, more likely 4. |
|
| |
At a left turn you are in the left lane.
Next turn still left lane. Next turn you
need to get into the right lane, stay in
right lane, move to left lane stay in left
lane, move to right lane stay in right
lane. |
|
| |
Imagine the sucker coming in the
opposite OVERALL direction. They
weave too, but have to go from right to
left when you want to go left to right. |
|
| |
Draw it. You will see that people
travelling in the opposite OVERALL
direction have
to weave the opposite way and thus you
are either crossing into lanes of other
people or other people are crossing
from their lane into yours. This is
ignoring the poor sods who are going
roughly 90deg to you! |
|
| |
This will be happening ALL THE TIME
and as previously mentioned it will
make driving very very tiring - or is this
your point? |
|
| |
Of course digging holes is expensive
but you pay little guy rates and cannot
use big machines :-) . If you are
building from scratch this is not an
issue, as limited digging is really
needed - 'ground' level becomes raised
above the cars and trains, with carparks
in the 'basements' of buildings (i.e. the
lower 3 or 4 levels) and 'street level', the
open air, at around floor 4 or 5 of
existing buildings. Very Metropolis. |
|
| |
BTW as a general note, roundabouts/
traffic rounds end up being traffic light
controlled junctions when volumes
reach a certain level...so you never
remove the problem. |
|
| |
[Timbeau] and [Oxen Crossing] please take a look at the link I've provided. If the link doesn't work, just go to the group called halfbakery@groups.msn.com and look under Pictures. |
|
| |
You both raise valid considerations. I'm not convinced that they apply to what I'm suggesting. When you've had a chance to look at the jpeg I posted, then read the rest of this… |
|
| |
Okay, now take a look at the tree in the middle of the intersection. That doesn't have to be oak. That can be a Texas Umbrella, a Fern Pine, Eucalyptus… anything but a weeping willow. |
|
| |
Now, check out car number 1, coming from the left side. He is clearly in the lead. Car number 2, coming from the right, is not far behind him - in terms of arriving at the intersection. But Car 2 would have no reason in this world to merge into the new direction AHEAD of Car 1. |
|
| |
If that raises a question for you, then you should stop reading this right now, and begin spending your time doing things that will help to improve your own life. But if it makes sense, then I want to be the first to congratulate you, because this is the key to idea. Congratulations! |
|
| |
This figure depicts a node of four roadways. Each roadway is roughly 30 feet wide. Notice the solid yellow curved lines at the turns. Also notice that Cars 1 & 2 have probably already conveyed their intentions with a flick of their turn signal, before they even entered the turns. (That's so that the car approaching from the opposite side knows what to expect.) If it sounds too good to be true, it might not be. I mean, take a look at Car number 3 for crisake. I don't even KNOW what he's doing. But, the nice thing is that he can just keep circling that block all day long, if that's what he wants to do; and it won't really affect the main flow of traffic. |
|
| |
Rule 1 might be to never change lanes in a turn. I believe that is also a law in approximately 50 American states. |
|
| |
Rule 2 would be to drive the posted speed limit. That may be anywhere from 25 mph to 45 mph, depending on the physical conditions of the roadway and its environment. |
|
| |
Rule 3 almost definitely is to use your damn turn signal. |
|
| |
Rule 4 is to repeat Rules 1, 2 and 3 in any particular order, until you get to your destination. |
|
| |
Of course, there can be no parking within a pre-determined distance of the intersections. But, along the street, in the middle of the blocks, parking is feasible as it is now. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor] what you bring up about the stalled truck is a huge consideration, but an unwarranted one. Imagine if you will… a red blood corpuscle. If that RBC explodes inside a blood vessel, your reasoning suggests that the single cell would bring its entire circulatory system to a curdling halt. Does that happen? The short answer is no. |
|
| |
Another bottom line is that this system will cut trip times by at least a factor of 4 …a very conservative estimate. |
|
| |
No link, and no "halfbakery" group at msn. |
|
| |
Hey does anybody know of a convenient place on the internet to post jpegs?? |
|
| |
Okay there's your link... |
|
| |
The "UTT-WP" was supposed to be capital. I fixed it. |
|
| |
So [FJ] when you open the page, picture a choir of angels singing in your head. |
|
| |
OK, I looked at it, and I imagined
the angels, but I still think it will
be a hassle to drive around town,
and the constant merging will be a
nightmare. I'll grant you, in light
traffic, merging will be easy, but at
5:15 pm and the baseball game
just ended, this will be total chaos. |
|
| |
And how do you give someone
directions, like "go down 3rd to C
Street, turn left and go 6 or 8
blocks, you'll see it on the right?"
Total nightmare. |
|
| |
The biggest problem and the reason this is inferior to the European roundabout is that you spend much of your time travelling in a direction that you don't really want to go. That makes the time a huge factor here. If you reduce the amount of time people spend on the road, then naturally you will reduce the propensity for a traffic jam as well. |
|
| |
Here in Michigan we have what some refer to as 'Michigan left's, (and others refer to as a wretched curse from hell). Essentially, everyone turning onto a crossroad must turn right. If they go left, then they turn right into the far lane and turn around at a special U in the median with it's own sequence-timed light. It does tend to reduce the jams and accidents overall, although frustrating for left-turners to have to constantly do U-ies. And there's no consistency. Some traffic lights allow left turns, others don't, some are timed as left after straight-thru, others are vice-versa. Does a swell job of confusing out-of-towners. |
|
| |
Your picture shows up tiny in my browser. Add a link to the original picture. This takes the form <a href="picture.jpg"><img src="littlepic.jpg"></a> |
|
| |
[Rayford] how do you reconcile "reducing trip times by a factor of four" with "spending too much time travelling in a direction you don't want to go"? |
|
| |
Do you think you will ever be able to get somewhere on a straight line in this world, honestly, ever? |
|
| |
[Oxen] you're not serious about the "giving someone directions" thing, are you? |
|
| |
Turn right on Main. Then make a left on 4th. Right on Chestnut. Left on 5th. Right on Cherry. Left on 6th. Right on Mangrove. Left on 7th. Right on Poplar. Left on 8th. Right on Redwood. Right on 9th. Right on Poplar, and it's the 4th house on the left. |
|
| |
Yeah, I was serious. [Worldgineer]
showed why. You are obviously
not serious about accepting valid
criticism. |
|
| |
You need to get off your claim of
reducing trip times by any factor
until you acknowledge serious
flaws in your reasoning that have, I
might add, been exceedingly
politely pointed out to you, in light
of your condescending treatment
of much of your criticism. Until
then, no one has to reconcile any
of your claims with anything. |
|
| |