An Algorithm Determines How Fast You Should Drive On California's I-15 Freeway (sfgate.com) 103
Riverside County has launched an 8-mile "smart freeway" pilot on northbound I-15 near Temecula, using roadway sensors and an algorithm to coordinate ramp meters and suggest speeds rather than widening the freeway. Officials say the $33 million project could reduce stop-and-go traffic and travel times. According to SFGATE, similar systems in Australia and Denver reportedly cutting delays by 20% to 65%. From the report: Unlike typical on-ramp stoplights that run on a timer lasting a few seconds, Interstate 15 drivers could find themselves waiting up to four minutes or even longer while the system determines the necessary speed for traffic entering the freeway. By spacing out the cars, transportation officials hope to improve traffic flow, reduce stop-and-go traffic and decrease the amount of time that travelers have to spend on the freeway.
The transportation commission spent $33 million to build the project, which will run for two years. Riverside County Transportation Commission spokesperson David Knudsen told SFGATE that if the program is successful, the agency will work with Caltrans to deploy it elsewhere in the county and then potentially to other traffic choke points in California. "This system is a lot less expensive than trying to build new lanes, and so the idea here is let's make the system that we have work better," he said.
Knudsen said the program is not managed by artificial intelligence but instead uses advanced sensors in the roadway to monitor real-time traffic conditions and make adjustments. The stretch of freeway that connects Temecula at the Riverside/San Diego County line to the Interstate 215 interchange in Murrieta can be notoriously clogged. What can be less than a 10-minute drive with no traffic can take between 25 and 45 minutes during the afternoon peak period, according to the transportation commission. "The intent is to create a consistent flow of traffic on the freeway system, and the coordinated ramp metering among the three on-ramps ... will help do that," Knudsen said. "If we can manage that, then we can help prevent that stop-and-go traffic frustration that so many people feel ... on the freeway."
The transportation commission spent $33 million to build the project, which will run for two years. Riverside County Transportation Commission spokesperson David Knudsen told SFGATE that if the program is successful, the agency will work with Caltrans to deploy it elsewhere in the county and then potentially to other traffic choke points in California. "This system is a lot less expensive than trying to build new lanes, and so the idea here is let's make the system that we have work better," he said.
Knudsen said the program is not managed by artificial intelligence but instead uses advanced sensors in the roadway to monitor real-time traffic conditions and make adjustments. The stretch of freeway that connects Temecula at the Riverside/San Diego County line to the Interstate 215 interchange in Murrieta can be notoriously clogged. What can be less than a 10-minute drive with no traffic can take between 25 and 45 minutes during the afternoon peak period, according to the transportation commission. "The intent is to create a consistent flow of traffic on the freeway system, and the coordinated ramp metering among the three on-ramps ... will help do that," Knudsen said. "If we can manage that, then we can help prevent that stop-and-go traffic frustration that so many people feel ... on the freeway."
Probably not as useful. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some states in Europe, e.g. Germany, have been doing similar things for decades.
It does improve flow, ultimately difficult to say by how much. But it's not magic. Probably coupled with a ruthless and stupidly expensive camera based speeding system (i.e. $100 for every 1 mph above the designated flow speed) might work, but otherwise the bottleneck will be slight speeding. It will return laminar flow to oscillatory flow (break & accelerate), then to stop & go pretty soon.
A full highway is a full highway, there's little in the way of magic or capacity to remedy that.
Re:Probably not as useful. (Score:4, Insightful)
A full highway is a full highway, there's little in the way of magic or capacity to remedy that.
Well, not entirely. A highway has more capacity at moderate speeds than at high ones, because you need less space between vehicles.
Re:Probably not as useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. The best solution for the greater good is to obey the signage, but the best solution for the individual is almost always to look out for Number One. Smart traffic flow systems do still seem to improve things, despite entitled drivers, although that's probably more down to the enforcement measures keeping those bending the rules from bending them as far as they'd like to.
Engineering derived superior to politically derive (Score:2)
The best solution for the greater good is to obey the signage ...
Hypothetically, but the speed limits on California freeways are often politically derived, not engineering derived. Any step towards an engineering based solution will likely yield an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
"Any step towards an engineering based solution will likely yield an improvement."
Disagree. Any step that avoids a fundamental problem will likely be ineffective. Engineering and political are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
"Any step towards an engineering based solution will likely yield an improvement."
Disagree. Any step that avoids a fundamental problem will likely be ineffective. Engineering and political are not mutually exclusive.
The point is the engineering approach is less likely to miss or avoid fundamental problems. Engineering focuses on fixing some problem, politics focuses on attaining votes. Sometimes only the perception of working on a problem is necessary. See California.
The problem is arseholes. (Score:4, Insightful)
This. The problem isn't the technology; that can demonstrably be shown to work in models and simulations because of things like - as you say - needing less space between vehicles, and also more complex things like reducing capillary action in the overall traffic flow (the stop-start effect you often get in heavy traffic). The reason why you don't see those benefits is the growing number of entitled drivers who ignore the signage in the hope of gaming the system for personal gain (e.g. shorter travel time), so you do need robust enforcement with stricter tolerances and more punitive fines to try and deter that.
It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. The best solution for the greater good is to obey the signage, but the best solution for the individual is almost always to look out for Number One. Smart traffic flow systems do still seem to improve things, despite entitled drivers, although that's probably more down to the enforcement measures keeping those bending the rules from bending them as far as they'd like to.
Algorithms also assume that people know what they're doing and will act rationally. If anyone thinks people drive this way they are clearly not paying attention to the roads.
Every traffic jam starts with just one arsehole, just one who thinks they're different, special, above it all. One arsehole who decides that 30 is fast enough for everyone. One arsehole who sits on the phone, One arsehole who cuts people up, straddles two lanes, doesn't proceed at a green light. One arsehole who thinks the rules don't apply to him (and only him) and refuses to fit into traffic.
The kicker is, there are a lot more than just one arsehole on the roads.
And don't think that autonomous cars will save us, first off, they'll never work in our lifetimes but ignoring that they will be programmed to follow the rules to the letter (not the least important reason is to ensure the manufacture is as indemnified as possible from any blame), they will wait for a large enough gap, they will ignore faster moving lanes, they will wait for intersections to be clear, they won't speed... So the arsehole will decide that they know how to drive better because they will force their way into traffic, tailgate, so on and so forth.
Re: (Score:1)
> One arsehole who decides that 30 is fast enough for everyone.
If 30 is what seems safe to him, who are you to argue?
Highways do have a minimum speed though. 80kph here.
Re: (Score:2)
He is at least as important as the other guy. Interesting that what's important to you is to make it about the messenger and not the topic. Why not consider the merits of the argument?
And why should highways have a minimum speed? If 30 seems safe to him, who should argue?
Re: (Score:2)
Then he needs to get the fuck OFF the highway and drive regular roads with lower speed limits....until he can earn his "big boy pants" and learn to drive at highway speeds with the adults.
If you can't hack it, then you don't belong there impeding other people with the proper driving skills.
Re: (Score:2)
> what's important to you is to make it about the messenger and not the topic.
Because the so called argument with merit started off with the slow driver being an arsehole.
Re: (Score:2)
He is if he's in the left lane, you know, the fast lane. It disrupts traffic. He should at least be in the right hand lane if he wants to put put along. This is a huge difference then someone just going 55 pulling a trailer when the speed limit is 65. 30 should be given a ticket for blocking traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the drivers in the US not knowing how to use highways. You apparently included.
There's an overtaking lane, and a cruise lane. No fast lane.
Re: (Score:3)
A large part of the US has a law that you pass on the left and that if you are traveling in the left lane, you are to not block traffic. California doesn't but many states do have this law.
Overtaking lane is the fast lane because you'll want to be traveling faster then the cruise lane to overtake the person to the right.
@techno, the speed limits assume ideal conditions. Obviously, when it's raining hard or foggy, you are expected to slow down to a safer speed. This does not include blocking traffic in the l
Re: (Score:2)
If 30 is what seems safe to him, who are you to argue?
If he's not following the law, then... anyone? Everyone?
Highways do have a minimum speed though. 80kph here.
California's highways have a minimum speed, too. It's "drivers cannot drive so slowly that they block or impede the normal flow of traffic". So if he's going 30, and everyone else wants to go faster, he's breaking the law. Also, California state law requires that if you are on a highway and there are five or more people behind you, YOU MUST PULL OVER AT THE FIRST SAFE OPPORTUNITY TO PERMIT THEM TO PASS. This is an extremely underappreciated and underen
Re: (Score:1)
> It's "drivers cannot drive so slowly that they block or impede the normal flow of traffic"
Funny how you left out the other half :
"except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or compliance with the law.""
Re: The problem is arseholes. (Score:2)
Yes, when it's necessary, not just when someone is scared.
Re: (Score:2)
That is my entire fucking point: from 4 cars behind you have no way of knowing whether it's necessary or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That is my entire fucking point: from 4 cars behind you have no way of knowing whether it's necessary or not.
But then your entire fucking point becomes pointless about 8 seconds later, literally before I could read it and roll my eyes about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When driving in Ireland, the speed limit signs felt more like a dare than maximum allowed speed. I was always driving at least 20 under.
Highways usually have a max of 130kph here. 80kph min.
The fun caveat with the minimum speed is that the vehicle must be technically able attain that speed, not maintain it for the duration of its drive on the highway.
Re:The problem is arseholes. (Score:5, Informative)
Algorithms also assume that people know what they're doing and will act rationally.
No they don't. Algorithms are trained using a certain amount of "assholishness". Realistic human behaviour is built into the algorithm and design of roads.
Every traffic jam starts with just one arsehole
No they don't. Traffic jams are an inevitability which result from people having different destinations. In fact research by TU Delft showed traffic jams are *worse* when everyone is perfectly polite and the most efficient use of roads for moving the most people per unit of time come from when around 1/10th to 1/8th of people do drive like arseholes. This is especially true for subtle rule breaking. E.g. if a roundabout is backed up, but someone wants to go right decides to cut across the shoulder to do so, that's one less car backing up at the end of traffic jam.
The converse is unfortunately also true, not all arseholes are good. Those people who queue across intersections are objectively a net negative impact on traffic. That said those who change lanes in an intersection during heavy traffic can be a net positive even though it is often illegal to do so.
And the same is true for the overly polite: It's like lane end merging problem. Some people think they are being polite by merging early, and some people think those who then pass them to overtake at the end are the arseholes, but the reality is the length and location of merging lanes are optimised in relation to other lanes and those polite people who don't merge in the last minute are actually the ones that cause a braking wave which may lead to an upstream traffic jam.
But ultimately this isn't something that just a few Slashdotters know about, this is well researched and also underpins road design.
Re: (Score:2)
If we ban human drivers when self driving cars "get there", it would vastly improve travel times and safety. Of course, politically that's very unpopular.
Re: (Score:2)
(mandating it would be)...very stupid.
Fixed that for ya'. My elderly mother bought large bags of bird seed at the store, having someone else load the bags into the trunk. The bags still sit in the trunk, waiting for me or my father to remove them for her. How would that work with a driverless taxi situation?
A couple of days ago there were multiple tornadoes with 165 mph winds here. I left work early for my short commute to avoid them. Should I have sat around waiting for a car to arrive; and what if everyone else was hailing them at
Re: (Score:2)
I hear ya. The software they have now will continue to improve while fewer young people are driving and also we have fewer young people period. They will see how robotaxis improve safety overall and go from there. I think it would be great if we could buy our own personal robotaxi that we could take over driving for it if needed. Any day now, right Tesla?
I don't think my parents would go for it though. Maybe if they saw someone else doing it while they were a passenger and realized how awesome it would be.
Re: (Score:2)
And when more people can't drive, that also means they may be helpless when the autonomous vehicle gets stuck, physically or algorithmically--especially if the engineering geniuses believe they should do away with the steering wheels.
I just placed a washing machine transmission in my car during my work break so I can fi
Re: (Score:2)
Every traffic jam starts with just one arsehole, just one who thinks they're different, special, above it all. One arsehole who decides that 30 is fast enough for everyone. One arsehole who sits on the phone, One arsehole who cuts people up, straddles two lanes, doesn't proceed at a green light. One arsehole who thinks the rules don't apply to him (and only him) and refuses to fit into traffic.
It's not just incompetent drivers. Part of the problem is structural. Aside from accidents, weather, and construction, there are issues whenever cars need to switch lanes or accommodate cars merging due to on-ramps or lane merges. If the drivers could zipper merge exactly without altering their speed, then that source of congestion would disappear. Perhaps vehicle autonomy, even partially, might help with this.
Another issue that is addressed by the metering lights is that whenever the density of vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong: in the UK we've had this tech for ages. We also have a fair number of speed cameras and they're adaptive on the roads with adaptive speed limits. Naturally this encouraged exceptionally dickish behaviour like flooring it then slamming on the breaks for speed cameras but we've had average speed checks now for a while.
I don't drive much at the moment (I have no car, so trips tend to be long ones on motorways e.g. for work or a holiday), but as a result I see snapshots rather than being embed
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's Tragedy of the Commons [google.com], where it's in each individual's interest to maximize their benefit, leading to destruction of the public resource.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A full highway is a full highway, there's little in the way of magic or capacity to remedy that.
Well, not entirely. A highway has more capacity at moderate speeds than at high ones, because you need less space between vehicles.
While this is theoretically a reasonable answer (best for AI drivers driving autonomously at 100MPH with humans asleep in the backseat), it’s not a realistic one today with mostly impatient fallible meatsacks behind the wheel driving at the speed of greed, enhanced by prescription meds.
Highway, implies both high capacity and high speed. If I wanted to average 25MPH on my commute because less space, I’d probably drive some back road every morning, taking in the scenery and maybe some fresher air
0.3s reaction time in drivers ed? (Score:2)
I would disagree with 0.15 seconds for humans but 0.5 still sucks compared to me and many other humans.
Long ago in high school drivers ed class we did some experiments. If my recollection serves, our reactions were typically around 0.3s.
:-)
0.15s, is that the average at the US Air Force Academy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have a lot more accidents if my reaction time was 0.5 secs.
The number of accidents you have depends far more on how you drive than how fast you react. If you and Claude are correct about AVs having slower reaction times that just highlights the importance of driving style over reaction time, because AVs have fewer and less severe accidents than human drivers.
The main thing you can do -- and AV systems do, generally -- is leave yourself more space and therefore time to react, which includes driving slower in areas where sudden incursions into the roadway are like
Re: (Score:2)
But it's always paying attention, never gets distracted. That probably results in a net increase in vehicle safety.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is theoretically a reasonable answer (best for AI drivers driving autonomously at 100MPH with humans asleep in the backseat), itâ(TM)s not a realistic one today with mostly impatient fallible meatsacks behind the wheel driving at the speed of greed, enhanced by prescription meds.
It does actually work. Any law not enforced ceases to become a law, so yeah it needs enforcement. It's like, no one speeds on the 84/285 through northern NM, because. well you're going to get a ticket from a reservat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right you're an arsehole, I get it.
Fortunately in the UK we have average speed checks over long distances so arseholes find a hole in their bank account and maybe points on their driving license too.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately in the UK we have average speed checks over long distances so arseholes find a hole in their bank account and maybe points on their driving license too.
Some of these are bullshit. For example, the A446 sprouted an average speed check after the M6 Toll opened with a stretch parallel to the A446.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit as in fake?
Re: (Score:2)
As in, the justification for the lower speed limit, enforced by the average speed cameras, is bullshit.
The cameras are there to drive traffic onto the M6 Toll, not for safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah....well, while it is getting bad here in the US, at least we're not the dystopian hell the UK is at this point....
Re: (Score:2)
Doing that in the Commonwealth of Virginia is just going to get you a bigger fine. Radar detectors are illegal (or at least used to be the last time I drove there).
Re: (Score:2)
Glad most of the US doesn't suck like the Commonwealth of Virginia.....where we are free to know when we are being observed and electronically surveyed by the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree. I don't know how you can make an RF antenna tuned to specific frequencies illegal, but Virginia has it.
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
The capacity peak isn't at 25 mph, it's somewhere aroubd 70.
This is because the metric for "capacity" is not how densely you can pack the cars together, it is how many cars can you get across a unit of distance in a given time. And a parking lot full of cars is going nowhere, so it's "traffic capacity" metric is very, very low.
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
Highway, implies both high capacity and high speed. If I wanted to average 25MPH on my commute because less space, Iâ(TM)d probably drive some back road every morning
Everybody off the highway now, please let the entitled man through, he wishes to go fast.
You fucking character from a Kurt Vonnegut book.
Re: (Score:2)
Then an optimal solution is for all cars to be stopped. That way, no space is needed between vehicles.
Shallow thinking to serve a narrative, the /. way.
Re: (Score:2)
> A highway has more capacity at moderate speeds than at high ones, because you need less space between vehicles.
Not really true. The generally-accepted safe separation is two seconds, and to a first approximation that means the maximum capacity of a highway lane is 1800 cars per hour, regardless of speed.
In reality, people will bunch up at lower speeds and typically leave more space at higher speeds, but in principle speed makes no difference to the safe carrying capacity.
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
That's just a first order approximation.
The closer the highway gets to "full" capacity (or even overcapacity), effects like "dawdling around" and the resulting oscillations in flow play an increasingly important role. And this already happens when essentially all drivers are at "moderate speeds", albeit slightly different ones.
Stuff just eventually breaks, even without assholes, once you approach full capacity. (Speeding assholes wouldn't even exist on a too crowded highway - therr simply isn't anywhere to
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. The measure of highway utilization for a single vehicle is not just the amount of space it uses (length plus front separation). It's that space multiplied by the amount of time it needs that space. If everyone is supposed to maintain X seconds of separation (I've been told 3) between their vehicle and the one in front, then additional speed won't change the total utilization. Except for one thing: as speed approaches infinity, the portion of utilization that the vehicle length contributes sh
Re: (Score:2)
You have to stop people swapping lanes, because that has a dramatic effect on highway capacity. Thus, slowing down the traffic in all lanes to a value that is slower than most drivers would normally go at keeps all the lanes identical, reducing the motivation to swap lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
A full highway is a full highway, there's little in the way of magic or capacity to remedy that.
Well, not entirely. A highway has more capacity at moderate speeds than at high ones, because you need less space between vehicles.
And it has the most capacity when it is completely stopped, but throughput and capacity are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to vehicle carrying capacity not storage capacity.
I thought that was blindingly obvious given the context.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the 1st one really gets you faster to where you want to go, but it's more complex than that. If you lower the speed you increase (4) which in turns increases (3)... There are density thresholds which behave like phase transitions in physics... It's fun to simulate.
Re: (Score:1)
A full highway is a full highway, there's little in the way of magic or capacity to remedy that.
Offer employment options at night.
Twenty-four whole-ass hours in a day. Circadian rhythms are for dancers.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has been trying to do something like that, but it isn't going well.
Our "smart" motorways convert the hard shoulder (the outermost lane that was used as a stopping area for broken down vehicles) into a normal lane, and then adds sensors (radar, cameras) to detect stopped or slow vehicles and reduce speed limits. Unfortunately it didn't work very well and people died, so they started adding regular "refuge areas", which are basically little stopping points every half mile or so, off to the side of the
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is about variable speed limits, not what the UK calls smart motorways. You're either mistaken because you've got hung-up on an overloaded term, or you're just plain off-topic.
Variable speed limits work well in the UK, although lack of enforcement and the increasing number of dickheads and shitty drivers who exceed the posted limit or do stupid things like constantly changing lanes can sometimes undermine their efficiency. We seriously need more enforcement by the police and less of the rage bait cultu
Re: (Score:2)
Smart motorways are where most of the variable limits are, that's why I mentioned them.
The problem is that too often they cry wolf. You get a 20 limit, or even a full stop, on a motorway due to some dire risk ahead. But then it turns out there was nothing, or a car drove the wrong way down a slip road for a few seconds before realizing and turning around.
Many people ignore it, so if you do 20, or stop, you have people zooming past at dangerous speeds and risk being hit. The police can't really prosecute you
Re: (Score:2)
Variable speed limits are a feature of the UK's smart motorways, yes. But variable speed limits existed before and they still exist in many other places today.
Normally, when people in the UK talk about smart motors, they're thinking of all lane running, which is exactly what you also did in your first comment.
Other people breaking the law isn't justification for doing it yourself. If you collide with somebody going slower than you because they're abiding by the speed limit, you're at you're at fault, you
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
What you are describing as a fault in the design is actually the intended use: prolong somewhat flowing traffic for as long as possible before a full congestion. I assume you would need a sufficiently long part of the highway to actually see an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The slower the flow - if it is a flow - the more vehicles fit on the lanes.
And: there is no "speeding system". For that would be no base in the "laws"
You know what a "law" is, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You know what a "law" is, right?
A rule that only the poors have to follow.
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
Finland and Switzerland scale traffic fines to your income. Seems like an excellent idea.
Re: Probably not as useful. (Score:2)
Yes, at least that is at least on paper a solution. As long as you can't just buy your way out of it more cheaply because the legal system works, that is. I can't speak to their efficacy there, only here, where... Well, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
"The slower the flow - if it is a flow - the more vehicles fit on the lanes."
Fitting vehicles into lanes is not the goal. Even having vehicles and lanes is not the goal. A slower flow is worse than a faster flow because the goal is throughput, it may be offset by improved "fitting" or it may not.
"And: there is no "speeding system". For that would be no base in the "laws""
There absolutely is, your mistake is that a system would not encourage criminality. Modern "laws" are all about creating criminals, not
Re: (Score:1)
The throughput is bigger the more vehicles you have on the road. Until to a certain point, of course.
Perhaps you should read up the physics instead of pulling bullshit out of your arse.
"You know what a "law" is, right?"
A question that should be asked to you.
I asked you, you seem not to get it.
A speed limit and a speed suggestion are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what a "law" is, right?
Generally something to be worked around.
Uhm? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have cars waiting for minutes to be able to enter the freeway, doesn't that just mean gridlock at the top of the ramp from a shitload of people trying to get on the freeway?
Are they only implementing this where there are massive multi-lane queue ramps that can handle that kind of queue depth? I'm not familiar enough with the California section of I-15, I don't think I've driven on that in 15 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have cars waiting for minutes to be able to enter the freeway, doesn't that just mean gridlock at the top of the ramp from a shitload of people trying to get on the freeway?
It's a question of mobility vs self-importance. Is the goal to smoothly move the largest crowd of people? Or is the goal to make sure MachineShedFred (621896) gets home as fast as possible?
Moving a traffic jam to a different location and affecting different people can have a net benefit on society.
We had a recent example of this near where I live. In order to help smoothen traffic flow at a major highway interchange the government *REMOVED* a lane from the highway. This caused traffic to build up an exit fu
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for trying to make this about me, but I don't live or drive anywhere close to I-15. That's about 12 degrees of latitude south of anywhere I normally drive, and where I drive we don't have anywhere close to the ridiculous levels of traffic that greater Los Angeles sees on the daily. In fact, when I do drive into the office, I don't even use any highways at all, because I don't have to.
I'm asking because if you have a 500 foot 2-lane ramp with a ramp light on it, you can fit maybe 40 cars in there.
Traffic "engineers" are the worst (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Traffic "engineers" are the worst (Score:2)
Correct. Traffic systems are very much like a water pipes. What good is a wide pipe if your valve on either side doesn't have the same throughout?
Re: (Score:2)
Congesting pricing (Score:1)
Nah, let's just blow 30 million on a system that will, if anything, make traffic worse.
Re:Congesting pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
Congestion pricing is only an option in places that have good alternatives to driving, something that a freeway in California does not have.
Re: (Score:2)
Congestion pricing is only an option in places that have good alternatives to driving, something that a freeway in California does not have.
Working from home is an alternative, one that we should use more.
(Of course, I WFH full time and have for 20 of the last 30 years, so I have a bit of a bias.)
No one ever obeys by recommended speeds (Score:2)
I know it's supposed to help with the traffic flow, and algorithmically it probably does, but I'm yet to see anyone following recommended speeds on our motorways. Schemes like this rely too much on people's good intentions, and the world simply doesn't work like that.
Re: (Score:2)
"...and the world simply doesn't work like that."
The world DOES work like that, it's the US that doesn't. US traffic laws are based on exploitation, they are designed to create the circumstances you describe.
traffic is so bad they have on-ramp stoplights.... (Score:2)
This is a use case for autonomous cars (Score:2)
IF (big huge IF right here) self-driving cars can be made fully safe and widely adopted (no clue what the minimum percent of cars is) then the required space between vehicles can be set to almost zero and road capacity will increase, drive times decrease, and accident rates drop. We get the stop/go problem because people are self-interested and jam up the system or they get distracted and run into stuff. Self-driving cars eliminate the first issue and drastically reduce the second. And yes, I know that this
Re: (Score:2)
"...then the required space between vehicles can be set to almost zero..."
False. Self-driving does not address mechanical failure, even if self-driving was completely bug-free safety would be predicated on driving practices that can respond to failure. Increasing road capacity by packing cars at speed is a fantasy, it requires centralized decision-making.
"Self-driving cars eliminate the first issue and drastically reduce the second."
They also introduce entirely new problems. Self-driving solves the probl
Re: (Score:2)
I got nothin'. Nobody can see even 6 months into the future so how things like self-driving cars, AI, etc progress is impossible. I choose to see a mostly positive future for tech. Some folks don't. I pick and choose what tech I use as well as how I use it and which billionaires I support (hint most of them are right off that list).
I drive 2 vehicles that utilize some form of driver assist tech: adaptive cruise control/automated braking and lane departure management. Both of these improve my driving experie
Re: (Score:2)
The car I drive, about 3 y.o. has adaptive cruise control (ACC) which maintains a certain distance between it and the car ahead of it in the lane. If there is no car ahead, or the next car is far ahead then there is some max speed set (say 70mph) . What would be interesting is to dedicate a lane to vehicles using this tech...and of course having it engaged. Like instead of a carpool lane, have the "ACC" lane.
To make sure people are only using ACC in that lane, maybe have an infra-red light included wit
We need more than just this (Score:2)
We really need more variable speed limits, but also speed ranges for each lane. Left lane with generally open roads, 70-85 miles per hour(again, the roads don't have a lot of traffic). Middle lane would be 65-75mph, with right lane being 50-65 miles per hour. Below 50, use surface roads. Have signs above the road showing what the CURRENT speed ranges are based on traffic volume and speed. If there is too great a difference in the speed of each lane, people can't switch lanes without an increased r
... Australia (Score:1)
ca needs get rid of the truck speed limit and let (Score:2)
ca needs get rid of the truck speed limit and let it be the same as the car one.
I can't truck 55!
Another cheap solution to traffic congestion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bus-only lanes reduce capacity for cars, which makes cars travel slower and if the buses have to interact with the cars (e.g. changing lanes or turning) then they also get stuck in the congestions created by the bus lanes. The Transport Research Lab in the UK found this was happening there decades ago.
Bus lanes are all about making life worse for drivers so they'll switch to buses, but in reality typically just make things worse for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
My area (I66 in Virginia) went from three normal lanes and one high occupancy only lane (that everyone ignored) to three normal lanes and two separate toll/bus lanes. And when I say toll, I mean like $100 each way. I never thought I'd say this, but I love it! When the weather is nice, I commute on my motorcycle (free in the toll lanes), and when it's cold or raining, I take a commuter bus. I'm either flying on my bike, or watching youtube on the bus. It's cut my commute time by 2/3rds.
Re: (Score:3)
A statement can only be true if its contrapositive is also true. Does adding lanes for cars make them travel faster? Los Angeles built freeways for cars and widened them over and over again, but did it solve their traffic congestion? No, it didn't. The contrapositive of your statement is not true, and therefore your statement also is not true.
So you see, adding lanes does not make cars faster (at least not in an economically vibrant are
Move congestion to on ramps is not a solution (Score:2)
Induced demand (Score:1)
It's like the old joke, nobody goes there anymore it's too crowded.
As traffic alleviates people change their behavior and they move further out to afford nicer houses resulting in more traffic. So it best you get a very small amount of temporary relief and lately it could be measured in months.
I know people love cars too much and they're too emotionally
Dumb + Fake statistics for the sales guys (Score:2)
All these metered entrances do is move the delay and congestion to the side roads. While the traffic ON THE FREEWAY is moving faster, transit time from point A to point B is unchanged or even longer. This has been proven in numerous studies.
When you get to town, CA will redlight-rachet you (Score:2)
Oy (Score:2)
Yeah, let's make driving even more complicated, because there aren't enough accidents caused by cognitive overload.
Or they could have used humans (Score:2)