Slashdot Mirror
Self-Adapting Traffic Lights
Roland Piquepaille writes "If you're like me, I bet you hate moments when you're in a hurry and all the traffic lights seem to intentionally switch to red just in front of your car. Now, according to Nature, a Belgian traffic researcher thinks that traffic lights that respond to local conditions could ease congestion and reduce your frustration. His method would not give you the individual power to switch the light to green. But if you were part of a group of cars approaching a red light, inexpensive traffic-flow sensors would detect your group in advance and turn the light to green. His simulations show that such adaptive traffic control is 30% more efficient than traditional ways of regulating traffic. However, his system has not been adopted by any large city. So you'll continue to be frustrated by these ?%&$! traffic lights for a while. You'll find more details and references in this overview."
My city has weight sensors laid under the tarmacs, so it knows if there are cars waiting/approaching and switches lights accordingly, or if it shall let the other direction keep going.
The real problem only arises when there are too many cards coming from all directions, and the lights will switch to the "traditional method" that is based on a predefined interval.
It's a catch-22 - Gershenson admits that the benefits wouldn't be as large in a big city where the situation is much more complex than in his simulations, however only bigger city needs to/will consider such traffic control.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Don't lights like these exist already? We have lights that change for you in southern Wisconsin. They do force you to slow down a little as you approach the light.
Visit BobtheKing.com it's perhaps the best thing I've ever made to waste your time with.
When I was in San Jose, CA a couple of years back, they had a system up where sensors in the road would pick up cars at intersections. They then used microwave antennae to broadcast the information to lights further down the road. So if you were driving along at night with nobody else on the road, you would get long strings of green lights going your way.
His simulations show that such adaptive traffic control is 30% more efficient than traditional ways of regulating traffic. However, his system has not been adopted by any large city
I'll guess that the reason why is because a simulation shows this, not a real test. Traffic simulation has been a topic of much research, but as far as I'm aware, little convincing results have emerged... Simulations based on liquid flow do not work (they do not give anything like an average traffic), and those based on drivers modelization (ie, x % of 'aggressive drivers', y % of 'sloppy drivers', z % of 'careful drivers' etc) become incresingly complex and demanding with the scale of the simulation... I'm not aware of anything practical ever done with these (feel free to correct me).
In any case, if his adaptive system does work, it's a breakthrough. I've worked a few years back with people in charge of traffic and roads around Paris, and from what I've been told, nothing like this has ever worked better than static programming (with the exception of multiple programmings for different time of the day). From what I remember, even getting such programming right demands extremely experienced people. Of course, this might be specific to Europe where intersections are rarely perpendicular and often involve "creative" solutions.
Seattle has had self-adapting traffic lights at most major intersections for the last 5-10 years...
people won't try to speed ahead anymore instead, they'll stick with a pack
I'm from a city in New Zealand (Hamilton) where we have a self monitoring system tied back to the City Council. Unfortunately it seems to be a little too smart, holding patterns that don't reflect the traffic. As a result, traffic changes its flow each day (drivers choose new routes) which further changes the trending and thus cancels the advantages you'd hope to gain. When the system is out or loops are cut (roadworks) the system reverts to timers/loops which seem to work better. Perhaps it's just when we add users the perfect system suddenly becomes imperfect...
It's nice to see a traffic signal enhancement that will actually make driving more efficient and direct rather than the opposite.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
It looks like this system favors large volumes of traffic that flow through a city - the city dweller that is actually living in the city would get blocked by the lave volume of traffic that isn't stopping, and is instead just passing though on a direct route.
So the end result, is that the person who pays for the traffic-signals via taxes gets shafted - and a bunch of out-of-towners begin to use the city as a shortcut.
Great for people who live in the suburbs, but bad for the actual city dweller.
If I should miffed, it's because our small city has wonderfull routes for the yuppies to get to the local Wal-Mart - but those same yuppies won't stop in the core of our city to buy things from the mom-and-pop business that are paying for the nice routes.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
First of all, there are sensors under the cars that are standing right before the intersection. These types of sensors are installed just about everywhere there are stoplights. But if you pay attention, you'll notice that on this street, there are also sensors about 200 to 300 feet back from the intersection. There is a sensor under each lane. By the way, this is a major city street, with three lanes of traffic for each direction.
When driving during the day, there is a lot of traffic, and so you might wonder why in the heck it seems that the cross streets have much longer "green" times than you do.
When driving at night, you'll easily see why. There are usually only a few cars on this street at night. You drive, and you can see that all the stoplights ahead of you as far as the eye can see are GREEN. You drive, and immediately as you pass over the sensor that is 200 to 300 feet back from the stoplight, the light in front of you changes to yellow, and then to red. This happens at a rate that makes it impossible to remain at a constant speed and go through the intersection before it turns red. You'll either have to floor it (and even then it is doubtful whether you'll make it--the yellows are very short), or stop, which is what you'll end up doing.
Now that you're standing at this red light, and the cross street has a green, you'll wonder why you have a red and the cross street has a green, WHEN THERE ARE NO CARS DRIVING ON THE CROSS STREET! Now here is the interesting part. The light could be red for a minute or two, or you might stand there for a long time. As a matter of fact, I noticed that at all of the stoplights on this major street, they will remain red until a vehicle approaches on the cross street. As soon as a vehicle approaches there, his light will change to red and yours will change to green. At 3:00 am, it might take a long time before a vehicle approaches on the cross street. One time, I actually waited ten whole minutes before such a vehicle approached, and only then did his light change to red and mine changed to green.
Now I have been living here for four years, and I have driven down this street enough times at night to tell you that this isn't a casual observation and that I'm not just jumping to conclusions. Others who have driven down this road at night have mentioned the same thing, and I noticed that it never, ever fails. The sensors are all wired such that you will have to wait at EVERY intersection, until a vehicle on the cross street approaches, at which time he will have to wait, and then you get a green light. It's almost as if city workers wanted to play a practical joke and taunt drivers with green lights that remain green for any amount of distance, but only until you actually get near the stoplight. During the day, you don't notice it so much because there is so much traffic that everybody is stuck anyway.
Now I just need one that will recognize my motorcycle at 2am when no cars are around to tigger the lights for me.
I ride a supersport Yamaha YZF-R6. Weighs about 410 wet and I have problems triggering many stop lights, so much so that I have areas I don't ride when traffic is light because they never turn green for me.
Maybe, just maybe
..
Thet aren't out to get you, but in fact they screwed up the installation.
I've done a lot of construction and can see how this might happen, they screw things up all the time when they build things
You should contact whoever is responsible for the road a mention this.
US is currently preparing for a completely different thing - a more or less massive roll-out of red-light cameras (the thing where you get you car's photograph in the mail and a red-light ticket). As a preparation for this measure, stop lights are adjusted (most of the time the duration of yellow is simply reduced) in order to increase you chances of running red light, thus increasing the profit generated by red-light tickets. (This will also increase the fatality rate, of course, but this doesn't seem to be a reason for concern.) I'm amazed how much more often these days in California I see cars crossing intersection right under my nose even when I have green. A couple of years ago I'd see something like this about once in a month. These days I see it virtually every day. In this evironment it is highly unlikely (read - impossible) that US authorities will implement anything tha will to decrease your chances of running red light. Today they prefer to make money by decresing public safety, not by increasing it. So you can forget about anything like "driver friendly" stop light for a while.
Hey look over there, it's Mount Gullible! Seriously, that's an urban legend. In some places emergency vehicles use IR (read: not visible light) strobes to activate sensors on the traffic lights but that is the exception, not the rule. If you could somehow flash your high-beams with millisecond accuracy then you might be able to activate some of the sensors. I don't think most incandescent lights can turn on or off quickly enough to signal properly anyway. Finally, whenever the preemption signal is activated a (visible) light on the traffic light flashes. So you're most likely not activating anything. The light changes on its own, just like it does when you press the button to use the crosswalk at most intersections or when you press the close door button on elevators. 95% of the time, those buttons do nothing. 99.9% of the time (there is probably one random traffic light somewhere that changes because light flashes) flashing your brights will do nothing.
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
In order for induction to work, you would have to have a large quantity of metal in your finger.
So unless you're Wolverine, you're probably out of luck.
Just leave a few minutes earlier... People want to buy these 10 ton SUVs and watch DVDs and play video games in them, listen to satellite radio, drink their Starbucks and eat McDonalds. If you create a vehicle that is nearly as comfortable as your living room, why are you in such a hurry to get out of it? I drive a small Honda Civic, and people will gladly risk my life to whip across 3 lanes of traffic and make a U-turn into WalMart. Trust me, my time IS as valuable as yours, and I am not in that much of a hurry.
word.
There is at least one set of lights in my city that are timed rather than radar/rollover sensor triggered. The reason is that they are on the main road out of the city to the capital, where ideally there should be no lights/junctions. So the lights are deliberately timed to only allow traffic from the side junctions for a few seconds every few minutes.
But for all out madness, one cannot beat signal-controlled roundabouts. I don't know is anywhere else but Ireland insane enough to use these, possibly the UK, but it's rather run having to randomly stop at red lights while going round a roundabout.
The two main such roundabouts in Ireland are the Red Cow Roundabout in Dublin (the "Mad Cow Roundabout") and the Kinsale Road Roundabout in Cork (the "Magic Roundabout"). Best avoided - but usually unavoidable. Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the former now has a tram system travelling across it too. Fun fun fun.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Some colleagues of mine from Europe were in the states working for a few months. It wasn't prudent for them to purchase a car since they were here for such a short period of time. Since they also lived in the city, public transportation was fine, and walking got them to most places they needed. One night, after some late night partying got them hungry, they wanted to get something to eat. The only place that was open was the late night Wendy's, but it was just a drive-thru. One friend went up to the speaker/automated ordering booth, and stood there waiting...and waiting...before realizing as he stepped aside for a car to go through, that the sensor below allowed the attendant inside to know that there was a car waiting for ordering. He did what any person, half-drunk, hungry from partying would do...he stepped on the sensor and jumped with all his might -- to no avail. Eventually, he sobered up enough to actually walked by the window to talk to a real human. Ahhh...if it wasn't weight sensors, then the mere presence of a human standing on the pad should have activated it, no?
Linux at home
Assume (for this post) that these devices actually work and improve the efficiency of city streets. This is why you can't find them on your block:
(1) Safety. A lot of effort is spent proving that a traffic control device is safe. When traffic lights screw up and allow opposing green lights, people die. It is entirely unacceptable for a traffic control device to screw up.
So when a city is faced with buying a proven design or a new advanced design that improves efficiency but may be a liability concern, the city will go with the proven design.
I concede that the new system would be tested endlessly, but I claim that any complex system will have flaws that don't show up until deployed in the field. I've seen unbreakable unix systems crash. It happens.
I think that provable safety in this application can (and will someday) be done. I just wouldn't want to be the first city adopting it.
So another option to ensure safety is redundancy such as that used in some airplanes. That is, multiple independant systems working on the traffic problem, and if any of them fail the others will notice. Doing this right costs money, which brings us to point 2.
(2) Cost. My city really doesn't even bother fixing road problems. I went to Berkeley CA the other day and they had enormous potholes that were "fixed" by painting bright colors around them so they could be avoided. If Berkeley doesn't want to spend a couple bucks to patch a hole, then why would your little town bother to consider removing existing systems that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and replace them with ones that probably cost more?
Further, why would you want your city to spend this money for a marginal improvement in flow? The answer is because some intersections are so terrible that you always are caught up in traffic. These intersections are the bottlenecks that hold up everybody, ones where 30% improved efficiency would be a blessing, which brings us to the 3rd point.
(3) This doesn't help the worst intersections. This switching system would be nice for those pesky lights in your neighborhood that always seem to be red when you arrive, and that you are always first in line and usually the only one to go through in your direction.
I claim that the intersections which could use a 30% improvement the most are those that would not be helped by this system. That is because no matter which side is getting green, every precious second of green light is being used by traffic. This is 100% efficiency, as measured by throughput / theoretical maximum throughput. You can not improve this system by watching for groups of cars, since there are always groups of cars coming.
This would be a neat feature on some intersections, but these intersections aren't the ones that DOT really focuses on improving. The effort involved in making small intersections intelligently switch lights isn't generally worth the cost of doing so.
That said, I'd like to see this in use in my neighborhood, and I'm glad that people are looking into solving traffic congestion problems.
Oh man, this has been bugging me for about ten years. It seems that we already have a system with a built-in method of measuring traffic load via the sensors and a way to control that traffic via red-amber-green lights.
What we currently do with this system is impose on it an artificial set of rules that makes the lights change in a way that is smarter than just alternating every X seconds. But no matter how sophisticated we get, the whole approach is flawed in the same way that a spam filter with a fixed, unchanging set of rules grows less and less effective over time.
The article talks about partially "adaptive" traffic lights, but why not go all the way? I say unleash a bunch of totally Darinistic code modules on traffic lights. Have them mutate, and each generation the ones that score well (by reducing the traffic load they can measure) survive while the rest die off.
Clearly in the beginning the code modules would suck, but then you get a traffic system that is genuinely inhumanly efficient, and adapts to changing conditions. Why can't we have that?
This is what I think about every time I sit at an intersection with nobody coming in the other direction. Am I crazy?
I should buy some cement.
During high traffic times, they pretty much have to do the normal timed cycle to allow all traffic through.
But, many traffic lights don't need to be fully operational during non-peak times when traffic is low. Where I used to live, in Michigan, they had basic traffic lights, which they would switch to blinking mode in the evenings (the main road blinks yellow, to allow traffic through; the crossroad blinks read, and people proceed through when they can - after stopping).
In California, with an abundance of tax dollars, they use sensor based traffic lights. So, in the evening when I approach the intersection, it detects me, pauses for several seconds, then stops oncoming traffic to allow me through. I have to stop and wait, and oncoming traffic has to stop and wait. So, it's less efficient for all involved.
The net effect is that I seem to get stopped at EVERY traffic light I hit. Their expensive, over-engineered sensor lights don't seem to operate any better at peak times either.
Victoria is a very pedestrian friendly city and the ability move around using ones own two feet is cherished and rightly so. It is truly sad that cars trump pedestrains in your culuture.
Sorry, but a lot of Americans have to go to someplace daily for work/school that is just simply too far away to travel to as a pedestrian. Maybe in some of the giant cities you'd have a point, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
Personally, I live ~20 miles from my place of work, so i'm forced to use a car everyday instead of walking. However, I still have many options for getting some exercise - I can ( for example ) do light exercising in my living room, I can go to my apartment complex's fitness center, I can go to the YMCA, or simply jog on the nature trail across the street.
Many people don't (or can't) take the time to do something like that, but that doesn't make the car use the automatic cause of their poor shape.
Pherhaps this is why so many americans are fat asses?
Perhaps instead of being a smartass, you could explain the mystery of how many Americans that don't live within walking distance of everything still manage to stay in shape somehow. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Walking along city streets is not the only form of exercise, and "not being able to walk everywhere" is not the reason for people's poor health. Perhaps being forced to walk everywhere would help the matter, but it's certainly not a primary cause - as I said above, it simply removes one avenue for exercise from a list of many.
Even if the bike was made of plastic and bubblegum you can always trigger the detector if you kill your ignition and then re-start the bike. The windings in the starter motor create a significant electromagnetic disturbance when cranking the engine.
Sydney has had this for the over 20 years.
Around 2500 of the intersections in Sydney are linked together and they "marry" and "divorce" each other based on live statistical data as cars flow through the intersections.
It's a self-calibrating system. It has been exported to many countries.
The local intersection controllers measure traffic flows and adjust timings locally and also are linked to regional controllers that share statistics for an area and these regional controllers are all linked to the central monitoring facility in the city.
Google on the Sydney Co-ordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS)
e.g. http://www.traffic-tech.com/pdf/scatsbrochure.pdf
We actually take citizen complaints of this nature seriously, regardless of if it's someone driving a car or a bicycle. As I nentioned earlier, the only thing is that work load dictates how soon we might be able to address the complaint. We *have* to respond, and document our findings in every instance.
A friend of mine back in the day used to be a dealer for traffic light systems for Orange and Seminole Counties, FL (Orlando).
n t/index.html
There is a device on most intersections in the area that detect EMT and fire vehicles and turn all of the lights on that side of the intersection green as to clear traffic. These sensors hang in between the stop lights.
Another friend of mine claimed that he could flash his hi-beams at night and cause the sensors to think he was an ES vehicle. After speaking with the dealer I found out this guy was full of crap.
Apparently the system works like this:
Each vehicle has a strobe on top of the roof. When the siren/lights are activated, the strobe turns on automatically. The strobe flashes in a specific pattern and "activates" the sensor as it approaches the intersection. Behind the strobe however is an IR emmiter which sends a coded signal to the light which apparently identifies the vehicle and then gets logged in the system.
This allows them to track the time and number of the vehicle that went through the stop light turning everything green. It also lets them search for unauthorized uses in the system.
A somewhat unrelated point:
Seminole co is the second richest county in the state (other than Palm Beach). They have too much money. These peckerheads like to install traffic lights at intersections even if they are not needed...why? "to slow the traffic down" It pisses me off more than anything. The Central Florida area already has enough traffic problems and these waterheads are trying to slow things down... I guess they won't be happy until we are turned into the industrialized Star Wars planet of "Coruscant" and no one can move anywhere on the ground. http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/corusca
Its nukin futs!
Libertas in infinitum
As an academic who uses simulations alongside formal modeling, statistical analysis, and experiments I can say that most academics know that simulation is a lousy way to "prove" a theory. Think of simulations as extended logic problems: the outcome is completely determined by the assumptions one makes and the inputs one provides to the simulation. No respected academic would suggest that simulations can "prove" the merits of a particular theory.
Simulation is, however, great for one thing: identifying the predictions generated by one's theory given a set of inputs. If you're trying to show that rule A doesn't necessarily predict outcome B, then simulation is useful. If you'd like to prove rule A does predict outcome B (i.e. almost any useful causal statement), then you need to follow up your simulation with empirical analysis.
Simulation says "If I'm right about everything, this is what the world should look like." It doesn't prove that you're right, but it does tell you what evidence you need to examine. Ultimately, if your theory can't predict the real world, it's of little import to most academics.
Make cheese not war 8:)