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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a better idea. They could put cameras in intersections, like the ones that take a picture when you run a red light and you get a ticket in the mail. Ok, they put these cameras, except that not only do they take pictures of actual red light violators, they also take pictures of cars going through the intersection at random times when the light is green and it is perfectly legal to enter. Then, the image is sent to computers, where it is processed to remove other vehicle traffic, to change the lights from green to red, etc.
Then, you drive to work, minding your own business, and you don't run any red lights. In fact, you are the best driver in the world. You don't break a single law. And then you get a ticket in the mail with photographic evidence that YOU ran a red light, even though it never happened. The court will have some internal rule that all such tickets are considered an automatic conviction, and there is no way to appeal. That will enhance revenue.
I have an additional idea. In France they started blanking out the passenger side of the cars in these pictures, because too many Frenchmen got caught with another woman in the cars by their wives opening the traffic ticket that came in the mail. So the automatic image manipulation software that performs the above incrimination would go a step further and put a prostitute in the passenger seat. If you're driving in the evening, say, home from work, special studs in the road can come up and puncture your tires right after the picture of your car is taken. Then, conveniently, there will be a towtruck nearby who offers to take you to the nearest tire shop. The tow truck company and the tire shop will be in some secret business agreement with the city. The studs in the street will be embedded in such a way, and they will puncture the tires and retreat back into the street so fast, so as to be undetected. The tow truck driver will take his sweet time hauling the car to the tire shop, and once there, they will take their sweet time putting new tires on the car. In the meantime, some woman walks into the waiting room where you're waiting, and she comes up and without your permission grabs your head and kisses you right on the face, a wet, nasty kiss. Her tongue practically goes down your throat and out of your ear, like when Madonna kissed Britney Spears. In the meantime, cameras film all of this. Then this woman just gets up and goes away. By the time they finish putting tires on the car, it will be quite late at night. You return home and your wife wonders why you're so late. You tell her that you had a flat tire. The receipt from the tire place has the date and time, and little do you notice, because who checks, that the time is five o'clock, not, like, 10:00 when they actually finish and charge you. Your wife thinks it's kind of funny that it took so long to change a tire. (Also, they hid dirty panties under the passenger seat in your car.) Next thing you know, a traffic ticket comes in the mail during the day when you're at work. Your wife opens it and sees a prostitute in the car with you on the day you came home late. She says what the hell is this, and you explain that there's no way this could be, because this never happened. Your wife is skeptical and starts crying. The next day, a package arrives in the mail. It is a video tape. There is a note that says, "I didn't want to be the one to tell you this but you have a right to know." Your wife puts it in the VCR and it's the video of you macking with some hot woman (the video from the tire shop). Now she's really pissed off. She wants a divorce. Little did you know that the divorce lawyers also had secret business negotiations with the city.
Now that is what I call revenue enhancement in the truest government style. Not only does the government take away your money, but it deliberately fucks up your life as well.
Government. Where do you want to go today?
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.
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.
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