Slashdot Mirror
Traffic-Flow Algorithm Can Reduce Fuel Consumption
thecarchik writes "New projects from German automakers Audi and BMW promise to ease congestion simply by looking at traffic signals and driving style, in an effort to smooth the flow of traffic. Through a test course in Munich, vehicles were able to post phenomenal fuel efficiency gains simply by adjusting the timing of traffic lights depending on traffic volume — to whatever speed provides a so-called 'green wave' of four or more synchronized signals."
That this isn't done everywhere. With all the red light cameras everywhere (for safety), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.
Traffic signal timing is nothing new, we've known about it a long time. Unfortunately, there is much money to be made fleecing motorists for traffic violations. As a result, our road systems are tweaked to generate revenue, not expedite traffic. Good luck getting these algorithms used in anywhere but a handful of places without a fight.
The perspective taken for this bit of problem solving is interesting, because it is stepping above the usual street engineering up to city planning - maximizing the number of people able to use shared resources, while minimizing resources used. This is decidedly NOT a perspective that is common in the US, as our cities tend to 'sprawl' at the whim of investors and politicians with 'complicated' priorities rather than anything as idealized as proper engineering to make best use of resources.
Greater use of mass transit to maximize available road where possible, waves of greens with appropriate buffers to keep congestion manageable to even extreme capacities, traffic system that work to inform the driver and minimize late decision making - these are good moves.
I would hope we could use some of these moves to create a road system that would allow for us to approach automated driving systems - where you would decide where you needed to be, and an appropriate vehicle would pick you up within a few minutes, using the minimum amount of fuel for the entire city worth of people using the system, and giving non-automated drivers plenty of road space as they go. Nobody limited in choices - but maximizing efficiency and convenience for everyone.
It probably won't happen here in the US (different priorities, as mentioned), but I hope such a system could be established in my lifetime.
Ryan Fenton
Roads are for road users. I ride a bike, I obey the laws (ALL of them - way better than ANY car I ever see on the road) and I pay at least as many taxes to pay for the roads as anyone else on the road. If the road isn't designed for my use, it's because the designers screwed up. Bikes were here before cars and they'll be here after cars.
I'm not going to argue with your point of view (since you're more or less correct), but I would like to point out that offensive (as opposed to defensive) riding is unfortunately essential in a large urban environment. Getting out in front of traffic at a stop light, riding two abreast, moving from sidewalk to road and back again, and splitting lanes are all part of not being hit. For every asshole bunny-hopping the curb or cube-gleaming your fender, there's another who's totally oblivious to the fact that they're behind two tons of metal.
It's a lose-lose scenario, yet for some reason blame is passed between various forms of commuters instead of placed on urban planners where it so rightfully belongs. We need one lane for transit/commerce/utility, one lane for personal motorized transport, one for muscle powered, and one for pedestrians. Crying that it's difficult is begging the point.
((Critical Mass doesn't fit into this picture. It's a protest, and you know full well when and where it will occur. Getting your side mirror bashed or your windshield krypto'd is your own damn fault))
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Cars aren't going away any time soon. So we can:
A. Do nothing.
B. Fix the traffic lights for minimal cost and offer some improvement on things.
But I guess since B doesn't remove cars entirely, we should do nothing right? That's pretty fucked logic you've got there. If doing this saves only 10% on urban fuel consumption, it will have the same effect as 1 out of 10 people stopping driving entirely. Seems like a net positive to me, and a lot more feasible than hoping 10% of people to give up their cars and start walking everywhere.
My route to work is horrible. I hit nearly every light, every day, even when coming home in the middle of the night. I'd like to send the city a bill for 20%+ of my gas, and half the cost of replacing brakes & clutch when the time comes, as this could have been easily saved by fixing the fucking lights. The rage induced by hitting every light probably knocked a few years off my life too.
Sent from my PDP-11
The argument that cyclists don't pay their way is absurd - the reality is the opposite; public funding of roads is a massive subsidy from those who don't drive a car to those who do. As a cyclist I'd love a system of user-pays for roads.