Slashdot Mirror


The Intelligent Intersection Could Banish Traffic Lights Forever (arstechnica.com)

Jonathan M. Gitlin reports via Ars Technica: With a degree of coordination -- between vehicles, and with traffic infrastructure -- traffic chaos should theoretically be banished, and less congestion means fewer pollutants. Clemson researcher Ali Reza Fayazi has provided a tantalizing glimpse at that future, a proof-of-concept study showing that a fully autonomous four-way traffic intersection is a hundred times more efficient at letting traffic flow than the intersections you and I currently navigate. Because cars don't sit idling at the lights, Fayazi calculated it would also deliver a 19 percent fuel saving. Fayazi designed an intersection controller for a four-way junction that tracks vehicles and then uses an algorithm to control their speeds such that they can all pass safely through the junction with as few coming to a halt as possible. What makes the study particularly interesting is that Fayazi demonstrated it by interspersing his own physical car among the simulated traffic -- the first use of a vehicle-in-the-loop simulator for this kind of problem. Fayazi drove his real car at the International Transportation Innovation Center in Greenville, South Carolina, where a geofenced area was set up to use as the simulated intersection. Using GPS sensors, his car was just as visible to the intersection controller as the virtual autonomous vehicles that were also populating its memory banks. Ideally, Fayazi says he'd like to have tested it with an autonomous vehicle, but they are hard to come by, particularly in South Carolina. Instead, the intersection controller directly governed his speed in the study (as it did with the simulated vehicles), and this controller sent him a speed to maintain in order to safely cross the junction. Over the course of an hour, the intelligent intersection only required 11 vehicles to come to a complete halt. By contrast, when the simulation was run with a traffic light instead, more than 1,100 vehicles had to stop at the junction over the course of an hour.

16 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Pedestrians? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the obvious pedestrian issues (which can be addressed by the Buddhist street crossing technique: just walk at a constant speed through the intersection), this is a pretty obvious solution.

    1. Re:Pedestrians? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know how many pedestrians are killed right below the foot bridges here in Latin America, but it's a lot. Good for you if you live in a country where people are educated enough to realize that the foot bridge is there for their safety. Here it's much easier to cut a hole in the fence placed specifically to force people to use the foot bridge, and play Frogger on the highway.

      But then again, sidewalks are advanced technology too. You always see people walking in the street right next to the sidewalk. Simply put - civilization only works when people choose to follow the rules.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Pedestrians? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aside from the obvious pedestrian issues

      Very few pedestrians in most parts of the South where study was done, they probably didn't consider pedestrians. I've found in South Carolina, where sidewalks actually exist they're more for decoration than to be used. They're usually at a 30 degree incline slopping towards the road (and thus much more comfortable to walk on road rather than on the incline) or they just randomly start and stop every few blocks with no continuity, requiring you to walk through tall grass full of ticks (or the road) for half your journey.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Pedestrians? by stomv · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Written by someone who is fortunate to
      • not be in a wheelchair
      • not have a stroller
      • not be worried about being mugged
      • not be worried about being sexually assaulted
      • be in a community that can spend that kind of money on concrete, elevators, and maintenance
      • be in a community with the extra land near intersections required for the additional infrastructure

      This is just fine for situations where no pedestrians or cyclists are present -- access ramps to limited access highways, bridges, and tunnels, for example. But for places where people are legally allowed to walk or cycle, this is just a non-starter.

    4. Re:Pedestrians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Simply put - civilization only works when people choose to follow the rules.

      And evolution works when they don't.

    5. Re:Pedestrians? by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not anymore. Now the enlightened segment of society protects the idiots.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  2. All he needs... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is way to make drivers drive at the mandated speeds. Which, of course, they won't do; you only have to look at how speed limits are obeyed to know that.

    1. Re:All he needs... by sheramil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed. I'd like to see how well the simulation does with all of the traffic being autonomous and directed by the intersection controller.. then with, say, twenty-five percent of the cars being operated either by actual people or have the simulation take into account how people might react if there were cars weaving in and out of the intersection at whatever speed the controller thinks is safe. Then add cars driven by people who are texting, or eating fast food, or putting on makeup (either gender) or angry, or sleepy, or entitled adult-aged-children who think a car is a cross between a codpiece and a battering ram and who think right of way belongs to whoever doesn't make eye contact.

      In addition the simulation should include collisions, and the inevitable results of collisions involving other cars whether they manage to stop in time or if they just slow down to rubberneck, including broken glass, explosions, and screaming victims. I don't think we're going to suddenly all start using autonomous vehicles on a certain date, and the people who insist on driving won't necessarily obey any directives sent by the intersection controller. tl;dr: "Good against remotes is one thing.. good against the living... that's something else."

  3. In a World Withougt Pedestrians and Bicycles... by BrendaEM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and motorcycles, and baby strollers, and delivery people moving boxes, and letter carriers, and dogs, and cats, and children playing.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:In a World Withougt Pedestrians and Bicycles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      All of these things can be equipped with brain implants that follow commands from the intersection controller.

  4. Traffic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've driven a bunch of times lately in Europe and its amazing how long you can go without ever coming across a traffic light.

    1. Re:Traffic circles by amalcolm · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI they are called roundabouts, in the UK at least

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  5. Intelligent Intersections Already Exist by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intelligent Intersections Already Exist, they're called "Roundabouts" or "Traffic Circles" depending on your geographic location.

    In most cases they eliminate the need for idling cars, they process much more cars per minute than a traditional traffic light, all cars can go through at an intelligent speed without the need for computers or artificial intelligence calculating algorithms.

    Best of all, it works with human controlled vehicles too. There's going to be a lot of them on the road for decades even if we have AI cars available to the public tomorrow.

    It's really quite ridiculous we don't have more of them in the US instead of four-way stops and traffic lights.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Intelligent Intersections Already Exist by dmgxmichael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's really quite ridiculous we don't have more of them in the US instead of four-way stops and traffic lights.

      It's not ridiculous at all - it's a simple space issue. A round about takes more space than a simple intersection with a traffic light. A cloverleaf intersection is even safer and faster than a round about, but it takes even more space and also requires the building of bridge.

      Cities already devote enormous amounts of space to the movement of cars. They can't spare any more, at least in the downtown areas. Using round abouts more frequently in the suburbs would make sense though.

    2. Re:Intelligent Intersections Already Exist by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No it doesn't.

      Large intersection, especially with more than the standard four directions, are the same kinds of size as an equivalent roundabout.

      The UK has MUCH less space that the US, I assure you, and we have roundabouts everywhere.

      Also, there's this thing called a mini-roundabout, for tiny junctions. It's basically a circle painted in the middle of a four-way intersection. Does the same job, just as effectively.

      Even large roundabouts don't require bridges or nonsense, and where they do (e.g. large motorway intersection), you already need ramped sliproads and everything else anyway.

      Go look at London. Our roads are tiny, they are surrounded by ancient buildings, the layouts are far from uniform, and there are thousands of roundabouts throughout.

      They also require NO INFRASTRUCTURE. No power, no timing, no signals, no monitoring, no more servicing than any plain section of road. You paint a circle in the road, or plant a large circular lawn in a big junction. Done and finished.

  6. Road Neutrality by techdolphin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is probably a bad idea. We know that eventually the roads will be owned by the corporations. The corporations will want to give preferences to businesses that are willing to pay more. Then we have a road neutrality movement. I have enough aggravation supporting net neutrality. Please don't add road neutrality to this list!