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.

Comments

Pedestrians?

[aaarrrgggh]

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.

Re:Pedestrians?

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:Pedestrians?

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Pedestrians?

[stomv]

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.

Re:Pedestrians?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

And evolution works when they don't.

All he needs...

[Chris Mattern]

...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.

In a World Withougt Pedestrians and Bicycles...

[BrendaEM]

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

Re:In a World Withougt Pedestrians and Bicycles...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Traffic circles

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Traffic circles

[amalcolm]

FYI they are called roundabouts, in the UK at least

Intelligent Intersections Already Exist

[Oswald McWeany]

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.