Slashdot Mirror


Could Technology Companies Solve Traffic Congestion? (bloomberg.com)

As the Indian city of Bangalore "grapples with inadequate roads, unprecedented growth and overpopulation," can technology companies find a solution? randomErr writes: Tech giants and startups are turning their attention to a common enemy: the Indian city's infernal traffic congestion. Commutes that can take hours have inspired Gridlock Hackathon for technology workers to find solutions to the snarled roads that cost the economy billions of dollars. While the prize totals a mere $5,500, it's attracting teams from global giants Microsoft Corp., Google and Amazon.com. Inc. to local startups including Ola.
Bloomberg reports that the ideas "range from using artificial intelligence and big data on traffic flows to true moonshots, such as flying cars... Other entries suggested including Internet of Things-powered road dividers that change orientation to handle changing situations. There is also a proposal for a reporting system that tracks vehicles that don't conform to the road rules..." And one hackathon official says a team "suggested building smart roads underneath the city and another has sent in detailed drawings of flying cars." Any more bright ideas -- and more importantly, do any of these solutions really have a chance of succeeding?

18 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Revolutionary idea by Gunfighter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My entry:

    Reward companies (and people) who work from home with incentives to keep them off the road.

    Can I have my $5k now?

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  2. You need to see the traffic to truly appreciate it by DrLlama · · Score: 5, Informative

    I lived in Bangalore for six months.

    Traffic there is like nothing I've ever seen before in my life. Lane markers... they're just suggestions. Speed limits? What's that? Traffic lights, well, maybe, if there's a cop handy.

    What's amazing to me is how the congestion isn't as bad as it could be, because traffic in Bangalore, and well India as a whole, is compressible. When a traffic light turns red, cars and auto-rickshaws and especially motorbikes, move in to fill the space as tightly as they can. Then when the light changes, everyone moves out and traffic flows. What that means is that while North American traffic behaves a lot like a liquid, my observation in Bangalore was that traffic behaved much more like a gas.

    --
    Who, me?
  3. It's not the figuring out part that's the problem by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Figuring out how to solve traffic congestion, that's the easy part. There's lots of ways, mostly in two categories: reducing the volume of traffic needed to move a given number of people, and optimizing the flow of traffic.

    The hard part is getting people to actually let the solutions do their job. Everyone wants better traffic flow, but they don't want to change their own driving patterns to ones that optimize traffic flow (especially if it means giving up even a second's advantage over anyone else).

  4. These are symptoms: there is only ONE problem ... by swell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "grapples with inadequate roads, unprecedented growth and overpopulation,"
    And there is more: sewage in the streets, hunger, sickness, pollution of every kind...

    There is only ONE problem really. There is only one solution. Family planning. All of those little 'problems' are simply symptoms of the ONE problem. Without family planning, every one of those symptoms will get worse.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  5. can't fix india's traffic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    until you can figure out how to fix india's drivers

  6. Let AI drive the cars by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let AI drive the cars. "self-driving" cars follow the road rules and cooperate better. Maybe tracking via WAZE can help in the interim.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  7. It won't be an immediate fix by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    But the good people of Bangalore should perhaps Bang-a-bit-less.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Re:These are symptoms: there is only ONE problem . by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    Designated Shitting Streets.

  9. Re:give roads real speed limits and not this 55 on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've never been to Bangalore.

    I couldn't even point to it on a map. But as an American, I know everything about it anyway.
    --
    AK Marc

  10. Re:Technology alone will not work by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    They should probably just resort to using a permit system to limit the average total number vehicles in the most congested parts of the city, then use the relieved roads to quickly install LRTs.

  11. Fighting irrational human thinking by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

    Reducing deaths on the roads by 99% will not be sufficient for widespread short-term legalization and adoption of self driving vehicles. People will still point at unlikely complex situations where humans might avoid an accident where the AI would not. Humans, emotionally, do not want to admit that AIs are better drivers than they are, though the best self driving vehicle technologies undeniably are already much better then the average human driver.

  12. Singapore Shows the Way by BBCWatcher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Singapore sets strict quotas on total vehicles, by type, using a simple auction system. So let's suppose the quota is capped at one million vehicles of all types. Private cars might represent 600,000 of that total. (These numbers are approximately correct for Singapore.) If you want to buy a car, you have to get a Certificate of Entitlement (CoE), good for 10 years. As a car comes off the road and is scrapped or exported, its CoE is returned to the public pool and auctioned. The highest bidders win. Currently (mid 2017) a CoE is fetching about US$35,000. That's not the car or anything that goes with it. It's merely the cost of a 10 year license to place a new car on the road. You also have to buy, register (with ample tax), insure, park, and fuel the car, and that costs money, too. You also must have an electronic toll device, and congested areas (primarily the central business district) have variable tolls to enter. If you get out of line the penalties are severe, and you cannot bribe your way out of such problems.

    Do those basic things (a strict overall cap on the vehicle population at an appropriate level, and variable electronic tolling for the areas most prone to congestion), and you have eliminated traffic problems. Public buses can then run on reliable schedules, road construction doesn't cause too much agony, and there's an excellent revenue source for both.

    This problem is well solved if people want it solved. Just copy Singapore.

    1. Re:Singapore Shows the Way by ThosLives · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's definitely a solution, but I would replace the highest-bidder-wins auction with a certifiably random selection. That way you don't have a systemic bias against the poor.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  13. Nope, it would not work. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Gases expand fill the available volume. Work expands to fill the available time. Traffic expands to fill available capacity.

    Tech companies would worsen the problem. They will make commute time more predictable and adjust the flow, divert in real time to reduce congestion. All this will lead to more effective road capacity. All the secondary roads that carry less traffic will be used as load balancers and fill up with traffic. All this will make people realize they can live even farther away from the city and supersize their McMansions. In the end there will be more vehicles on the road.

    Real solution is allow market to determine the cost of commute. A contested valuable resource, priced at below market levels, unresponsive to rising demand will always lead to wasteful usage. Water and road access are the most heavily underpriced government owned resource. Any private company would have raised the price of accessing the prime working areas, and raised the prices over time. Businesses would respond by moving out, spreading out, commuters would pay the true cost of access to downtown and business districts and consider rational alternatives.

    While taking advantage of free road access to business districts, the very same car commuters fight tooth and nail any subsidy to public transportation.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Nope, it would not work. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Any private company would have raised the price of accessing the prime working areas, and raised the prices over time

      And any company in those areas would move out. I know that's what you're going for, but that is only a benefit if you are a company with a stake in the roads alone. If you're a government which also has a stake in not having an empty ghost city while companies are driving taxes and business into other cities that is not the ideal outcome.

      Taxing the road use isn't the answer. City planning is.

    2. Re:Nope, it would not work. by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      Businesses would respond by moving out, spreading out, commuters would pay the true cost of access to downtown and business districts and consider rational alternatives.

      It's not quite as straightforward.

      'Spacing out' is expensive. The whole reasons businesses like cities and densely populated areas is that it makes the logistical chains easier to manage. Instead of having several smaller stores sprinkled around the suburbs you can have 1 or 2 larger stores in the centrum and save quite a lot on warehousing alone.

      This is doable because people are willing to travel to a large city from quite far away as they can handle multiple types of purchases from many different types of specialized vendors at once. This is at the core of why cities developed in the first place (and also as an aside why in my native language the word for city is derived from the word 'to trade' (kaupata), so that the word for city (kaupunki) could in fact be translated as 'a place for trading')..

      If you 'space out' an establishment now located in population centers you do 2 things:
      a) you increase the overheads of the companies as they have to spend more on transportation, management, warehousing, etc to maintain their sales and customers, this brings prices of the good up
      b) you increase people's need to travel from one place to another, further increasing overall time spent on traveling as well as money spent on fuel

      People will have to drive more under this model, not less, to get what they want. This will not remove congestion, it will simply move it from one place (business districts) to other places (suburbs etc.). Even with a congestion fees, it's still going to be cheaper for people to pay the fee and go to the city to do their shopping rather than spending more time and gas driving around the suburbs to buy items at increased prices.

      I'm in favor of using a tiered system of congestion fees to ease traffic, but precisely for opposite reasons as you. The data that we have available from such existing systems in for example Stockholm suggest that the stores don't space out and move out of the city for the reasons mentioned above. What instead happens is that people change their schedules: those who do not have to go get their errands done during rush-hour time will wait 'til after the rush is over and they can use the road for free, or use public transportation to avoid paying the fee. Quoting the study from 2012:

      Much of the economically oriented literature is concerned with the question of the “winners” and “losers” of congestion charges (see e.g.(Eliasson and Mattsson, 2006)), and the influence such equity effects may have on acceptability. The three papers above (especially (Hårsman and Quigley, 2010)) confirm that individual costs and benefits affect acceptability in the expected way. But all the papers also show that acceptance depends on many more factors than just the “winners/losers” dimension. It is also apparent that the simplest versions of transport-economic theory neglect some crucial aspects related to “winner/loser” analysis:

      1. The standard analysis of congestion charges underestimates the number of “winners” and the total benefit of congestion charging. This is because the standard “textbook” analysis neglects three things: dynamics, network effects and user heterogeneity. In a dynamic model, where users can adjust their departure time, users will not necessarily lose from a congestion pricing reform. In the simplest case with a single bottleneck, the optimal toll will shift travellers to arrive at a rate that never exceeds the bottleneck capacity. Hence, there will be no queue, the toll and rescheduling costs will not exceed time spent in queue before the toll, and no user will be worse off (see (Vic

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  14. Current congestion? Yes. But this invites more by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AI cars can defeat all of our current traffic congestion. But this, combined with AI cars allowing for easier travel, will invite new uses for the road. We will have more people and more miles traveled per person, creating new congestion.

    For example, I would expect a huge increase in road trips. Why spend extra money on a 4 hour flight from Philadelphia to Florida , with an extra 3 hours prep time traveling to the airport + waiting on lines, when you can get in your car at 11 PM, sleep 8 hours, then watch a movie or two, eat breakfast, and get to a beach in Florida by 11 AM. Currently a bus does that, but it is a different when you can do it in a car you already own, without driving.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  15. Re:Current congestion? Yes. But this invites more by stdarg · · Score: 2

    Yup, self-driving cars will be a game changer for traffic. Since the majority of traffic in most places is local day-to-day traffic, like getting to/from work, stores, restaurants, etc. I don't think the increased car utilization will come close to outweighing the improved traffic efficiency.

    You have me pretty excited about road trips though. I hadn't really thought about it, but clearly cars will be designed more for passenger comfort. It'll be like first class or better travel, with privacy, at your convenience, with complete control over making stops and route changes. If efficiency improves enough, we can have fewer lanes that are wider so cars can have more interior room.

    On the other hand, self-driving buses are also going to be a game changer. According to this article operating expenses for buses are huge, and about 70% are for employees. Self-driving buses will mean we can have twice as many buses, or maybe 10 times as many cheaper buses with lower capacity. If the bus came every 5 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, and went to more places, a lot of people are going to stop owning a car.