Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

sciencenews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#21

Post by krschultz »

Anechoic wrote: post #12
krschultz wrote: post #11

Not to sound like a radical libertarian but imagine a world in which roads were operated with some sense of incentives to actually MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH. Lets have Tolls - but you get a refund when you are delayed. I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. Traffic light systems would be heavily automated/AI so that there isn't much traffic. Instead they give out construction…

I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. You would be trading one set of inconveniences for another - in the case of nighttime construction you're typically paying the construction workers more (anywhere from time-and-a-half to triple time IME) plus the environmental mitigation for the nighttime activities (noise in particular).

Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night. It is generally less noticable because if you aren't driving at 1 or 2 in the morning you don't see it, but I do a 100 mile drive about once a week at night and it is noticably different than the daytime. The biggest loss is not working weekends.

And why do you have to pay so much? Construction workers have one of the highest unemployment rates, I bet if you start offering 3 shifts at day you would have people sign up for time or time and a half max.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#24

Post by csl »

ulvund wrote: post #23

Here in Denmark a lot of traffic lights respond to road sensors. Another cool thing is the countdown in seconds for the pedestrian lights.

Those metal detectors 6 feet from the light post? This system seems to ensure that entire columns of cars can flow nicely through several intersections.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#25

Post by Anechoic »

krschultz wrote: post #21
Anechoic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine construction would suddenly be done 24/7 and be finished in half the time. You would be trading one set of inconveniences for another - in the case of nighttime construction you're typically paying the construction workers more (anywhere from time-and-a-half to triple time IME) plus the environmental mitigation for the nighttime activities (noise in particular).

Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night. It is generally less noticable because if you aren't driving at 1 or 2 in the morning you don't see it, but I do a 100 mile drive about once a week at night and it is noticably different than the daytime. The biggest loss is not working weekends. And why do you have to pay so much? Construction workers have one of the highest un…

Around here (NYC metro area) more of the construction is done at night than not at night

IME (having worked on several NYC-area construction noise assessments) that's not true, and when it is true, it's usually because the traffic disruption would be so severe, the project has no other choice. MTA/NYCT work also tends to occur at night because that's when train schedules are reduced and workers can have room/time to work.

And why do you have to pay so much?

Because working such a physically demanding job at night for extended-periods, especially in cold/wet weather sucks (again, speaking from experience).

Looking at the Big Dig night work, younger guys were likely to sign up for night work to make a quick buck while the older, more experienced guys (usually with families) would use their seniority to get on day shifts so they could lead normal lives. This causes problems because you want the more experienced guys working nights so they get things right the first and don't have to wake up project engineers when they encounter problems, so you wind up upping the hourly wages to try to attract those experienced workers.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#26

Post by jacquesm »

In plenty of countries this is a reality already. Sensors are placed anywhere from a few meters to hundreds of meters ahead of the actual lights to determine the flow of traffic, there are 'green waves' which you can synchronize with to guarantee uninterrupted passage (both for congestion control and to save fuel) and there are adjustments made based on the expected flow from different routes depending on the time of day.

The future, in this sense at least, has already arrived.

Sure there are plenty of places where this is not common yet, but infrastructure upgrades are expensive.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#28

Post by jdc »

alecco wrote: post #4

Getting rid of cars as much as possible in congested areas is the best way. Promoting very good public transportation and prioritizing people walking and riding bicycles. If they optimize the flow of cars in a little time there will be more people using cars in those areas and no operations researcher can solve that bigger traffic jam. People, like any biological entity, adapt to the environment.

I don't see how it's self-evident public transportation and bikes work best for all environments.

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#29

Post by pak »

marcinw wrote: post #9
bokchoi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I'm riding my bike and I need to turn left, I'll jump up and down on the sensor. I look like an idiot, but usually it works! ;)

Why not just buy a neodymium magnet? This usually does the trick to trigger the sensor.

Then one day, you kneel down to check your engine oil, and bam, there go all your credit cards. There are downsides.

I'd prefer if they just made the loops a little more sensitive. A 200 lb piece of metal would seem to suffice for a true positive...

Re: Study: Traffic lights should respond to cars, not the other way around

#30

Post by Empedocles99 »

sprout wrote: post #22

Shouldn't lights be optimized first to reduce accidents? I've always understood inefficiency to be an intentional safety feature.

Keep all lights red.

Nobody moves, pretty simple heuristic solves for reducing automobile accidents.

Post reply on HN