Urban congestion is a pressing challenge, driving up emissions and compromising transport efficiency. Advances in big-data collection and processing now enable adaptive traffic signals, offering a promising strategy for congestion mitigation. In our study of China’s 100 most congested cities, big-data empowered adaptive traffic signals reduced peak-hour trip times by 11% and off-peak by 8%, yielding an estimated annual CO₂ reduction of 31.73 million tonnes. Despite an annual implementation cost of US$1.48 billion, societal benefits—including CO₂ reduction, time savings, and fuel efficiency—amount to US$31.82 billion. Widespread adoption will require enhanced data collection and processing systems, underscoring the need for policy and technological development. Our findings highlight the transformative potential of big-data-driven adaptive systems to alleviate congestion and promote urban sustainability. Big-data empowered traffic signal control in China can reduce vehicle trip times, creating potential reduction of 31.73 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 emissions annually and US$31.8 billion benefits per year.
They have more catch-up to do. The US already does things like traffic control, but they have a different goal: they want drivers to feel like they’re making progress instead of actually improving things.
For example, we put traffic signals everywhere instead of teaching people to use traffic circles. Why? Drivers like to drive fast and would rather stop than slow down. Traffic circles improve flow, but they do reduce average speed, whereas traffic lights decrease flow and increase average speed. It’s stupid, but we’re entitled jerks who like to show off at signals.
Here’s a video that’s a bit more critical, and the main argument against roundabouts is they’re expensive and disruptive to put in. That’s true, but it doesn’t explain why new signal-based intersections are put in.
Politicians will take the lowest fiction solution to keep their positions. Switching to roundabouts is a large political risk, even if it’s backed by science. People hate change, and roundabouts are annoying to get used to.
They have more catch-up to do. The US already does things like traffic control, but they have a different goal: they want drivers to feel like they’re making progress instead of actually improving things.
For example, we put traffic signals everywhere instead of teaching people to use traffic circles. Why? Drivers like to drive fast and would rather stop than slow down. Traffic circles improve flow, but they do reduce average speed, whereas traffic lights decrease flow and increase average speed. It’s stupid, but we’re entitled jerks who like to show off at signals.
Sorry but I want a source for that claim.
That was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point is that we’re ignoring an obvious solution due to inertia. Here’s a short video by John Stossel interviewing the mayor of Carmel, Indiana, which converted to roundabouts, and here’s a longer CNBC video about them as well. That second video is interesting because it shows that roundabouts started here in the US, but fell out of favor when salespeople pitched signals as cities electrified.
Here’s a video that’s a bit more critical, and the main argument against roundabouts is they’re expensive and disruptive to put in. That’s true, but it doesn’t explain why new signal-based intersections are put in.
Politicians will take the lowest fiction solution to keep their positions. Switching to roundabouts is a large political risk, even if it’s backed by science. People hate change, and roundabouts are annoying to get used to.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator