h a l f b a k e r y
Contrary to popular belief
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
We have a few roads that have alot of traffic moving in an "x" pattern, that is the right road merges in and many cars want to reach my left lane, while many of the cars on my road (the left road) wish to reach the rightmost lane (they have to cross sometimes 6 lanes). We are all moving in the same direction,
but it slows down the traffic significantly.
Enter the computerized interchange lanes. You are told to be at a certain speed, and you are told what your current speed is (with flashing yellow warnings and speed cameras to enforce this). You are thus moved away from the car ahead of you, and continuing at high speed (either accelerated to or slowed down to) you allow the others to move between your car and the one ahead (and in back).
If you signalled with your lights, the computerized lane "understands" your wish (and says so on the big flashing yellow signs). It then organizes the traffic which continues flowing quickly but in an organized way, so that you can easily reach the right. (Of course you are told when to change lanes).
It may sound like a long idea, but it's only a km or so needed for the system.
The Stack
http://www.kurumi.c...rchanges/stack.html
A minimal amount of weaving, but a whole whackload of cash. [rapid transit, Oct 17 2004]
Annotation:
|
| |
pashute - isn't that Indian for "prolific"? I fear the reason this idea isn't already implemented is for liability porpoises. |
|
| |
Your traffic engineers apparently decided that the crossing pattern would be sufficiently infrequent to be paralleled. Otherwise, it would be an interchange with over/underpass, or an intersection. Either of which would be cheaper solutions. |
|
| |
I was thinking about exactly the same thing last Friday when I was stuck on the M25 and the road turned into a car park at every junction (even in the outside lane) |
|
| |
Not a bad idea, but impractical. How do you enforce the variety of speed limits? How do I know which sign is referring to me and not the guy behind/in front of me? As [lurch] says, over/underpasses make more sense. |
|
| |
Has anyone here ever driven on the Coventry ring-road? |
|
| |
phoenix, lurch: I don't think that pashute is proposing an alternative to under/overpasses but a means of merging the traffic joining a road with the traffic leaving it. |
|
| |
Ha! Just like "Charlie on the M.T.A.," an old folk song protesting a fare increase in Boston, wherein Charlie doesn't have enough money to get *off* the train & rides, presumably forever. His wife hands him a snadwich every day through the open window. Pretty funny... |
|
| |
Sorry, [snarfy], I just deleted my anno as you put up one referencing it. |
|
| |
I was mentioning to [Mayfly] that if you were on the road-ring with this turn-signal controlled system, and your turn signal light burned out, you would never get off... |
|
| |
[edited the anno] If the signs don't work, your back in the condition you are today, no signs, so nothing lost. |
|
| |
And there is no room, not for ONE more overpass in my country, besides the terrible ecological toll. |
|
| |
Why would it be cheaper to make an overpass. (Land and bridges and paving cost $millions!) |
|
| |