4 ms·

Could These Intersections Make Us Safer? (2013)

29 points by hexane360 10y ago

NoGravitas 10y ago
The "Michigan Left" was used a lot in New Orleans when I lived there. I didn't know there was a name for this pattern.
athenot 10y ago
The article mentions roundabouts being the holy grail then faults them for not being able to handle capacity. But in Europe, it's quite common to have high throughput roundabouts, with multiple lanes.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  But then you get many more collision points back. The definition of roundabout in this article is in terms of collision points, i.e. safety.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    A turbo roundabout can have physical separators. And there are other variations; for example in my city there's a large one with two isolated circles (you chose the circle before entering the roundabout, depending on where you want to go).
  - ethagknight 10y ago
    But all those roundabout collision points are very minor threats compared to a left hand turned slamming into a red-light-runner. I'll take 50 chances of bumping side panels with someone on a roundabout compared to 1 chance of getting t-boned at a left turn.
  - legulere 10y ago
    Another issue is that they take up a lot of space which might not be there.
    - ytjohn 10y ago
      Probably would take up a lot less space than the article's proposed mega intersection.
- pif 10y ago
  French traffic engineers love roundabouts. Actually, they are indeed safer that plain intersections. What I despise, though, is that too often building a roundabout coincides with giving up any effort to try and manage the traffic at intersection. Having heavy traffic in one direction on a national route yielding to cars leaving the parking of a mall, while the other direction flows undisturbed, is not nice at all. Especially if you are on the wrong side of the national route :-)
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Roundabouts in Europe are being pulled out. They have a narrow band of efficiency, between TooMuchTrafficForAStopSign, and ConstantTrafficPreventingOneDirectionFromEntering. So they get built one year, and a few years later pulled out. In my growing town they're being built like sausages. I have to negotiate several a day. Most days the guy in front of me comes to a full stop, even when nobody is on the circle at all. If I'm not alert its dangerous - somebody stopping dead in the road for no reason. In a couple of years I look forward to them being removed.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    What are they being replaced with? Even a roundabout with traffic lights regulating traffic entering it seem safer and more efficient than a pure traffic light intersection.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Traffic lights. Left-turn lanes.
crashdown 10y ago
The Magic Roundabout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) That is all.
- giarc 10y ago
  >has an excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision. I guess that's another way to prevent accidents. Confuse and slow people down so much that if accidents do happen, they happen at 2km/h.
  - kirushik 10y ago
    Also known as traffic calming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
- davidarkemp2 10y ago
  What about it? (As a former Swindon resident who used to cycle across it with an E-flat tenor horn strapped to the rack, I don't really have a problem with it)
  - crashdown 10y ago
    I just wanted to show it to people who have not seen it before. It is a marvellous invention :D
- cpburns2009 10y ago
  No, single roundabouts are annoying enough. Give me a stop light or a 4-way stop.
rubidium 10y ago
I despise the Michigan Left. There's one by a critical gas station (i.e. "I'm often running out of gas when I'm near it"). But I can only get to it if I'm going the correct direction. Otherwise I have to wait for the light, go through intersection, pull a U-turn, wait for the light again, go through the light, pull into gas station, pull out of gas station, pull a U-turn, wait at the light, and I'm finally on my way again. While it may be safer, the Michigan left has got to kill any business located near the intersection.
- derekp7 10y ago
  But you have the same issue even without the Michigan Left, but even worse because there is no way to get to the gas station (without finding a parking lot to turn into and turn around). Consider an intersection that is busy enough to have a raised median. The gas station is on the left hand side, before the intersection, on the corner. You can't get to it before crossing the light, due to the raised median. You also can't turn left at the intersection and cross over, because of the raised median on that road. So you have to drive down the road a piece, find a safe way to get going in the opposite direction (like pulling into and out of a parking lot), then do the same dance after the gas station visit.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > Michigan left has got to kill any business located near the intersection. Many businesses actually prefer those locations, since "Michigan left" intersections can handle large amounts of traffic safely. (In Michigan, nearly all major retail centers are on or near these roads). > There's one by a critical gas station (i.e. "I'm often running out of gas when I'm near it"). You could just buy gas on your return trip. If your often on the "wrong side" of the street for the station, your return trips would presumably put you on the "right side" equally as often.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Or more likely, if an intersection requires a Michigan Left, there's probably enough traffic to warrant two gas stations. Of course, those two gas stations will have different prices, pissing off everybody. I'm not speaking from experience or anything...
ethagknight 10y ago
As a former transportation engineer, I always notice and despise whenever we get overly creative. Could that intersection make us safer? Yes, for all the experienced locals, but absolutely not when you factor in a handful of old, drunk, texting or otherwise unfamiliar drivers, for which it looks like a head-on-collision demolition derby.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- RankingMember 10y ago
  I just made a separate comment about this but wanted to chime in and agree; locals will learn the new traffic patterns but everyone else will be confused. This confusion can result in panic and, ultimately, accidents. I don't know if you've driven in New Jersey (South Jersey's what I'm familiar with), but it's a good example of some of these types of irregular patterns (e.g. long ramps for turn-offs). They seem to design these for a perfect world where everyone is paying 100% attention to signage (and signage is never obscured/missing/confusing itself).
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    One source of panic: turning left now you can be faced with 4 or 6 options of where to go, instead of two. If you just get it wrong, you're going the wrong way on a one-way lane.
    - lfowles 10y ago
      Also, give it a few years for the guiding lines to get nice and faded. Maybe some rainy weather to erase them from vision completely. This intersection would definitely get safer because I would avoid it completely.
- a2tech 10y ago
maxsilver 10y ago
If your intersection is busy enough to justify some of these rather large and expensive intersection designs (like #5 and #13 from the article) -- then you might as well spend the cash to make it into a real freeway interchange and have zero intersections or stoplights at all. That will handle even more traffic, be even safer (by their geometric conflict metric), have no stoplights for drivers to deal with, and no one has to learn anything new to navigate it safely.
dbg31415 10y ago
They built one of these jughandle intersections near me. Maybe when we have self-driving cars it'll make sense. It takes much longer to get through it, I feel, and it backs up often. Not a fan.
Shivetya 10y ago
In Georgia our fascination is now with Diverging Diamond Interchanges, one is active and another is being placed at Windy Hill and I75. Should be interesting at that location as currently traffic in the area is just murder. Some smaller roads have gotten roundabouts where traffic lights didn't make sense and four way stops were impeding the flow
homero 10y ago
Vimeo is horrible
RankingMember 10y ago
My first thought looking at the long ramp for right turns is that people are going to miss them and then make their right turns where they normally would (the "dangerous" way). New Jersey has a lot of this and it results in people reacting by whipping U-turns either in the middle of the road or needing to whip around in random parking lots and then try to cross 2 lanes of traffic to go the other way to get back to the turn they missed.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
That mess turned a single intersection into...let me count...16 intersections. I'm baffled. How is that safer?
- phil_s_stein 10y ago
  It minimizes left-hand turns across oncoming traffic that has a green light. i.e. it minimizes human judgement. If everyone stops at red lights (and people are very good at that), then there are fewer or no places where traffic crosses paths at the same time.
stuaxo 10y ago
I've seen this conflict junction in paris before https://vimeo.com/57972903 https://vimeo.com/57972903
dragontamer 10y ago
There are roughly two diverging diamonds within ~30 miles that I'm aware of. Its utterly insane to break the "Right-side driving" rule. I know people who have literally driven on the wrong side of the road through a diverging diamond. Perhaps it is "theoretically" safer once everyone knows how the hell it works (I mean, yeah, now that I know I need to drive on the LEFT side of the road through a diverging diamond... it makes sense). But jeez, it takes some getting used to. ---------- I worry about tourists and newbies who will also drive on the "right" side, and completely break the diverging diamond. Fortunately, the "better" diverging diamond that I'm aware of is only a 3-way intersection, and there are very tall walls that "blind" you to the fact that you're driving on the left side. It works very well. The 4-way diverging diamond: where you drive on the wrong side of the road for an extended period is simply insane... at least the first time you go through it.
mholmes680 10y ago
I have some random thoughts: a) where the heck is everyone going anyway? Can people simplify their lives by efficiently picking routes - and getting them all done in a chain? b) If autonomous cars are the future, they eventually get some say in how to efficiently structure roads, right? So, will some AI one day figure out that the greater "hive" will all benefit if every car only makes right-hand turns? And do left hand turns just become illegal?
- camiller 10y ago
  With good AI anything is possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pbAI40dK0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pbAI40dK0A see the simulation at 0:55.
  - mholmes680 10y ago
    oh wow, nice reference. but, then you have a car thief use case, and it screws the whole thing up! :)
phkahler 10y ago
I've spent some time thinking about roadways, and I've decided the problem starts at a much higher level. When I'm traveling down the road it should be easy to get to the place I want to get, or onto another road that I need to get on. It seems the thing closest to me though is the LAST thing I want - a lane for going the opposite direction. If I'm going west, I don't want to go east, yet a few feet away is a lane going east. If I want to turn south, I'm going to have to cross that lane going east. This is why we have intersections and accidents. If you look at the EPA fuel economy standards, they run cars on several different cycles representing different driving conditions. In particular there is a highway cycle and an urban cycle. When I worked in EVs I was stunned to find that the average speed on the urban cycle is a hair short of 20mph. You'd think with typical speed limits of 45mph it would be much higher, but with all the stopping and going you waste a lot of time and fuel. The main reason hybrid cars get better mileage is the recovery of kinetic energy when stopping. It seems we're demanding cars make up for deficiencies in roadway design, but that only helps with fuel, no peoples time. So If we made a lot of one-way roads with the right nested structure (I'm playing with long ovals) we could eliminate a lot of intersections where lanes cross. Your travel distance might be 10 percent longer, but your time on the road could be reduced significantly. You'd also have to learn a slightly different route for going somewhere and coming home. Another aspect of reducing travel time is that with cars on the road for half the time, you'll have half as many cars on the road at any given time and that means you can put down half the pavement. Getting it right would be a huge win all around.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  "huge win all around" Sure, if you're designing a cars-only freeway. Once you add pedestrians, one way streets dramatically increase the fatality rate. Cars are going faster (dramatically increasing the risk of fatality), and are generally only looking in one direction, so don't see pedestrians coming from the other direction.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> Once you add pedestrians, one way streets dramatically increase the fatality rate. The key is not to put the pedestrian paths next to the roads. That's similar to putting the opposing traffic right next to the road. Imagine a suburban neighborhood where the sidewalks run through the back yards instead of out front by the road. You have branching walkways that are the inverse of the branching roadways. Now start to design high density cities along similar lines, where pedestrian areas connect high-density buildings in a sort of fractal pattern with roadways around the outside (one way of course) and branching in between the fractal stuff. You can add pedestrian bridges in key places if desired. I don't think a large 2-d area with high fractal dimension makes the most sense, it should be more like a long strip with bulbs off the sides. These are then surrounded by an oval roadway with intruding branches. You lay multiple ovals next to each other and have a larger oval connecting them all at the ends - a perpendicular oval. Something like that. If you think about how blood circulates in the body, it's a hierarchy of different sized arteries and veins. You can get from any capillary to any other by just going around the system one time. Now imagine you put a loop at each level of the hierarchy so you don't need to go all the way to the top level - long trip. If your try to lay that out flat there will be some intersections, and you may still have things close together that are topologically farther apart - it's when you start making those short connections that you create intersections and congestion which starts to destroy the efficiency. I'd also prefer a fractal-like city with green space mixed in, so perhaps those ovals should not be side-by-side, but sprawling. How about all buildings are high density (so public transit makes sense) but the overall density is more like the burbs? Clusters of towers in the woods or open areas.
ocschwar 10y ago
That is a lot of acreage devoted to that intersection. Something you should know about land: they ain't making more of it.
ChoHag 10y ago
I've driven through most of these in various parts of England and many variations on them. I think it's safe to say there's usage data to be consumed.

29 points by hexane360 10y ago

The "Michigan Left" was used a lot in New Orleans when I lived there. I didn't know there was a name for this pattern.

The article mentions roundabouts being the holy grail then faults them for not being able to handle capacity. But in Europe, it's quite common to have high throughput roundabouts, with multiple lanes.

nothrabannosir 10y ago
But then you get many more collision points back. The definition of roundabout in this article is in terms of collision points, i.e. safety.
- icebraining 10y ago
  A turbo roundabout can have physical separators. And there are other variations; for example in my city there's a large one with two isolated circles (you chose the circle before entering the roundabout, depending on where you want to go).
- ethagknight 10y ago
  But all those roundabout collision points are very minor threats compared to a left hand turned slamming into a red-light-runner. I'll take 50 chances of bumping side panels with someone on a roundabout compared to 1 chance of getting t-boned at a left turn.
- legulere 10y ago
  Another issue is that they take up a lot of space which might not be there.
  - ytjohn 10y ago
    Probably would take up a lot less space than the article's proposed mega intersection.
pif 10y ago
French traffic engineers love roundabouts. Actually, they are indeed safer that plain intersections. What I despise, though, is that too often building a roundabout coincides with giving up any effort to try and manage the traffic at intersection. Having heavy traffic in one direction on a national route yielding to cars leaving the parking of a mall, while the other direction flows undisturbed, is not nice at all. Especially if you are on the wrong side of the national route :-)
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Roundabouts in Europe are being pulled out. They have a narrow band of efficiency, between TooMuchTrafficForAStopSign, and ConstantTrafficPreventingOneDirectionFromEntering. So they get built one year, and a few years later pulled out. In my growing town they're being built like sausages. I have to negotiate several a day. Most days the guy in front of me comes to a full stop, even when nobody is on the circle at all. If I'm not alert its dangerous - somebody stopping dead in the road for no reason. In a couple of years I look forward to them being removed.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  What are they being replaced with? Even a roundabout with traffic lights regulating traffic entering it seem safer and more efficient than a pure traffic light intersection.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Traffic lights. Left-turn lanes.

crashdown 10y ago

The Magic Roundabout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) That is all.

giarc 10y ago
>has an excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision. I guess that's another way to prevent accidents. Confuse and slow people down so much that if accidents do happen, they happen at 2km/h.
- kirushik 10y ago
  Also known as traffic calming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
davidarkemp2 10y ago
What about it? (As a former Swindon resident who used to cycle across it with an E-flat tenor horn strapped to the rack, I don't really have a problem with it)
- crashdown 10y ago
  I just wanted to show it to people who have not seen it before. It is a marvellous invention :D
cpburns2009 10y ago
No, single roundabouts are annoying enough. Give me a stop light or a 4-way stop.

rubidium 10y ago

I despise the Michigan Left. There's one by a critical gas station (i.e. "I'm often running out of gas when I'm near it"). But I can only get to it if I'm going the correct direction. Otherwise I have to wait for the light, go through intersection, pull a U-turn, wait for the light again, go through the light, pull into gas station, pull out of gas station, pull a U-turn, wait at the light, and I'm finally on my way again. While it may be safer, the Michigan left has got to kill any business located near the intersection.

derekp7 10y ago
But you have the same issue even without the Michigan Left, but even worse because there is no way to get to the gas station (without finding a parking lot to turn into and turn around). Consider an intersection that is busy enough to have a raised median. The gas station is on the left hand side, before the intersection, on the corner. You can't get to it before crossing the light, due to the raised median. You also can't turn left at the intersection and cross over, because of the raised median on that road. So you have to drive down the road a piece, find a safe way to get going in the opposite direction (like pulling into and out of a parking lot), then do the same dance after the gas station visit.
maxsilver 10y ago
> Michigan left has got to kill any business located near the intersection. Many businesses actually prefer those locations, since "Michigan left" intersections can handle large amounts of traffic safely. (In Michigan, nearly all major retail centers are on or near these roads). > There's one by a critical gas station (i.e. "I'm often running out of gas when I'm near it"). You could just buy gas on your return trip. If your often on the "wrong side" of the street for the station, your return trips would presumably put you on the "right side" equally as often.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  Or more likely, if an intersection requires a Michigan Left, there's probably enough traffic to warrant two gas stations. Of course, those two gas stations will have different prices, pissing off everybody. I'm not speaking from experience or anything...

ethagknight 10y ago

As a former transportation engineer, I always notice and despise whenever we get overly creative. Could that intersection make us safer? Yes, for all the experienced locals, but absolutely not when you factor in a handful of old, drunk, texting or otherwise unfamiliar drivers, for which it looks like a head-on-collision demolition derby.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
RankingMember 10y ago
I just made a separate comment about this but wanted to chime in and agree; locals will learn the new traffic patterns but everyone else will be confused. This confusion can result in panic and, ultimately, accidents. I don't know if you've driven in New Jersey (South Jersey's what I'm familiar with), but it's a good example of some of these types of irregular patterns (e.g. long ramps for turn-offs). They seem to design these for a perfect world where everyone is paying 100% attention to signage (and signage is never obscured/missing/confusing itself).
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  One source of panic: turning left now you can be faced with 4 or 6 options of where to go, instead of two. If you just get it wrong, you're going the wrong way on a one-way lane.
  - lfowles 10y ago
    Also, give it a few years for the guiding lines to get nice and faded. Maybe some rainy weather to erase them from vision completely. This intersection would definitely get safer because I would avoid it completely.
a2tech 10y ago

maxsilver 10y ago

If your intersection is busy enough to justify some of these rather large and expensive intersection designs (like #5 and #13 from the article) -- then you might as well spend the cash to make it into a real freeway interchange and have zero intersections or stoplights at all. That will handle even more traffic, be even safer (by their geometric conflict metric), have no stoplights for drivers to deal with, and no one has to learn anything new to navigate it safely.

dbg31415 10y ago

They built one of these jughandle intersections near me. Maybe when we have self-driving cars it'll make sense. It takes much longer to get through it, I feel, and it backs up often. Not a fan.

Shivetya 10y ago

In Georgia our fascination is now with Diverging Diamond Interchanges, one is active and another is being placed at Windy Hill and I75. Should be interesting at that location as currently traffic in the area is just murder. Some smaller roads have gotten roundabouts where traffic lights didn't make sense and four way stops were impeding the flow

homero 10y ago

Vimeo is horrible

RankingMember 10y ago

My first thought looking at the long ramp for right turns is that people are going to miss them and then make their right turns where they normally would (the "dangerous" way). New Jersey has a lot of this and it results in people reacting by whipping U-turns either in the middle of the road or needing to whip around in random parking lots and then try to cross 2 lanes of traffic to go the other way to get back to the turn they missed.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

That mess turned a single intersection into...let me count...16 intersections. I'm baffled. How is that safer?

phil_s_stein 10y ago
It minimizes left-hand turns across oncoming traffic that has a green light. i.e. it minimizes human judgement. If everyone stops at red lights (and people are very good at that), then there are fewer or no places where traffic crosses paths at the same time.

stuaxo 10y ago

I've seen this conflict junction in paris before https://vimeo.com/57972903 https://vimeo.com/57972903

dragontamer 10y ago

There are roughly two diverging diamonds within ~30 miles that I'm aware of. Its utterly insane to break the "Right-side driving" rule. I know people who have literally driven on the wrong side of the road through a diverging diamond. Perhaps it is "theoretically" safer once everyone knows how the hell it works (I mean, yeah, now that I know I need to drive on the LEFT side of the road through a diverging diamond... it makes sense). But jeez, it takes some getting used to. ---------- I worry about tourists and newbies who will also drive on the "right" side, and completely break the diverging diamond. Fortunately, the "better" diverging diamond that I'm aware of is only a 3-way intersection, and there are very tall walls that "blind" you to the fact that you're driving on the left side. It works very well. The 4-way diverging diamond: where you drive on the wrong side of the road for an extended period is simply insane... at least the first time you go through it.

mholmes680 10y ago

I have some random thoughts: a) where the heck is everyone going anyway? Can people simplify their lives by efficiently picking routes - and getting them all done in a chain? b) If autonomous cars are the future, they eventually get some say in how to efficiently structure roads, right? So, will some AI one day figure out that the greater "hive" will all benefit if every car only makes right-hand turns? And do left hand turns just become illegal?

camiller 10y ago
With good AI anything is possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pbAI40dK0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pbAI40dK0A see the simulation at 0:55.
- mholmes680 10y ago
  oh wow, nice reference. but, then you have a car thief use case, and it screws the whole thing up! :)

phkahler 10y ago

I've spent some time thinking about roadways, and I've decided the problem starts at a much higher level. When I'm traveling down the road it should be easy to get to the place I want to get, or onto another road that I need to get on. It seems the thing closest to me though is the LAST thing I want - a lane for going the opposite direction. If I'm going west, I don't want to go east, yet a few feet away is a lane going east. If I want to turn south, I'm going to have to cross that lane going east. This is why we have intersections and accidents. If you look at the EPA fuel economy standards, they run cars on several different cycles representing different driving conditions. In particular there is a highway cycle and an urban cycle. When I worked in EVs I was stunned to find that the average speed on the urban cycle is a hair short of 20mph. You'd think with typical speed limits of 45mph it would be much higher, but with all the stopping and going you waste a lot of time and fuel. The main reason hybrid cars get better mileage is the recovery of kinetic energy when stopping. It seems we're demanding cars make up for deficiencies in roadway design, but that only helps with fuel, no peoples time. So If we made a lot of one-way roads with the right nested structure (I'm playing with long ovals) we could eliminate a lot of intersections where lanes cross. Your travel distance might be 10 percent longer, but your time on the road could be reduced significantly. You'd also have to learn a slightly different route for going somewhere and coming home. Another aspect of reducing travel time is that with cars on the road for half the time, you'll have half as many cars on the road at any given time and that means you can put down half the pavement. Getting it right would be a huge win all around.

bryanlarsen 10y ago
"huge win all around" Sure, if you're designing a cars-only freeway. Once you add pedestrians, one way streets dramatically increase the fatality rate. Cars are going faster (dramatically increasing the risk of fatality), and are generally only looking in one direction, so don't see pedestrians coming from the other direction.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> Once you add pedestrians, one way streets dramatically increase the fatality rate. The key is not to put the pedestrian paths next to the roads. That's similar to putting the opposing traffic right next to the road. Imagine a suburban neighborhood where the sidewalks run through the back yards instead of out front by the road. You have branching walkways that are the inverse of the branching roadways. Now start to design high density cities along similar lines, where pedestrian areas connect high-density buildings in a sort of fractal pattern with roadways around the outside (one way of course) and branching in between the fractal stuff. You can add pedestrian bridges in key places if desired. I don't think a large 2-d area with high fractal dimension makes the most sense, it should be more like a long strip with bulbs off the sides. These are then surrounded by an oval roadway with intruding branches. You lay multiple ovals next to each other and have a larger oval connecting them all at the ends - a perpendicular oval. Something like that. If you think about how blood circulates in the body, it's a hierarchy of different sized arteries and veins. You can get from any capillary to any other by just going around the system one time. Now imagine you put a loop at each level of the hierarchy so you don't need to go all the way to the top level - long trip. If your try to lay that out flat there will be some intersections, and you may still have things close together that are topologically farther apart - it's when you start making those short connections that you create intersections and congestion which starts to destroy the efficiency. I'd also prefer a fractal-like city with green space mixed in, so perhaps those ovals should not be side-by-side, but sprawling. How about all buildings are high density (so public transit makes sense) but the overall density is more like the burbs? Clusters of towers in the woods or open areas.

ocschwar 10y ago

That is a lot of acreage devoted to that intersection. Something you should know about land: they ain't making more of it.

ChoHag 10y ago

I've driven through most of these in various parts of England and many variations on them. I think it's safe to say there's usage data to be consumed.