2 ms·
I'm fairly sure Boston has intentionally staggered lights to ensure that drivers don't get successive greens in some areas. I would also bet good money that the
by Bartweiss 9y ago
I'm fairly sure Boston has intentionally staggered lights to ensure that drivers don't get successive greens in some areas. I would also bet good money that the alternative is some kind of horrific gridlock from emptying side streets too slowly.
Honestly, I'm amazed urban traffic is as good as it is, since the core problems are usually irreducible. (i.e. more people want to go to a place than fit there.) A quick look at gridlock in cities where traffic signals aren't carefully planned and widely respected shows just how bad things can get.
(Suburban traffic is another story, but that mostly seems to be about overbuilt roads with no actual planning at all. My hometown has a couple of intersections that literally don't function - you can get caught at a permanent red light.)
- KGIII 9y agoThey are a combination of timers and sensors. And yes, we know all about this. Your assumption is correct. Doing this allows traffic to move with greater throughput overall. If it wasn't done, heavier trafficked thoroughfares would have long periods where they were the only priority. Err... I modeled traffic. The possible solution would be roundabouts and yield signs, but that would be expensive, require redesign, and we humans pretty much suck at roundabouts.