24 ms·
If we wanted to make a low-maintenance, low-energy city, we'd use the LOWEST technology possible to get the job done. Round-a-bouts, not "smart traffic lights".
by foobar1962 9y ago
If we wanted to make a low-maintenance, low-energy city, we'd use the LOWEST technology possible to get the job done. Round-a-bouts, not "smart traffic lights".
My personal view is that to see the cities of our near future, go to practically any big city in Asia today. High population density, everybody (whole families and and their farm animals) racing about on small motor scooters. Not a bad standard of living, but nothing like what we in thew west are used to (I'm in Australia).
Segways and flying cars are too expensive to make, too hard to fix, and too expensive to run. Ditto for maglev trains running in vacuum tunnels under cities.
- tialaramex 9y agoAs someone who loves in an area with both, traffic lights and roundabouts are very different and solve different problems. One critical thing lights offer is you can drop in a pedestrian crossing sequenced to the lights. These days you would use puffin crossings (sensors check the crossing is clear of pedestrians before giving signals back to motor traffic, also the cross/don't cross indication is mounted where pedestrians looking at it are also facing the nearest lane of motor traffic, increasing safety). On the other hand roundabouts are great for junctions where a lot of traffic enters the junction but most doesn't conflict. In some scenarios it makes sense to have both lights and roundabouts, in extreme cases it even makes sense to fit roundabouts on a circle of roundabouts which then have lights at peak times.