3 ms·
> I've yet to see one in the US where a traffic signal wouldn't have been a better investment. Approximately every four way stop in the US could be replaced wi
by jjav 6y ago
> I've yet to see one in the US where a traffic signal wouldn't have been a better investment.
Approximately every four way stop in the US could be replaced with a traffic circle and substantially increase throughput and reduce waste (brake wear for unnecessary stop, fuel consumption for accelerating away from the unnecessary stop).
- toast0 6y agoYou could say the same for adding a traffic signal with sensors. Compared to a circle, you would need to slow less (or not at all, depending on visibility and prevailing speeds), and you wouldn't need to steer around the circle either, reducing the uneccessary tire wear a circle adds. You also wouldn't need to acquire land surrounding the current intersection to accomidate the area needed for a traffic circle.
- jjav 6y ago> You could say the same for adding a traffic signal with sensors. Here in CA (at least silicon valley) approximately all traffic signals have sensors (it always catches me by surprise when I drive in other states and find there's no sensor so I have to wait endlessly for a green light). But sensors are nowhere near a substitute for the efficiency of a traffic circle. With a traffic light with sensors you still have to stop for a short time, so it has all the disadvantages of a stop sign and none of the benefits of a traffic circle.
- toast0 6y agoDepends on the sensors. I've certainly driven on streets where the far back sensor is far enough back that it can change the light before you need to slow down (it helps if it keeps all the lights red when the intersection is idle). If you only have sensors at the line, then yeah, you need to stop.