3 ms·

It would seem that sensors would be most useful with lower traffic volumes, and synchronization better for rush hour. Perhaps using each system at different tim

It would seem that sensors would be most useful with lower traffic volumes, and synchronization better for rush hour. Perhaps using each system at different times of the day would be theoretically optimal. Or why not incorporate sensor information into the synchronization, and continuously plan the best light cycles for any given situation?

Anechoic 14y ago
continuously plan the best light cycles for any given situation Because there are a lot of "any given situation[s]" that might the scenario overly complex. Take a school for instance - you have students crossing the street that want pedestrian signals. The occurs twice a day (before & after school), 5 days a week, 10 months per year. Except there are holidays when there may be no activities. And there are evenings where there may be activities like sporting events, parent/teacher meetings etc. And the occasional weekend event. and so on. A city may have civic buildings, commercial plazas, construction sites, etc, where these events crop up. Plus roadways have to accommodate bus and bicycle traffic in addition to automobile traffic. Plus certain intersections may back up according to meteorological conditions (for example, blinding conditions caused by a low-setting sun that happens during certain parts of the year). Trying to synchronize to all of this, in addition to incorporating sensor information and pedestrian switching becomes very complex very quickly.
hammock 14y ago
>It would seem that sensors would be most useful with lower traffic volumes, and synchronization better for rush hour. Perhaps using each system at different times of the day would be theoretically optimal. Most cities do this. I live in chicago, that's how it works. Note that you can also combine sensors simultaneously with timing in certain cases- for example whether to allow an advance green for a left-turn lane or not (if there are cars in it, advance green, otherwise, normal green for both directions of traffic on that road. No change in when the next red comes)

Anechoic 14y ago

continuously plan the best light cycles for any given situation Because there are a lot of "any given situation[s]" that might the scenario overly complex. Take a school for instance - you have students crossing the street that want pedestrian signals. The occurs twice a day (before & after school), 5 days a week, 10 months per year. Except there are holidays when there may be no activities. And there are evenings where there may be activities like sporting events, parent/teacher meetings etc. And the occasional weekend event. and so on. A city may have civic buildings, commercial plazas, construction sites, etc, where these events crop up. Plus roadways have to accommodate bus and bicycle traffic in addition to automobile traffic. Plus certain intersections may back up according to meteorological conditions (for example, blinding conditions caused by a low-setting sun that happens during certain parts of the year). Trying to synchronize to all of this, in addition to incorporating sensor information and pedestrian switching becomes very complex very quickly.

hammock 14y ago

>It would seem that sensors would be most useful with lower traffic volumes, and synchronization better for rush hour. Perhaps using each system at different times of the day would be theoretically optimal. Most cities do this. I live in chicago, that's how it works. Note that you can also combine sensors simultaneously with timing in certain cases- for example whether to allow an advance green for a left-turn lane or not (if there are cars in it, advance green, otherwise, normal green for both directions of traffic on that road. No change in when the next red comes)