Will file the suggestion!
I have my self thought about this so many times and agree that shorter wait time / quicker switch is generally more efficient. This is based on just observation and not actual statistics. I see the same concern when a traffic signal is turned into a manned one where typically they apply the same strategy of clearing one side and then switching. This again, IMO, detiorates the overall situation.
Will file the suggestion!
--
biking conversations on the world famous "Bangalore Bikers Club" :)
are you a part of the bicycle racing scene?
Visit www.bangalorebicyclechampionships.com for more details
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Bikers Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bikers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I think arbitrarily fixed time limits are the problem; there really has to be real-time capture of traffic density, and adjustment of the duration accordingly. I've seen lights changing, even when there is a sufficiently large line of vehicles backed up, for no real reason, even when other lanes are relatively empty. On top of this, there is the switching overhead, which causes snarls to get worse./Prashanth
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Karthick Gururaj <karthick...@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree on this point. IMHO, the efficiency of the traffic signal - in terms of number of vehicles crossing (regardless of the direction) per sec - will improve with longer wait times. This is because there is a cost to "context switch" flow of traffic from one direction to other. Many vehicles take time to accelerate from stand-still to their "cruise" speed - so the average speed of such vehicles while crossing the junction is lesser (than if they are just zooming by). And for safe crossing, we need a buffer of few secs after the traffic from one direction stops, to when the other direction can start. Slower speed plus time lost due to safety buffer implies lesser efficiency.When a junction becomes a bottleneck, it makes sense to tradeoff increased wait times to gain higher efficiency of traffic flow via the junction.
Of course, for a specific commuter, it can be very frustrating (unless you are "zooming" by).
- Karthick
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Kartik Rustagi <kartik...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have my self thought about this so many times and agree that shorter wait time / quicker switch is generally more efficient. This is based on just observation and not actual statistics. I see the same concern when a traffic signal is turned into a manned one where typically they apply the same strategy of clearing one side and then switching. This again, IMO, detiorates the overall situation.
Will file the suggestion!
--
biking conversations on the world famous "Bangalore Bikers Club" :)
are you a part of the bicycle racing scene?
Visit www.bangalorebicyclechampionships.com for more details
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Bikers Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bike...@googlegroups.com.
--
biking conversations on the world famous "Bangalore Bikers Club" :)
are you a part of the bicycle racing scene?
Visit www.bangalorebicyclechampionships.com for more details
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Bikers Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bike...@googlegroups.com.
- Karthick
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bike...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bikers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.