@7:15 ‐ "Many people enjoy the individual experience of driving". Lies! I once lived a 15min walk to work. With a grocery in-between. And much preferred not having to pay a car note, insurance, parking fee on my street (city mandate vs being towed - no apt garage parking) every month. When I could just walk to work. I miss those days.
All the highways were built way before we were 4 billion people on this planet, that was back in the 70s. Today we are 8 billion already. The only solution for humanity is stop breeding. Especially the poor people.
Adding lanes does not increase traffic flow capacity of a road, except to the degree that it increases the average speed of the vehicles travelling on it. The primary function of a multi-lane road is to allow faster traffic to get around slower traffic, thereby allowing higher average speeds on that road, compared to the same vehicles driving down a single-lane road.
The thing is even with 100 lanes you would have backed up traffic. Both because people drive really badly and cant switch lanes, and because the off ramps (or the roads they connect to) dont have that same capacity. In fact more lanes can cause more traffic with bad drivers even with the same amount of cars
I am surprised at the damage that this outdated suburban system is doing. It does not have shops, schools, malls, parks and not even sidewalks or bike paths. Public transportation should be included in all housing projects too in my opinion.
You didn't mention the safety concerns with public transportation and help concerns being in large groups. I feel safer driving and don't mind leaving early or taking longer alternate routes
Roads are much easier to change than what is the actual problem. Decades of zoning laws and a complete dependency on individual motorized mobility. The American dream is a nightmare and suburbia is a hell hole. It breeds arrogance and inhibits the development of many crucial life skills. That's why America is now the shit hole it is. Don't blame it on the media or some political party, it's the American way of life.
This can be done better. Why not avoid collision intersections and traffic lights completely? Just use overpasses and merging lanes. More expensive, but solves the problem.
Well people in urban areas would walk everywhere as it’s not car friendly whereas suburban and rural communities would need to be more car friendly. Another issue is parallel parking. Many suburbanites are used to parking lots.
good video but i would also argue that stop and go traffic and congestion speeds that fluctuate I'm guesssing cause more collisions and with severity. More attention is needed with periodic surprise braking!
In UK city's there's a great money making scheme. first mess around with traffic light timing sequences and create congestion and more pollution, then start charging a congestion fee followed by a vehicle emmission fee. This has spread to my town now, no more traffic than usual but traffic queues because the light timing has been changed. The other reason is the growing number of roadworks temporary lights and traffic cones when there are no workmen or any visible problems with the road. it's all to discourage people from driving.
I vote to save lives. Narrow lanes, lower speed limits, safer roads for pedestrians, cyclist and even drivers. Leave your house earlier if you are late. No one should have to burry a loved one over bad infrastructure. This is coming from a right wing voter.
Roundabout would not work here because the traffic volumes are greater than a roundabout's capacity, and the construction would cost more. Roundabouts max out at 1500 vehicles per hour for single lane roundabout (2500 for dual lanes). The frequency of vehicles meeting at the merging points is much greater, causing more stops and queues. Roundabout interchanges are better for rural/surburban locations where volumes are lower and not progessively increasing. A roundabout interchange would cost more because it would take more right-of-way outside of the prior interchange design. That would require more stormwater management facilities, as well as shoring/retaining walls due to encroaching into the slopes of the overpass highway. And the path for pedestrians are more direct than a roundabout. They do not have veer around the circle and have shorter walks against free-flow traffic.
@@Bellwall_fan Then it would not be a roundabout. It would be a traffic circle, which is nothing more that a circular road with badly spaced intersections. America has over half a century of experience with traffic circles and will not go back.
That graph at 2:52 deserves an entire "WTF is this" video of it's own. It's no joke graph either, pedestrian traffic deaths really have doubled since 2010, which is just mindboggling. Prior to 2010 pedestrian traffic deaths were on a long term decline by the way, so really, it's a graph of a societal retardation.
People are almost always the cause of traffic every day. Ever wonder why there’s all this traffic and then it just miraculously clears up? Clueless people hitting their brakes with nothing in front of them on a slight curve or incline, causing everyone else behind them to hit their brakes. People not understanding what the passing lane is, and so on. The other cause is on city roads with horribly synced lights and lights that shouldn’t even be there
i live in a village in India. grocery store is 3 houses away. saloon is 10 houses away. milk dairy is 2 houses away. an internet service centre is also 2 houses away. hardware store, gas station etc. are 20 minutes away.
Simple solution - round-a-bouts. We have been using them in the UK for years, stick some lights at pressure points and problem sorted. Traffic flow improved.
The whole point of roundabouts is to NOT use a signal. A roundabout would not work here because the traffic volumes are greater than a roundabout's capacity, and the construction would cost more. Roundabouts max out at 1500 vehicles per hour for single lane roundabout (2500 for dual lanes). The frequency of vehicles meeting at the merging points is much greater, causing more stops and queues. Roundabout interchanges are better for rural/surburban locations where volumes are lower and not progessively increasing. A roundabout interchange would cost more because it would take more right-of-way outside of the prior interchange design. That would require more stormwater management facilities, as well as shoring/retaining walls due to encroaching into the slopes of the overpass highway. And the path for pedestrians are more direct than a roundabout. They do not have veer around the circle and have shorter walks against free-flow traffic.
They only ease congestions on low volume roads. Roundabouts would not work here because the traffic volumes are greater than a roundabout's capacity, and the construction would cost more. Roundabouts max out at 1500 vehicles per hour for single lane roundabout (2500 for dual lanes). The frequency of vehicles meeting at the merging points is much greater, causing more stops and queues. Roundabout interchanges are better for rural/surburban locations where volumes are lower and not progessively increasing.
@traffic.engineer more roundabouts, increased eased congestion, works perfectly well in the UK We have roundabouts on roads where you can travel the national speed limit which is the highest speed anyone can drive at within the UK, and I have never experienced high congestion, only occurs when you start to add pointless traffic lights, of course it can't be avoided in certain situations but by a high number of cars maintaining momentum, traffic flow very rarle comes to a stop...theoretically, although this isn't factoring in how most people start having a panic attack on roundabouts and don't know how to approach in anticipation of traffic and have to come to a full stop despite no requirements for them to yield or give way in that situation, creating congestion My point stands
@@traffic.engineer It's pointless over-engineering, a simple roundabout around the base of the on ramps and off ramps (with the aid of lights on the roundabout due to high speed situations) and you have solved the problem, it's system the rest of the world uses, not really our fault folk in the US only know how to drive in straight lines, and even then, thats a bit dicey in itself
@@subhandin3435 This has nothing to with speed limit. We have roundabouts on 65/70 mph roads. I said low volume, NOT low speed. The UK has proven roundabouts lose efficiency at a high traffic volumes when they start adding traffic signals. This means the free-flow can no longer function due to more vehicles meeting at the merge points. That means more stoppage for vehicles. Add more traffic volumes, then there is more delay and queuing. If the whole purpose of a roundabout is to avoid a traffic signal, the UK has broken that. America only installs roundabouts where the traffic volumes can be kept at free-flow (less than 1000 total vehicles per hour, 1750 per hour for dual lane). Should it be higher, the roundabout is removed and replaced with other intersection alternatives.
@@subhandin3435 volumes are too much for a roundabout. And if you are adding signals, the inefficiency is greater due the the signal phasing requiring longer delay. A roundabout interchange would also cost more because it would take more right-of-way outside of the prior interchange design. That would require more stormwater management facilities, as well as shoring/retaining walls due to encroaching into the slopes of the overpass highway. And the path for pedestrians are more direct than a roundabout. They do not have veer around the circle and have shorter walks against free-flow traffic.
So urbanists are always told that they want to take away people’s freedom without realizing that when you go outside your home and see nothing but suburban sub divisions for miles before they get somewhere useful (park, store, restaurant etc.) you are living in the same freedomless hell that you were afraid urbanists would create.
