Hey hope you enjoy this video! I didn't talk about planes! I was floored by the quality of the food the Blue Apron had considering it shows up in a box at your doorstep. Legitimately great food and it's really pretty quick and easy so make sure to check out the link in the description if you like free food (and supporting Wendover Productions!)
Wendover Productions maybe some of these studies need to be done in larger cities like Los Angeles. On ramp meters on the 405 are basically useless. Traffic is so bad I've seen cars backed up onto the streets because they cannot get on the freeway because the previous cars were still waiting to merge.
Plus, that's a few more trees in a city to take in the carbon dioxide from the cars and convert it back to oxygen and breathable air to reduce smog, and the aesthetic of having more plants in the concrete jungle to put urban folks a little closer to nature.
@@johnwalker1058 believe it or not forests dont suck out any carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after a while. think about it, they need carbon to build the wood of the tree, so when that tree dies and decays, all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere. however, forests still have a lot of trees present, all storing carbon. think of forests not as carbon sinks, but carbon buckets.
@@kairon5249 Fair enough. Well, even in that case, it seems better to have that excess carbon in a bucket (even if temporarily) than just hanging in the air the whole time.
not only do they look nicer, but it makes the roundabout seem smaller (with a big enough tree) so people drive slower, and thus, safer And trees are like nature’s A/C just having a few near you cools off an area drastically And it shades the asphalt, which also cools an area off
One positive thing with a roundabout you didn’t mention is that drivers never have to deal with that situation that always seems to occur when you’re in a hurry... Sitting at a red light when no one else is on the road! That alone is a big thumbs up to roundabouts from me 👍
He didn't mention sitting at red lights alone but he did mention sitting at red lights as a whole. Also since this video is about reducing traffic congestion, it probably doesn't apply to places where you would ever be the only one at the intersection, so that's probably why he never brought that up.
Waiting on red while there is no one else is fixed with a few hundred dollars worth of electronic equipment per intersection (cameras and controller circuits), centralised control and monitoring systems (with sane autonomous regimes when disconnected from the central servers) and automated signalling. And bam - you have signal length dictated by the current demands as well as sane default margins that would for instance save you from waiting out a 300 car procession just because you are alone in your direction. The same equipment would be also very handy for emergency vehicle recognition and prioritisation, redirecting traffic, adjusting speed limits according to conditions, changing the number of lanes used for turning vs going straight, vehicle and person searches, video evidence helping in deducing the cause for accidents, automatic ticketing for speeding, running reds, changing lanes in the middle of an intersection, blocking an intersection, (generally anything you can recognise through automated video analysis with a healthy degree of certainty backed by manual validation in edge cases, and which you can easily automatically adjust in a reliable manner by changing signs, issuing tickets, alerting patrols, ...), etc. And this is nothing new. Most of the largest cities in the world use similar systems with reported great results. But hey, rules are bad because people don't follow them, so why not remove the proper use labels from pills and let people hash out the effects on their own - slowly and cautiously? For just the price of a new roundabout, we can make intersections exciting again! In the end, people are not reliable in "boring" tasks like everyday driving. As long as we insist on driving, there will be problems caused by our irresponsible decisions based on primal urges and short-sighted or plain wrong assumptions. But that's another topic. @Levi Howell Sorry for the rant. I realise it is not towards you in particular. Just raising a few points for discussion, against my better judgement at around midnight when I'm quite exhausted. I could be wrong in my assumptions and opinions, so I would be happy to learn something new - do your own research and share/clash ideas.
I mean there’s a roundabout at the end of my street and traffic is always backed up hundreds of metres. It is the only way for 3 roads to go into town though so what do they expect
A better solution is to increase public transport speed, capacity and frequency instead so that less people have to drive in the first place. The proper solution to car traffic is too provide a safe, nice alternative to driving. Yes, all the solutions in the video work to an extent but the permanent solution is to get rid of as many cars as possible off the road.
Honestly, I was shocked by how overlooked transit was in this video. Like "don't build more lanes - charge people extra to get where they need to go" - so discourage poor people from going to busy areas and call it a day? And "these roundabouts are difficult for pedestrians, especially disabled people to use, but that's a price we should be willing to pay". What? How about considering the law that traffic increases until public transit is faster? Dedicated bus lanes, anyone? Increasing the safety of bike lanes? Maybe instead of building more lanes and subsidizing oil and gas, the gov could use that money to improve transit and ACTUALLY fix traffic Edit: How could I forget! Ditching so many zoning laws! Laws about parking space, min lot sizes, and keeping residential and commercial separate. I would *love* to have some cute shops in my neighbourhood so I could walk instead of drive
@@Tsukaiyo ground floor shops. and apartments on top. saves space and would get people to walk instead of drive. even a 5min walk with groceries i would personally still take the car, unless smaller items. wouldn't like carrying the weekly supplies
Honestly if traffic were to ever get "fixed" I imagine it would have to do with cities prioritizing public transit. Some cities have a pretty good system so driving seems unnecessary to get around.
Japan already fixed it with their metro system. Hardly anyone actually drives in Japan. When the metro system is so complex that it allows you to arrive within 1-2 blocks of anywhere in a city, you don't need to waste time or gas money.
Roundabouts are not more expensive to maintain. Sure, there's a little more pavement. But you aren't paying to maintain and power a bunch of signal equipment.
Roundabouts have been shown to reduce major accidents alright - but increase fender-benders. People should signal when leaving the roundabout, but most are too slow-witted to do so.
@@stephenpowstinger733 exactly they reduced major collisions. Cars entering the roundabout may hit the cars inside, but there won’t be any crashes where two cars hit each other at top speed.
My city council payed 2.4 mill for the roundabout they installed 8 years ago. They usually pay about 850k for a new intersection, 1.3 mill if it's got lights. At 15k a year for power and maintenance for the lights it would be over 70 years before it was the same cost as that roundabout. And because of damage from ice and plowing that round has been repaved twice since it went in. The intersection down the street leading right to the roundabout was being repaved as I moved here 11 years ago and hasn't been since. The city council keeps telling us roundabouts are cheaper. But when ever I dig into it, they're not.
As the Supreme Mayor of No Traffic City in Cities: Skylines I have abolished traffic by: 1. Keeping jobs and services within walking distance of residental areas 2. Making the whole city available and safe for pedestrians and cyclists 3. Using tax-funded mass transit with multiple options connecting all areas of the city frequently 4. Roundabouts 5. More roundabouts 6. Not forcing cars on a single road: multiple route possibilities Feel free to re-design your real world city by using these guidelines! :)
Get rid of single family zoning too. Allow small businesses like a tiny convenience store or restaurant to be opened by houses and apartments. You know, what's called normal in the rest of the world.
Abhinav Banerjee we already have one of the highest death rates from crashed because of icy roads anyway, so they probably just said screw it. However I will tell you that nobody died as a result of the experiment, it was simply because some taxpayers believed they didn’t make a change.
Ikr, they kill the city like nothing else! And am I the only one that feels like trains are even more stupid than normal vehicels? sometimes they lock up, whilst having way enought place to go out of each others way. At least the "new" one way train tracks let you kind of fix this.
These types of intersections work very poorly in Cities Skylines. The game treats every road split or merge as a conventional traffic lights / stop intersection, and cars adhere strictly to the highway code and will not enter an intersection if they aren't sure they'll be able to exit the intersection. The double diamond interchange and roundabouts have too many roads joining/merging in a tight area. The cars AI will often stop in places where cars are supposed to flow freely, creating significant congestion and/or total locking. In order to make these types of intersections work in the game, you need to build them on an extremely large scale in order to space the splits and merges sufficiently for the AI to function properly. People building roundabouts often use the freeway road type in order to remove traffic lights and pedestrian crossings from the circle. (That's not a round about, that's a circular freeway !) Traffic in Cities skylines is solved by : - Zoning responsibly (don't do massive single use areas) - Providing multiple access roads in and out of freeways and spread them well (the AI uses the shortest route regardless of congestion). Don't have your entire freeway ending in a single entrance/exit. And reducing the need for cars by : - Encouraging pedestrian traffic (add footpaths shortcuts to reduce walking distance, and use the "crossings" mod to cut long stretches of roads if you have long blocks) - Adding public transit and freight trains/ships to reduce long distance road usage
Another step of fixing traffic is making cars unnecessary. Making walkable and bikeable cities is a good step. Expanding public transport is also a great way to do this. Trams and/or subways for inner city travels, busses and low-speed rail to connect suburbs and surrounding towns and villages to the cities and high-speed rail for inter-city travel. A high speed train line from Los Angeles to New York City probably won't make too much sense, but a line from Boston over New York City and Philadelphia to Washington D.C., a line from Vancouver over Seattle to Portland or a line from San Fransisco over Los Angeles to San Diego could replace a lot of short flights or long car drives and save a ton of CO2 emissions.
@@blitzn00dle50 i can trade your place there if you hate it so much. You're welcome to come swap places with me in Mexico, just be aware that you can't get out from 6pm to 8am because you'll get a guaranteed mugging. Also, don't wear expensive clothes, headphones, fancy glasses, leather jackets, dressing shoes, suits, cases, backpacks or anything like that or you'll get mugged independently of the hour. Also, the police can also mug you. Have fun
These solutions are interesting, but I think we should look at the bigger picture. Regressive zoning laws that require separate districts for business and residential areas are a very modern innovation. If we eliminated more zoning laws, people would be able to theoretically have their businesses within walking distance. Fewer people would choose to use cars because it would become less necessary. The modern system of vast interstate highways and so on is only necessary because we have zoning laws that require people to traverse long distances just to get to work. If we moved businesses into neighborhoods, people would be more invested in their communities and so many problems would be resolved. This is just a general principle, of course it doesn't universally apply. But I was surprised you didn't mention this.
Houston has very few zoning laws but has some of the worst traffic in America. The problem stems from population density, or in Houston's case, a lack thereof. This can be linked to the American dream of owning a big house with a big yard on a cul-de-sac which inherently creates the need to travel by car because the amount of space needed to house just one family. Until more families start to live in more densely populated shared living spaces such as high rise apartments, townhomes, and cohousing projects, our dependence on the car will remain.
Nathanael Harden, shut the fuck up agenda pusher, I dont think you have any idea of what hell it is to live in apartment blocks, especially by communist built ones. Still you decide to one up that with co-housing and shared homes. You can live in a socialist type dream dorm with other families all you like, but leave me out of that insanity
That is very true, and an even larger picture is the actual economic system we are operating under. It prevents the implementation of excellent sane solutions that are immensely beneficial for humanity and the health of our environment, prevent them if corporations can't make profit out of those solutions. Our current immature economic system (with its mantras of 'Growth is God' and 'Profit above all else’) sees things like pollution, like destroying our families’ health, like disruption of earth's life supporting systems, sees all these things as "externalities" (this is the actual term they use, you can look it up. The actual term they use toto describe the harm done to humans and planet by the blind drive to increase shareholder returns above all else, regardless of the consequences. They call it an “externality” and it simply doesn't enter into consideration in their decision making process during board meetings). Capitalism’s iron law of profit above all else and exploiting everything till the last drop for the sake of producing “value” for shareholders (regardless of consequences for people’s health and for our biosphere’s health), this iron law of capitalism fundamentally contradicts the immutable natural laws of delicate balance and interdependence that a planet requires in order to allow for life to exist. This iron law of capitalism also fundamentally contradicts what the human body needs in order to survive and thrive (clean air, clean healthy water, healthy vibrant food and freedom from pollutants, radiation, stresses and toxins) (Another claim they make is that we cannot afford that, cannot afford solutions that are beneficial for the people, while at the same time they seem to have no problem affording billions and trillions flowing into the military-industrial complex to maintain a huge corporate empire that terrorizes humanity, kills and maims millions in order to take over the globe's resources and bombs the hell out of anyone who dares to resist the will of our banks and mega-corporations. It currently costs us 917 million dollars EVERY. SINGLE. DAY to maintain this military bullying empire, solely for the sake of corporate profit) Btw, one VERY wise alternative for our current suicidal corporate path that I came across recently is called ‘Resource Based Economy’ as suggested by 'The Venus Project'. It offers very wise solutions for transport, but goes much MUCH deeper than just that.
Lyle apartments are good, but the ones that us average people can afford, are not good. What if the apartment was privately owned, as each apartment living space was privately owned, and was built to feel like a house?
@@Lyle-xc9pg Apartments can be very good. Don't think there are only communist ones. Italy is plenty of them, I live in one of those myself and can tell you it's very comfortable
+MadMike41 Only if the the guy he pulled in front of had to hit the brakes. I for one don't have a problem with someone pulling in front of me as long as they match my speed or exceed it. It's only when you force people to slow down that problems occur. Where I live I don't even use my indicator when changing lanes any more. Why? Because people are generally not courteous. As soon as they see me indicate to switch lanes, they accelerate to prevent me from doing so. So fuck'em. I don't indicate, go faster than them, and they don't even know what happened until I'm already in the lane ahead of them. Some even give me the high beams after for completely no reason. I did not make them slow down and have not affected they're driving situation at all. They're just mad because I'm in front. People are just stupid. Plain and simple.
James Crud yeah, where I live you try to go around some they speed up to prevent you from getting in front of them.. Sometimes ya gotta just stick your ass out and make them slow down.
This sucks. You';re absolutely right, but it still sucks. Like sitting at a stoplight, knowing the guy to your left is gonna try to cut right, I sit back about a wheel width that way I'm not a threat and they don't think about it. Then when i match their speed, they don't have time for their shitty 1997 Windstar to get up enough speed to cut me off. I'd like to just be able to drive without having to think about shit like this. Instead, you have people "driving" with their foot in the window while on their phone playing pokemon go. (true story, have pictures... my kids pointed this person out)
No, because that's how dense cities drive. . . If you wait for a huge stretch to cut into a lane. . . you'll never be able to change lanes in cities like LA, SF, NY, etc.
Um, taxi/bicycle traffic in Amsterdam is terrifying. I am less than impressed by a fair proportion of "professional drivers". "Patience? Screw that, I'm going to bull through and hope the bike moves out of my way, they have an extra 3 cm of lane they can use."
People underestimate how good trains can be. They can hold hundreds of people in one unit with very little carbon emission (compared to every person using a car which drastically increases emission levels), they can reach speeds of up to 200 km/h in some countries which improves travel time, and they can also improve the general health of the surrounding areas, as people are required to at least walk a few hundred metres to reach the railway stations instead of sitting down for the entire way, which only increases if you use a car due to heavy traffic - which trains also will never experience.
In my country trains are so bad they get delayed by hours every single day... and once a train got delayed by 4 hours because of a cow being on the tracks... this is why not that many people use trains here...
Well said. And by the way, trains can reach much more than 200km/h. Some trains today can reach 400km/h and if big oil and car manufacturers didn't block it, they could advance trains to even much faster than that. The biggest block for more efficient, faster and cheaper public transport is the enormous grip that the fossil fuel industry has on politicians and decision making (and more broadly, the biggest obstacle is the capitalist mindset and economic system, which prevents the implementation of excellent solutions that are beneficial for humanity and the biosphere if corporations can't make profit out of those solutions. The mantra of capitalism of 'profit above all else' is what is destroying us on so many levels). Lastly, check out 'The Venus Project' for a very thorough and deep examination of all of this and proven solutions to completely transform our infrastructure for the better (much much better).
@@Daniel-pr4uk i think humanity as a whole should be reaching a point soon where all countries should try to agree with each other and merge... unifying the whole earth and try to reach for a goal fo humanity like idk becoming a type 1 civilization?... and revising the current capitalist model into something better i guess... or improving it at least in a way it benefited poorer regions... this is a topic of its own and its to much to discuss in just a comment
Me being a Swedish citizen living in Stockholm, I always thought our solution was common in other places to. We do have a great subway and buss system (that are expanding with the population now in 2018). Wen you plan a trip into town you almost always take the subway or buss. It makes the traffic actually quite effective even in the most traffic jammed places. And I think public transportation is a good solution to the problem. If you look at cities as Tokyo there is no way for all of their citizens to drive cars. All the major cities should start to expand their public transportation (like electricity driven vehicles) in my opinion.
The Pentaholic ARMY NCTzen Portland is currently planning a new light rail expansion that will go to Tigard. It is getting tons of backlash with many people saying that instead they expand the highway that connects the two cities. In fact, the MAX system as a whole is looked down upon and people call it a failed experiment despite having much better ridership than the DART system in Dallas.
I don't know about other places, but London has a congestion toll. It also has 2 tiers of emissions-based tolling (ULEZ and LEZ), and many cities are in the process of introducing them (Birmingham is getting an LEZ as well as banning cars from the city centre entirely).
Singapore also started charging tolls (under the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS)) for entering downtown 31 years before Stockholm, just as more people were being lifted out of poverty & would've been able to afford cars otherwise. You'd have to buy & display vignettes on your windscreen to legally drive into downtown, that'd be checked by security guards in roadside booths. Heard that slashed the no. of downtown-bound vehicles from 32,500 to 7700, some 12 years before our 1st MRT (subway/metro) line opened
6:45 actually roundabouts increase pedestrian safety. This is because the travel speeds are much lower and the crossings usually have a protective island. Also the driver has good visibility of the crossing, assuming it's at least slightly set off from the roundabout's ring, which is not the case for multi-lane crossings when the driver is turning right on a red light.
My university has some zebra crossings just ~10m from roundabouts' exits & when many pedestrians cross them (like with a continuous flow for over a minute), the queue of vehicles waiting for them to cross has sometimes backed up all the way into the roundabout, blocking other vehicles from passing through & causing gridlock there
@@lzh4950 Yeah, in a situation like that (not at all suprising if it's at a university where you're naturally going to have *_lots_* of pedestrians), you really do need a signal-controlled intersection, even if only for the crosswalks. You can't have a steady flow of pedestrians across a road without causing serious traffic backups.
My issue with roundabouts in that game isn't that they don't flow smoothly, it's just that traffic gets so bad in other parts of the city that it backs up all the way to the roundabout... then the highway...
Truck driving at night is the best. Except for motorways, cause that's when people take it so damn slow that I have to pass them at 80km/h... Like, wtf?
@@Skelterbane69 haha, I love cruising along with truckers late at night going like 100mph as we are the only peeps barreling down the road keeping each other awake, and if he heard anything about cops from other truckers he'd warn me and we'd slow down, good times
Actually, destandardization of work schedules is a popular theoretical solution. Instead of one rush hour at 8am and another at 5pm, you could stagger work days so you get half-rush hours at say 7am, 9am, 4pm, and 6pm using infrastructure more efficiently.
One correction in the section about roundabouts. You are mostly correct, except that head-on collisions are not the most deadly, t-bone crashes are. It is a common misconception that two cars traveling at 50 mph hitting each other head on is equivalent to one car hitting a wall at 100 mph, but if you do the physics, it's not true. Each car absorbs 50% of the energy, and so it's like hitting a wall (assuming the wall is perfectly immovable and absorbs no energy) at 50 mph. However, even hitting something head-on at higher speeds (provided the occupants are wearing their seat belts and are not ejected from the vehicle), the several thousand pounds of metal body, frame, and engine of the car will absorb a lot of the energy before reaching the occupants. Getting T-boned (struck on the side of the car) can be devastating because the only thing between the occupant and the striking vehicle is a few inches of aluminum and plastic, and sometimes an airbag. Roundabouts make it nearly impossible for a t-bone crash to occur if they are designed correctly.
Skip6235 Well even if you are correct, his point of roundabouts being safer still stands since T bone collisions are way more common in intersections than roundabouts.
Mythbusters proved what you are saying is correct in that a head-on collision at 50 mph is no more damaging than hitting a wall at 50 mph provided the two vehicle are the same weight. But a single car hitting a wall at 100 mph is considerably more damaging by a factor of about 2. If traveling at the exact same speed, the impact point won't change and Newton's law about action/reaction applies. However, if one car is larger, heavier, then the lighter car will suffer more damage than the heavier car because it will move the impact point toward the lighter car relative to the weight difference.
I used to keep getting scolded by my relative for using the inner lane when going straight at a roundabout, probably because some other drivers will use only the outermost lane in a roundabout as they're worried about crashing into other cars when they exit the roundabout from an inner lane, raising the risk of me T-boning some one else or getting T-boned
well yeah they have a huge population and china has more road accidents because of their population. India suffered a road fatality rate of 16.6 per 100,000 people. which is average compared to the rest of the world which has 17.4. a little bit better than china which is the closest country with the same amount of population, china with 18.8 / 100,000.
@@yellowspike3344 US has 12.4 road deaths per 100k, and our roads are crazy dangerous. The Netherlands has 3.5 per 100k. I don't know why the worldwide average might be 17.4, but India's road safety is ridiculous. And the reason it seems like it isn't the highest is because you're using the wrong metric: when considering road deaths per vehicle, which is to say "how dangerous are the vehicles in this country", India is by far the worst, containing 1% of the world's vehicles but 11% of all the world's vehicular fatalities.
You clearly didn't listen carefully. There is no one way to solve traffic is an optimistic remark. He isn't saying there ISN'T a solution to traffic he is saying there is multiple.
@@JamesJames-gc2kl okay optimistic wasn't the right choice of words but I was mostly trying to make the person understand that he wasn't saying there isn't a single way there are multiple.
well the only reason would be a comedy show xD. europe, especially the netherlands are trying to completely get cars out of citys. and the us is discovering the roundabout lmfao
In 2013 I wrote my Bachelor's thesis on this (congestion charging). And you genuinely outclassed my work inside 3 minutes. Love your videos - looking forward to the next!
Going back and listening to his older videos like this you can see how he's really worked on his inflection and has gotten more comfortable speaking. We appreciate the development of your craft, man!
I just had the 7:28 conversation with my mom a couple of hours ago. Here in Florida they've been building a lot of roundabouts. No one really likes them, but I recently heard about the astounding decrease in accidents that accompany them. So I suggested to her that maybe part of the safer nature *is* the fact that everyone's uncomfortable with them. We all stop, look around, and pay attention because we're not quite sure what to do! 😃
Here in Germany, circles are common. Everyone is familiar and comfortable with them. As a long, long, time California driver, I love 'em. Even with the comfort and familiarity level here, they are hugely safer, and in light traffic, traffic moves more smoothly. I believe the discomfort is a less important factor that that they are just better.
"discomfort is saving lives" is what ergonomic psychology taught me in 2005. Only back then it was all the rage to add that extra red brake light on top of the two already there. After a few years and everyone making it the new normal the effect was lost on reducing collision.
1 2 The driver decided to squeeze into a buffer space between 2 cars, basically tailgating the car in front of him and forcing the car behind him to slow down in order to increase the following distance. This would then force the cars behind that car to also slow down. This whole ordeal probably caused a traffic jam.
I live in springfield Missouri (US) and we were the first city in the country to have a diverging diamond intersection. As much as everyone here hated it at first, it has reduced travel time and collisions by quite a large margin. Now they are all over town and its really become a staple. Whenever i take a normal ramp, it feels weird. Hopefully the tech to construct them faster comes around so more places can get them quicker.
I live in Louisville CO and I saw the diamond intersection for the first time after they been fixing up US36. At first it felt like me saying, "The fuck? Did I just teleport to England" but I immediately grew to love it considering the low traffic flow and how less of a time the lights are red.
As a Civil Engineer myself, I absolutely love this video. Pretty much everything stated is exactly right. Personally, I am huge fan of diverging diamonds. Wouldn’t be surprised if they become the interchange standard in a few decades.
Unfortunately attitudes need to change. As a European, I find it amusing at how many Americans rage about how 'dangerous' roundabouts are, despite them being DEMONSTRABLY safer, with far fewer chances to crash. They're simpler than traditional intersections, too, yet you still get people going on about how they get confused. I think they just prefer waiting for 2 minutes at a red light for a drunk-driver to smash their pickup into them at 60mph head on.
The first piece of misinformation: more lanes does not necessarily mean more capacity. As Katy demonstrates, dramatically increasing the number of lanes dramatically increased travel times. This is not due to induced demand, it's due to the nature of multi-lane roads. If they added an additional parallel roadway and you still wound up with slower travel times, then you could attribute it to induced demand. Ramp meters work because they force drivers to create forward and lateral spacing between cars, preventing jams and increasing road capacity by increasing average traffic speeds. Charging for road use decreases road demand, potentially preventing roadways from approaching max capacity during peak periods. This doesn't solve the inherent problem of road design, but it does address the congestion problem regardless of road design. The video does not address the reason approaching a road's capacity (even by one car at a time) dramatically decreases flow rates, which is vehicle spacing and positioning -- something that individual drivers have direct control over. Drivers tend to bunch up closer as the number of cars on the road increases, which on a multi-lane road cuts drivers off from opportunities to change lanes as needed. Most drivers mistakenly believe that tighter spacing can increase road capacity during heavy periods, which is the exact opposite of the truth. It only increases the chances of additional obstructions, collisions, and distractions -- all of which have a negative effect on flow rates. Roundabouts are great, because they do not deliberately stop traffic in any given direction, unlike an intersection with Stop signs or traffic signals. Contrary to the video's statement that they accommodate the same number of cars per hour, roundabouts allow much greater traffic flow during peak periods. Drivers easily notice much shorter commutes regardless of direction, after intersections are converted from traffic signals to roundabouts. There are many success stories to support this. A diverging diamond interchange is great, too. Is it better than a roundabout? I don't know for sure, but since diverging diamonds still use traffic signals, I would lean toward "no." Deliberately stopping traffic for a significant period of time means there's still room for improvement of the concept.
Diverging diamonds are extra dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists because of their high speed and sharp angles. All modes of transportation have a right to cross the interstate. We need to build intersections that respect pedestrians too.
That shared street idea is fascinating, because that’s how roads used to be built, it wasn’t until automobile companies lobbied a lot that people became scared of cars and we resorted to having traffic lights and crossroads, before this drivers just drove carefully and slowly as if they hit someone they would almost always pay the price for it.
"if they hit someone they would almost always pay the price for it." Wait that is still the case right? Here in Belgium the car doesn't always need to yield for the pedestrian. But if a car does hit a pedestrian, the driver ALWAYS pays the price. But obviously that isn't worth it to die or get injured for.
You'd probably need a 24 hour standard for that. Where I live, it takes over an hour to travel 20 miles even up until 8pm. Although of course it is worse at 5-6pm where it can take 2 hours.
Teleworking is even more effective to combat traffic. Combine that with flexible work hours for people using transport and your streets could become an infinite park almost free of traffic.
There is also one main factor which increases traffic in spite of increased road capacities: sprawl. The more you extend an urban area, the more you produce traffic. This is, ultimately, why I-10 expansion plans in Houston will always fail, because the same freeway is one of the main catalysts for suburban expansion. By increasing density, you can optimize transit and reduce traffic.
3:53 "The charge wasn't much" Well, if you consider that average income in Sweden is around 30k SEK a month, and most traffic happens at the peak charge time, the average person pays around 50-60 SEK every working day, just to drive to work, which with around 250 working days in a year amounts to half a months pre-tax salary. That is a LOT in my opinion, nothing you can just write off as "minuscule".
yea it really bugged me that he said a $1-2 charge daily was minuscule, obviously someone is out of touch with the middle class if you think that is a small charge. It's actually a massive tax on the poor and middle class.
Yes when you count in the other taxes for vehicles and gasoline that we have in the europe and scandinavia + finland. More taxes for driving to work.. yes thanks. In the US I could fill up the tank with half the price compared to here so in that case paying $1-2 wouldn't be so much.
I agree with all you say. What I was hopping would be proposed would be using these tax dollars to fund mass transit projects to further reduce traffic times. If one has ever driven on the highways; in Chicago, Illinois and LA, California, one would understand. There is a pathetic lack of mass transit. The probable could be remedial with an overhead/underground train system. Even use the dead space on the edge of the highways. Proposing more taxes, yes, does reduce traffic because it raises the barrier to entry. Econ 101. But it does not address LoCoud7's very valid point. That is the reason I avoid any toll road, and take the back road. Which is what also happens and reports fails to account for. Which transfers the congestions onto small roads and the cycle continues.
Yeah, it's not like they can just "not travel" as he put it. It's not like they have to go to work to pay their bills to survive or anything... It's not like you NEED money to live or anything... The problem is cities congested with overpopulation and rising housing demand and not enough land space to supply them (or not enough will in the case of wealthy people not wanting their 3 story building houses from falling in value because of increased supply, renting them out at those increased prices doubly shafting everyone else). Obviously that raises rents massively and makes it impossible to save up enough to buy a home, also a potential argument for immigration control (not to mention illegal immigration, no reasonable city planning can exist without reliable data) because new immigrants (illegal or not) need a place to stay IMMEDIATELY while most native millennials are now starting to live with their parents until they're 30 or more... just another sign of the failing system, sky high rents and prohibitive housing prices, not to mention the homeless that have no such option.
I took a trip with a friend to Switzerland and Germany (from New Jersey - our roads are shit) and was absolutely amazed with how many roundabouts Switzerland had. We could not for the life of us understand why it was necessary. Now I see their value, fascinating
This video got my attention right away as a major highway close to my home is being widened. Years ago one of my engineer colleagues who worked for the California Department of Transportation (CalTran) told me studies showed if you simply widened a road, congestion would not be alleviated as more people would now become drivers who otherwise would have used public transportation. Another traffic-mitigation device he mentioned was to connect all cars together like a train when they were in a turning lane. This way more cars would get through the light instead of each car waiting until the car in front moved.
Sad no mention of the one simple rule to stopping traffic: LEAVE SPACE BETWEEN YOUR CAR AND THE ONE IN FRONT. Seriously, the biggest cause of traffic is the backwards propagation of a slow-down. If you drive at a constant speed, allowing enough space to account for the car in front slowing down, you stop the backwards propagation of traffic in its tracks. It's also important to let people take the space and leave more space. It's the "turn the other cheek" of driving.
I'd wager tailgating causes more traffic than it does crashes for that simple reason that many drivers fail to understand. You have to hit the brakes slightly harder than the driver in front of you and that filters on back until it eventually forces traffic to stop and then it gets longer and longer and then there's a "ghost" traffic jam for the next hour, lol. US drivers for the most part only care about themselves though and can't be bothered to help everyone out and cause less traffic jams.
While this is a good rule to follow, this isn't a solution in terms of policy. The world would be so much easier to manage is people all diligently followed rules, but alas, they don't. You have to work with what you have - that's what public policy, urban design, etc. spend all their time figuring out how to do. Good solutions - in any field - work with people as they are, not as you may wish they were.
Practically nothing will work with US drivers. There's no proper driving education here. And it shows, in everything drivers do. I can't make the 30 minute country commute to my work without encountering a handful of idiot decisions each way.
I just love this channel. Not only is the thumbs like a beautiful candy i really like to eat but the secret sauce is the content and production quality of your videos. Pure uncut marvel...
Until there is segregated cycle lanes in view of roads in my area, no way am I using a bike. People have been killed by trucks sharing the same junctions and thugs have taken to beating up bikers on the few remote cycle paths available. It seems some people hate cyclists.
Life is more interesting by spending hours staring at the road instead of significantly less than that. Your life would have to be incredibly dull that riding on a road brightens it.
I live in the Netherlands, so yes we cycle! We have seperated cycle lanes on both sides of the roads. If there is an intersection, there is a special cycling traffic light. We do have a lot of roundabouts and on most rondabouts in Cities (and outside aswell) cyclists have priority so vehicles on the roads need to give way to every single one of them. It works, and it's healty. :D
This is way too reasonable for Americans. Instead, we'll build more 12-lane freeways through downtowns and continue our tradition of horrible city planning.
Build cities for people, not for cars. Cars are great to move across cities. Within a city you want public transportation, pedestrian walkways, and bike paths.
Your solutions are not good. Point one tool roads. They force people onto non toll roads if they are available and just piss everyone off because you still have to go from point a to point b Roundabouts. Yes they work but we aren't going to replace every intersection with one because it would cost alot of money and have you seen how people drive? They don't give a shit and will speed around them not to mention heavy truck traffic will slow them down alot. Taking away road signs if fucking stupid. Take away basic rules for people to follow and you will have mayhem. Yeah at first it will help but withing a few years it will be every man for himself. Diamond free way entrances i don't mind but should only be put in on busy roads were it would be a benefit and not a wast. Try developing public transport accost the us without going broke, taxing the people to hell or pissing of everyone from coast to coast due to the tax raise..
Point 3 is on point. The US signalisation is infantilising, each intersection has a stop or a traffic light. I didn't even know 4-way stops was a thing before moving there. Add to that cars which drive almost themselves as you remove the stick, and you get an inattentive population of drivers.
cowthedestroyer "his" points you say dont work arent even his. He just got he ideas and statistics and made a video detailing each one in a simple way. Each of these points have evidence to back up their statement and are proven to work. You argue against him by thinking every one in the US drives like a maniac and dont have logic. You think taking away signs (which has proven to reduce accidents) will just lead to mayhem and "every man for himself". That is over exaggeration and idiotic; that may be how it will go for you, but not every one. I think you completely missed the point of public transport. It will not go all across the US, only in major cities and areas that need it. There would be no need to increase taxes because the government could just invest the money in that instead of more roads as it already does. If anything it would save time instead of wasting it and the money spent. Basically you are arguing against facts proven to be true (hence why they are facts) and think everyone will resort to primitive survival without road signs.
8:00 ish. One of the easiest, most fluid times I've ever driven in New York City was during the 2003 blackout. Getting from midtown down into Brooklyn was a breeze. Good day.
Public transportation. It doesn't just decrease traffic but it will also decrease the size needed for parking lots which increases the amount of buildings
When I first moved to Vancouver Canada their major highway was 2 lanes. Traffic was bonkers. They then added three lanes and a few years later added an HOV lane and built the Port Mann bridge which is the widest bridge in the world at 65 meters (213ft). It overtook the Sydney Harbour bridge which is 49 meters (161ft). The times when there is backed up traffic has lowered. Back in the day you didn't bother going over the bridge after 2:30. Now they flow wonderfully. The other thing they did which was not mentioned is the off ramps are way before the actual exit. This gets people off the main highway earlier to ease congestion.
These seem to mostly be US issues. UK anyway implements all of these. You should check out the roundabout thing in Swindon. Loads of mini roundabouts around a large roundabout. Now you'd definitely have to pay attention to do that
Just a Quad because the main audience is American. You act like the US doesn't have any of these. We have roundabout all over the US but we have more drivers. The UK is a small country compared to the US.
You may love those metering lights, but it used to tale me 20 min. to get on the freeway using one and my total drive time home (23 miles) was an hour and a half. Now, I commute the same distance, but start from a point where there is no metering light to get on, it still takes an hour and a half. All those metering lights do is move where you spend time in gridlock from the freeway to the surface streets. My area's current solution is to add rich people lanes, we'll see how that works, but I ain't payin' $7 bucks to get home ten minutes earlier!
For me, there are four additional ways: Never build a freeway that merges two lanes into one. Never build a freeway that put Entrance before the Exit. Never build a freeway that merges the entering lane into the main lanes. (If there is an entrance, add an additional lane for it.) Open toll stations and let cars pass without stopping if the amount of the cars-in-waiting exceed a certain limit. These are purely observations that I did while waiting in traffic.
SimonDeng1 I don't understand the rule of not putting an entrance (onramp) before an exit (offramp). If say I mess up & get on the wrong highway or I don't like the amount of congestion, then I can quickly get off if an offramp comes up soon after.
SimonDeng1 I have an interest of what you told and I have made the same observations as you. 1. Never enter before exit. 2. If entering, add an extra lane. 3. Never make 2 lanes to 1. Sweden where I am from have this stupid idea of having 2+1 and 1+2 roads, they are called so. What is a 1+2 road? A regular swedish road have 1 lane each direction and a speed between 60 and 90 km/h. The lanes aren't separated. A regular road you can find anywere in the world. A Swedish freeway has typically fence separated lanes in each direction and the speed is between 110 and 120 km/h. This is the Swedish stupidity, the 1+2 or 2+1 road. The lanes are sometimes separated by a fence sometimes not separated by more than some paint. Every now and then the lanes turnes 2 or 1 depending on wich direction it is. The 2+1 or 1+2 road are only built where the regular roads are too buissy to be safe. The speed is typically between 90 and 100 km/h. Where does the accidents happends? The accidents happends where the 2 road lanes turnes 1 if the road have a fence. It also happends drivers at each direction drives into eachothers where the lanes changes if there are not any fences. The authoritys only builds 1+2/ 2+1 roads because it is cheaper than proper freeways and to be lazy. That road aren't safer in my oppinion, it only looks safer but isn't.
SimonDeng1 I forgot to mention more stupidity of the 1+2/ 2+1 road. If there are an ambulance at the 1 lane part of the road, it isn't able to pass the drivers untill the lane splits to 2. Those drivers hwo have increased their speed at the 1 lane part of the road have either got a speeding ticket or lost their drivings licenses, only to let the ambulance to do it's job, saving someones life. Sometimes the drivers didn't increased their speeds and let the ambulance be behind them untill the 1 lane becomes 2 at a leagal speed, the patients have died due to the ambulance didn't get to the hospital fast enough. That's all.
jay kj It is true that if Entrance is placed before Exit, drivers are given second chance to adjust their route (which is nice). However, think about the first point I mentioned for a second -- by putting Exit before Entrance, you are actually creating another "two merges one" type of situation, which is destined to cause traffic congestion. Those cars who just entered the freeway will have to merge to the main lane very quickly or they will be "dumped" by the freeway because the Exit ahead is waiting for them. Also, those who want to exit the freeway will have to fight their way out because they are facing both the main lane traffic and the cars that just entered the freeway. It's a mess :)
it now cost up to 45 kronor ($5) to enter congestions zone in Stockholm and if you leave, it is another 45 kronor. The maximum payable in one day is about 145 kronor. There are about 4 different prices set to enter or leave the congestion zone. These are determined by the time of day.
I just have one question, How are round a bouts more expensive to maintain wendover? traffic lights are electronic and get knocked over almost everytime there is a crash. What is there to maintain in a round a bout??
There's also often a garden in the middle of the roundabout (at least here in the UK), so that requires some upkeep too, although I doubt it's all that significant.
@Will 'n Co Typical tyrannical ignorance. You are calling it free while ignoring the money taxpayers are having stolen from them to pay for your "free entitlement".
Will 'n Co on the contrary, I think it’s a bit ignorant on your part to think when something is free that it actually IS free. Somewhere, someone is paying for the service you are gaining for “free”, always. Just because you don’t see something being done does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Agreed. If you actually check the city, county, and state proceedings to see why this is not happening, it seems that the biggest block for more efficient, widespread, faster and cheaper public transport is the enormous grip that the fossil fuel industry has on politicians and decision making. They block public transport (as well as many other beneficial options for the majority of us) in every possible way because they want to keep us dependent on their oil, and to keep the sweet gravy train of oil profits rolling, regardless of the harm to humanity and to the biosphere. And more broadly, the biggest obstacle for excellent public transport (as well as to many other profoundly beneficial things for people) seems to be the capitalist economic system and mindset, which prevents the implementation of excellent sane solutions that are immensely beneficial for humanity and the health of our environment, prevent them if corporations can't make profit out of those solutions. Our current immature and insane economic system (with its mantras of 'Growth is God' and 'Profit above all else’) sees things like pollution, like harm to your health and to your family’s well being, like disruption of earth's life supporting systems, sees all these things as "externalities" (this is the actual term they use, you can look it up. The actual term they use toto describe the harm done to humans and planet by the blind drive to increase shareholder returns above all else, regardless of the consequences. They call it an “externality” and it simply doesn't enter into consideration in their decision making process during board meetings). Capitalism’s iron law of profit above all else and exploiting everything till the last drop for the sake of producing “value” for shareholders (regardless of consequences for people’s health and for our biosphere’s health), this iron law of capitalism fundamentally contradicts the immutable natural laws of delicate balance and interdependence that a planet requires in order to allow for life to exist. This iron law of capitalism also fundamentally contradicts what the human body needs in order to survive and thrive (clean air, clean healthy water, healthy vibrant food and freedom from pollutants, radiation, stresses and toxins) In other words, The requirement of the capitalist system (grow or die: increase profits or go under) functions in direct contradiction to the equilibrium principles of a living planet and of a healthy humanity. (Another claim they make is that we cannot afford that, while at the same time we seem to have no issue affording billions and trillions flowing into the military-industrial complex to maintain a huge corporate empire that terrorizes humanity, kills and maims millions in order to take over the globe's resources and bombs the hell out of anyone who dares to resist the will of our banks and mega-corporations) Lastly, one VERY wise alternative for our current suicidal corporate path that I came across recently is called ‘Resource Based Economy’ as suggested by 'The Venus Project'. It offers very wise solutions for transport, but goes much MUCH deeper than just that.
That was a four way stop sign intersection, much different to one with traffic lights. With low to medium amounts of traffic, roundabouts save time compared to signalled intersections. However, with very heavy traffic flows, cars often block each other in roundabouts, causing vehicles to back up and making traffic lights preferable.
Magic roundabout has lights within the roundabout! Most intersections that see heavy traffic aren't suitable for roundabouts anyway, given the footprint. I was thinking in terms of US roads where every city puts a traffic light at every intersection it seems like. A silly practice.
which fucking roundabout has priority? one has to, meaning one has to yield, which entirely defeats the purpose of a roundabout, where the car going around should never have to yield, only the cars wanting to enter.
To anyone who sees this, i encourage you to look up the city Carmel, Indiana. Almost all of our intersections are roundabouts and with a population of over 90,000, we only have about 1-2 fatal crashes a year.
Another Carmelite here....and I also can attest to how great our roundabouts are. We will have over 100 by the end of this year (several on very large intersections) and they make driving much smoother and safer!
A lot of lost space, and way worst in heavy traffic situation. Sure it work great in a small village with a few hundreds people, but it can't be viable in a large city like NY. You have to keep into account some people take a lot of time when they have to make their own choice.
Here in Ontario, Canada for highways we have a fairly standardized design in urban areas called the Parclo A-4 interchange . It's very safe design, in rural areas the ramp design are based on a variety of factors
The Parclo B4 is simply superior because while the highway traffic regardless if they make a left or right they dont stop while in both interchanges the arterial straight through traffic has to stop at lights
One mitigating issue that this video didn't have time to delve into is pedestrian access on different forms of road. In the United States, public transportation, pedestrian access, and motor vehicles all battle for supremacy on the road. It is primarily in urban centers that public transportation is even given an afterthought; in the suburbs, many places do not even have pedestrian sidewalks. I think one of the biggest challenges we will be faced with in the 21st century is redesigning the city structures of where we live--urban, rural, or inbetween--to allow for ease of access to all modes of transportation, thereby alleviating vehicle traffic.
I might add an observation. Hurricane Ida hit New Orleans in August 2021. The electrical grid was out for the entire city for days. This means there were no traffic lights basically throughout the city. Amazingly, traffic flowed at a constant, steady pace. In fact, in my observation, traffic moved better than when the lights are in operation. Additionally, we see more and more roundabouts being built in Louisiana. They work just fine.
@WorldFlex oh ok I was just adding that electric cars are a factor in reducing carbon emissions. I but they still cause traffic. So better public transit/mass transit can reduce people on the roads and conjunction on roads.
@WorldFlex by the way if want to check out some cool mass transit projects check out Florida's brightline or Texas's hsr projects. Sadly amtrak isn't going anywhere yet.
BackwardsHatTV Pranks Why are they dumb? The people who build & design these things are pretty smart, but they don't communicate to drivers how they work very well.
Not really. I have one in my town and they actually lessened traffic. It used to be a nightmare (waiting at least 5 minutes) just to get on the interstate. Now, it's practically instant. Traffic that isn't going on the interstate can drive through the diverging diamond perfectly without disrupting interstate traffic.
MDB DC has really bad traffic, too. My mom grew up in LA, and she said when she first moved here that the traffic here was pushing her frustration more than the 405 at 5:00.
HostilePancakes, The Millennial Warrior What’s really bad is being on the west side of the 405 just trying to get to the other side of it during rush hour(s).
Ive driven both LA and Houston. On the whole, I'd rather drive LA any time than Houston, if for no other reason than LA has better signage. You often don't know your exit is coming up until you are practically on top of it in Houston. Traffic may be, on average, slower in LA (although I wouldn't be willing to bet any money on it), but it is far more dangerous in Houston.
Great video, you missed one of the biggest culprits which was even visible in your stock video footage of a U. S. highway: number of cars with only one passenger. Dedicated shared ride lanes embrace this congestion reducing behaviour without large investment requirements
Wendover its not that simple. I live in a city called Canberra, where the infrastructure planners thought they had it all figured out any put roundabouts everywhere and single lane roads, what happened when the city grew? Some roundabouts are so busy at peak hour, certain entry points are nearly impossible to enter, you may be wondering how? Surely there's a gap eventually? Usually not, because of the long high speed single lane roads between all the roundabouts it evens out the traffic and creates a constant stream of cars. This causes cars to get frustrated, go around the roundabouts faster, and people who have waited 5-10 minutes to launch into the roundabout and risk and accident because they are desperate to get through. There are accidents at the roundabouts near where I live every single week. How did they fix this problem? Put traffic lights at the roundabouts......... so now its like an intersection again.
