None of this makes any sense. You are saying you go 3 blocks east and 12 cars north but that is not the ratio of drives that go that way. It would be 3 blocks east and 30 blocks north because for every driver that goes east/west there are 10 that go north/south, so that would not be the ratio. And I'm not talking about blocks, or city blocks I'm talking about suburb roads and such. The lights are wasing time and gas I know for a fact because I have seen it thousands of times.
It's not a ratio. The same car goes east THEN north. People don't drive in one direction. Of course gas is wasted when people wait at lights, but your proposed solutions DON'T IMPROVE THE SITUATION if you look at the whole system.
Your example again is based around one intersection. Try scaling it out to a whole system and the routes people take. You completely miss the point if you just look at one intersection.
Anyway, enough said. Yes, I agree it sucks to sit at an intersection. But do you really think that with all of the billions of dollars spent on traffic systems, that nobody has considered how many cars go in each direction?
Sorry, but frustrated drivers fail at network flow. If they had their way, traffic would be twice as bad.
Nothing that I am talking about revolves around one intersection. I am talking about many many many traffic lights as many as millions in this country. And I'm not talking about intersections where traffic goes equally both ways. I am talking about traffic lights that every time you get to one there are 10 cars lined up waiting north/south, and 2 cars at most waiting east/west. So everytime you get to a traffic light like this everybody is sitting and waiting north/south, but at most 2 cars are waiting east/west because much fewer people are going on those roads.
What is so difficult to understand about this? If you took just one of these traffic lights and counted for an entire day the amount of cars that stop and wait at the light going north/south it would be around 5,000. And the amount of cars that stop and wait at the light going east/west would be around 500. With so fewer cars going east/west, why would the traffic light be 60/40? In other words why would you get a green for 30 seconds and then a red for 20 seconds going north south every 50 seconds? You should be getting a green for 2:10 and one red for 20 seconds every 2:30 that would save a huge amount of gas & time.
How can you tell me that this is not more gas/time efficient?
Why do you keep telling me that if it worked that way people would have already figured out what to do with the lights?
How can you tell me that people do not go one way for a long period of time on one drive. I know for a fact routes and roads that are around me where I can go through 20 or 30 traffic lights in a row going one way on a main road without any turns to get to my destination.
If there wasn't a problem with these traffic lights than roughly an equal number of cars would be sitting and waiting going north/south as there would be east/west. But this is not the case. I know of thousands of examples. Every time I get to one of these traffic lights I'm telling you there are 10 cars backed up each way north/south sometimes as many as 20, and there are never more than 5 cars backed up each way east/west. How many times do I have to explain this?
Topic: What don't you understand and it bugs you? (Read 38964 times)