The two-adjacent signals causing extra traffic is something I encounter daily in Berkeley -- Ashby / Claremont & Ashby / Domingo. I probably blow an average of 5 minutes a day cause of that double intersection.
To highlight one other point from the video: You want a light to be able to clear the line built up each time. If not, flux in > flux out and that's a recipe for a growing line, which causes a traffic jam.
Better not, it would just get me even more pissed off at how crude and incompetent German traffic engineering is. Pretty sure some frustrated worker is making it worse on purpose - you don't reach certain peaks of crappiness accidentally, it takes _work_.
> Actuated signal control [...] inductive loop sensors embedded into the road surface
It blows my mind how many people don't realize that's what those circles near the stop bar of an intersection are for, and will then stop 3+ car lengths behind the stop bar, and then can't figure out why the light is never going green.
> two signals closely spaced in a row on a major roadway. If one signal gives a green but the next one doesn’t, cars can back up
This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them, and MOST traffic during rush out coming from just one of the directions, yet the lights were often exactly out of sync. The first light would be red while the next one was green. Then the first would go green while the other went red, and traffic would only move about 500 feet then stop for 2 minutes. The backup would last well over a mile.
> The obvious next step in efficiency is coordination of most or all the signals within a traffic network. This is the job of adaptive signal control technologies, or ASCT. [..] These types of systems can dramatically reduce congestion
My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
> This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them
In San Francisco (as well as other cities I've lived in) they put police in the middle of intersections during rush hour to guide traffic (i.e., stop cars before they drive into an intersection that they'll get stuck in the middle of). Seems woefully inefficient
When traffic is really heavy humans are better than machines at getting traffic through. However they cost a lot of money and so are only rarely worth the cost.
Curious...in the UK, is the implementation of something like that done by government employees?
In the USA, a significant amount of tax-funded infrastructure is actually built out by contractors, which means there's profit going to a corporation, and there's often a cynical idea that the contracts go out to whoever will send a kickback in the form of a campaign contribution to whoever makes the decision on which contractor to use.
The local councils (local Authority) usually get external companies to design the systems, but there are standard, off the shelf solutions that are specified to be used. These systems range from time synced junctions (with Vehicle attenuation) up to full Urban Traffic Control systems, the protocols used are mostly standard (UTMC), so the local Authority just needs to say what they need. For a UTC system it used to be that the council would run the instation, but with cloud computing, that's mostly run for them now as a hosted system. Usually this is all controlled by the standard local council procurement rules, and run by council employees not elected officials. The elected officials can say a scheme is needed and approve costs, but not who does it.
> My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
I don't think you need a vast conspiracy to point out that connecting traffic signals costs more (fancier signal equipment, running cable, maintaining the cables, etc) and the benefits may be subtle, hard to predict, and maybe even hard to measure.
Additionally, you have a lot of people that would prefer to slow traffic. Depending on local culture, investing in traffic control can be difficult (although upgrading traffic signal systems may be better able to accomodate priority for transit and bicycle detection)
If I had a nickle for every time I’ve had to get out of my car and walk up to the person in front of me and explain that they need to pull forward for the light to change - I’d have two nickels, yadda yadda yadda.
I always thought that traffic signals should be trying to minimize squared anger, where anger increases linearly with time spent waiting at intersection.
There's a major arterial near my house. One day, the power went out in the area, and the traffic lights went dead. I discovered to my amusement that throughput on the arterial and its crossings increased dramatically, as drivers simply cooperated with each other.
There are already cameras on top of all the lights. How hard can it be to hook them up to AI that is instructed to maximize throughput? The current system will block 3 directions while having a green light on the 4th which has no traffic.
I once complained to a friend about this, and he told me that the traffic engineers were experts and I was lying. The next day I was driving on that road, and got a red light. You could see on down the distance 3 greens. There was no other traffic, and no cross traffic. So I sent him a photo. He conceded :-)
> There are already cameras on top of all the lights.
Those are infrared sensors that pick up the heat from car engines. They've had to be modified to pick up electric cars.
> How hard can it be to hook them up to AI that is instructed to maximize throughput?
The equipment cabinet at the intersection has been engineered to prevent all sorts of fatal things that happened in the past. Such as one set of relays being stuck so that one direction always gets a green light while the other direction gets red/yellow/green. They're designed so that can never happen again (when "broken", you'll see blinking red in all directions).
The controllers need to be standardized so that you don't need experts to be able to diagnose & repair them. They also need to be certified. It is not possible to certify an expert system (or as they're now called "AI") because it is not possible to use formal methods to prove correctness.
> The current system will block 3 directions while having a green light on the 4th which has no traffic.
That specific intersection is set on a timer. For a single, 2-lane each way, non-complicated intersection, it can cost $100k for the lights, poles, sensors and equipment cabinet. Every wire is underground in pipes so that the expansion of concrete in weather won't stretch/break the wires.
> as drivers simply cooperated with each other.
That's something that most people learn in kindergarten: "share with others" and "take turns".
Where I live (fly-over country), when the power is out, traffic backs up significantly.
Disclaimer: I used to work for my state's combination DMV & highway department.
Actual "Expert systems" could in principle get certified because they have explicable behaviour. The juice isn't worth the squeeze but it could be done. However the LLMs do not, we don't really know why this does anything even vaguely useful and we can't say if it might fail, or how we'd know. Useless.
> How hard can it be to hook them up to AI that is instructed to maximize throughput? The current system will block 3 directions while having a green light on the 4th which has no traffic.
You don't need AI for that, you just need the system configured properly. Lights near my parents' house have been running cycles adapted to actual traffic for at least two decades, probably three... although using inductive loops in pavement rather than cameras.
There are reasons you might want a short green every so often even with no detected traffic... it would help manage worst case situations for a stuck open detector, etc. But those wasted greens shouldn't be long enough to notice. You might also have situations where locally suboptimal behaviors improves performance or safety elsewhere and that may lead to a better overall system results. I'm not claiming this is the situation in your scenario, but it can explain some negative experiences.
I guess the main reason traffic lights exist is to avoid incidents, not necessarily to maximize throughput. Maximizing throughput is just a nice no have, and so no one bothers. Just a guess though, I've no idea what I'm talking about.
What I find most interesting about the computer side of traffic signal controllers is the interlock design needed to prevent a glitch or memory fault from activating conflicting phases at once, eg two intersecting approaches getting green simultaneously. That's about as safety-critical as it gets for a piece of everyday infrastructure. Would've liked to see more depth on that, though I imagine the specifics are controller/vendor-specific.
I think that interlock design also goes some way toward mitigating the security risks ASCT systems would otherwise pose, as mentioned in the article. On any decent controller, even the control room shouldn't be able to deliberately trigger conflicting phases.
To highlight one other point from the video: You want a light to be able to clear the line built up each time. If not, flux in > flux out and that's a recipe for a growing line, which causes a traffic jam.
It blows my mind how many people don't realize that's what those circles near the stop bar of an intersection are for, and will then stop 3+ car lengths behind the stop bar, and then can't figure out why the light is never going green.
> two signals closely spaced in a row on a major roadway. If one signal gives a green but the next one doesn’t, cars can back up
This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them, and MOST traffic during rush out coming from just one of the directions, yet the lights were often exactly out of sync. The first light would be red while the next one was green. Then the first would go green while the other went red, and traffic would only move about 500 feet then stop for 2 minutes. The backup would last well over a mile.
> The obvious next step in efficiency is coordination of most or all the signals within a traffic network. This is the job of adaptive signal control technologies, or ASCT. [..] These types of systems can dramatically reduce congestion
My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
In San Francisco (as well as other cities I've lived in) they put police in the middle of intersections during rush hour to guide traffic (i.e., stop cars before they drive into an intersection that they'll get stuck in the middle of). Seems woefully inefficient
Imagine how much gas would be saved if the city spent a little effort on the traffic lights.
In the USA, a significant amount of tax-funded infrastructure is actually built out by contractors, which means there's profit going to a corporation, and there's often a cynical idea that the contracts go out to whoever will send a kickback in the form of a campaign contribution to whoever makes the decision on which contractor to use.
I don't think you need a vast conspiracy to point out that connecting traffic signals costs more (fancier signal equipment, running cable, maintaining the cables, etc) and the benefits may be subtle, hard to predict, and maybe even hard to measure.
Additionally, you have a lot of people that would prefer to slow traffic. Depending on local culture, investing in traffic control can be difficult (although upgrading traffic signal systems may be better able to accomodate priority for transit and bicycle detection)
There are already cameras on top of all the lights. How hard can it be to hook them up to AI that is instructed to maximize throughput? The current system will block 3 directions while having a green light on the 4th which has no traffic.
I once complained to a friend about this, and he told me that the traffic engineers were experts and I was lying. The next day I was driving on that road, and got a red light. You could see on down the distance 3 greens. There was no other traffic, and no cross traffic. So I sent him a photo. He conceded :-)
Those are infrared sensors that pick up the heat from car engines. They've had to be modified to pick up electric cars.
> How hard can it be to hook them up to AI that is instructed to maximize throughput?
The equipment cabinet at the intersection has been engineered to prevent all sorts of fatal things that happened in the past. Such as one set of relays being stuck so that one direction always gets a green light while the other direction gets red/yellow/green. They're designed so that can never happen again (when "broken", you'll see blinking red in all directions).
The controllers need to be standardized so that you don't need experts to be able to diagnose & repair them. They also need to be certified. It is not possible to certify an expert system (or as they're now called "AI") because it is not possible to use formal methods to prove correctness.
> The current system will block 3 directions while having a green light on the 4th which has no traffic.
That specific intersection is set on a timer. For a single, 2-lane each way, non-complicated intersection, it can cost $100k for the lights, poles, sensors and equipment cabinet. Every wire is underground in pipes so that the expansion of concrete in weather won't stretch/break the wires.
> as drivers simply cooperated with each other.
That's something that most people learn in kindergarten: "share with others" and "take turns".
Where I live (fly-over country), when the power is out, traffic backs up significantly.
Disclaimer: I used to work for my state's combination DMV & highway department.
You don't need AI for that, you just need the system configured properly. Lights near my parents' house have been running cycles adapted to actual traffic for at least two decades, probably three... although using inductive loops in pavement rather than cameras.
There are reasons you might want a short green every so often even with no detected traffic... it would help manage worst case situations for a stuck open detector, etc. But those wasted greens shouldn't be long enough to notice. You might also have situations where locally suboptimal behaviors improves performance or safety elsewhere and that may lead to a better overall system results. I'm not claiming this is the situation in your scenario, but it can explain some negative experiences.
I think that interlock design also goes some way toward mitigating the security risks ASCT systems would otherwise pose, as mentioned in the article. On any decent controller, even the control room shouldn't be able to deliberately trigger conflicting phases.