Traffic: Overpasses and Underpasses at intersections for efficiency and safety

I just made a thread about this in the general conspiracies forum so I apologize for not bringing it here first, and to those who read my other thread, I apologize for not being more clear.

I just want to know what the engineers and other scientists think about a short, small solution to traffic jams, accidents, the what not caused by road intersections. So, what are the pros and cons to this system?

Let me start...

Pros:

1. Save gas money
2. Save human and animal lives
3. Save time

Cons:

1. Higher taxes (thinking about our furture for our children, I think it would be worth it, unless a better or cost effective solution arises)
2. Maybe more high speed accidents
3. More complicated roadways

These are just some I am sure but I just am trying to think of solutions to problems. Thanks.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

You can have the same effects with a Roundabout and they are much easier to build a nd maintain. They are commonly used in Europe, not so much in the USA.

Originally posted by asmeone2
You can have the same effects with a Roundabout and they are much easier to build a nd maintain. They are commonly used in Europe, not so much in the USA.

Thank you for responding asmeone2.

Roundabouts are interesting. I need to see them in action. Do they maintain continuity, at reasonable speeds?

It really depends on how they are built, the smaller ones, I think, have stop signs but are still far less deadly than 4-way intersections. The bigger ones have things sort of like entrance ramps where one does not have to stop when entering.

Here is an instructional video of one.


www.metacafe.com...

I think its a better idea than red light-green light and cheaper than overpass-underpass, but i would prefer overpass-underpass.

I mean, that system definitely has its own pro and cons as well. It seems way more complicated than anything I expected in a road system. Though probably better than what we got now...

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Well, the main cause of traffic is the fact that the driving tests are too easy these days. People don't know how to merge. Nobody wants to let anyone in their lane, and everyone wants to be first in line. Lane changes cause traffic, and nobody knows how to do that correctly.

In California for example, most of the traffic is on the freeways. In my area, the drivers test does not include freeways driving! They don't even test to see if you can drive on the freeway anymore, they skip that part.

So we have 1000's of scared drivers that don't like freeways and drive slow. We have morons who can't match the speed of other vehicles when they change lanes so they end up slowing people down. People don't know the size of their vehicle so they almost always hold up traffic until a spot big enough for their imagination can fit into the next lane.

Traffic is caused by BAD DRIVERS. The only cure for it is to take away all licenses and make everyone retake a much more detailed test.

Roundabouts will be MURDER in the USA. Nobody knows how to merge, and change lanes, and roundabouts rely on that.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Allisone,

I have always thought there should be minimum enforcible speed limits in addition to maximums.

Here in the Metroplex the unofficial highway speed limit is about 80, which doesn't help, but I can't count the number of times I've seen wrecks almost happen because of someone crawling along.

They were/are pushing for roundabouts here in my area of Wisconsin...while I can see where they might be more efficient in moving traffic, in my opinion this is negated by a more complicated intersection with too many confused people. Maybe when they become more common it will be different. I recently had to drive through one and it was pretty much chaos as some people just didn't "get it".
Drive defensively.

Originally posted by asmeone2
You can have the same effects with a Roundabout and they are much easier to build a nd maintain. They are commonly used in Europe, not so much in the USA.

Roundabouts are actually becoming a lot more popular here. At least where I live they are.

Constructing overpasses and underpasses at intersections is really quite impractical. Foremost is the cost concern. You are talking about creating a bridge or tunnel, or a combination thereof. None of those possibilities are remotely "cheap". Another consideration is space. Most intersections do not have the space needed to construct an overpass/underpass. Quite unsightly to boot!


You also have to put it in economic terms. You first find out how much the project will reduce fatal accidents. For example, let's say from 1.6% to 1.1% over the lifetime of the intersection. Now let's say the value of a human life is 10 million dollars ( general agreed upon figure-- human life can't be of infinite value). So the cost of the project must be less than $50,000 dollars or it is not worth the cost. I can assure you, no overpass/underpass combo is going to be that cheap. A very simple cost/benefit analysis, but I think it illustrates the point.

In sum, it is nice you are thinking about the issue, but overpasses and underpasses will not work, unless you are talking highways or major, major arterial roads.


I should add that additional analysis is needed on the part of "increased efficiency". That would change things; but for most practical instances, the additional efficiency would not outweigh the costs in the lifespan of the road intersection.



[edit on 11/7/08 by aava]

Originally posted by aava
In sum, it is nice you are thinking about the issue, but overpasses and underpasses will not work, unless you are talking highways or major, major arterial roads.

I should add that additional analysis is needed on the part of "increased efficiency". That would change things; but for most practical instances, the additional efficiency would not outweigh the costs in the lifespan of the road intersection.

[edit on 11/7/08 by aava]

Wow. Thanks. I am always trying to conjure up solutions but infrequently, on ATS, do I see that. Maybe I am just around at bad times.

You bring some nice analyses. I think to eliminate transportation on the ground altogether would be best.

I have an idea but it may need some work. Also, I think popular science magazine already published some pros and cons to a similar if not the same idea I am thinking of. I will post it soon.

P.S. It is more of secret solution and I may not disclose it over the internet. If it has not been already taken that is.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

I did not mean to offend you at all, if I did. ATS is full of... rather interesting ideas.

You say ground transportation needs to be eliminated, care to elaborate on that at all? If it's not too secret that is . I hope your idea is cheap...

What I wrote in my previous post was quite simplistic, as anyone working in that field would probably tell you.

I would like to comment about this statement of yours (from your other thread):

Oh wait but no! Minimize cost and maximize profit is our country's motto. This sacrifices efficiency, and oh boy do the elite not want that

This is factually wrong. When you minimize costs and maximize profits, you are by definition, acting in an efficient manner. Even if you were referring to efficiency solely in terms of traffic flow, you must consider capital costs ( cost of constructing the intersection) maintenance costs, and the opportunity cost of the time and capital spent on developing whatever fanciful intersection you have dreamed up. Those things considered, it still may be more efficient to NOT spend the money on the intersection upgrade and instead put it towards some other, more productive use. I hope this makes sense.

[edit on 11/7/08 by aava]

Originally posted by aava
I did not mean to offend you at all, if I did. ATS is full of... rather interesting ideas.

You say ground transportation needs to be eliminated, care to elaborate on that at all? If it's not too secret that is

. I hope your idea is cheap...

What I wrote in my previous post was quite simplistic, as anyone working in that field would probably tell you.

Whoa. No way! You are fine man. I did not take any disrespect at all. I have to go actually so no time to elaborate. Plus, I wan to see if the idea has been taken anyway first, then I will disclose it.

I would like to comment about this statement of yours (from your other thread):

Oh wait but no! Minimize cost and maximize profit is our country's motto. This sacrifices efficiency, and oh boy do the elite not want that

This is factually wrong. When you minimize costs and maximize profits, you are by definition, acting in an efficient manner. Even if you were referring to efficiency solely in terms of traffic flow, you must consider capital costs ( cost of constructing the intersection) maintenance costs, and the opportunity cost of the time and capital spent on developing whatever fanciful intersection you have dreamed up. Those things considered, it still may be more efficient to NOT spend the money on the intersection upgrade and instead put it towards some other, more productive use. I hope this makes sense. [edit on 11/7/08 by aava]

I understand that but I think I may have to disagree. Or maybe what I meant was related to business philosophy, which would make me incorrect. I will get back to you on that one. Must leave now.

Thanks for clarifying.

They have been putting round a bouts where I live, personally I don't mind them, I mind the idiots that don't know how to MERGE ONE DIRECTION. It is common sense as far as my thinking goes. The first round a bout we had put in I was almost in multiple accidents within the first month.

For example, I was in the round about (a small one lane round a bout) and had to slam on my brakes as someone had merged nicely GOING THE WRONG WAY. So their I am face to face with someone who was confused at the sign pointing which way to merge. The crazy person panicked and instead of stopping, sped up and jerked the wheel into the center of the round about. Now, their I am shaking my head as this other car careens into the center of the round about and throttles straight through to another exit. Nice job I thought as multiple cars in the round about slammed on their brakes to avoid an accident.

I have seen people careen into these round a bouts without looking, which then means other drivers have to slam on their brakes, you still have to pay attention to traffic folks. I have seen people circle in them multiple times before finally "disembarking" from the round about.

They seem to really confuse many people. Not sure why, they are a simple idea to me. We have had several accidents since they started putting in the round a bouts. I like them and think they are a good way to keep traffic flowing, as long as people finally get "the hang" of them. Not sure when that will be, as we now have upwards of ten of them in our town for approximately a year, maybe a bit longer, and people are still confused over how to use a round a bout.

They are building 2 roundabouts on my way to work I'm glad I'm moving this week. The ones they put in Saginay were a nightmare people going whatever way they wanted. They had nice trees and flowers in the middle that lasted a an hour or so before the first car blasted thru the middle