Quote:
Originally Posted by Boblobla
Back to the logic, you have not explained to me how having people enter a lane in 2 different places, causing 2 separate braking chain reactions, rather than one makes traffic flow smoother.
|
Actually I already did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Also keep in mind what happens when you are letting somebody in to merge. You make a gap; taking out you changing lanes you decelerate. Using the length of the merge allows time for you to decelerate slowly. If everybody wait until the end, then you have a single point where drivers need to slow down, which causes people to brake, and then causes a chain reaction back.
|
So to go into further detail, decelerating as opposed to braking causes less of a chain reaction. If you recall back in the early 80s when they were discussing putting the high mount brake light on cars in the middle, the original plan was 3 lights. Red for braking, green means foot is on the gas, yellow meaning foot is off the gas but not on the brake. That idea was scrubbed for two main reasons; they wanted to avoid confusion, and they wanted to avoid people hitting their brakes because somebody was taking their foot off the gas.
Years ago they were trying to find out why there were traffic jams on the Autobahns in Germany, when there was no apparent reason for them. So they paid people to sit every couple of hundred metres and watch the traffic and report their findings. They found that many of these previously unexplained jams happened when one driver would just tap their brake pedal, causing the driver behind to react, the one behind him to react, and so on. Eventually traffic would stop.
Let's extend your example of the merge lane by a few kilometres. Lets say we are on a 3 lane road that goes down to 2 lanes. Now if everybody spends 3 km getting over, then there is no noticable slowdown in traffic. But if everybody waits until the end, it causes a jam. The best evidence of this is in cities much bigger than Calgary. Let's use LA as an example. Worst traffic problems of any major city.
10 years ago I was driving down the main north south freeway (I-5 IIRC) and traffic just stopped. We crawled along for 5 miles; taking over 90 minutes to go those 5 miles. At the end, it was 1 lane that ended, and people trying to get over. 2 years ago I was on another freeway; this time in Oakland. There were programable signs every 1/2 mile- and my buddy who was with me in the LA jam asked me if I remembered being stuck, and how now the California Highway Dept now uses those for lane closures. The signs will say "Lane ends 2 miles ahead. Move over NOW!"
Yes, once again I am saying the same thing, but understand my underlying message. In each of my posts I give an example of how somebody; like an engineer, has figured out that my way of merging is the way it should be done. There's lots of examples out there.
Now, not to lump you in with the Conspiracy Theorists, but remember what you are asking me; you want me to prove something in the negative- that your way is wrong. I am turning that around, and asking you to show me an example of how traffic planners or engineers have given you an indication that your way of merging is correct.
