re: For all those with single digit IQs on Jones Creek

quote:

---

No, it actually moves slower with zipper merging because of caterpillar effect close to the zipper merge point.


I'd love to see a shred of proof of this.

---

Drive along in the right lane of a 4 lane that has no turn lane. Watch what happens when people slow to turn. Somewhere back, at least one vehicle will come to a complete stop. The cars trying to merge at or near the pinch point. The most efficient use of the roadway, as a whole, has the vehicle flowing through the pinch with as little change in speed as possible.

quote:

---

Way the frick back from the merge point even if it's in another state.


That's retarded.

---

You can't support this. There is no alternate route. Every single vehicle must pass over that one and only one piece of pavement. Where the people get in line is only important as it pertains to the speed at which traffic flows over that spot. "Using the full capacity of the road" is retarded, and everyone in the Minnesota DOTD should be fired.

What I don't understand is how anyone keeps saying "it's the most efficient". Again, the picture at the beginning is useless since it's giving proper spacing to one option, but not the others.

So, if we take that off the table, or at the very least give it to all options, what is the appreciable advantage of using both lanes until the very end? Like someone else said, all cars must pass through the same point no matter where they merge. 50 cars per minute passing through two lanes would have to double their speed to have the same rate of cars passing through one lane. We know that isn't happening. So at the very least to maintain the same rate of cars per minute (or an equilibrium state), everyone has to cut their speed in half prior to the merge. Cutting your speed in half will cause congestion no matter where you merge. Congestion leads to tighter spacing. So why would you wait until there is congestion and tighter spacing?

I do not get angry at anyone actively trying to get in the lane at a reasonable time, even if literally at the last second is a "reasonable" time. It's the guy that passes up 3 wide open gaps just to get 2 cars further in line. F**k that guy.

People complain that people who don't let them in are assholes. But what about the fact that you getting in at the last second caused a car to hit it's brakes to create a space for you. That get's transmitted down the line to an eventual stop. So in reality, the guy that got in at the last second (even if the other driver was generous and created space) caused the backup.

If everyone just took advantage of what was available at the time, whether the space was in the back, middle, or front, and merged when at speed instead of "using the lane as long as possible", then there would never be a slowdown to create space. You would have used the space when it naturally presented itself.

quote:

---

This will be the point where what you do for a living is relevant

---

In all honesty though, I've had civil engineer friends that could never actually explain concepts. They just have a rule of thumb or chart to go off of. So when I keep hearing "it's the most efficient", but there's no detailed fundamental explanation as to why that makes the zipper appreciably more efficient, then I don't really care that their living is as a civil engineer either. Again, I know someone somewhere who actually knew what they were doing created that "rule of thumb". But in practice, does it work. It's not like engineers never designed things that don't work that well

The issue with him is he's completely dismissing the idea with no basis. The reason it doesn't work is because, as you pointed out, people don't drive like that. The issue isn't the idea of zipper merging, it's that people are too stubborn to do it.

quote:

---

multiplies the brake ripple effect

---

WUT

quote:

---

brake ripple effect

---

quote:

---

brake ripple effect

---

This is caused by the late mergers.

quote:

---

eta: oh and it was focused in traffic operations. and my thesis topic involved studying bottlenecks on the interstate in order to determine travel time reliability for congested segments

---

No offense, but this sounds terribly unfulfilling. Not because it's not an in depth interesting study. But to know that no matter what option you come up with, it's natural for humans to hate each other and be dicks to screw over other drivers so that they get a 10 second advantage . Both with the people waiting in line not letting people in, and those trying to get "the best spot". I truly don't think you can design something that people would not try to take advantage of for them to be faster while screwing everyone else. Other than maybe a light system that makes each car go taking turns.

Well, first of all, its called a shockwave.

Also, I dont see how merging upstream would make a shockwave worse. That doesnt really make sense unless upstream vheilce/capacity is worse than downstream vehicle/capacity.

Really the only benefit here is that the extra capcity of a roadway essentially functions as an auxiliary through lane, as Ive already stated. Theres no way to realistically expect it gets more vehicles through the bottleneck.

Not sure why you're bowing to him. He's saying something completely different than what you are.