The capacity of roundabout is just a fraction of the capacity created by this cross-over (or called displaced left-turn) design. The refugee island for the pedestrian needs to be big enough to handle diagonal crossing in two stages. The only deficiency of this design is the lack of bike lanes.
This is a nice idea! The left turn and right turn adjacent to each other went together. Pedestrians cross parallel to the vehicles going straight. Reference video: Cross Traffic Light. Uploader: MrNathanBaya.
Now, I understand the system. It actually has only 2 stages. This was the idea that I was trying to think on how to reduce the time interval, without destroying my idea. My own idea for the unique traffic system is that turn left is turn right on their adjacent side, while going straight for vehicles is a crossing for pedestrians. With this system, both of my ideas are happening simultaneously! The length of time to stop is also equal to the length of go.
Job well done, Belisario. If you could put in bike lanes, one for thru and the other for left-turn, it will make the network functioning for multimodal users.
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation. After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.) SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying! INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated) It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE" facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/ facebook.com/bhromo2pi/ By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/ With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
In other words I use VisSim in two scenarios forecast demand (30 years) and traffic volumes of feliure.At that stage of the traffic engineering project studies you need to know were the designs fails. What you are seeing in this micro-simulation is the corridor under maximum traffic demand from all street feeders. And yes there will be crashes, vehicles in reverse or wrong direction, over a pedestrian or stooped when they have green......those things happen. Thank you for the opportunity.
MrNathanBaya: Thanks for your comment; in fact you still have exactly the same number of phases per semaforized cycle and the same number of crossing conflicting movements. The difference is that they occur “overlapped” in time and space (before the intersection) allowing the pedestrians to cross safety on the pathway created by the “now parallel and simultaneous” through traffic and the left turns.
The Philippines are trying to apply the continuously flowing crossroad system in their major intersections. However, it can't be applied because widening the roads would require the demolition of nearby houses. Without destroying their homes, I have invented something that is original: It's called the Cross traffic system. The 1st and 5th cycle work like a C.F.I. because turning is the priority while going straight is with caution. The go with caution signal reduces the waiting time for drivers.
in the crossroad at 2:00 coming from the bottom right taking a right or top left taking a right. Shouldn't the light be green all the time? unless there are pedestrians crossing.
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation. After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.) SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying! INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated) It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE" facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/ facebook.com/bhromo2pi/ By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/ With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
This may be one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen! Please tell me it is being built somewhere. I only hope people are accepting of such an idea.
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation. After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.) SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying! INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated) It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE" facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/ facebook.com/bhromo2pi/ By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/ With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
3 of 3 For instance in the 2pi configuration and in order to take the design to limits of capacity and level of service I decided to input vehicles volumes demands of approaching streets to physical capacity at the same peak hour, that's what you are seeing in all 2pi designs.
Since the C.F.I. system is not applicable in the Philippines, a Filipino has invented the Cross traffic system for big intersections! These 2 videos show the scenario of the Cross traffic system: "8 Scenarios in the Cross Traffic System" and "Cross Traffic Lights" by MrNathanBaya.
the one at 6:30 is to complicated someone coming from the bottom left wanting to go bottom right (a right hand turn) has two options one it a long u-turn with a street block in the middle and the other one has to go beyond the bottom right traffic making a left but have to turn before the bottom left through traffic lane and needs a better cross walk going across upper left lanes
1 of 2 Explanation: The software VisSim allocates more than 150,000 traffic variables, real situations, conditions and operations. If you ever see a micro-simulation in witch all vehicles travel smoothly without any incident is will tell you that it is a manipulated simulation. The software produces a more interesting engineering data than the "cartoon like" vehicles moving (just for show or demonstration to lay people) It is NOT a representation of reality in the future.
I cant help but think that this is quite unsafe. Cars coming from multiple directions. Also, if one accident happens, the whole road is disturbed instead of just one side of the road. Why not just make a roundabout instead? The same issues, but at least the throughput would be higher.
By the way this systemic design was created as a grade separation solution see: “Evolution of the 2pi” facebook.com/slideshare/slideshow/4109395?from=slidespacevio
This is the invention of Mr. Belisario Hernandez Romo in 1987 you can look at the evolution on how he came to this system, patents and copy rigths: facebook :"traffic mobility solutions" By the way it is NOT a CFI there is not a continuous traffic intersection since it is detected and controlled by traffic lights. You must be referring to one of his patented designs the continuous flow "INTERCHANGE"that is grade separated. left turn in the examples landed in the central lines, a big mistake.
Visit this Facebook page at: .facebook.com/pages/Mobility-Traffic-Solutions/110754245634739?sk=wall .... All about Traffic Engineering & Urban Mobility
You are definitively RIGHT! Study it fr as loooong as you need, and then, only then "venture" in this f****ing complex intersection. No offense, but there are more f***ing complex intersections and thousands of extremely very stupid motorist drive them every day. Maybe they study them for longer periods of time than yourself "before" driving them.
What would you say is the level of stupidity to required long periods of study to drive an intersection with only left, right and trough traffic directional movements? I'm asking you because you seem to be an expert on this field, according to your comment, no offense, of course.
you could build some in with no problems at all by following the traffic lines. But in the end, this is likely to portray a US Scenario so bike lanes are an option if best...
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation. After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.) SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying! INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated) It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE" facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/ facebook.com/bhromo2pi/ By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/ With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
0:09 - Look at the leftmost lane, in the center of the video.
Two cars go through each other.
These intersections are insane! I'd rather have roundabouts, thank you very much.
The capacity of roundabout is just a fraction of the capacity created by this cross-over (or called displaced left-turn) design. The refugee island for the pedestrian needs to be big enough to handle diagonal crossing in two stages. The only deficiency of this design is the lack of bike lanes.
This is a nice idea! The left turn and right turn adjacent to each other went together. Pedestrians cross parallel to the vehicles going straight. Reference video: Cross Traffic Light. Uploader: MrNathanBaya.
Now, I understand the system. It actually has only 2 stages. This was the idea that I was trying to think on how to reduce the time interval, without destroying my idea. My own idea for the unique traffic system is that turn left is turn right on their adjacent side, while going straight for vehicles is a crossing for pedestrians. With this system, both of my ideas are happening simultaneously! The length of time to stop is also equal to the length of go.
Job well done, Belisario. If you could put in bike lanes, one for thru and the other for left-turn, it will make the network functioning for multimodal users.
3:16 pedestrian gets killed
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation.
After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.)
SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying!
INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated)
It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle
and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE"
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/
By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING
Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/
With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
In other words I use VisSim in two scenarios forecast demand (30 years) and traffic volumes of feliure.At that stage of the traffic engineering project studies you need to know were the designs fails. What you are seeing in this micro-simulation is the corridor under maximum traffic demand from all street feeders. And yes there will be crashes, vehicles in reverse or wrong direction, over a pedestrian or stooped when they have green......those things happen.
Thank you for the opportunity.
really good solutin of traffick lights
MrNathanBaya: Thanks for your comment; in fact you still have exactly the same number of phases per semaforized cycle and the same number of crossing conflicting movements. The difference is that they occur “overlapped” in time and space (before the intersection) allowing the pedestrians to cross safety on the pathway created by the “now parallel and simultaneous” through traffic and the left turns.
The Philippines are trying to apply the continuously flowing crossroad system in their major intersections. However, it can't be applied because widening the roads would require the demolition of nearby houses. Without destroying their homes, I have invented something that is original: It's called the Cross traffic system. The 1st and 5th cycle work like a C.F.I. because turning is the priority while going straight is with caution. The go with caution signal reduces the waiting time for drivers.
in the crossroad at 2:00 coming from the bottom right taking a right or top left taking a right. Shouldn't the light be green all the time? unless there are pedestrians crossing.
love it, keep the good work
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation.
After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.)
SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying!
INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated)
It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle
and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE"
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/
By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING
Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/
With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
This may be one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen! Please tell me it is being built somewhere. I only hope people are accepting of such an idea.
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation.
After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.)
SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying!
INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated)
It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle
and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE"
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/
By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING
Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/
With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.
3 of 3
For instance in the 2pi configuration and in order to take the design to limits of capacity and level of service I decided to input vehicles volumes demands of approaching streets to physical capacity at the same peak hour, that's what you are seeing in all 2pi designs.
Since the C.F.I. system is not applicable in the Philippines, a Filipino has invented the Cross traffic system for big intersections! These 2 videos show the scenario of the Cross traffic system: "8 Scenarios in the Cross Traffic System" and "Cross Traffic Lights" by MrNathanBaya.
the one at 6:30 is to complicated someone coming from the bottom left wanting to go bottom right (a right hand turn) has two options one it a long u-turn with a street block in the middle and the other one has to go beyond the bottom right traffic making a left but have to turn before the bottom left through traffic lane
and needs a better cross walk going across upper left lanes
1 of 2
Explanation: The software VisSim allocates more than 150,000 traffic variables, real situations, conditions and operations.
If you ever see a micro-simulation in witch all vehicles travel smoothly without any incident is will tell you that it is a manipulated simulation.
The software produces a more interesting engineering data than the "cartoon like" vehicles moving (just for show or demonstration to lay people)
It is NOT a representation of reality in the future.
I cant help but think that this is quite unsafe. Cars coming from multiple directions. Also, if one accident happens, the whole road is disturbed instead of just one side of the road. Why not just make a roundabout instead? The same issues, but at least the throughput would be higher.
Higher throughput only at low to mid traffic, at higher ones this should work better, whereas roundabouts jam
I see one glaring problem, its really f***in complicated, I would have to study this intersection before I ever drove it.
What Program Is This?
By the way this systemic design was created as a grade separation solution see: “Evolution of the 2pi” facebook.com/slideshare/slideshow/4109395?from=slidespacevio
Anyone else notice cars are going in each other?
Yes, that's VisSim WORKING!!!
This is the invention of Mr. Belisario Hernandez Romo in 1987 you can look at the evolution on how he came to this system, patents and copy rigths: facebook :"traffic mobility solutions"
By the way it is NOT a CFI there is not a continuous traffic intersection since it is detected and controlled by traffic lights. You must be referring to one of his patented designs the continuous flow "INTERCHANGE"that is grade separated.
left turn in the examples landed in the central lines, a big mistake.
here is an example of more complex intersections: /watch?v=ddiScdkesEI
VisSim
Visit this Facebook page at: .facebook.com/pages/Mobility-Traffic-Solutions/110754245634739?sk=wall .... All about Traffic Engineering & Urban Mobility
You are definitively RIGHT!
Study it fr as loooong as you need, and then, only then "venture" in this f****ing complex intersection.
No offense, but there are more f***ing complex intersections and thousands of extremely very stupid motorist drive them every day. Maybe they study them for longer periods of time than yourself "before" driving them.
What would you say is the level of stupidity to required long periods of study to drive an intersection with only left, right and trough traffic directional movements? I'm asking you because you seem to be an expert on this field, according to your comment, no offense, of course.
FAIL - no bicycles
It's more of a Euro-fail. Americans prefer cars to bikes and authority-granting traffic lights over inter-driver communication-requiring roundabouts.
you could build some in with no problems at all by following the traffic lines. But in the end, this is likely to portray a US Scenario so bike lanes are an option if best...
The original concept was created by Belisario Hernandez Romo in Phoenix AZ. in 1987 (only at this time could this concept be conceived due to the fact that computerized controllers did not exist linked to detection, actuation, and adaptation.
After 1987 (actually, the design exited since 1984 but there were no computer systems available to make it work in coordination by demand.)
SO if someone says to you that they designed this concept "before " 1987 they are lying!
INTERSECTION (at-grade) VS INTERCHANGE (Grade -Separated)
It is called: Two-Phase Enhanced At-Grade Semaphore "INTERSECTION" for one and only one reason is traffic light controlled in two phases per cycle
and it evolved from an early design (grade separation) CONTINUOUS FLOW "INTERCHANGE"
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/538422409534585/
facebook.com/bhromo2pi/
By the way, all his concept are copyrighted and registered in the right side and left side DRIVING
Her it is the "English: version: facebook.com/bhromo2pi/videos/1386139894762828/
With all due respect you have two mistakes in your scheme: 1.- You call it "continuous flow" Iy is not. and 2.- you land the right turn in the main lanes, thus needing THREE PHASES + One more for the pedestrians. This obliterates the very principle of the design only TWO PHASES PER CYCLE including the pedestrians for maximum capacity. The basic advantage is: The next green light is ALWAYS your light, giving the pedestrians and cyclist 400% more safety.