Removing Traffic Jams

Traffic lights cause jams. They worsen congestion by reducing lane capacity by half. This causes more congestion instead of relieving the congestion. When no congestion, lane Capacity is full, but with more traffic, the lights reduce them to half, making the congestion worse, so causing jams. I wonder why ignored by planners. Not even in textbooks the subject of congestion. Even journals never have a consistent definition of congestion. For drivers, cars not moving is called traffic jam. Not to the civil Engineers because at Traffic lights, cars do not move also. The solution is simple. Remove all traffic lights but forbid right turns. To turn right, you must do U-turns. Not difficult in cities because there are lots of buildings. These buildings are huge roundabouts. One other solution is one-way street. It was proposed by a consultant 10 years ago. Dr. Tan. I didn't support but now I understand why.

 A steep underpass across road crossings which means that the speed of vehicles cannot exceed 50km/hr. Also, they are meant for cars so ceiling heights is only 2.6m, just like underground car parks. We should use underpasses for all junctions instead of traffic lights. Traffic lights cause all traffic jams. https://1drv.ms/w/s!AuDQXG4eStrWiscVgUiscA038AmWPA?e=UXYs5R

  This no-crossing U-turns can replace Traffic Lights at junctions. You need two NCUT for each junction. You replace crossings with mergings. Accidents at crossings even with traffic lights were proven to be more fatal than accidents at mergings. The full article is here:  https://1drv.ms/w/s!AuDQXG4eStrWiscTkZ9jIxFm0HULHw?e=Nc8g9A

Attached are papers that describe ways of removing traffic jams economically and by using existing technology. It is based on the flow equations where it can be shown that traffic flow (vehicles per time) is not dependent on speed (Refer to Highway Traffic Manual). These papers had been submitted for academic review in journals but had been rejected because of insufficient academic content, and not because they are wrong. The papers remain copyrighted to me and should not be distributed without permission and proper acknowledgements. To remove traffic jams, it should be sufficient to slow down vehicles at junctions without stopping them. Stopping them such as at crossings and traffic lights is what causes traffic jams. We can remove crossing completely by using No Crossing U-turns, which are well known already. Instead of road crossing, we use mergings. Mergings may still cause accidents but these accidents are less fatal compared to crossings as shown by RCUT (Restricted Crossing...

Thank you for replying but you have misunderstood all the issues. 1. "an intervention like this, which increases road capacity" My proposal is not about increasing capacity. It is about improving capacity of lanes that already exist. It is a waste of resources if we cannot improve their efficiencies in the most economical way. 2. Congestion is wrongly defined. According to your definition, any long journey is a congestion then. This is false. Congestion should be viewed  as how frustrated users are, not how long the journey should take. People are not frustrated if they know before hand how long a journey will take. Of course, everyone wants instant travel but practically it is impossible. 3. "reduce demand to travel" You view as though travel is something that people want. With this wrong assumption, all research data is useless. They don't like to travel. They have to travel. For example, going to the cinema. If we can have...