Skip to main content

Proposal to JKR Sarawak Director

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 U-turns), well known and described in textbooks. In Sabah, I notice that merging lanes are so short that they turn into waiting lanes, but even these are safer than outright crossings. A few attempts had been made in Sabah to replace mergings with crossings but these are dangerous to the drivers, and a few had reverted to the short merging lanes.
The standard practice of U-turn in Sabah is to provide extra diverging lane which turned into waiting lanes because vehicles have to cross the roads. This practice is not wise if we consider traffic flow. The diverging lane is an extra lane but traffic flow is diverted, so total traffic flow is less. It is useless to provide extra flow capacity for traffic that is less.
What is proposed is to divert the diverging lane to the other side to become a merging lane. It makes more sense flow-wise because we add traffic flow to the other side of the lane so additional lanes are needed. To provide extra two lanes for the turning, the emergency lanes are placed at the centre, i.e. the island of the road. To cater for longer vehicles, we provide another crossing U-turn after the no-crossing U-turn. Refer to Figure 1 of the paper, “No-crossing U-turn”.
Sarawak has a lot of huge roundabouts because it still has a lot of land area. To implement No-crossing U-turns to replace all junctions will require two roundabout size U-turns. Also means adding additional roundabouts for each roundabout in Sarawak. There is less need now to reduce traffic jams at these places, but we should be prepared for the future. Kota Kinabalu is already congested.
Because most vehicles can turn within the four lanes, we can reduce traffic jams tremendously, that traffic flow will be continuous most of the time. It will make pedestrial crossings more difficult. Our normal solution is to provide overhead bridges. They are high for elderly people to climb. It is better to provide underpass tunnel that is only 2.6m (9 feet) in height. The technology to build this underpass is already well established in underground car parks. These underground car parks are designed for slow speed so have high gradients.
These high gradients mean that the length to enter the underground car park is short, and therefore saves a lot of space. These characteristics allow them to be most useful in providing under passes at the centre of the city where overhead bridges take up too much space.   Refer to the article, “An Optimum Urban Road Junction Design”.
Yours sincerely,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respose to www.smartertransport.uk

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Traffic lights cause 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.
Post a Comment
Read more

No more excuses for fatal road traffic accidents or jams.

Once it is clear that we can elimate all traffic lights and crossings, there is no more excuses for allowing fatal traffic accidents and jams. The most critical is the fatalities due to traffic accidents as a result of crossings,f even in the presense of traffic lights or roundabouts. We can elimate them by using no-crossing u-turns. The cost is so little that there will not longer be valid excuses for highway planners to allow any crossing at any junctiions, even to provide traffic lights. If there ever were fatal accidents at these crossings, the road users can sue for damages to the highway authorities. Ingorance is not a defence. I notice that, even in Sabah, there are so many junctions where crossing are allowed when we have enough space to provide merging lanes. Worse, these merging lanes were converted to crossings. There were many accidents at the crossings. A few of them are fatal and this time, the victims can sue the government for negligence in allowing crossings at j...
Post a Comment
Read more