Interstates through urban areas are a necessity to move largeamounts of traffic, quickly and safely to their destination. Due tourban growth and sprawl, these highways have become far moreimportant, yet they do not reach that essential goal of speed andsafety. According to Haner-Dorr, wasted time, fuel and otherdamages caused by traffic congestion costs the average Americanmore then $700 a year. Such traffic not only effects people drivingto work, but the delivery of products and services. While it isclear that technology can improve the efficiency and safety of ourhighways, it is clear that is can not actually reduce trafficcongestion in the long run do a variety of factors.

Efficiency is essential for any modern highway design. It hasbeen estimated, that approximately 12 billion gallons of gasolineare wasted due to traffic related delays. It is common knowledgethat objects that are in motion want to remain in motion, andobjects at a stop do not want to accelerate back into motion.Additionally, Gasoline engines have narrow range of speeds werethey perform efficiently; when they run outside of these ranges,pollution (from incomplete combustion) and gasoline usage increases(Kraig). Therefore, great amounts of energy are wasted when trafficis forced to come to a stop do to heavy traffic. A smoothly runninghighway will significantly reduce pollution, usage of gasoline, andincrease highway safety.

Traffic is caused by several different factors. According tothe British government driver error, poor highway design orregulation, weather conditions, and too much traffic on the highwaylead to traffic problems (qtd. in Prakash). Usually more then morethen one of those factors contribute. For example, a highway couldbe busy, and traffic trying to merge on, has to either cut in frontof somebody to get on, or wait at the end of the on ramp. Theresult is traffic has to slow up to almost a stop or if the resultscompound to a stop. If the speed limit had been lower (a highwayregulations failure), traffic would be farther spread apart, andthe traffic would never had to almost come to a stop. Such factorsmake traffic build up and contribute to congestion.

Different locations around the United States have experimentwith different methods to ensure traffic is moving quickly andsafely. Today we are finding the most traditional methods ofreducing traffic are not practical, and may actually lead to anincrease in congestion. These methods include adding additionallanes, exits, traffic lights, traffic circles and increasing thespeed limit.

Adding additional lanes and exits is far from a perfectsolution. According to Kulash, additional lanes has the negativeconsequence of encouraging dangerous excess lane changing known astraffic weave. He also points out that additional lanes have theeffect of encouraging more traffic, as there is fewer waits. Thestandard interstate lane can typically handle 2,000 cars per houraccording to A.B. Prakish. Even with technology such as powerbrakes and steering, that number has only increased 100 cars perhour from the figure shown in the 1941 Highway Safety Handbook(qtd. in Prakish). Its clear technology can not be used to get anymore standard cars in a single lanes of traffic. Additional lanescan only increase the value to about 5,000 car per trafficdirection on a highway, due to the needs of traffic to get in theright most lanes to exit or enter (Prakish). Therefore, highwayswith more then three lanes are generally ineffective at reducingtraffic.

Many people propose additional entrances and exits as anotherway to avoid congestion. However, most congestion is at exits andentrances, as traffic tries to get on the highway. On the otherhand, once traffic is on the main highway, less is on the sidestreets. Putting exits too close together also encourages people toweave in and out of lanes to get to the exit ramp. In addition,similar to adding extra lanes, new exits encourage additionaltraffic to get on an already busy highway, encouraging moretraffic. Extra signage may be an inexpensive solution to thisproblem as proven to the people of Providence, but on a roadreaching capacity, such signage may have little improvement(Fricano).

Traffic lights have always been subject to controversy by safetyofficials and drivers themselves. A busy stop sign intersection cantake a long time to clear for a stopped car to go through itwithout a light. In some places, that time would be so long, itwould be impractical. Traffic lights on the other hand,inconvenience everybody, not just those few cars on back streets,especially if they are timed evenly in all directions. Safety hasalways been dubious at traffic lights, as there are always peopletrying to rush through an amber light or racing through the lightwhen it first turns green, without looking both ways beforeproceeding (Moving).

Modern intersections use technology to make stop light basedintersections safer and faster. They time the light cycle to ensuretraffic is always moving through the light, so no one has to wait along time at a red light while their is no other traffic moving.Induction plates, which act using the magnetic field, strengthenedby the metal in a car, and motion sensors are becoming common atintersections to alert the traffic light to change. These sensorsare typically on less traveled streets, so popular roads never havea red light unless there is traffic waiting in the less popularroad (Moving). To reduce the number of people running red lights inmajor cities, some cities have installed cameras on the lights tocatch red light runners. Until lately such technology has sufferedfrom the weakness of only being a still shot, providing no evidenceif the car was over the stop light when the light turned red (andtherefore was legally progressing through the intersection). A newsystem by Nestor Traffic Systems actually digital videotapes thosewho run red lights, to provide evidence that is not subject to suchproblems, and is supposedly not discriminatory (CrossingGuard).Such technology may however increase rear end crashes, as peoplepanic to stop before light turns red.

Traffic circles were a creative idea to move traffic aroundthrough an intersection, when they were first invented in1860’s, before the event of cars. They had all traffic movingaround in a circle in one direction, merging in and out of thecircle, to avoid ever having to stop to allow one to cross anothercar’s path. They had reduced the potential types of accidentsdown from 32 to 8 (almost eliminating the possibility of a vehiclebeing hit directly in the side). Such a dramatic reduction inpotential accident spots, made traffic engineers wonder why trafficcircles had such a high percentage of accidents. They found outthat the average traffic circle was not designed well, forcingtraffic to merge on circle, at a high speed. They came up with areplacement known as the Roundabout. This was a small, low speedtraffic circle, in which traffic did not merge on the circle,instead it had to yield to other traffic on the circle, and onlycontinue when there was space enough on the circle. The low speedcaused accidents to be rare as it is much easier to control avehicle at low speeds then high, and low speed accidents causedlittle damage. Curbs force traffic to yield at angles that is outof the blind spot of others. The results of these new rotaries havebeen extremely positive, both the new roundabout in Kingston, NYand the one north of the Sag Harbor Bridge on Long Island havereceived strong community support for their efficiency, and safety(Valenti).

It is clear that technology has limitations when it comes toending the traffic congestion. That is not to say that technologycan not be used to move traffic through an intersection faster, andmake roads safer. Roads have physical limitations to the volumethey can carry, even adding extra lanes, ramps or exits will noteliminate traffic problems. In the end, the best solution is todiscourage drivers from taking the freeway, and not totally rebuildthem, as rebuilding with have limited benefits.

Works Cited

Fricano, Mike. "Colonie to back $200M Route 5 Revamp." (29 Aug.2001) Dialog@Carl 18 Nov. 2001. Keyword: albany trafficcongestion

Haner-Dorr, Noelle. "Price tag for traffic congestion swells to$800M." Orlando Business Journal (26 Oct. 2001) InfoTracOneFile 18 Nov. 2001. Keyword: traffic costs

Kraig, Al. "Weaning the West off Middle East Oil." BusinessWeek (29 Oct. 2001) InfoTrac OneFile 18 Nov. 2001. Keyword:traffic costs

Levesque, David. "New street signs make it easier to getaround." Providence Business News (22 Oct. 2001). InfoTracOneFile. 18 Nov. 2001. Keyword: traffic congestion

"Moving Traffic with Responsive Traffic Signals." PublicWorks (Feb. 1999) InfoTrac OneFile. 28 Nov. 2001. Keyword:traffic lights

Nestor Traffic Systems. CrossingGuard Selected forTennessee’s First Automated Red Light Enforcement PressRelease. Providence: Bussiness Wire, 19 Nov. 2001.

Prakish, A. B. "Does building new roads really create extratraffic?" Applied Economics. (10 Oct. 2001) NewYork:Routeledge, 19 Nov. 2001.

Valenti, John. "Stop & Go; In a Roundabout Way, NY Gets aTaste of Europe." (6 May. 2001) Lexis-Nexis. 18 Nove. 2001.Keyword: traffic congestion