02-16-2019, 11:09 PM
Too simplistic.
The zipper merge, as they're describing it, happens where the closed lane is closed. Merging sooner is still a "zipper" merge because a merge is a merge
Yes it's good to take turns there because it reduces congestion after the merge point, which is why highways with stoplights at entrance ramps during rush hour take turns for the "green" on each of two or more lanes that will merge. This, of course, moves congestion farther aft.
But if the two lanes merged earlier, even though the closed lane eventually becomes unused (a waste) something interesting happens. Congestion does get moved farther and longer back, but it's spread out, keeping speeds higher on average.
Which method is "better" is influenced by traffic volume and the time the closed lane stays closed.
The zipper merge, as they're describing it, happens where the closed lane is closed. Merging sooner is still a "zipper" merge because a merge is a merge
Yes it's good to take turns there because it reduces congestion after the merge point, which is why highways with stoplights at entrance ramps during rush hour take turns for the "green" on each of two or more lanes that will merge. This, of course, moves congestion farther aft.
But if the two lanes merged earlier, even though the closed lane eventually becomes unused (a waste) something interesting happens. Congestion does get moved farther and longer back, but it's spread out, keeping speeds higher on average.
Which method is "better" is influenced by traffic volume and the time the closed lane stays closed.