Merging into traffic? You're doing it wrong

[jdc]

Ive said this for years.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati.../90798014/

[C(-)ris]

Yep. The average person can’t figure out the optimal way to do anything, but they are certain their way is the best way and no amount of proof will change their mind. Small minds, they can’t see anything bigger than themselves. It is going to be the downfall of society.

[Carnos Jax]

Good thread....thanks.

[Forrest]

Zipper merge - have been doing it for years.

[deckeda]

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.

[M A V I C]

deckeda wrote:
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.

My state put together a video to show how you're wrong. The key part is that cars have to double their speed when they merge. So if two lanes full of cars are doing 60 and they merge into one, they have to speed up to 120 to keep the flow going. And if they do that instantly, waiting until the last second works.

Their video animation clearly showed that's how it works.

But, yeah, if every car and driver aren't capable of accelerating from 60 to 120 in a second or two, your method works better.

[deckeda]

LOL!

Yep, theory vs reality, that 'ol bugaboo.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

If the length of "lane unused" is 1000 feet, you might save 10 seconds going from two lanes to one as late as possible. I can't see it reducing delays by 35 percent unless they are talking about a construction zone that is only 100 feet long.

[MrNoBody]

Yep. The average person...

I'll put it more bluntly:

• Too many people have driver's licenses who shouldn't.
  (too few people are voluntarily taking driver's education)
  
• Auto Mfrs. are making questionable loans to boost sales numbers.*
  

* 25-30% APR loans to people they know will default.

[DeusxMac]

deckeda wrote:
Merging sooner is still a "zipper" merge because a merge is a merge

Maybe a broken zipper with missing teeth.