[manuelabeledo]

> Seems easier to do this than to rebuild every intersection in the world.

Just the ones that need fixing, I guess?

Also, this solution introduces a lot of new moving parts, doesn't address pedestrian safety, and savings may not be significant enough in the long term, compared to a roundabout.

> And many roundabouts still need lights because lights prevent gridlock which roundabouts do not do.

Most roundabouts are small enough, so they don't really need traffic lights. Regardless, gridlock happens usually only during peak hours, which would account for, say, 3-4 hours a day. Intuitively, roundabouts would be more efficient than these smart traffic lights ~80% of the time, and outside that, regular traffic lights would do.

[AnimalMuppet]

> > Seems easier to do this than to rebuild every intersection in the world.

> Just the ones that need fixing, I guess?

Which is the vast majority, at least in my part of the world. So, yeah, seems easier to do this than to rebuild (almost) every intersection in (this part of) the world.

[manuelabeledo]

I don't think I understand your point.

The solution proposed by Google doesn't seem to be too efficient, for several reasons: * Traffic-aware lights already exist. This could already reduces stops in the vast majority of the cases. * Google's system requires the deployment of an intricate, city wide network of smart traffic lights, driven by AI. I couldn't begin to imagine the kind of maintenance that would require. * Regarding that, this is a proprietary solution. Cities would likely have to pay Google to keep the network working.

To me, this draws some parallels to how Europe and the US handle house heating. Traditionally, houses in the US have oversized heating solutions, whereas European house construction is focused on insulation. Yes, swapping all the windows for energy efficient ones is more expensive in the short term, but it is cheaper in the longer term.

[ahahahahah]

> Google's system requires the deployment of an intricate, city wide network of smart traffic lights, driven by AI.

Did you just make this up? From the article: "company says that rolling the changes out can be a five-minute job that uses the city's existing management systems".

Google's system isn't about some smart AI driven lights. It's basically just AI developed light schedules for dumb lights. It doesn't require any deployment.

> Cities would likely have to pay Google to keep the network working.

Oh, you really did just completely imagine some system of your own.

[manuelabeledo]

> Oh, you really did just completely imagine some system of your own.

Turns out, data acquisition and processing does cost money.

[AnimalMuppet]

1. Everything you say could be true, and Google's solution could still be more efficient than tearing up 90% of the intersections in the US.

2. Retiming the traffic lights is an answer to a problem. Google's approach is only one possible way of getting to that answer. There may be more efficient ways.

[jsnell]

It feels like you're misunderstanding something. This is not a system controlling lights in real-time. It's probably just generating a schedule as a CSV file that a city employee uploads to their existing traffic light control system.