I think you're thinking of http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html

I read it too, years ago, and also follow its recommendations. (And I ended up in the Seattle area, so I've gotten to experience the same traffic the author did...) It makes traffic less annoying for sure, even if there were 0 other benefits I'd do it. The only freeway issue that annoys me these days is people who don't keep right except to pass during non peak times.

Yes, that must have been it. I don't remember anything about the look of the page, but his tone seems very familiar.

How can you be sure the cars behind you aren't even more compressed than they otherwise would be if you're leaving so much space in front of you like that? One thing I hated about that article was that the author assumed he was doing such a great service for everyone by "smoothing out" the traffic waves by leaving a buffer, but he never really proved it; he just waved his hands and said that it looked like the cars behind him were doing fine. (How can you see more than one or two cars behind you? Are you driving in a literal ivory tower?)

In reality it could be just the opposite, someone behind you could be blindly accelerating because he sees the cars next to him doing so, then realizes you in front of him aren't accelerating along with them and has to tap his brakes, causing more traffic waves. And by definition the traffic behind you is more compressed than it otherwise would be, because you're hogging tons of lead space all for yourself. So you're dampening the waves in front of you by making the waves that develop behind you even worse!

Given that the minimum amount of lead time drivers are comfortable with is constant, if you pour tons of cars into a highway at rush hour, traffic necessarily must slow down because there's too many cars per mile of road to accommodate a safe lead time for each car at high speed.

So if everyone tried to smooth out traffic waves by leaving extra space in front of them, they'd effectively be making the number of cars that will fit in a mile of road even lower by artificially requiring more space for themselves. This will always make traffic become slower overall. Say what you want about the benefits of not having to stop-and-go traffic but you shouldn't be under any illusion that it makes the commute faster overall.

Whenever I see an article about traffic patterns, I inevitably see this exchange:

Person 1: You can fix traffic waves by smoothing!

Person 2: Smoothing traffic waves makes no sense!

It's frustrating. I don't know what to believe. Is there any peer-reviewed, simulation- and data-backed research that puts this issue to bed for good?

I think the sad truth is that it doesn't matter how you drive, traffic is going to suck.

Given that everyone requires a safe lead time of (for example) 1-2 seconds, the more cars there are per mile of highway, the slower everyone must drive. (You can't drive 80 miles per hour bumper-to-bumper.) So if density is say, 50% (one carlength of open space per one car), you have to drive a speed such that a carlength is 1-2s, in other words 10-20mph.

But traffic distribution is not uniform, there's exits and entrances, and cars do occasionally need to change lanes. If traffic is going 10-20mph with 1 carlength of space between cars (steady state), and I change lanes, the guy I merged in front of now has to slow down more to leave more room, and this will cause a traffic wave behind him. What happens at an exit when half the cars change lanes? Standstill. No change in driving technique on anyone's part will help this.

I think the only times where the way you drive matters is when the density is kinda sorta high but still low enough for a safe following distance at reasonable speeds, at which point "smoothing out waves" becomes a common sense matter of "don't follow so close", which is effectively the same thing, and something everyone should be doing anyway when the density is low.

You are thinking about traffic in terms of cars per foot. The right way to think about it is in terms of cars passing a spot per second.

A lot of traffic problems stem from the fact that you get more cars per second from quickly moving smooth traffic than from slowly moving dense traffic. Therefore if something bad happens to rapid smooth traffic, you quickly get a phase transition into horrible traffic.

Now what does the transition from horrible traffic back to good traffic look like? The first step is that you have to get back to smooth traffic, and then that has to speed up.

If nobody smooths out traffic deliberately, then you don't get this until the volume of people wanting to pass gets so light that all of the stop spots "evaporate" on their own because there is no pressure on them. Then the road speeds up. By contrast if traffic has been smoothed, the bottom speed steadily increases, and you get back to full speed much earlier.

Plus smoothing traffic will save on your own car's wear and tear.

Oh, and on merging? Go read http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/McCoy.htm. You will find that in the real world when drivers are instructed to merge late and politiely, merging happens significantly faster, with far fewer conflicts between drivers. So how you merge actually does matter. A lot.

Yes, there are many, many papers about this in the civil engineering literature, going back to the 1950s. Cellular automata models, fluid flow models, you name it. If you're really interested to learn more, search google scholar for "traffic flow," "traffic wave" or similar.

Even the wikipedia article on "Traffic flow" is quite comprehensive. [0]

It really annoys me when people come up with a "theory" and write a blog post about it without doing a shred of actual research on the subject.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow

The smoothing doesn't increase the road capacity, though there is likely a small benefit to mitigating the negative effects of merging.

The big benefit, which the grandparent concedes, is the reduction of unnecessary fuel usage, wear and tear on the vehicle and driver.

So, I consider it a win regardless.

The papers I've seen on this conclude that rear-end accidents are the major issue. Smoothing the waves can eliminate immense rush-hour delays, if this eliminates panic-braking that can cause minor daily accidents. Or as they say, "speed differentials are dangerous." In I-70 Colorado they claim that police pace-cars used to smooth out the fluctuations have cut the accident rate in half.

In theory the waves can represent a bottleneck, since the close-packed regions are low-flow, but the wide empty regions are also low-flow. If the smoothed wave results in traffic flowing at 35-40MPH, then smoothing will increase the flow, since the peak flow rate takes place at 35-40 MPH. But the increase isn't enormous. I think they said ~15%. That's nothing, when compared to the effects of removing an accident scene from a rush-hour commute.

You can play with those online JAVA simulators: set up unstable conditions on the ring-road, watch the initial flow, then after traffic-waves develop, watch the flow again. If enormous waves appear, the flow drops by ~25%, but if a string of small waves appear, the decrease is less than 10%.

The way I do it, I eventually catch up to the car in front of me. Not having the data to pick the perfect, average speed, I err faster so that the traffic behind me isn't, on average, going significantly slower than traffic in front of me. Note that waves behind you are the only waves affected. All you're doing is thinning out the medium so they don't propagate efficiently. The end goal is keeping actual speed close to average speed; spacing is a means to an end.

> How can you be sure the cars behind you aren't even more compressed

Because, uh, you don't drive slow.

You drive at the average speed of traffic. Not slow. To smooth out the traffic waves, you don't come to a halt, and neither do you rush forward. "Average speed:" that's when it's not fast, and also it's not slow.

---

Myth: if you have an empty gap, you must be a slow driver!!

Debunked: yes, genuinely slow drivers have big gaps ahead, but those gaps are continuously growing. If a clot of cars is going just 1/2MPH slower than average, then the gap increases rapidly: growing a half mile for each driving hour. If that clot of cars was 5MPH slow, then in just ten minutes the gap would increase by over four thousand ft.

But on the other hand, a constant-sized gap does not decrease your speed. Whether you're 6" from the car ahead, or 6ft, or 600ft, your gap has a constant size, and you're moving at the same speed as traffic ahead.

Slow drivers do make empty gaps, but empty gaps aren't any proof of slow driving.

Heh, so maniacal aggressive tailgating doesn't actually get you to your destination any faster? AMAZING! Who'd have thought!

Someone posted the link, and noticed the part where he saw behind him. TL;DR: When driving downhill into a valley, you can see for miles behind you out the rear window.

Also, I didn't say that smoothing the waves increased road capacity, though improving merging may help a bit. Rather, the reduction of stop/go is to everyone's benefit.

In the city things are largely the same, people here tend to speed to the next red light, but it doesn't help.

One problem of the "car idle" in terms of humans is that it takes almost constant attention to make sure you don't bump into the cars in front. Compare that to the speed-up/break/slow-down which allows time to relax. In my own driving I tend to have a more relaxed speed-up/slow-down cycle which is somewhere in-between the two modes you describe.

Not to mention that, in the country I live in, it is guaranteed that while you're idly rolling forward, some asshole will cut you off and take your place so that he can win that precious 2 seconds.

So let him. What's the harm? If he's gaining an insignificant amount of time, then you're losing an insignificant amount of time.

Now I have to slam on the breaks, instead of having a gap to avoid hard accelerate/break cycles.

I'd like to avoid the wear on my car and my nerves, but it's not possible because some (expletive) person will fill the gap.

To avoid breaking, allow more space in front, including space for someone to merge in.

lather, rinse, repeat.

(or was I being trolled? see "comedy in Boston" in one of the "cousin" comments nearby)

The linked article in this major thread explains why this doesn't make much difference:

    http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html

In my experience cars are just as likely to cut in as out, and that's what the extra space is for anyway.

If you arrive any later it will be minute or two per hour, so worrying about people "getting ahead" of you accomplishes nothing. If you want to win the race against the others on the freeway tomorrow, leave 5 minutes earlier!

This happens to an almost comic degree in Boston. One car, invariably with Maine plates, insists on leaving five car lengths between them and the driver in front of them. By Boston standards this is a monster opening which is quickly filled and the Maine driver continues to back off. This happens the entire way through the city.

I think it was on Slashdot years and years ago. I can't find a link. I also remember the recommendation for spacing out and making it all better. Taxi drivers tend to do this (personal anecdote - others' taxis may differ).