Negative effects of poor traffic signal synchronization

**milesdriven** · January-17-11, 10:20 AM

One can drive 8 Mile or Telegraph for miles and not stop at any traffic lights if there isn't too much traffic. Yesterday, while driving down Livernois from Fenkell to Grand River, I had to stop at seven traffic lights in this short 2.5 mile stretch. Unnecessary medians aside, I think this is a major issue for the city. Businesses would get more exposure if the city's roads were more traversable, and less people would be inclined to take side streets, which are much faster in many cases when you factor in traffic light wait times. Who would be responsible for making smooth signal timing a reality?

**Gannon** · January-17-11, 10:52 AM

A bunch of people who likely own oil company stock and maybe a franchised Auto Brake center on the side...or worse, just don't care enough to do anything about it.

**sirrealone** · January-17-11, 11:12 AM

This is especially bad in Oakland County, where many intersections are controlled by cameras that adjust the lights according to when traffic appears at the intersection. The problem is that the lights have no method of communicating with each other. If the computer controlling the lights knew, from receiving a signal from the computer at the next intersection, that a whole mess of cars were coming, it could adjust the change accordingly. I can't tell you the number of times I see a light change, stopping fifteen cars, so that one or two cars can get a green light. A system with better integration would be able to reduce these situations, thus increasing flow and reducing wasted time and wasted gas consumption.

**mwilbert** · January-17-11, 11:24 AM

Yesterday, while driving down Livernois from Fenkell to Grand River, I had to stop at seven traffic lights in this short 2.5 mile stretch.

Were you driving in the expected direction [[inbound/morning or outbound/evening)?
I haven't driven that particular stretch in a while, but usually the lights seem pretty well timed if you are going the right way. I have often made it from McNichols to the Jeffries with maybe 2 stops. I do adjust my speed a bit to optimize it.

**Hermod** · January-17-11, 11:29 AM

Back before they built the Chrysler XPWY, they made John R. one-way and Brush the opposite way. The lights were synched extremely well. You could go all the way from 8-mile to downtown and vice versa with being caught on more than one light if you went exactly at the speed limit.

**milesdriven** · January-17-11, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Were you driving in the expected direction [[inbound/morning or outbound/evening)?
I haven't driven that particular stretch in a while, but usually the lights seem pretty well timed if you are going the right way. I have often made it from McNichols to the Jeffries with maybe 2 stops. I do adjust my speed a bit to optimize it.

I was driving southbound around 11:30 last night.

**Don K** · January-17-11, 11:46 AM

I agree about Telegraph. Before I retired I sometimes used Telegraph as an alternate to Southfield to get from Dearborn to Bloomfield/Birmingham. After turning onto Telegraph at Ford, I'd have to stop at the first light [[Hass), but then could make it to at least McNichols or 7 Mile, and sometimes as far as 9 or 10 Mile before having to stop again, even during rush hour. Then after negotiating the mess that is Northwestern/12 Mile, it would be pretty clear sailing again at least as far as Maple, and sometimes right up to my turnoff at Lone Pine.

Southfield Road, by contrast, is awful [[or at least was the last time I drove it). If you drive south from Birmingham starting at Maple and stick reasonably close to the limit [[say, 40-50 mph once you're in the 45 mph zone south of 14 Mile), you will be stopped by every light all the way to the beginning of the freeway south of 10 Mile, even if there's no traffic. If you're the first car at a light, and are willing to push it up to, mmm, upper 50's, you can just make the tail end of the next light, and then you're fine, but it seems whoever timed those lights wanted to incentivize people to either drive way too fast or too slow.

Interestingly, lots of people on Telegraph in OC haven't gotten the message about the timing of the lights. Every day I'll be cruising along at 55 [[limit is 50) in Bloomfield Township planning to get to the next light about the time it's changing only to have three or four cars blow by me at 60-65. These cars then have to come to a stop at the light, forcing me to slow down behind them while they accelerate. And don't think the Bloomfield Township cops haven't noticed. They know if they want to write a few quick tickets they just have sit on the shoulder on Telegraph and wait a couple of minutes.

**Hamtragedy** · January-17-11, 12:05 PM

About 5 years the lights on Davison Avenue were re-timed to make traffic flow from the Jeffries to the Davison Freeway. What was once a frustrating drive has now become my major crosstown artery.

As for Livernois, I agree, I get stuck at nearly every single light from Grand River south to Warren without rhyme or reason.

**jbd441** · January-17-11, 12:21 PM

My favorite is stopping at a light and there is not a single car in sight on the cross street. I work nights sometimes and it happens all the time. Talk about a waste of gas and time.

**izzyindetroit** · January-17-11, 12:34 PM

It cannot be as bad as E. Jefferson. I was hoping they would change the timing when they were finished updating all the lights. I haven't noticed any differences yet. The most frustrating is this one, here you have a one way coming out at a three way intersection with the light turning red when the only traffic turning onto the one way occurs at the plant shift times.

http://goo.gl/maps/IWPF

**mwilbert** · January-17-11, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by milesdriven

I was driving southbound around 11:30 last night.

I doubt the lights are timed to optimize inbound traffic at 11:30PM; more likely they are still set to favor outbound. It would be interesting to know what the schedule is [[if in fact there is one and this isn't all a product of my imagination). If nothing else it would be useful for route planning.

One thing that they could do is switch more of the lights to flashers by 11:30 at night--a lot of those lights are at intersections that have little or no cross-traffic late at night.

**iheartthed** · January-17-11, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by milesdriven

One can drive 8 Mile or Telegraph for miles and not stop at any traffic lights if there isn't too much traffic. Yesterday, while driving down Livernois from Fenkell to Grand River, I had to stop at seven traffic lights in this short 2.5 mile stretch. Unnecessary medians aside, I think this is a major issue for the city. Businesses would get more exposure if the city's roads were more traversable, and less people would be inclined to take side streets, which are much faster in many cases when you factor in traffic light wait times. Who would be responsible for making smooth signal timing a reality?

I think the lights were timed to purposely have you stop like that. I bet you were more clearly able to see the businesses from having to stop than you would if the lights were timed for you to breeze through. It's also less of a hazard for pedestrians.

It makes sense for 8 Mile and Telegraph to be timed for traffic to move with minimal stopping, since those are both roads that run along the periphery of the city, they have wide lanes, left hand turns are prohibited on both, and probably most importantly, they weren't ever meant to be pedestrian friendly.

**mwilbert** · January-17-11, 01:17 PM

I'm sure this is a valid point in many cases, but there aren't that many businesses people are going to randomly stop at on Livernois between Fenkell and Grand River, and even fewer at 11:30PM. Nor that many pedestrians--and timing the lights properly helps control the speed because if you stick close to the limit you don't hit many lights.

**iheartthed** · January-17-11, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I'm sure this is a valid point in many cases, but there aren't that many businesses people are going to randomly stop at on Livernois between Fenkell and Grand River, and even fewer at 11:30PM. Nor that many pedestrians--and timing the lights properly helps control the speed because if you stick close to the limit you don't hit many lights.

Yeah, but that still doesn't much justify changing the timing, IMO. How many people are driving Livernois at night? I would guess that the ratio of businesses open to vehicular traffic isn't too much different at 11:30P than it is at 11:30A. But even if I'm wrong, his argument was that improving the flow of vehicular traffic would be a boon to business along that thoroughfare.

And whether there aren't as many pedestrians at 11:30P as 11:30A also is irrelevant. It's still a hazard to the pedestrians who do have to cross or walk along Livernois at 11:30P. And it's probably more important to the pedestrian that you put in the proper traffic controls because it is harder to be seen by drivers at that time of night...

**mwilbert** · January-17-11, 02:28 PM

And whether there aren't as many pedestrians at 11:30P as 11:30A also is irrelevant. It's still a hazard to the pedestrians who do have to cross or walk along Livernois at 11:30P.

This doesn't seem convincing. The density of pedestrians and cars in the middle of the night is well below any threshold where you would install a signal. The signals are only there because of the traffic at other times of day; that doesn't create a compelling argument that they are needed at night.

In my experience, the lights don't do much for pedestrians at low-traffic volume times anyway. Most pedestrians don't wait for the lights to cross at those times, because most people don't have any problem avoiding the occasional car. You could make the lights pedestrian-activated if you wanted to help the less bold and/or less spry ones--for all I know some of them already are.

**Jimaz** · January-17-11, 02:53 PM

This looks a bit technical but seems a good resource on the subject: Signal Timing Manual.

The main webpage still says it's scheduled to be completed in 2008 but the copy I downloaded looks complete.

**iheartthed** · January-17-11, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

This doesn't seem convincing. The density of pedestrians and cars in the middle of the night is well below any threshold where you would install a signal. The signals are only there because of the traffic at other times of day; that doesn't create a compelling argument that they are needed at night.

In my experience, the lights don't do much for pedestrians at low-traffic volume times anyway. Most pedestrians don't wait for the lights to cross at those times, because most people don't have any problem avoiding the occasional car. You could make the lights pedestrian-activated if you wanted to help the less bold and/or less spry ones--for all I know some of them already are.

It's not about whether a pedestrian waits for a traffic light, or even crosses the street at the intersection. Engineers don't plan solely according to the instructed use of a product. They also plan have to plan for the varying ways that a product can be used, and unfortunately what can go wrong.

A pedestrian who gets hit by a car, whether at a designated crossing or at an poorly lit section of the mid-block, will have a better chance of surviving the accident if the car is going 35 MPH versus 45 MPH. Timing traffic lights to have drivers not stop encourages 1) the driver to drive at the fastest speed that s/he can without being stopped by a traffic light and 2) not be in the mindset to react as quickly to an obstruction in the road as if s/he had to stop/slow at regular intervals. I don't think whatever minimal benefits of changing the timing is worth the potential downside [[and that worst case scenario only has to happen once for it to not be worth it at all). If you want to avoid traffic lights, that's what freeways are for...

**Russix** · January-17-11, 04:01 PM

Livernois Ave. product of Kwame cronyism?

Seems like alot of the local businesses and residents didn't want this "improvement".

http://michiganmessenger.com/4190/de...despite-outcry

On the other hand, I like the new pedestrian islands on Davison.

citylover · January-17-11, 05:57 PM

No where is this as bad as here in Ann Arbor.Of course here you have a form of social engineering wherein the automobile is the work of the devil.So any conflict between the auto and pedestrian/bicycle is always gonna be the auto getting the short end of the deal. In fact the city has tried to lower speed limits and embarrassingly lost in court [[that is a rarity) on traffic matters because of it.I am thinking of starting at thread on the curious hatred of cars around here considering that the car industry gave us just about every thing we have.

**fryar** · January-18-11, 12:29 AM

If you go up 1st or down 2nd Avenue in the upper half of Manhattan, the lights are synchronized at something like 27 mph, which makes for an adequate speed and disincentives speeding, it seems to me, since you're only going to hit a red light if you get out in front of the synchronicity.

Synchronized traffic lights are real common in Germany. I'm no traffic planner but I imagine there's no good reason not to do this, in principle.

**Hermod** · January-18-11, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by fryar

If you go up 1st or down 2nd Avenue in the upper half of Manhattan, the lights are synchronized at something like 27 mph, which makes for an adequate speed and disincentives speeding, it seems to me, since you're only going to hit a red light if you get out in front of the synchronicity.

Synchronized traffic lights are real common in Germany. I'm no traffic planner but I imagine there's no good reason not to do this, in principle.

Embedded incompetence in city engineering?

**iheartthed** · January-18-11, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by citylover

No where is this as bad as here in Ann Arbor.Of course here you have a form of social engineering wherein the automobile is the work of the devil.So any conflict between the auto and pedestrian/bicycle is always gonna be the auto getting the short end of the deal. In fact the city has tried to lower speed limits and embarrassingly lost in court [[that is a rarity) on traffic matters because of it.I am thinking of starting at thread on the curious hatred of cars around here considering that the car industry gave us just about every thing we have.

Yeah, those damn socialists and their being concerned with public safety and all...

Two women were hit by a pickup truck last night and died after
arriving at the University Hospital.

Ann Arbor Police Department Sgt. Brad Hill said the women were
crossing Plymouth Road at 6:20 p.m., apparently on their way home
from the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor after breaking their Ramadan
fast for the day.

The AAPD has not released the names of the women, but members of
the campus Muslim community say the women are Norhananim Zainol and
Teh Nanni Roshema Roslan, two Engineering students. The girls were
both international students and members of the Malaysian Students
Association.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content...-crossing-road

**DetroitPlanner** · January-18-11, 08:47 AM

Synchronized traffic leads to better air quality and less rear end collisions.

In general State tunklines [[US or M roads) will be timed much better than other arterials. These carry the bulk of the traffic in many areas. Other roads are timed by the County Road agencies or the City/Village. These agencies try to coordinate the best they can, but traffic on these roads travel at wildly different speeds [[with some folks wanting to travel like bats out of hell and others just using it to run up to the local Kroger) and they also have to 'yeild' to State trunklines which are the priority corridors.

Many intersections in the urban portion of Washtenaw County are over engineered. I can't believe the number of phases that each cycle contains. One would have to assume these roads are safer, but you give up a lot of time idling [[leading to air pollution) and slower speeds to get that safety.

**mkhopper** · January-18-11, 04:02 PM

I loved the way the lights were synchronized on Telegraph through Southfield and Detroit.
I used to work at Inkster and Northwestern Hwy and would usually leave for the day around 10:30pm and if I caught the light at 12 and NWH green, I wouldn't stop again until my driveway at 6 and Beech.

**mkhopper** · January-18-11, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A pedestrian who gets hit by a car, whether at a designated crossing or at an poorly lit section of the mid-block, will have a better chance of surviving the accident if the car is going 35 MPH versus 45 MPH. Timing traffic lights to have drivers not stop encourages 1) the driver to drive at the fastest speed that s/he can without being stopped by a traffic light and 2) not be in the mindset to react as quickly to an obstruction in the road as if s/he had to stop/slow at regular intervals. I don't think whatever minimal benefits of changing the timing is worth the potential downside [[and that worst case scenario only has to happen once for it to not be worth it at all). If you want to avoid traffic lights, that's what freeways are for...

I drive Warren every day through Detroit now, and at times I also drive Joy, and for the longest time I'd always be frustrated with having to stop every quarter mile until I came to the conclusion you have.

So many people just amble into the street, whether at a corner or not [[which is a conversation for another time) and if the lights were timed so you didn't have to stop or at least slow down, eventually you'd just drive through the area on auto-pilot and wouldn't be quick enough to respond to something causing you to have to slow down or stop.