Negative effects of poor traffic signal synchronization

[Gistok]

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.

Citylover, I commuted to Ann Arbor from St. Clair Shores for 4 years, and most of that time it wasn't a problem.. until you exited I-94 at State Street. One year [[1999?) there was a Sunday rain/ice storm... and most everywhere all cities cleared their slush from the roadway before it was planning on freezing Sunday night....

But not Ann Arbor... I remember it took me 55 minutes to get to the State Street exit [[normal timing)... and another 45 minutes just to get to Hoover Ave. [[a 2 1/2 mile stretch). Ann Arbor had done absolutely NOTHING to remove the slush from the street on Sunday... and it was a frozen skating rink come Monday AM rush hour. Unbelievable....

[muskie1]

I do like some of the newer lights that have the walk/don't walk signs with the countdown timers on them. There are a few on my way to work and it seems to have gotten rid of the race to the stale green light. Another big help has been the elimination of the flashing red left turn lights at peek times. They now cycle like a normal light and will turn green before the oncoming traffic gets its green light. One of the intersections with this newer system use to tie me up at least twice a month because of a left turn accident but have only seen one since it was installed.

[Rolfsy]

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.

Most on this board tend to be 'urbanophiles', and the relationship between car and city is pretty binary. Cities stifle cars [[Boston/SF/Chicago), or cars eat cities [[Detroit/LA/St. Louis). Accomodating 2-ton, 6-foot wide wheelchairs would do strange things to an old house.

Double edged sword for sure. I think at this point, infrastructure-wise, the hangover has overwhelmed the good times. There's probably not many places on Earth that have given over to the car the way this region has, and it's arguable if we have much to show for it. Not making a moral stand on it, just wonder what the 'plus' column would have.

The distaste may also be similar to the way the whaling and/or Chinese opium trades are considered shameful today, even though they were staples of the early New England gentry.

[gazhekwe]

We have a light inside our subdivision at the Lodge overpass. Apparently during the days when Ma Bell had the buildings on the east side of the X-way, there was a lot of traffic. Now, it is like Podunkville, especially after evening "rush hour". We will catch that darn light and wait out its minute and a half cycle and be the only car in the area the whole time. That is a serious candidate for flashing after 8 pm. We have a saying we attribute to traffic engineers: Stopped traffic is safe traffic.

[citylover]

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

I remember that sad incident.But that stretch of Plymouth rd has high traffic density along with a curve in the road and the average speed is 40-45 mph it is a wonder more people have not been killed.

A request for a crosswalk with a light was turned down ,instead there is a pedestrian crossing but that only works if people cross with in the pedestrian crossing lines.....often they don't.The solution would be to put in a pedestrian bridge.In fact there was one for a long time at Plymouth and Barton just west of where this accident happened.But then that would be unsightly and acquiescing to the dreaded automobile.... anyhow that is a poor example on your part as there should be either a traffic light or a ped/bridge.

[citylover]

Most on this board tend to be 'urbanophiles', and the relationship between car and city is pretty binary. Cities stifle cars [[Boston/SF/Chicago), or cars eat cities [[Detroit/LA/St. Louis). Accomodating 2-ton, 6-foot wide wheelchairs would do strange things to an old house.

Double edged sword for sure. I think at this point, infrastructure-wise, the hangover has overwhelmed the good times. There's probably not many places on Earth that have given over to the car the way this region has, and it's arguable if we have much to show for it. Not making a moral stand on it, just wonder what the 'plus' column would have.

The distaste may also be similar to the way the whaling and/or Chinese opium trades are considered shameful today, even though they were staples of the early New England gentry.

I do hope you are not equating in any way the opium trade with the car industry. Some will call me callow.But until the assembly line and Henry ford the chance for poor and modest people to have any advance in quality of life was slim at best.

So much of the great architecture and culture and history of our area is directly the result of the car industry. How many hundreds of thousands of people in this area have advanced degrees because someone in their family made a good living in the auto industry?

The car did not eat Detroit.It made Detroit the great city it is. The fact is [[nobody will admit ) people want their cars. But my curiosity is more in the hatred of what made this place what it is......the place everyone claims to love.

[MSUguy]

I do hope you are not equating in any way the opium trade with the car industry. Some will call me callow.But until the assembly line and Henry ford the chance for poor and modest people to have any advance in quality of life was slim at best.

So much of the great architecture and culture and history of our area is directly the result of the car industry. How many hundreds of thousands of people in this area have advanced degrees because someone in their family made a good living in the auto industry?

The car did not eat Detroit.It made Detroit the great city it is. The fact is [[nobody will admit ) people want their cars. But my curiosity is more in the hatred of what made this place what it is......the place everyone claims to love.

No one hates the car industry. What I and other hate is the auto-centric planning that has dominated this region which is a major factor in this city's decline

[Rolfsy]

I do hope you are not equating in any way the opium trade with the car industry. Some will call me callow.But until the assembly line and Henry ford the chance for poor and modest people to have any advance in quality of life was slim at best.

I should have prefaced that more - mostly referencing economic engines that pass out of favor. But now that I think of it, it's still more apt than whaling.

[iheartthed]

I remember that sad incident.But that stretch of Plymouth rd has high traffic density along with a curve in the road and the average speed is 40-45 mph it is a wonder more people have not been killed.

A request for a crosswalk with a light was turned down ,instead there is a pedestrian crossing but that only works if people cross with in the pedestrian crossing lines.....often they don't.The solution would be to put in a pedestrian bridge.In fact there was one for a long time at Plymouth and Barton just west of where this accident happened.But then that would be unsightly and acquiescing to the dreaded automobile.... anyhow that is a poor example on your part as there should be either a traffic light or a ped/bridge.

Actually, if I remember correctly... Wasn't there a traffic light there at one time? And didn't it change to flashing yellow at night? I remember one having been there, but I might be mistaken... I've lived a lot of places. But I feel like there was a useless light there that they removed in order to put in better lighting and pedestrian islands so that people weren't just standing in the middle of the street waiting for traffic to clear.

I remember driving that way on the night the two women were killed. Those two certainly weren't the first people to have been hit and injured while trying to cross that street... and I don't even think they were the only pedestrians to have died trying to cross that street. Plymouth Road through Ann Arbor is probably the best example I can think of for why traffic lights on Livernois shouldn't be synchronized to allow traffic to flow without stopping. It was incredibly dangerous to cross that street after dark because traffic moved so fast through there.

[Dan_the_man]

You could argue that, but at the same time, some of the lights on Livernois are just plain ridiculous. When I had to drive from Harper Woods to UDM every day I would take 8 Mile for about 11 miles and then Livernois for about 2. The 11 miles down 8 mile took at most, 20 minutes hitting maybe a couple lights the whole way and the 2 miles down Livernois took at least 10 minutes hitting probably 4-5 lights. That's not just safety, its stupid. All the wasted time and gas that is spent by people driving down that stretch of road is just plain wasteful. Not to mention that the number of pedestrians is very small. I almost never see anyone at 8:30 am, 5 pm, or around noon.

[iheartthed]

Not to mention that the number of pedestrians is very small. I almost never see anyone at 8:30 am, 5 pm, or around noon.

Well until the day that there is never a single pedestrian that ever crosses Livernois, the traffic lights need to stay as is.

[hudkina]

Synchronizing lights and having no traffic control are two completely different concepts. Show me a study where a street has become less pedestrian friendly when the lights were synchronized. I guarantee you won't find it...

Synchronized lights can actually be less dangerous, especially when drivers are informed that the lights along a specific route are timed for a certain speed. For example, a driver who is familiar with a road with a speed limit of 45 MPH might learn that by going 55 MPH between two specific lights allows him to catch the second light that he would otherwise miss going 45 MPH.

The key is to inform the drivers of the most efficient speed. For example, if the lights along Livernois were optimized for a car traveling 27 MPH, and the driver is aware of that fact, then he's very likey to maintain that speed. There's no need to rush to the next green light for fear it will change. There's no need to speed up to the next red light only to sit and waste gas and pollute the atmosphere.

And as far as pedestrians are concerned, they will essentially get the same amount of time to cross the road. The only difference is when the lights change. In fact, by timing the lights, it could allow for even more traffic lights along a specific stretch giving pedestrians even more safe points to cross.

[Brian1979]

I can't stand poorly timed lights. I live in Saginaw and can't stand the way the lights are timed here. I'll give one example, there is a street here called Mackinaw Street which goes for quite a distance into the country and there are two lights where you have to stop for them both, they have it set up that the light further down will turn green while your still waiting for the first light to turn green, by the time the light your at turns green both lights are green for a few seconds then by the time you get to the next light it's going yellow, then red. I don't understand it at all, I think they should have it set up to where both lights go green at the same time, stay green for about 30 seconds and give the pair of one ways a green light at the exact same time. If anyone is familar with Saginaw the intersections I'm talking about are Mackinaw/Davenport and Mackinaw/State. You can be going southbound on Mackinaw and what I just said will happen, but if your going northbound it's the other way around because the first light will go green while the next light is still red.

[mtburb]

For another really bad example, drive on Oak Street in Wyandotte. Even if you travel at the right speeds you will still get a red light at every signalized intersection.

[mwilbert]

Well until the day that there is never a single pedestrian that ever crosses Livernois, the traffic lights need to stay as is.

Except for your other comments on this thread, I would have taken this as a joke. Even if synchronized lights were more dangerous, and I think hudkina is correct to say that this is unproven at best, at some level of pedestrian traffic greater than zero it would make sense to change the lights. There is a trade-off between pedestrian safety and traffic rules. We could have stop signs an every corner and a 10 mph limit, which would be very safe [[if enforced) but very inconvenient, but we don't, because pedestrian safety isn't our only value. When there aren't very many pedestrians, the trade-off changes.

[iheartthed]

Except for your other comments on this thread, I would have taken this as a joke. Even if synchronized lights were more dangerous, and I think hudkina is correct to say that this is unproven at best, at some level of pedestrian traffic greater than zero it would make sense to change the lights. There is a trade-off between pedestrian safety and traffic rules. We could have stop signs an every corner and a 10 mph limit, which would be very safe [[if enforced) but very inconvenient, but we don't, because pedestrian safety isn't our only value. When there aren't very many pedestrians, the trade-off changes.

I'm linking below a report that was commissioned by the NYC DOT to reduce traffic fatalities in the city. The report does not say explicitly that traffic light synchronization increases traffic fatalities, but it does suggest that traffic situations which encourage driver inattentiveness increases pedestrian fatalities. And conversely, traffic situations that cause drivers to constantly react [[e.g. speed bumps) reduces fatalities.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/download...ction_plan.pdf

Something else the report mentions -- which we already have discussed on this forum -- is that Detroit has the second highest rate of pedestrian fatalities of any city in the country. The number of pedestrians in Detroit who died in 2008 was more than 1/4th the number of people who were murdered in Detroit that year. So gun violence isn't the only thing that is making Detroit a dangerous city. And just as I don't see the need to enact policies that could lead to more people being murdered in Detroit, I also don't see the need to enact policies that could lead to more pedestrians being killed by automobiles.

[sirrealone]

Something else the report mentions -- which we already have discussed on this forum -- is that Detroit has the second highest rate of pedestrian fatalities of any city in the country.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that this could have something to do with how people in Detroit seem to think it's OK to step out and cross the street anywhere they want, intersections and crosswalks be damned. I think you'd have better luck reducing the number of fatalities by stopping that practice than you would forcing cars to waste gas and stop at regular, unneeded intervals.

[iheartthed]

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that this could have something to do with how people in Detroit seem to think it's OK to step out and cross the street anywhere they want, intersections and crosswalks be damned. I think you'd have better luck reducing the number of fatalities by stopping that practice than you would forcing cars to waste gas and stop at regular, unneeded intervals.

I highly doubt that. There is far more jaywalking in New York than Detroit. Which is not a surprise since New York has a far higher proportion of pedestrians than Detroit.

[noggin]

If they want to reduce the pedestrian accidents in Detroit they should mandate shoveling the snow off the sidewalks.

[DetroitPlanner]

If they want to reduce the pedestrian accidents in Detroit they should mandate shoveling the snow off the sidewalks.

It is mandated, just not enforced.