https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/3/4/red-light-green-light-no-insight
I got about halfway through the book Confessions of a Recovering Engineer by Charles Marohn of Strong Towns, and I became particularly interested in his argument against traffic signals, referenced in the article above. I'm not sure if a world without traffic signals is entirely practical, but regardless, it comes with one big catch: everything that's not a freeway (or some kind of high-speed highway with very few conflict points) has to be a really slow street where traffic moves at about 15 MPH.
Personally, I never had anything against traffic signals, and I'm sometimes fond of the innovations in their design and application, but I did find the case against traffic signals to be good food for thought.
My only issue is the lack of removal when a warrant would no longer recommend a signal. Lots of unnecessary signals out there in cities that have shrunk over time, even when taking into account the need for system coordination.
I don't necessarily hate traffic signals per se so much as the way I hate how a lot of them are implemented. A lot of lights are just on some automated cycle that has nothing to do with real traffic conditions and will arbitrarily require you to stop for no reason other than that the light is programmed to turn red. When I was in my teens, some of the traffic lights in Fairfax City, Virginia, especially the ones that served strip malls, would go to flashing yellow late at night because just about nobody would be leaving the shopping centers at that time of night so there was no reason to have them go red. I always liked that and I've always wished more lights could either do that or go to an "on-demand" mode at off hours when the light is less likely to be needed.
In the same vein as the above, one thing that's been an improvement around here with the advent of flashing yellow arrows is that the signals are being adjusted so you don't necessarily have to wait as long. At the light nearest my house, for example, in the past we had a doghouse left turn signal and the green arrow simply would not come on unless the light had turned red and the other street had gotten some sort of green. Last year the doghouse was replaced with a flashing yellow arrow and the new programming allows the opposing direction's light to turn red, and the green arrow to come on, regardless of whether the light has changed for the other street. It significantly reduces the wait time. I'd like to see that sort of thing become more common where appropriate (recognizing some intersections, especially in cities, have a steady enough volume in all directions to justify a fixed light cycle).
The other thing I really hate is stupid light timing. See this Google Street View image not far from where I grew up. (https://goo.gl/maps/9bYjF2KD7fcRTYP66) The light in the foreground at Woodburn Road is newer than the light in the background at Prosperity Avenue (the latter intersection has had a light at least since the 1970s). The light at Woodburn will turn red before the light at Prosperity, and that makes sense to reduce the risk of rear-endings. What does not make sense is that the light at Woodburn then turns green before the light at Prosperity, which means you get a green light but you have nowhere to go unless you block the box. The light at Prosperity should turn green first to clear the way for traffic waiting at the Woodburn light.
Yes, I hate traffic signals.
But I hate all-way stops much, much more.
I get what the author is saying, but you are talking about a complete reengineering of our street systems. Sure I guess it would be nice to only have freeways where you go really fast and residential streets where you go really slow, and getting rid of the arterials (or "stroads" as he calls them), but that doesn't seem to be a viable option. What you are going to do with truck traffic?
I also question the idea that traffic signals are responsible for bankrupting Winnipeg - or even if it is bankrupt to begin with. But that's neither here nor there.
I'm a fan of this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7417538,-71.1315106,3a,75y,357.6h,84.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skWV_c107m3yTcHvTw6C17g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkWV_c107m3yTcHvTw6C17g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D189.86049%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) type of road. The speed limit is 40 (35 behind the camera). Pedestrians can cross anywhere, but crossing at any given location is nowhere near frequent; crossing locations are pretty evenly distributed. To cross, step into the shoulder, and a car (not always the first, but generally within the first five) will stop for you. The shoulders also function as bike lanes, a way to get around a car trying to turn left, and a places for buses to stop and pick up and drop off passengers without blocking the road. Traffic signals are only at major intersections.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2022, 10:21:27 AM
I'm a fan of this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7417538,-71.1315106,3a,75y,357.6h,84.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skWV_c107m3yTcHvTw6C17g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkWV_c107m3yTcHvTw6C17g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D189.86049%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) type of road. The speed limit is 40 (35 behind the camera). Pedestrians can cross anywhere, but crossing at any given location is nowhere near frequent; crossing locations are pretty evenly distributed. To cross, step into the shoulder, and a car (not always the first, but generally within the first five) will stop for you. The shoulders also function as bike lanes, a way to get around a car trying to turn left, and a places for buses to stop and pick up and drop off passengers without blocking the road. Traffic signals are only at major intersections.
Pedestrian crossings aren't very frequent because nothing is really walkable and honestly it looks like an ugly and run-down stretch of road.
I made a thread for this book a while ago. Only posted my thoughts up to chapter 3 though, as I haven't updated it in a while, so you can fill in for some in between if you like: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30142.0
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2022, 09:44:44 AM
Yes, I hate traffic signals.
But I hate all-way stops much, much more.
I think at least half of the stop signs can be replaced with yield signs, and there wouldn't be that much of an increase in crashes. A lot of drivers I've seen treat them as yield signs anyways. It works in the rest of the world (specifically Europe).
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2022, 11:12:57 AM
I think at least half of the stop signs can be replaced with yield signs, and there wouldn't be that much of an increase in crashes. A lot of drivers I've seen treat them as yield signs anyways. It works in the rest of the world (specifically Europe).
Agreed with that. I've wondered if an
all-way yield would work to replace some unnecessary all-way stops. Basically, you'd put yield signs on all approaches, and it would function like an all-way stop in terms of assigning right-of-way, but it doesn't necessarily require a full stop 100% of the time. Seems like that sort of thing would work pretty well for low-traffic all-way stops.
Yeah, I realize there is the whole "if everybody yields, nobody goes!" but I don't see how this is any less intuitive than how an all-way stop works. Probably most American drivers, including myself, treat a yield sign as "a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".
Quote from: Ned Weasel on March 09, 2022, 07:39:49 AM
everything that's not a freeway (or some kind of high-speed highway with very few conflict points) has to be a really slow street where traffic moves at about 15 MPH.
Hard disagree.
I do think that more cities should make their streets slow streets with 15 mph traffic, but that is definitely not appropriate to apply to all non-freeways by default.
As for bike lanes. I understand that some bike riders
feel that it is unsafe to ride in a lane that is used by cars because they fear that cars will rear-end them. However, the stats clearly show that this type of incident is rare, especially when compared to other traffic incidents that bikes are involved in (both with cars and pedestrians), so I do not support the use of taxpayer funding to provide separate bike lanes.
A lot of traffic signals would be better if traffic signal progression were applied to the corridor, in order to reduce waiting time as much as possible. Traffic signal progression works even better on divided highways with RCUT/Superstreet intersections (Michigan Left intersections can also work if consistently spaced), due to each direction getting its own signal timing. Of course, most of y'all probably know this already since there are several forum members who often post about it.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2022, 10:21:27 AM
To cross, step into the shoulder, and a car (not always the first, but generally within the first five) will stop for you.
It seems like a car would only stop as a courtesy and/or to avoid being the car that hits a pedestrian, rather than stopping because there's an actual rule or law that says they have to and/or because they actually care about pedestrian traffic.
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2022, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2022, 11:12:57 AM
I think at least half of the stop signs can be replaced with yield signs, and there wouldn't be that much of an increase in crashes. A lot of drivers I've seen treat them as yield signs anyways. It works in the rest of the world (specifically Europe).
Agreed with that. I've wondered if an all-way yield would work to replace some unnecessary all-way stops. Basically, you'd put yield signs on all approaches, and it would function like an all-way stop in terms of assigning right-of-way, but it doesn't necessarily require a full stop 100% of the time. Seems like that sort of thing would work pretty well for low-traffic all-way stops.
Yeah, I realize there is the whole "if everybody yields, nobody goes!" but I don't see how this is any less intuitive than how an all-way stop works. Probably most American drivers, including myself, treat a yield sign as "a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".
The law already specifies what to do at uncontrolled intersections (despite the rarity of uncontrolled intersections in the US), and I don't think adding all-way yields as a possible intersection would be that different.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 09, 2022, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2022, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2022, 11:12:57 AM
I think at least half of the stop signs can be replaced with yield signs, and there wouldn't be that much of an increase in crashes. A lot of drivers I've seen treat them as yield signs anyways. It works in the rest of the world (specifically Europe).
Agreed with that. I've wondered if an all-way yield would work to replace some unnecessary all-way stops. Basically, you'd put yield signs on all approaches, and it would function like an all-way stop in terms of assigning right-of-way, but it doesn't necessarily require a full stop 100% of the time. Seems like that sort of thing would work pretty well for low-traffic all-way stops.
Yeah, I realize there is the whole "if everybody yields, nobody goes!" but I don't see how this is any less intuitive than how an all-way stop works. Probably most American drivers, including myself, treat a yield sign as "a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".
The law already specifies what to do at uncontrolled intersections (despite the rarity of uncontrolled intersections in the US), and I don't think adding all-way yields as a possible intersection would be that different.
The problem though is that outside of uncontrolled intersections, which are rare enough that a lot of people don't actually know what to do at one, the general rule of right-of-way in the US is "assume you have it unless a sign says otherwise".
Every uncontrolled intersection I've ever seen in the US is either in a very rural setting or in a high-density urban residential area, where crashes are going to be rare and any that do occur will likely be low-speed affairs. By adding some sort of sign that says something to the effect of "uncontrolled intersection rules apply here", you can extend that type of right-of-way assignment to more settings.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 09, 2022, 11:26:17 AM
It seems like a car would only stop as a courtesy and/or to avoid being the car that hits a pedestrian, rather than stopping because there's an actual rule or law that says they have to and/or because they actually care about pedestrian traffic.
It's mostly as a courtesy, but I've done it often enough that it definitely works the way I describe it.
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2022, 11:24:54 AM
Agreed with that. I've wondered if an all-way yield would work to replace some unnecessary all-way stops. Basically, you'd put yield signs on all approaches, and it would function like an all-way stop in terms of assigning right-of-way, but it doesn't necessarily require a full stop 100% of the time. Seems like that sort of thing would work pretty well for low-traffic all-way stops.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 09, 2022, 11:27:49 AM
The law already specifies what to do at uncontrolled intersections (despite the rarity of uncontrolled intersections in the US), and I don't think adding all-way yields as a possible intersection would be that different.
Exactly. A four-way yield is called an "uncontrolled intersection". And yes, they can work in urban environments.
Example of an uncontrolled intersection of two one-way streets in a town's central business district (functions as an all-way yield):
https://goo.gl/maps/2eZc355mWdXRh2jt6
Quote from: ran4sh on March 09, 2022, 11:26:17 AM
As for bike lanes. I understand that some bike riders feel that it is unsafe to ride in a lane that is used by cars because they fear that cars will rear-end them. However, the stats clearly show that this type of incident is rare, especially when compared to other traffic incidents that bikes are involved in (both with cars and pedestrians), so I do not support the use of taxpayer funding to provide separate bike lanes.
If traffic is slow or traffic levels are low enough, bikers will feel safe enough to ride in the general lanes anyways. I do that all the time on a lightly used road by cars here in the college town I'm in right now. These are called sharrows. But besides that, I think more bike lanes are needed (next to highly trafficked arterial roads specifically) for cities that want to be serious about cycling as an alternative mode of transport. Gives the perception to new cyclists that its safer, even if stats say otherwise. Also, bike lanes aren't that expensive compared to other road projects, it's just new paint for the cheapest type of bike lanes, and maybe some separation (with a parallel parking lane, for what I've seen most commonly) for some higher quality ones.
Anyways, I'll stop here, as I have a thread about bike lanes already, and can continue posting there later.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 09, 2022, 11:26:17 AMA lot of traffic signals would be better if traffic signal progression were applied to the corridor, in order to reduce waiting time as much as possible. Traffic signal progression works even better on divided highways with RCUT/Superstreet intersections (Michigan Left intersections can also work if consistently spaced), due to each direction getting its own signal timing. Of course, most of y'all probably know this already since there are several forum members who often post about it.
Coincidentally, there is a recent Strong Towns article that advocates using Michigan Lefts on a certain road in Minnesota. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/2/15/how-traffic-engineers-can-finally-tame-stroads-1 Interestingly, even after such a design intervention, the road would still be a stroad by the Strong Towns definition. I wonder if this represents more of an attitude of stroad mitigation rather than stroad elimination.
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2022, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2022, 11:12:57 AM
I think at least half of the stop signs can be replaced with yield signs, and there wouldn't be that much of an increase in crashes. A lot of drivers I've seen treat them as yield signs anyways. It works in the rest of the world (specifically Europe).
Agreed with that. I've wondered if an all-way yield would work to replace some unnecessary all-way stops. Basically, you'd put yield signs on all approaches, and it would function like an all-way stop in terms of assigning right-of-way, but it doesn't necessarily require a full stop 100% of the time. Seems like that sort of thing would work pretty well for low-traffic all-way stops.
Yeah, I realize there is the whole "if everybody yields, nobody goes!" but I don't see how this is any less intuitive than how an all-way stop works. Probably most American drivers, including myself, treat a yield sign as "a stop sign that I am not legally required to stop at".
Most people treat yields as, "I can go". You would get too many people that simply won't stop when necessary.
Even within this group, people get confused. When there's a line of cars at each approach, they think it should be the next car to the right that goes. That's only if they all reached the stop line at the same time. In reality, once one car goes, the car behind them isn't at the stop line yet. The next car that was there goes, wherever they may be, and then the car behind them approaches the stop line, and so forth. Even though it's only a matter of feet, they didn't get to the stop line *at the same time*, so it's not always going to be the car to the right going next.
Traffic lights are terrible when there's too many of them in a short distance, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE NOT SYNCED!!!!!!!
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2022, 09:44:44 AM
Yes, I hate traffic signals.
But I hate all-way stops much, much more.
This. I have lived in towns where they decided to remove "unnecessary" signals, it made a mess, everyone was happier before the fact. I firmly believe it was a way to get more time for the county maintenance guys to sit on their hindquarters and not maintain things.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 09, 2022, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2022, 09:44:44 AM
Yes, I hate traffic signals.
But I hate all-way stops much, much more.
This. I have lived in towns where they decided to remove "unnecessary" signals, it made a mess, everyone was happier before the fact. I firmly believe it was a way to get more time for the county maintenance guys to sit on their hindquarters and not maintain things.
Traffic signals don't need to be replaced by 4-way stops.
roundabout
Like andrepoiy, I really hate too many signals crammed close together, especially when they're not synched. I also don't like them when a business - like a shopping center - gets extra stoplights along the length of its adjacent street rather than just one signal on each end. Shopping centers should be responsible for their own internal traffic; it should not be incumbent upon the municipality to compensate for a shopping center's lack of internal infrastructure.
The other place I don't care for them is busy rural crossings when they could be replaced by an interchange. Or even Michigan lefts. Good examples include the lights on US 13 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9456938,-75.5402505,3a,75y,13.35h,74.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssvbBL1NzTMIsvPrwhwRWSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsvbBL1NzTMIsvPrwhwRWSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.7685%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on the Lower Delmarva (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7164324,-75.6891182,3a,36.7y,34.89h,92.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl0FNhLIiTM70gvnXYzKMqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) and on US 30 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3633876,-86.377562,3a,75y,112.43h,79.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjYEUhBph9UGUUP5YmY49IA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) in Indiana (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2820045,-86.0458611,3a,75y,281.92h,78.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC-U44jpSofQCwnFwvygzkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en). This one south of St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1919881,-90.4145936,3a,75y,240.79h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scVTr4Cr07ibtrjXgE_VPTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) is particularly annoying as the light is at the crest of the hill and it's fairly common to get stuck behind a truck at this light which can't accelerate easily. (Yes, this has happened to me more than once here.)
But for the most part I don't mind them. They're necessary evils (and often good) that help move a lot of traffic through areas better than what you'll see overseas in many cities where stoplights are few or often just ignored (like in Naples and many other old cities). I'd much rather have them than do without them.
Yes.
Roundabouts fail in Cities Skylines for entirely different reasons than they fail in real life. In Cities Skylines it's because the game suggests that the player use roundabouts, but without any mods there's no way to place yield signs (the only options are stop signs, traffic lights, or nothing)
Quote from: tradephoric on March 09, 2022, 07:08:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2022, 05:25:37 PM
roundabout
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 09, 2022, 06:57:13 PM
Yes.
These posts have no discernible meaning. Can we add at least a little bit of context when posting?
Scott5114 was replying to the post immediately prior, and tolbs17 was responding to the thread title.
Actually, I was just pointing out there are other things you can try to reduce the number of traffic signals other than "all roads have a speed limit of 80 or 15 and no in between". The latter idea is stupid enough that writing more than one word about it felt like a waste of time.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2022, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on March 09, 2022, 07:08:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2022, 05:25:37 PM
roundabout
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 09, 2022, 06:57:13 PM
Yes.
These posts have no discernible meaning. Can we add at least a little bit of context when posting?
Scott5114 was replying to the post immediately prior, and tolbs17 was responding to the thread title.
I was thinking that Yes sang "Roundabout".
Quote from: tradephoric on March 09, 2022, 07:59:18 PM
^I do believe this would be a classic example of trolling someone.
It is more or less is the real answer that would be obtained. The poster in question might beat around the bush a little but it would be "no" all the same.
Quote from: tradephoric on March 09, 2022, 08:07:37 PM
I don't fully understand what you are trying to say Max, but you have way more posts on this forum then i ever will so whatever you are trying to say must be gospel around here. Your previous post still feels very trollish though.
Wouldn't pay it much mind, it wasn't really directed at you (even though you were part of the quote strong). I suspect others will be somewhat quick to fill you in on the sarcasm I was trying to convey.
Quote from: tradephoric on March 09, 2022, 08:25:32 PM
I just clearly conveyed that there was some confusion on what Tolbs response of "YES" was referencing. The reply came directly after the "NO ROUNDABOUT" screenshot leading both me and Big John to assume they were referencing the YES song Roundabout. But "1" had a different opinion, and stated that "tolbs17 was responding to the thread title". So short of us all being mind readers, adding some context to one word replies would be helpful IMO. Your one word response of "No" would suggest otherwise.
I'm gathering you not up on the latest tropes with tolbs and his low calorie brand of posting?
Maybe.
I see.
Does your wife complain why you're not moving? Tired of sitting and waiting at red lights while your kids piss and moan in the back seat?
Call 1-888-888-FUCK to never have to deal with a traffic signal again!