4 Reasons to Remove Traffic Lights in the Era of Peak Driving

[mrsman]

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/04/4-reasons-to-remove-traffic-lights-in-the-era-of-peak-driving/390375/

Americans are driving less than they have in the past, so it's a natural time to consider different approaches to car-related infrastructure. That means maintaining existing roads rather than building new ones that will someday need repairs themselves–a fix-it-first approach. And it might mean reevaluating another part of the street system introduced when driving was on the rise: traffic lights.

Now, obviously we need traffic lights on lots of city streets, but whether or not we need as many as we've installed is another question.

For help with an answer, we turn to new research from civil engineers Michael Schrader and Joseph Hummer of Wayne State University, who studied the traffic light situation in Detroit. A couple years back, in the throes of its budget crisis, officials determined Detroit could safely remove at least 20 traffic lights in downtown and midtown. Schrader and Hummer expanded that study to look at a sample of 100 traffic lights across the whole city.

Interesting.  I wonder if there are any other areas doing something similar.  There seem to be plenty of unnecessary signals in the cities that I have driven in that are probably no longer warranted.

[spooky]

Detroit? Talk about choosing data to fit your purpose.

[silverback1065]

Detroit? Talk about choosing data to fit your purpose.

seriously, most of the reason why traffic lights could be removed there is because so many people have left the city due to the bad economy.  Less people, less traffic.

[froggie]

Not necessarily.  Traffic patterns can change too for reasons other than depopulation.  Like opening a bypass, for example (as happened near me last year...one of the signals on old VT 100 was taken out when the Morrisville bypass opened).

[tradephoric]

The first line in the article is bunk:

Americans are driving less than they have in the past

The moving 12 month vehicle miles traveled is at an all time high.  Americans, as a whole, are driving more than they ever have before.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA

[jeffandnicole]

I think many traffic lights aren't really needed.  But people like the 'calming' effect of them.  Someone will pull up to a stop sign and sit there aggravated trying to find a spot to pull out.  It may only take 20 seconds, but they're anxious the whole time.  Yet, these same people will pull up to a traffic light, wait 45 seconds, and be calm about it the whole time.  It's the people on the main road that suffer, and even then most of them are OK with it. 

And God-forbid you try telling a group about the issue.  The collective response tends to be "Well, you shouldn't be in such a rush anyway".

[tradephoric]

...people like the 'calming' effect of them [traffic lights].

No wonder so many people are infatuated with DDIs.  People love the calming effect of getting stopped at red lights!   

[silverback1065]

Not necessarily.  Traffic patterns can change too for reasons other than depopulation.  Like opening a bypass, for example (as happened near me last year...one of the signals on old VT 100 was taken out when the Morrisville bypass opened).

I agree, just in the case of Detroit I feel that's a big reason why most lights aren't needed anymore in some areas. Maybe some could just become flashers during peak times if they are still deemed necessary during other times of the day.

[jeffandnicole]

...people like the 'calming' effect of them [traffic lights].

No wonder so many people are infatuated with DDIs.  People love the calming effect of getting stopped at red lights!   

It's a subconscious thing.  People may not necessarily like having to stop at red lights, but at least they like being told when they have the right of way to go, and that traffic approaching has to stop. 

Personally, there are way too many traffic lights out there.  Often times the traffic light was installed even though the intersection doesn't meet the criteria for a light, but rather because of a few accidents or incidents, even those that simply occurred near the intersection but really didn't have anything to do with the existing intersection (ie: drunk driver speeding).

[Henry]

For a city that has lost half of its population over the course of half a century, I can see why de-signalization is the way to go.

Lower population=fewer cars=less signals needed

And so, de-signalizing makes sense.

[renegade]

Where the hell are they removing traffic lights in Detroit?  Last time I checked, they are putting traffic lights in between traffic lights.

[Brian556]

Too many traffic lights? Not around here. Around here, we have a lot of locations that need them, but don't have them. There are several all-way stop intersections that have way too much volume for stop signs, and need signals.

We also have a problem with not having them at driveways to very busy shopping centers that need them. This results in long lines of cars waiting to exit shopping centers, and very frequent accidents at these locations.

The idea behind this article is shit. People will always need to move. Traffic is constantly getting worse due to overpopulation. The need for signals is increasing, not decreasing.

[tradephoric]

They are just replacing the traffic signals with modern roundabouts in Carmel, Indiana...

[6a]

Columbus has been on a signal removing kick that past couple years, Bryden Rd comes to mind as a corridor that got hit pretty good.

[PHLBOS]

Philadelphia did this with several smaller one-way street intersections roughly 15 to 20 years ago as a means of cutting down on electrical costs (well before LED lighting became widespread) & maintenance.

[froggie]

The moving 12 month vehicle miles traveled is at an all time high.  Americans, as a whole, are driving more than they ever have before.

Total VMT is back up, but VMT-per-capita is still down.

We also have a problem with not having them at driveways to very busy shopping centers that need them.

This to me points more to a failure of design and land use planning than a lack of traffic signals.

[thenetwork]

Cleveland and several of their 'burbs have done that over the last decade or so, replacing traffic signals from the 1950s-70s.  In order to get the most funding by the government in order to lower the municipality's cost share for the upgrades, studies had to be performed and some intersections had to have their signals removed completely. 

Some were removed due to little cross traffic, some were removed due to schools that were closed/demolished (which is why the light was there in the first place).  And some because they were too close to another signalized intersection.  I think in the suburb of Parma alone, where I used to live, about 15-25% of the signals at residential side street intersections or other non-major intersections were removed, including one that was at the one end of my street.

[lepidopteran]

Columbus has been on a signal removing kick that past couple years, Bryden Rd comes to mind as a corridor that got hit pretty good.

The traffic engineering department in Columbus has been quite proactive in removing unnecessary signals for a long time.  For example, up until about 25 years ago, on W. Lane Ave. between US-33 and Northwest Blvd., there was a traffic signal at pretty much every -- if not every -- intersection (mostly a pair of 4-way clusters, but Asbury Dr. had a classic 4-way nonadjustable unit, complete with a dark interval between phases).  Now there are only two signals on that stretch, modernized to box spans.

What they would do is place a sign on the span wire reading "This signal under study for removal", I think with a Traffic Engineering logo of some sort.  The signal would typically be put in flash mode for the duration, though I remember at least one which was in stop-go mode with the sign.