Are traffic signals becoming too overrated?

[roadman65]

In Orlando, FL I have found traffic signals to be like the plague as they continue to grow and just continue to become more common than you could imagine.  I even discussed this in person with a couple of users on this forum that I met in person already, and we all seem to think that road agencies are using traffic signals as mere prescriptions and not thinking about the actual safety of the motoring public and pedestrians when they issue them.

I know with development, whether dwellings or businesses will add more vehicles to the roadways in which they are built, however its the placement of these signals that seem to me as careless by road agencies.  Many do not do a study of impact (as even environmental studies are not needed for signals and land developers like it is for roads themselves to be constructed) on intersections where signals are being considered or placed.  Meanwhile it may seem like a good idea to just "put up a light" to help people cross a busy highway, but it is not as easy as it sounds.  Like the intersection of Stable Drive (not even a real street in Orange County, FL, but a mere driveway) and Orange Blossom Trail near Orlando has changed the traffic flow on Orange Blossom Trail a great deal since it became signalized nearly two years ago.  Traffic used to flow smoothly before the light became operational and once it was turned on for use, a major bottleneck has started and not over time.  True we have many jams that arise over time after a signal has been installed, but this one started at day one!

If you travel Orange Blossom Trail southbound approaching Stable Drive you see not only a back up, but where the line is longest in the right lane of the three lanes SB on that road.  This is cause many vehicles who need to turn right onto forthcoming Deerfield Boulevard have trouble changing lanes to get into the right lane to make the turn.  This is cause Deerfield Boulevard and the driveway named Stable Drive (ironic name considering the developers who demanded the need of the signal should be living in a stable) are too close to each other for motorists to allow enough time and distance to be able to create the safe distances needed for safe flow, therefore many WB Deerfield motorists have to be in the slow moving right lane BEFORE Stable Drive, and have to wait in a line the two other lanes do not have to in order to safely maneuver into the proper lane for needed turn a short distance later.   Another action is to drive aggressively and cut off a motorist to get into the desired lane which is also happening that adds to the line in the right lane as well.

In addition, to all of this the OBT/Stable Drive intersection could be easily turned into a RIRO being that Stable Drive is not that busy of a roadway (especially before the Walmart Neighborhood Market was built there) and the development adding "fuel to the fire" could have been denied!   

No studies seem to be done when signals are placed even when in the past traffic patterns have shown to be created for the worse in public safety to act as precedent.  It seems like it is putting a band aid on a cut that needs treatment instead of the initial treatment.  I feel that stoplights are becoming overrated and that other measures could be used to help improve traffic and safety even if it means regulating development.  This example in my area is one of many as I have found even the smallest of side streets obtaining a traffic signal that can be easy candidates for right in and right out intersections.

[Scott5114]

I doubt traffic signals can be overrated around here, since they were not all that highly related to begin with. Signal fans like them, but everyone else is full of plans to kill them off.

[roadfro]

I don't think it's a case of signals becoming too overrated. It's not an easy thing to just install a signal...jurisdictions like Nevada that use mast arms and one signal head per lane can have new signal installation costs well north of $100,000. After that, you have ongoing maintenance to consider.

The questions that need to be asked are: What are the alternatives that are examined when deciding to put in a signal or other traffic control? What are the current and future traffic volumes? What development is planned, and what vehicle and pedestrian trips will that generate now and 5/10/20 years down the line? What is the accident history? Based on all that, does this location meet engineering warrants for signal control? These questions should be looked at examined through a traffic engineering study of the intersection.

Once the signal is installed, it needs to be examined operationally. Is the timing and phasing right for the volumes? Is the signal timed to be coordinated with nearby signals?


A lot of complex questions to answer... Good engineering review and planning would take all this into account to ensure a new signal isn't disruptive to the existing traffic flow.

[NE2]

Everyone wants a traffic signal where their subdivision empties onto the main road. The obvious solution is connectivity with other subdivisions, but nobody wants that.

[formulanone]

The subdivision problem is the manner in which they're built; developer buys a plot of land, and builds as much as many homes as possible to maximize profitability, and generate taxes. Roads don't pay taxes they consume them, of course; but while a clubhouse or pool or common ground area might also be "wasted taxable revenue space" (there's probably a term for this), they lend a value to the consumer that additional road might not.

So the next adjoining plot doesn't connect, and so on and so forth, because there's little incentive to do so. Which means everyone in these types of suburban developments dumps out into the same few roads. Whether or not the buyer's mentality is that he doesn't want outsiders or mystics or heathens piloting through their streets is more of a sociological issue, but might be part of the problem.

That said, I picked a development with leads out to three main roads, and a fourth that's rather labyrinthine, at best. (Because I get bored making the exact same left turn...)

[NE2]

The subdivision problem is the manner in which they're built; developer buys a plot of land, and builds as much as many homes as possible to maximize profitability, and generate taxes. Roads don't pay taxes they consume them, of course; but while a clubhouse or pool or common ground area might also be "wasted taxable revenue space" (there's probably a term for this), they lend a value to the consumer that additional road might not.

So the next adjoining plot doesn't connect, and so on and so forth, because there's little incentive to do so. Which means everyone in these types of suburban developments dumps out into the same few roads. Whether or not the buyer's mentality is that he doesn't want outsiders or mystics or heathens piloting through their streets is more of a sociological issue, but might be part of the problem.

That's true sometimes, but not always. For example, this cul-de-sac used to continue to Darlene Drive (a collector) for construction access, but was walled off when everything was done:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.420165,-81.49817&spn=0.015305,0.028346&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.420289,-81.498175&panoid=HDSMbLJJykoqBlaxnF8_Lw&cbp=12,0,,0,0

Yes, that land is now part of the adjacent lots, but it's unused and essentially unusable (46 feet long).

So now there's a light at Darlene and a second light 1/2 mile south where this subdivision empties out. Another is planned another half mile to the south for a major collector to the east.

[hotdogPi]

How about more traffic lights that turn blinking red or yellow between 11 PM and 5 AM?

[roadman65]

You are right, connectivity between subdivisions is the true answer.  Just like Heritage Place located off John Young Parkway across from Deerfield.  It could have been made to empty out onto nearby Town Loop Boulevard .  Plus Deefield could have made another third exit onto Power Station Road which intersects JYP where Town Loop Boulevard does.  The current Deerfield and JYP intersection could be a RIRO, and that would eliminate one more full time light. John Young Elementary could have had its main access from Peppermill's subdivision, or even a PT signal if that could not have been done, but I know that building its driveway out the other way is real easy to do.


Shopping centers are the same.  You do not see side by side strip malls connecting their parking lots together because of selfishness.  They are the easiest to connect because all you do is cut a driveway between.  In fact there is one strip mall that was built near the intersection where I live that later acquired a neighbor later on after it was built that would not connect itself with the first developers property.  Now we have to drive out on to the busy arterial to use the second shopping center and deal with two lights and zig zagging through the parking lots weird dividers where if they connected those we could get to it so easy.  Even walking it is difficult as one owner put up a fence so you can't even walk between the two! 

You are right and it has been said before here on this forum.  Developers get rich off of real estate, but others get screwed because they now have to share the roads with their patrons meaning traffic jams they never encountered before.  That of course means more gas being wasted and more of our wages compensating for it.  With gas being what is price wise, where we should be conserving energy consumption, have to waste more of it while losing part of our income.

We need to learn from these mistakes as we do not!  Let us think about the outcome before installing another signal.  That is why a study needs to be made of all sorts of impacts.  Look to the past and see what we could do differently to avoid the previous mistakes.  Also remember signals do cost tax payers money to maintain as the installation costs are only the beginning.

[Revive 755]

How about more traffic lights that turn blinking red or yellow between 11 PM and 5 AM?

Unfortunately flashing traffic signals has had issues with safety; see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/casestudies/fhwasa09012/, and one of the past chats with MoDOT officials somewhere in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website.  I also recall reading somewhere that it is harder to do with flashing yellow arrows - if a signal has the flashing yellow arrows, it cannot be set to a main road flashing yellow/side road flashing red during the late night hours.

The best way to replace many signals and reduce their use might be more right in/right out access points with U-Turn options.

[roadfro]

I also recall reading somewhere that it is harder to do with flashing yellow arrows - if a signal has the flashing yellow arrows, it cannot be set to a main road flashing yellow/side road flashing red during the late night hours.

I don't see why a flashing yellow arrow signal would have a problem doing a red/yellow flash mode--maybe if it's an older signal controller that didn't have the FYA logic built-in (which requires some software finagling to make the normal FYA mode work properly). In the yellow flash mode, it would be the normal steady yellow face that would flash and not the normal flashing yellow arrow face.

[Zmapper]

At Harmony and Mason in Fort Collins late at night (which has a FYA for the Harmony approaches), the left turn lane signal flashes <i>red</i> while the straight movement signal flashes the usual yellow.

[vdeane]

Perhaps this could be done with a law that states "nobody will ever build a traffic light for your development unless you make every effort to connect to your neighbors no matter what" would do the trick?  That way, the developers would be forced to take responsibility for the traffic problems they cause, either by connecting to neighbors to prevent the problem or being forced to live with a RIRO that makes it harder for people to get in and out.  Maybe even make it retroactive - deactivate all lights until the developers fix the issues.  Also: require DOTs to complete a "signal impact study" before installing a signal, and if the study indicated a negative overall result on traffic, not install the signal regardless of what the developer wishes.

[Scott5114]

Problem is, at least around here, once the development is finished and the lots are sold, the developer no longer has any authority over the development. Here, the light typically doesn't go in until years after the development is complete and the residents have been whining for a while.

So you still wouldn't get any interconnectivity.

The only thing to do is to simply add it to whatever sort of law controls zoning or development and have the planning authority reject any development plan without sufficient interconnectivity (or provisions for such if there are no existing subdivisions surrounding it).

[jeffandnicole]

I certainly believe they are.  Many times, when a fatal accident occurs at a stop-sign controlled intersection, people scream they want a traffic light.

Because, um, there's never a fatal accident at a traffic light?

[NE2]

I certainly believe they are.  Many times, when a fatal accident occurs at a stop-sign controlled intersection, people scream they want a traffic light.

Because, um, there's never a fatal accident at a traffic light?

Um, you're much less likely to pull out when you shouldn't at a light.

[hbelkins]

Also: require DOTs to complete a "signal impact study" before installing a signal, and if the study indicated a negative overall result on traffic, not install the signal regardless of what the developer wishes.

Doesn't work that way in real life. We have a case where a signal was requested frequently by school officials and local officials. The intersection never met the criteria (or warrants, in engineer-speak) but it didn't matter. Locals spoke to state officials and got a signal installed there anyway.

[Duke87]

With regards to connectivity of subdivisions, let's be honest here: it's not because the developers don't want to build an extra 50 feet of pavement. It's because the people that live in those houses find through traffic offensive to their senses, and so homes on dead end streets perversely have higher property values.

Since, y'know, I want to drive everywhere but I don't want anyone else to drive down MY street. 

[NE2]

With regards to connectivity of subdivisions, let's be honest here: it's not because the developers don't want to build an extra 50 feet of pavement. It's because the people that live in those houses find through traffic offensive to their senses, and so homes on dead end streets perversely have higher property values.

Yep, that's what I said. Everyone else tried to deny it.

[roadman65]

Perhaps this could be done with a law that states "nobody will ever build a traffic light for your development unless you make every effort to connect to your neighbors no matter what" would do the trick?  That way, the developers would be forced to take responsibility for the traffic problems they cause, either by connecting to neighbors to prevent the problem or being forced to live with a RIRO that makes it harder for people to get in and out.  Maybe even make it retroactive - deactivate all lights until the developers fix the issues.  Also: require DOTs to complete a "signal impact study" before installing a signal, and if the study indicated a negative overall result on traffic, not install the signal regardless of what the developer wishes.

I agree with you a lot on this one.  Developers need to face the responsibility for the traffic problems they create every time they cause another signal to be added.  It is us the users of the through route that have to pay with our wallets while these developers rack in lots of cash from the rent and properties they cause.

All it took was Walmart to come in and we have a traffic nightmare overnight.  Orange Blossom Trail and Stable Drive in Orlando did not have any traffic issues until the light went up two years ago.  Orange Blossom Trail ran smoothly through Stable Drive and right after the light was turned on, and to this very day we have had problems.

Then in many other areas, the developer wins out as well and needless traffic jams result because of the added signals that are already applied to an already congested roadway.

Maybe your way will cause developers to think about what they are doing and take pro active measures instead of us having to take retro active measures later on.

[roadman]

Also: require DOTs to complete a "signal impact study" before installing a signal, and if the study indicated a negative overall result on traffic, not install the signal regardless of what the developer wishes.

Doesn't work that way in real life. We have a case where a signal was requested frequently by school officials and local officials. The intersection never met the criteria (or warrants, in engineer-speak) but it didn't matter. Locals spoke to state officials and got a signal installed there anyway.

We call that "Warrant 15" (political).

[roadman65]

http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficsaf/brochures/trafsig.asp
Here is an interesting webpage put out by KDOT about the advantages and disadvantages of traffic signals including the costs.

[Zeffy]

http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficsaf/brochures/trafsig.asp
Here is an interesting webpage put out by KDOT about the advantages and disadvantages of traffic signals including the costs.

Did they use MSPaint to make those pictures? The quality is half-assed and they used Arial for the text on the signs. Nevertheless, an interesting and informative article.

[roadman65]

I do not know about the design, but yes its effective!  Stable Drive in Orlando does fall into the cons.

The problem in Orange County, FL developers are too plenty and not enough resources in the budget to make the proper changes on time!  Our county would rather keep the people quite and just prescribe a signal to keep em quite. 

[DaBigE]

http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficsaf/brochures/trafsig.asp
Here is an interesting webpage put out by KDOT about the advantages and disadvantages of traffic signals including the costs.

Did they use MSPaint to make those pictures? The quality is half-assed and they used Arial for the text on the signs. Nevertheless, an interesting and informative article.

Those graphics...yikes!   I'd say someone was lazy, but then again, they took the time to create them from scratch. Someone needs to teach them how to copy/paste from the MUTCD. They could have found just about everything they needed all on one page (472).

[Alps]

Also: require DOTs to complete a "signal impact study" before installing a signal, and if the study indicated a negative overall result on traffic, not install the signal regardless of what the developer wishes.

Doesn't work that way in real life. We have a case where a signal was requested frequently by school officials and local officials. The intersection never met the criteria (or warrants, in engineer-speak) but it didn't matter. Locals spoke to state officials and got a signal installed there anyway.

We call that "Warrant 15" (political).

What are Warrants 9-14?