Time/US Transportation/Josh Sanburg, 5/5/15. "How smart traffic lights could transform your commute, using data to make cities run smoother."
| In this traffic back-up, smart traffic lights probably will not help. |
.... And all that time on the roads costs money. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that U.S. commuters lost $124 billion in 2013 due to the cost of fuel, the value of time wasted in traffic, and the increased cost of doing business. CEBR predicts those costs will rise 50% by 2030. Only 3% of the nation’s traffic signals are currently adaptive, but the number of smart signals in the U.S. has jumped from 4,500 in 2009 to 6,500 in 2014, according to Stevanovic, who tracks the signals’ installation around the U.S.
.... For all of Bellevue’s success, adaptive signals are not a panacea for clogged roadways. Kevin Balke, a research engineer at the Texas A&M University Transportation Institute, says that while smart lights can be particularly beneficial for some cities, others are so congested that only a drastic reduction in the number of cars on the road will make a meaningful difference. .... " Read article.
Reference, from the above article. Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), London, INRIX Report, 7/2014, pdf pages 67. "The future economic and environmental cost of gridlock in 2030, an assessment of the direct and indirect economic and environmental costs of idling in road traffic congestion to households in the UK, France, Germany and the USA." "The INRIX index measures delays caused by congestion. Cities covered in-depth.. London, Paris, Stuttgart and Los Angeles... Direct cost are assumed to equal the value of the time and fuel wasted while sitting in congested traffic during peak periods." (page 4). "Our findings suggest that total economy-wide cost across all four advanced economies.... by 2030...46%. ..."additional 6.8 hours wasted in gridlock every year," (page 5, graph). ..."aggregate cost, a 63% increased imposed on households.. consequence of congestion." (page 6).
Note: highway 1 traffic from Pacifica Riptide/Bob Pilgrim, 2/15/15, Bob takes really good highway and quarry pictures.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
25 comments:
Read the article, the full quotes by the experts, and draw your own conclusions.
This article obliterates the argument for widening the highway... Glad to see that Fix Pacifica might be coming around...
And fortunately, just a few more weeks of school, so what little weekday traffic there is is about to die down considerably...
1204, 1225, oh yeah, do let us know how from this article and the referenced report, you reached such a conclusion that adaptive traffic lights would replace highway widening. Keep in mind, the report covers the cities of London, Paris, Stuttgart and Los Angeles-- where the main roads are already several lanes widened.
Whereas, in Pacifica the researched and studied plan is to widen the known 1.3 mile traffic congested area. But in the future, adaptive lights may also offer some solutions. Note from the visible article (paragraph 2): "Only 3% of the nation's traffic signals are currently adaptive..".
After reading the article, I have to agree that it makes a good case for using adaptive traffic signal system and NOT widening the highway.
"Along Factoria, one of Bellevue’s main downtown arteries, travel times have decreased by 36% during peak rush hour since adaptive lights were installed, according to city transportation officials."
"In Bellevue, the switch to adaptive has been a lesson in the value of embracing new approaches. In the past, Poch says, there was often a knee-jerk reaction to dealing with increased traffic: just widen the lanes. Now he hopes that other cities will consider making their streets run smarter instead of just making them bigger"
“It’s easy to think the way to get out of it is to widen the road. However, as we move toward being better stewards of our resources and more sensitive to environmental issues, let’s take what we have and operate it better. I think that’s a more prevailing thought now, and I think it makes sense.”
Actually, the report is about the city of Bellevue, Washington. It's not about London, Paris, Stuttgart and Los Angeles.
And the report quotes the experts as saying that adaptive lights should be used instead of widening.
The fact that only 3% of the nations' signals are currently adaptive is a statement of the problem. There need to be many more.
I reach "such a conclusion that adaptive traffic lights would replace highway widening" because that's almost word for word the bottom line of the article:
"In the past, Poch says, there was often a knee-jerk reaction to dealing with increased traffic: just widen the lanes. Now he hopes that other cities will consider making their streets run smarter instead of just making them bigger."
And... while it's true that the report covers 4 very large cities with very wide highways, I don't see how anyone could compare the traffic situation in London or Paris to our little Pacifica...
I'm glad this article was posted and that Fix Pacifica is coming round to realizing that we can work together and avoid a $75 million Caltrans boondoogle when something cheap and simple like timing the lights can be more effective in situatuons like ours.
Kudos, Kathy!
237, 227, "actually" you forgot the partially highlighted article statement (paragraph 3): "For all of Bellevue’s success, adaptive signals are not a panacea for clogged roadways."
249, the link to the CEBR "studies" reference and report comes from the article (paragraph 2). And, unfortunately NIMBY ideology has not solved the 1.3 mile traffic congestion stalemate through this City-- not for at least 20 years, extended into never. Caltrans (the professionals who build roads throughout California) have completed the studies, and the efficiency solution for this City is widening.
317, needless to say, Kathy will not be supporting your Gang of NO protests and expensive frivolous lawsuits against everything progress, including highway widening.
Caltrans did not study adaptive signals.
523, Caltrans did traffic impact studies. And as I recall, over several years, the City has brought-in at least two (2) different consultant representatives regarding light timing. The advisement was light timing would not be that effective during peak traffic hours.
And since you probably already know that, the question is why you would promote such a nonstarter.
Hey. 2:53, Caltrans hasn't studied Uranus either, they may need to do a traffic study on that too. Smart lights work on thoroughfares through multiple arterial feeders. Not 2 stop lights on a HIGHWAY! Jeez, is there no end to the misdirection and simple BS thrown out by the gang of no.
Caltrans did not study ADAPTIVE signals.
It's not about traffic, it's about development. And people will say and do anything on both sides of that issue. Put it to a public vote. Best we can do.
We should first try a public education campaign to teach people how to not create backups. Every light cycle there are people who know the next light will stay green long enough for them to make it (or they don't care) and just drive super slow, opening up a huge twenty to thirty car length gap in front of them. That means there are now 20-60 cars stuck behind them that could have made it through in that light cycle but didn't because of the huge gap with no cars in it. That is what causes the back up!
"Caltrans did not study ADAPTIVE signals."
Sue Digre brought in a company called InSync to see if its adaptive signals would work on Highway 1. They said they wouldn't work because capacity on Highway 1 was too low.
That meeting on smart signals was set up to fail. The city has not been honest, diligent or open-minded in considering solutions other than highway widening. Regardless of motive, the city's attitude and ineptitude guaranteed a dug-in, protracted opposition. And no solution in sight. I doubt we'll ever see that highway widened. Opponents to widening will fight it right to the ballot box and it'll lose.
"That meeting on smart signals was set up to fail."
You always trot out that vague, lame conspiracy theory without any evidence. Why is it so hard to recognize that adaptive signals won't work?
For the incredibly dense among you, I'll repeat: Caltrans did not study ADAPTIVE signals. Can you comprehend that? Neither did the city of Pacifica.
http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2013/08/about-this-traffic-signal.html
Below is a copy of the city manager's report to council for the week of May 6. This report is available as a public document. For many months, the anti-rt. 1 widening Gang of No has complained that traffic light timing would solve all our problems. Sue Digre set a meeting up in Rhythm Engineering to describe their InSync adaptive traffic signal system as it would apply to Pacifica's chronically congested stretch of rt. 1
The conclusion of the Insync folks is to widen the road.
Digre missed her own meeting.
Summary of Meeting with In|Sync regarding signal synchronization on Highway 1
On May 6, 2013 a meeting was held on Highway 1 signal synchronization with Steve Mager , Account Manager for In|Sync . In attendance at the meeting were Mayor Len Stone, Steve Rhodes, Van Ocampo, Joe Hurley (San Mateo County Program Director), Chris Mitchell traffic consultant (Traffic Engineer – Fehr and Peers Traffic Consultants), and Steve Mager. Councilmember Digre was scheduled to participate but was unable to attend.
Mr. Mager introduced his product and said that it is a successful approach to relieve traffic congestion in some circumstances and has been successfully applied in many situations. He stated that where there is a capacity issue (too many cars for the same stretch of roadway) their product will not resolve the problem.
Mr. Mager asked questions about the current and projected congestion, traffic volume and the signal cycle on Highway 1in the section being discussed. After hearing that information, he felt that the In|Sync system would not resolve the problem. He said that synchronization would not result in any improvement in traffic flow during the peak periods. He felt the solution was to pursue a capacity increasing improvement.
And following that meeting came the high fives and backslapping. Conspiracy? As in people working together to achieve their common goal? Of course. Has it discouraged those who oppose widening? Quite the contrary. These are not people who quit, they're not tone-deaf, they can build consensus, and no one can say they're in it for the money. As far as smart traffic technology, if it's really traffic we're trying to fix, wouldn't it be smarter to take a hard look at the technology now? In a city as mad for process as Pacifica, why haven't we done this? We've sure had the time. Or do we continue to stumble along, make it about development in the eyes of more and more Pacificans and end up with nothing?
106, yeah, well your comment is a reconstruct of the continuing "conspiracy" of delay and obstruction to do nothing for this City, been there.
Been there, Kathy? Sadly, it's where we're all going to stay.
I have a better idea let's have the Pacifica Police Department do a Sobriety DUI Test point every Friday from 5:00 pm-11:00pm like they did on the 17th April. Just have it right between Rockaway & Vallemar that way if you want to avoid it you'll have to drive around 30 miles to Hwy 280 to 92 to Hwy 1 . That should defer all the traffic. What a laugh the cops are in Pacifica
Actually if the city of San Bruno and caltrans and the developers of 1000 housing units off El Camino Real and the owners of Tanforan Mall can get together and have traffic move through this intersection, better than before, it can be done here also. Keep in mind the highway 380 to El Camino intersection adds traffic in front of Tanforan.
Every other city can, but Pacifica.
Also with resetting the traffic signal highway 1 needs shoulders on both sides for accidents to be moved to the shoulders, and so emergency vehicles can use the shoulders.
Post a Comment