The ugly truth about synchronized traffic signals

Remember all the fanfare about synchronizing traffic signals? Well, The Times' Duke Helfand gets to the not-so-fun truth:

A new attempt to reduce congestion throughout Los Angeles by synchronizing all traffic signals will have only a minimal effect on the most bottlenecked intersections despite assurances from leaders that driving delays will decrease, officials acknowledged Tuesday. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced Tuesday that Los Angeles would receive $150 million to synchronize the city's 4,385 intersections with signals -- reducing drive times up to 16%, or shaving about 5 minutes from a 30-minute drive. But officials with the city's Department of Transportation said synchronization alone would not bring much relief to intersections beset by bumper-to-bumper traffic, including the junctions of Highland and Franklin avenues in Hollywood, and Ventura and Sepulveda boulevards in Sherman Oaks. "At some places, you may not be able to solve the problem," said John Fisher, assistant general manager of the transportation department.

Comments

[Jarred]

I think there are so many reasons that traffic is so awful in may places...especially Los Angeles. A poorly designed city attributes to most of it, and I don't think we'll see much change on that in our lifetime. perpetual construction, traffic lights, and human error are the other major factors.

HUMAN ERROR: PEOPLE! LAY OFF YOUR BREAKS! it's that simple. If everybody would pay better attention and not obsessively molest their break pedal every 10 feet I guarantee traffic would move along faster. Here's a tip...when you're traveling south on the 405 down the hill...when the road starts to curve....DON'T BREAK!! simply lift of the pedal and you'll slow down enough to make the WIDE corner w/out causing people to stop 1 mile behind you. One person tapping their breaks can cause every to stop behind them.

CONSTRUCTION: I used to live in Arizona and they would do major road construction during the night. Mainly because sometimes it's just to darn hot out during the day. Also however, it doesn't disrupt the weekday commuters. So a suggestion I have for L.A. is DO CONSTRUCTION AT NIGHT....OFFER INCENTIVE FOR THE COMPANY TO FINISH BY A CERTAIN DATE AND DON'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN DURING RUSH HOUR. We, the tax payers are paying for the construction of our public roads in the first place, we should have a say in when you can and cannot do it.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS: I'd like to address Sepulveda for this one. I travel on this road every morning, and some days it's okay, and others I want to drive off the cliff!! It really bothers me that the people exiting the neighborhoods that align Sepulveda between the Ventura area to just over the hill, are allowed to TOTALLY STOP TRAFFIC just so one or two cars can exit that area. I think WE should apply the same rule that these neighborhoods get to use i.e. OUTPOST: you can't turn left down into that neighborhood in the mornings because they don't want people cutting through that area. WEEEEELLLLLL: HOW ABOUT: THE PEOPLE WHO EXIT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS OFF OF SEPULVEDA CAN'T TURN LEFT AND STOP TRAFFIC FLOW!! works for me and I think it's more than fair. Turn right or go out another way!!

HUMAN ERROR: PEOPLE! LAY OFF YOUR BREAKS! it's that simple. If everybody would pay better attention and not obsessively molest their break pedal every 10 feet I guarantee traffic would move along faster. Here's a tip...when you're traveling south on the 405 down the hill...when the road starts to curve....DON'T BREAK!! simply lift of the pedal and you'll slow down enough to make the WIDE corner w/out causing people to stop 1 mile behind you. One person tapping their breaks can cause every to stop behind them.

LEETS GET IT MOVING!!

[manuel]

Forget traffic signals, add more light rail. Less cars equals faster travel.

[steven Lake]

Come on Mayor V, reducing our commutes in SOME areas by 5 minutes is a complete waste of money, and that 150 Million should be put toward more LRT development. Live up to your promises, make us less dependant on the Auto!!

[movielocke]

Does bumper to bumper traffic move faster on the freeway on a surface street? It's really the same question about whether or not this is an 'ugly truth' or not. In heavy bumper to bumper traffic on surface streets every red light slows the flow of traffic, simply bringing all those lights into consistency will help alleviate some of the pressure on really heavy traffic but it won't have a major impact. Where synchronized lights will have a major impact is in light to moderate traffic. Just eliminating or greatly reducing red light stops when traveling down a major street in what doesn't feel like traffic would be a tremendous achievement, and greatly improve the flow of traffic. But all this synchronization working is also dependent on one of the great bottlenecks of los angeles also being fixed. The lack of left turn signals, and left turn signals that are so short they turn yellow by the time everyone on the perpendicular street trying to turn left sneaks through on a red light, before anyone with the green left turn signal can actually turn left.

[Tim]

Let's get something straight: "synchronizing" traffic signals is really a misnomer in the way that it has been used in the news lately. If you are talking about timing a set of signals along a specific route to allow for minimal interruption in traffic flow, you are talking about "progression" and "offset." Progression is the level at which traffic is able to move through a series of signalized intersections. Offset is the difference in time between green phases of adjacent intersections. All signals in the City are timed, taking into consideration progression and offset for specified streets and directions of travel. With respect to the funding in the news lately, "synchronizing" really means connecting new signals to the ATSAC system which allows for remote surveillance and control of signals.

[CL]

is there a way to complain to extend a light cycle? for example, at Ohio and Sepulveda, the traffic on Ohio crossing Sepulveda gets approximately 45 seconds. Sepulveda traffic gets approximately 2 minutes. I have been stuck, MANY A TIME, on Ohio, all the way back to Federal and sometimes Barrington, because there is a lot of traffic trying to get through this one little intersection.

Why? Many are trying to make a right onto Sepulveda. With the crosswalk, the cars often have to wait for pedestrians to cross first. However, all the cars behind the car trying to make the right turn get STUCK waiting and lose anywhere from 20-30 seconds, and only 10 cars will make it across at best before the light changes.

The same problems occur on Westbound Ohio also, as there are many cars trying to turn right onto Ohio from Veteran, but get stuck from the backup at Ohio and Sepulveda, and in turn backs up the traffic on Veteran.

Either add 15 seconds or redesign the lanes to add a right turn only lane on Ohio onto Southbound Sepulveda.

[Paul]

Who cares? It will help most areas.