HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 11:39 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
To Fight Gridlock, Los Angeles Synchronizes Every Red Light

To Fight Gridlock, Los Angeles Synchronizes Every Red Light


Los Angeles has synchronized all of its 4,500 traffic lights in an attempt to keep vehicles moving.

By Ian Lovett
The New York Times
April 1, 2013

LOS ANGELES — To combat its infamous traffic, Los Angeles has built subways and light rail lines. It has widened highways and added car pool, toll and bus-only lanes. But the roads have remained stubbornly clogged, creating a drag on commerce and the quality of life that has persisted here for generations.

Now, in the latest ambitious and costly assault on gridlock, Los Angeles has synchronized every one of its 4,500 traffic signals across 469 square miles — the first major metropolis in the world to do so, officials said — raising the almost fantastical prospect, in theory, of driving Western Avenue from the Hollywood Hills to the San Pedro waterfront without stopping once.

But with the number of cars on the road here continuing to rise (and almost seven million commuters already on the road each day during the rush in the metro area), even the system’s boosters admit that it may not be enough to prevent gridlock from growing worse.
....
Built up over 30 years at a cost of $400 million and completed only several weeks ago, the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control system, as it is officially known, offers Los Angeles one of the world’s most comprehensive systems for mitigating traffic.

The system uses magnetic sensors in the road that measure the flow of traffic, hundreds of cameras and a centralized computer system that makes constant adjustments to keep cars moving as smoothly as possible. The city’s Transportation Department says the average speed of traffic across the city is 16 percent faster under the system, with delays at major intersections down 12 percent.

Without synchronization, it takes an average of 20 minutes to drive five miles on Los Angeles streets; with synchronization, it has fallen to 17.2 minutes, the city says. And the average speed on the city’s streets is now 17.3 miles per hour, up from 15 m.p.h. without synchronized lights.
....
James E. Moore II, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California, said it was “the first U.S. deployment” of such a sophisticated system. But in the long term, he said, any traffic synchronization system — no matter how technologically advanced or comprehensive — is unlikely to keep gridlock at bay.

“If we reduce average travel time in Los Angeles by 20 percent, then we will see more people traveling,” Professor Moore said. “It’s money well spent, but part of the benefit is not speed, but throughput.”

The city started the traffic system in preparation for the 1984 Olympics at a handful of intersections surrounding the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, where crowds flocked to watch Carl Lewis and Evelyn Ashford.

Other cities have chased to keep up, adopting centralized control of at least some traffic signals. But Los Angeles has remained at the forefront, with a system that is not only more widespread, but also faster and more autonomous than most others.

Now, the magnetic sensors in the road at every intersection send real-time updates about the traffic flow through fiber-optic cables to a bunker beneath downtown Los Angeles, where Edward Yu runs the network. The computer system, which runs software the city itself developed, analyzes the data and automatically makes second-by-second adjustments, adapting to changing conditions and using a trove of past data to predict where traffic could snarl, all without human involvement.
....
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 12:49 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,849
its definitely noticeable, but there is no way to eliminate gridlock in any major world city. we just have to provide options (Rail) and thankfully we are doing so in a major way. Over a generation or so, peoples habits will change
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 3:09 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,804
Generally, the more they focus on throughput, the worse it is for pedestrians, particularly anyone crossing the high-volume streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 3:50 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
In the short-term this is terrible, because faster traffic is worst for pedestrians and cyclists. It also does nothing to encourage transit use. In the long-term this is also terrible, because it just induces more traffic which will lead to more pollution. There is really no benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 4:26 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
What is worse for pollution, 3 cars traveling quickly all or most of the way without stopping, or 2 cars that travel more slowly because they must decelerate, idle, and accelerate again dozens of times along the same route?
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 4:41 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,545
I don't understand how it's not safer for pedestrians. Pedestrians have to wait for a signal at crosswalks, just like cars wait for a signal at a stoplight. If you don't cross when the signal is telling you not to, and you look both directions before crossing, you're more than likely going to be just fine (this goes for vehicles and pedestrians).
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 4:54 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,129
Well, LA is a city built by the car, our rail and bus systems are pretty darn good by US standards, but the car is and will continue to be the primary means of transit for most residents. To say otherwise is living on another planet. That said, the signal synchronization generally stinks here. I just drove up Highland and EVERY light was red as the traffic was released from the previous red, despite there being a "synchronized" sign at every intersection. Saying things are synchronized is good, but not following through is another. (I am not talking just my 1 anecdotal example here, this is true all over LA, Valley is better for sure, but LA side is just god awful, total BS on the system)

Well, as much as we urbanites crap on Arizona, that is a state that GETS IT for traffic synchronization. Both Phoenix and Tucson do an excellent job of moving traffic along arteries. Simply the best in the nation IMO...this coming from someone who drove through 35 states last year and has driven in every state in the US save Maine and Alaska. LA has a lot to learn, some streets work well, most do not.

Phoenix and Tucson are at the forefront, and have been for a long time, lived and worked in Tucson in the 90s and saw how much better than LA it was back 20 years ago despite that state explosively growing. I was all over Arizona last week showed me that Phoenix and Tucson have this system down better at this than we in LA are, by a good margin, still to this day.

But for rail and bus, well, Phoenix can go suck it, LA wins hands down with our light, heavy and long distance rail, BRT and Metro Rapid system. we kick but in that department.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 5:20 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
What is worse for pollution, 3 cars traveling quickly all or most of the way without stopping, or 2 cars that travel more slowly because they must decelerate, idle, and accelerate again dozens of times along the same route?
The former is far worse. And over the long-run with more traffic there's going to be just as much decelerating, idling, and accelerating as there was before, only with higher traffic volumes.

Quote:
I don't understand how it's not safer for pedestrians.
How could it be safer for pedestrians? Higher traffic speeds are more dangerous for pedestrians. It is less likely that drivers can stop or swerve in time to avoid pedestrians at higher speeds, and if there is a collision the results are worse at higher speeds:

You can see the risk of pedestrian deaths at different speeds on page 5 of this link:

http://nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=4651

It is illogical that speeding up traffic could possibly make pedestrians safer.


Last edited by J. Will; Apr 3, 2013 at 5:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 5:40 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
http://raisethehammer.org/article/506/the_speed_factor

Re: safety of pedestrians and cyclists:

Quote:
Congestion is Good

A more effective response is to make it structurally difficult for motorists to exceed 32 km/h. A combination of related strategies will help:

Convert the streets to two-way
Replace timed lights with transit-priority lights
Narrow the lanes
Add bike lanes
Add curbside parking
Add transit-only lanes
Invest in electric trolleys
This list isn't exhaustive but it gets us in the general vicinity of where we need to be.

Instead of engineering urban highways on dedicated routes, let traffic find its own path through the city's many east-west and north-south routes at a slower but saner speed. The goal is congestion.
Slower traffic means pedestrians will no longer be taking their lives in their hands every time they walk down the street.

This can only encourage more pedestrians to walk instead of driving, which will fuel a positive feedback loop of neighbourhood reinvestment, new business opportunities, safer streets, and still more attractive destinations for more pedestrians, all of which will reduce the need to drive.

Breaking the managed one-way flows also means that drivers get to trade slower speeds for more options. The increased redundancy will reduce bottlenecks and make it easier to reach micro-destinations directly (an individual address) rather than macro-destinations (i.e. the other side of the city).

It will also embolden cyclists, who will feel safer mingling with vehicles travelling only slightly faster than themselves, which will further tame the streets as well as reducing energy consumption, improving public health, and supporting local businesses.
If pedestrian safety and the quality of the public realm are of any consideration, speeding up traffic has no positive effects, only negative ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 5:55 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,545
Obviously a vehicle traveling faster would cause more bodily harm, but, if pedestrians crossed when and where they were supposed to, and used common sense (like watching for traffic), then it shouldn't be an issue.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 6:01 AM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
Well, LA is a city built by the car, our rail and bus systems are pretty darn good by US standards, but the car is and will continue to be the primary means of transit for most residents. To say otherwise is living on another planet. That said, the signal synchronization generally stinks here. I just drove up Highland and EVERY light was red as the traffic was released from the previous red, despite there being a "synchronized" sign at every intersection. Saying things are synchronized is good, but not following through is another. (I am not talking just my 1 anecdotal example here, this is true all over LA, Valley is better for sure, but LA side is just god awful, total BS on the system)

Well, as much as we urbanites crap on Arizona, that is a state that GETS IT for traffic synchronization. Both Phoenix and Tucson do an excellent job of moving traffic along arteries. Simply the best in the nation IMO...this coming from someone who drove through 35 states last year and has driven in every state in the US save Maine and Alaska. LA has a lot to learn, some streets work well, most do not.

Phoenix and Tucson are at the forefront, and have been for a long time, lived and worked in Tucson in the 90s and saw how much better than LA it was back 20 years ago despite that state explosively growing. I was all over Arizona last week showed me that Phoenix and Tucson have this system down better at this than we in LA are, by a good margin, still to this day.

But for rail and bus, well, Phoenix can go suck it, LA wins hands down with our light, heavy and long distance rail, BRT and Metro Rapid system. we kick but in that department.
Synchronization is kind of a misnomer for what the city has done with it's traffic lights. Really all that's happened is that every signal now runs through the same system. This allows for easy adjustments based on need, especially during the morning and evening rush hour. Basically, traffic will move more efficiently and overall travel times will decrease.

Don't expect to be met with a constant stream of green lights at all hours of the day, though. Probably just for the street running portions of the Expo, Blue and Gold lines.

In regards to Phoenix/Tuscon, those are two cities with a fraction of LA's population at substantially lower density. I'm not an expert, but it seems plausible that many traffic management strategies that work in Tuscon may not be as effective in Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 6:02 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek View Post
Obviously a vehicle traveling faster would cause more bodily harm, but, if pedestrians crossed when and where they were supposed to, and used common sense (like watching for traffic), then it shouldn't be an issue.
Accidents happen all the time though. There are more than 30,000 automobile accident deaths in the United States alone every year. The faster the vehicular speed, the more difficult it is for a driver to stop or swerve in time to avoid a collision, and the worse the consequences when there is a collision. It is not more complicated than that. You can say it "shouldn't be an issue", but it is an issue with around 100 car accident deaths per day.

There is no optimal speed of traffic when it comes to pedestrian/cyclist safety (or even motor vehicle occupant safety). It is not like fuel economy with optimal speeds. The slower the moving traffic, the safer for pedestrians and cyclists. There are no safety gains for pedestrians with faster vehicular speeds. It doesn't matter what the increase in speed is, or what the average speed was prior to the increase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 6:11 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,545
I see where your point with speed, I'm just saying accidents can be avoided.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 7:19 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Umm it doesn't say vehicles are driving faster.... it says their average speed is higher, that's due to them being stuck at lights less, or for shorter periods of time. The speed limit was not increased, pedestrians aren't at any more risk then they already are, it can even be argued they'd be at less risk as this might reduce the amount of people running lights are driving aggressively due to traffic rage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 7:52 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
It's not just maximum speed that's important though, it's average speed too. If someone is only going 20MPH instead of 25MPH because they're slowing down for a red light that they might not have to slow down for under a syncd traffic light scenario and a pedestrian jaywalks in front of them, they have a better chance of avoiding the pedestrian, and less severe consequences if they hit them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 11:35 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Will View Post
It's not just maximum speed that's important though, it's average speed too. If someone is only going 20MPH instead of 25MPH because they're slowing down for a red light that they might not have to slow down for under a syncd traffic light scenario and a pedestrian jaywalks in front of them, they have a better chance of avoiding the pedestrian, and less severe consequences if they hit them.


It would also be the jaywalker's fault for being a dumbf***.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 8:37 PM
Segun's Avatar
Segun Segun is offline
<-- Chicago's roots.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,929
Look at this Setup,

http://goo.gl/maps/OVZKb

Two parallel sidewalks off a side street, CLEARLY created to cross, but with no crosswalk, so if you choose to follow the path that was created for foot traffic, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU JAYWALK ACROSS THAT!! DUMB ASS!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!! You're putting people in danger by following a logical action. The closest crosswalk is in two blocks either direction. Walk unnecessarily long in both directions like the rest of the smart people. FUCK YOU PEDESTRIAN! FUCK....YOU!!

*vomits*
__________________
Songs of the minute - Flavour - Ijele (Feat. Zoro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEFGpnkL38

Common - Resurrection (Video Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOd0GKuztE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 9:04 PM
tradephoric tradephoric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Segun View Post
Look at this Setup,

http://goo.gl/maps/OVZKb

Two parallel sidewalks off a side street, CLEARLY created to cross, but with no crosswalk, so if you choose to follow the path that was created for foot traffic, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU JAYWALK ACROSS THAT!! DUMB ASS!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!! You're putting people in danger by following a logical action. The closest crosswalk is in two blocks either direction. Walk unnecessarily long in both directions like the rest of the smart people. FUCK YOU PEDESTRIAN! FUCK....YOU!!

*vomits*
Actually, there's a dedicated crosswalk one block to the west on Stanley Avenue... roughly 300 feet away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 9:07 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Segun View Post
Look at this Setup,

http://goo.gl/maps/OVZKb

Two parallel sidewalks off a side street, CLEARLY created to cross, but with no crosswalk, so if you choose to follow the path that was created for foot traffic, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!! HOW DARE YOU JAYWALK ACROSS THAT!! DUMB ASS!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!! You're putting people in danger by following a logical action. The closest crosswalk is in two blocks either direction. Walk unnecessarily long in both directions like the rest of the smart people. FUCK YOU PEDESTRIAN! FUCK....YOU!!

*vomits*
It probably is a crosswalk. In my city at least, paint is irrelevant except as a reminder. Anything unmarked is a crosswalk.

As to sucking in general, yes it probably does in that spot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 9:51 PM
tradephoric tradephoric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 18
The picture in the OP looks west along Santa Monica Boulevard at La Brea Avenue. The picture highlights a concept known as simultaneous greens. Since Santa Monica Boulevard has 2-way traffic with traffic signals closely spaced it becomes impractical to try to favor one direction of travel. Instead, all the lights go green together and change back to red together. This type of setup encourages aggressive driving behavior since the faster a driver travels, the more lights they can make it through before all the green lights switch back to reds.

Having traffic signals all synced together does nothing to change the geometry of a road network. Along a high speed arterial (speed limit greater than 45 mph) with traffic signals spaced a half-mile apart it becomes next to impossible to achieve good 2-way signal progression. Drivers in LA shouldn’t assume they’ll be getting a platoon of green lights just because the signals are in sync.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:23 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.