Moderated by Tom Sabulis
The sales tax for transportation improvements was defeated and governments are parsing ways to slice their budgets, but agencies and municipalities across metro Atlanta are focusing on smaller fixes to keep traffic flowing. Traffic signal synchronization is one way. Today, I write about ways both the state and some cities are working to upgrade the technology that can ease our gridlock close to home, and a GDOT leader explains a new grant program designed to expedite money to locals for traffic relief.
Commenting is open below Todd Long’s column.
By Tom Sabulis
A frequent comment lobbed over the transom during this summer’s transportation tax debate went something like this: We don’t need more roads or rail to zap gridlock. Just synchronize the traffic lights!
Some made the suggestion sound like it was simply a matter of flipping a switch — a cost-free panacea to our traffic woes, a no-brainer so easy that managed to escape all those graduate-degree engineers at the Georgia Department of Transportation.
For me, it was not something I ever thought about, for one reason: After 21 years of driving in this city, I assumed our traffic signals already were synced — wired to make me stop at every intersection, even at midnight.
It’s been my experience that you rarely find a choreographed succession of green lights in this town, fluidly sending you down the road in almost martial fashion, providing a sense of unimpeded progression, like some traffic montage in a Philip Glass movie. Sure, it may happen on some arterial somewhere but — like discovering a turn lane on Peachtree Street — it’s not going to happen very often.
There is a homegrown reason for our traffic light challenge: Atlanta does not have standard intersection spacing like cities built on grid patterns. “If every intersection has a half-mile in between traffic signals, you can make better timing plans because you can progress the traffic in both directions,” said Grant Waldrop, Regional Traffic Operations Manager for GDOT. “We don’t have that. We have irregular spacing.”
Modern signal light maintenance can keep traffic moving, but it requires vigilant monitoring and costs thousands in manpower hours each month. The bill is much more for the latest technology, up to $150,000 to completely rebuild an intersection’s signal system. As Richard Mendoza, commissioner of Atlanta’s Department of Public Works, told the AJC in July, much of Atlanta’s traffic infrastructure uses 1990s technology: i.e., copper wires unable to carry digital signals and servers that can’t transmit much data. To upgrade the system using fiber-optic cable, he said, will cost about $40 million.
Newer cities have laser-beamed their focus on traffic flow. Sandy Springs has been upgrading its signals since it incorporated as a city in 2005. City Manager John McDonough said that 97 of the city’s roughly 120 signals are now connected through fiber-optic and computer programming. Sandy Springs also has 41 CCTV cameras monitoring intersections, which helps prevent sending workers into the field to fix a problem.
GDOT helps Atlanta and others maintain traffic signals through its Regional Traffic Operations Program, which has upgraded about 500 intersections in the city. Antiquated detection systems are the chief culprit at many intersections, where wiring that relays information about cars stopped at the light has worn out or is malfunctioning.
“It’s very difficult to have a good intersection timing if you don’t have detection so you know where the vehicles are at the intersection,” Waldrop said. “We need those systems to operate correctly. We also need remote communications so we can do things like keep the time clocks at the intersections set correctly. Then we can change plans remotely if we need to.”
One thing not fixed remotely are the blinking lights that tie up intersections when storms knock out power. “For safety reasons, we do not take intersections out of flash remotely,” Waldrop said. “We want to visit that intersection and make sure. We don’t want to reset an intersection only to have it go right back into flash. You don’t want that kind of confusion at an intersection.”
GDOT would also like to install more battery backup systems on the major corridors it monitors so that traffic signals keep working when the electricity goes out. Some are deployed in Atlanta, but they’re expensive, too – about $8,000 per intersection.
It’s a constant battle to move forward, and Waldrop knows public perception is tough to change.
“People don’t recognize when they’ve been through a well-timed system,” he said. “They notice it when they stop and they don’t think they should have to stop, not the part where they didn’t have to stop as long, or when they have gone through the last three lights without stopping.”
Wait a minute… three lights in a row without stopping? That happens?
By Todd Long
There are some 20,000 miles of federal and state highways in Georgia – the interstate system and major roads that link our cities one to the other. carry our commuters to and from employment centers and give structure to our thriving logistics industry and interstate commerce.
There are another 100,000 or so miles of city streets and county roads – veritable appendages of daily life.
The former are the responsibility of the Georgia Department of Transportation; the latter of their respective county or city governments. Both are hugely expensive to grow and maintain.
And while there’s never enough money to go around, the department historically has assisted local governments in funding their work.
Faced now with new legislative mandates and a stubborn economy, Georgia DOT has developed a streamlined, user-friendly program to get grant monies to cities and counties faster and simpler than ever before. The Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) program began two years ago as a consolidation of previous department local assistance programs. New matching-fund requirements resulting from the July transportation referendum vote prompted us to retool LMIG – to recast it so it best helps cities and counties help themselves.
We are in the process of providing the state’s roughly 700 cities and counties information on the “new” LMIG program and Fiscal 2013 application packets. With approximately $110 million at stake, we expect most cities and counties to apply. The grants will range from around a thousand dollars to four million dollars, based on the population and number of roadway miles in the city or county.
The General Assembly, in adopting The Transportation Investment Act (TIA) and its statewide sales tax referendum held this past July 31, stipulated that local governments in districts of the state where the referendum passed would have to provide a 10 percent local match to receive their LMIG grants; those in districts where it failed, a 30 percent match. Some wonder if that is fair to local governments, especially those where TIA failed.
It is. In reality, cities and counties always contributed to DOT assistance programs. For resurfacings, they always had to patch and prepare roadways before the state could put down new pavement. On new construction projects, local governments always were responsible for any preliminary engineering and needed right-of-way purchases and they always provided most of the project’s funding. So there is no new burden.
Actually, local governments stand to benefit more than ever from a revitalized LMIG program: the $110 million dedicated to LMIG this fiscal year is tens of millions more than in previous years and we’ll now give local governments their total grants in upfront single payments, instead of as work is completed.
This will give them flexibility to decide which projects to build and to begin work sooner. As it should be, cities and counties will control their funds, their schedules and their projects.
21 comments Add your comment
too little time
October 2nd, 2012
3:56 pm
1. Light timing isn’t based on the quantity of traffic and time of day/predictable higher or lower traffic patterns. What should be common sense is apparently not!
2. Adaptive timing: I can sit at a traffic light and waste an enormous amount of time and gas for a single car which has already turned and left the opposing turn lane, leaving a wasted traffic light, especially at night or early morning hours. The light should adapt and cut short the traffic signal accordingly.
Bingo. I sat at delk/powers ferry yesterday. ONE CAR turned left from powers ferry onto delk. 50 cars (and I am not exaggerating) waited 45 seconds on ether side of Delk waiting for the light to change. Not one single car went through the intersection in 45 seconds… at 6:20 pm. This happens all day long, every day.
partain
October 2nd, 2012
3:37 pm
Knowing nothing much of the subject, I wonder why any wiring other than power is required?Each light could have its own sensing and communications to speak to others within a few miles, communicate all this by phone technology and have programs designed to plot the optimal flow.Any future upgrades would not require any rewiring.Someone who knows might enlighten me as to why its impossible, or prohibitively expensive.
partain
October 2nd, 2012
3:31 pm
Enter your comments here
EJ Moosa
October 2nd, 2012
1:48 pm
And as for priorities, turning traffic should take a back see to traffic going straight. They should have those arrows at the end of the cycle, and not at the beginning.
Why should 50 drivers going straight wait for 5 to turn left?
EJ Moosa
October 2nd, 2012
1:46 pm
Since the 1970’s we have heard the lights would be synchronized. We were told this was one of the reasons we now have more than 8 cameras at nearly every intersection.
We make work for someone. But it has never worked for drivers.
jd
October 2nd, 2012
12:07 pm
Miller, Barnes and Perdue tried the traffic sync solution — lots of local govts dont’ want to give up control of those signals!
Barnes and Perdue accelerated monies for construction projects — see issues with debt growth.
So, got anything else new, innovative, that actually will solve the problem?
MANGLER
October 2nd, 2012
11:46 am
A little traffic engineering BG here, so my reply is longer.
The irregular spacing of intersections is a challenge for timing lights. Getting neighboring cities to communicate their signals between each other is also a challenge, but would help. When you change towns, the people responsible for the next lights have changed. The article mentions Sandy Springs upgrading (that mess referred to as Roswell Road) which is good, but when you cross over into Buckhead or (that cancer called) Dunwoody or Roswell, ect, those cities have their own priorities.
Then there are the red lights that seem to have been installed because someone important complained about having to wait to turn left out of their neighborhood. Few things are as agitating as to have a busy road stopped so one BMW who just pulled up to their light can go. On the flip side, some intersections get clogged because their lights are long enough to read War and Peace due to a traffic algorithm that may not apply.
Since many of the smaller intersections get backed up due to someone wanting to turn left, adding even a short left turn lane would be a big deal. A right turn lane would be a luxury but I’d prefer to see the left ones where possible. You wouldn’t even necessarily need a dedicated left turn signal, just a place to stack the 2 cars wanting to make a left and let the 40 cars passing through go.
Then the situations where there are several lights within Manhattan spacing of each other, near malls or busy shopping corridors typically. That messes with everything. Cities have avoided this by building side access roads with one large intersection funnelling all of the business traffic in one place rather than several. It tends to work well where space allows. The same concept applies to highways where there are multiple exits close to each other – they get separated from the through lanes and that often improves flow. But again, there isn’t always space or money to make that kind of change.
The round-a-bouts work when there is clear direction. The ones that include stop signs entering them seem to flow pretty smoothly. It’s when there are yield signs entering them it seems to cause hesitation from some drivers while other drivers just ride through on the bumper of the car in front of them like a train. It’s also rather amusing to see all of the tire marks and chunks out of the concrete medians in the middle from where people just don’t get it. Unless the circle is very large which gives enough space for many cars to enter and exit at once, the smaller circles we’re seeing don’t operate effectively as a free-for-all.
Thank you for reading.
Have A Smile! ☺☻
October 2nd, 2012
8:50 am
I would suggest that timing is not the big issue, but traffic lights everywhere suffer from somewhat poor design:
1. Light timing isn’t based on the quantity of traffic and time of day/predictable higher or lower traffic patterns. What should be common sense is apparently not!
2. Adaptive timing: I can sit at a traffic light and waste an enormous amount of time and gas for a single car which has already turned and left the opposing turn lane, leaving a wasted traffic light, especially at night or early morning hours. The light should adapt and cut short the traffic signal accordingly.
Once again, poor design = poor performance, wasted fuel, wasted time, frustrated drivers.
wolfman
October 1st, 2012
5:49 pm
We can send data to cell phones at many megabytes per sec yet we have to have fiber optics to coordinate traffic lights? Wow, those traffic lights must use a lot of data.
Shaniqua
October 1st, 2012
5:47 pm
If the DOT engineers don’t know how to time the traffic signals perhaps they could pick up a paint brush and repaint the street lane and gore lines.
In many places, like one busy interesection I traversed this afternoon, the double left turn lane lines are gone – not just faded, completely gone. When making the turn it’s impossible to know if you’re in the correct lane or about to collide with the vehicle in the adjacent turn lane, you just hold your breath and pray. Letting this kind of basic roadway maintenance slide tells me the problems @ DOT run deeper than just “new legislative mandates and a stubborn economy”.