Green? no not the wearin' of

[Sumpter250]

Green......ecologically speaking, a simple observation:

I was out partying last night, got home around 1:30 AM.
My trip home, on a major street, took me through approximately twenty traffic control devices (lights).
I didn't count them, but I had to stop for better than 60% of them.
So. The light turns red as I approach, I stop, I sit for at least 1 minute if not more, while absolutely no traffic crosses through the intersection. Finally, the light turns green for me and I proceed to the next light where the same thing happens.
I, therefore spent approximately fifteen minutes(lights), stopped, engine idling, going nowhere, burning fossil fuel and creating carbon dioxide to "warm the globe", plus the extra gasoline needed to accelerate from the stop to the posted limit ( X15).

Why?? you ask?

Because: At that time of night all traffic control devices are operating on a fixed time cycle, and driving through a red light is a moving violation. "Homo Stupidicus" strikes again.

The "observation": If sensors were installed in the roads to detect where traffic was moving, the lights could have operated in an "access demand mode", and few if any vehicles would "have" to stop, or even slow down. Just think, for a moment, how many millions of gallons of gasoline a year, could be saved in "off peak" traffic hours, if you only had to stop if there was crossing traffic. How many less tons of CO2 would not be uselessly produced.
If two vehicles were approaching a light controlled intersection, the sensors could allow, at least the closest vehicle to proceed, and drastically shorten the wait for the other.
I guess writing traffic light violation tickets (no I didn't get one, but the local PD rep's were out in force) is more important than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and "protecting the environment". As I said, Homo Stupidicus strikes again.

[tomustang]

Best way to bypass waiting is the: Right turn, quick U-turn then make right maneuver

[nachoman]

Gee, sumpter, you sound like me! Personally, I think smaller intersections should become four-way stops after a certain hour. Or perhaps the smaller street could flash red and the larger street flash yellow. I am convinced that some cities intentionally time lights to stop people. This for several reasons:

1) If you get people to stop while driving through smaller towns, it forces people to look out the side window and see what places to shop at
2) If people get stopped all the time, it discourages people using smaller streets as shortcuts, and slows traffic down.
3) Some smaller suburbs around here have red light cameras to catch red light runners. It is a revenue-generator (admittedly so by our former governor!). If they time the lights so that they are always turning yellow right in front of you, perhaps they can catch more red light runners and boost their revenue.

Either way, you are exactly right. If cities and towns put an effort into properly timing their traffic lights, or making them simple stop signs during the night hours, a lot of gas and energy could be saved.

[TinGoat]

It's all a matter of timing.

If you get stuck in the cycle that has you stopping at every intersection: pull over for 3-minutes and let the cycle run...

Then get back on the road and you should have all Green Lights unless you start to speed.

[Charlie B]

[quote="Sumpter250"]Green......ecologically speaking, a simple observation:

My trip home, on a major street, took me through approximately twenty traffic control devices (lights).
I didn't count them, but I had to stop for better than 60% of them.
So. The light turns red as I approach, I stop, I sit for at least 1 minute if not more, while absolutely no traffic crosses through the intersection. Finally, the light turns green for me and I proceed to the next light where the same thing happens.
IWhy?? you ask?

Sumpter, I have been arguing this point with railroad administrators....YOU STOPPED AT ALL THE RED LIGHTS AND WAITED FOIR THE GREEN. If they would get rid of a flashing red Which to a driver means stop and go, they could protect crossings without spending a million dollars. A simple traffic light that was green until a train approaches and then let it turn red. All young drivers know they have to stop at a red light but they don't know what to do at a railroad crossing, and all policemen know they can write a ticket for a red light violation.
Charlie

[tetters]

In Toronto, they have deliberately set the lights so that they are timed to slow down traffic making it difficult for drivers to make any headway. The City has admitted to this, I'll look for the offending article later and post it. It was done in order to making driving an inefficient way to get around town. With the premise of "forcing" drivers out of their cars and taking alternative, means of transportation, transit, bike, walk... The Chair of the TTC has publicly announced the pecking order in the city, Pedestrians, bikes, transit, lastly cars.

As a cyclist, I find this kind of underhanded move by out politicians abhorrent. I also drive too, and I remember a time when you could motor along a road like University Ave and hit green lights all the way. Now the lights turn red upon approaching them.

Are you sure they have not done the same thing in your city?

[Sumpter250]

Sumpter, I have been arguing this point with railroad administrators....YOU STOPPED AT ALL THE RED LIGHTS AND WAITED FOIR THE GREEN. If they would get rid of a flashing red Which to a driver means stop and go, they could protect crossings without spending a million dollars. A simple traffic light that was green until a train approaches and then let it turn red.

Here, a flashing red means Stop, look, and then proceed if it is safe to do so.
I hadn't thought of grade crossings that way but, I do like that idea.
I have noticed, here on major roads paralleling rail lines, the grade crossing traffic lights, are controlled through train ( probably the same as what sets the gates automatically)detectors, to red the major road, and hold the "crossing" green to allow any stopped traffic to get clear of the grade crossing. Both directions go red in time to safely stop the crossing traffic. That at least, is a step in the right direction.
There is growing talk, here in Illinois, of banning "red light cameras". Since they went in, and tickets are being regularly issued, the occurrence of "rear end collisions" has increased dramatically!

In Toronto, they have deliberately set the lights so that they are timed to slow down traffic making it difficult for drivers to make any headway. The City has admitted to this,
Are you sure they have not done the same thing in your city?

Wouldn't surprise me. With the economy as it is, all communities are looking for new revenue sources.

".......and nine rings were given to the race of men, who, above all things desire power."

[P5se Camelback]

Used to have the same problem going down Walnut street in Philly. Then, while siiting, waiting, I noticed that most of the lights in front of me were red but in the distance they were starting to turn green.

Although the speed limit was 35 mph, if you tried to keep it at 33 mph and caught the first one green, you'd be green from 52nd St. all the way to City Hall and Broad St. (actually 14th St.)

Just like in so many other things in life ... it's timing, Brother!