Intelligent Transportation Systems (now there’s a misnomer!) are computer and sensor systems for increasing the automobile throughput of intersections. They are much cheaper and less disruptive than expanding intersections.
But make no mistake, they are just another form of roadway expansion because they increase the capacity of a roadway. And yet in many cases ITS is described as a bike project:
“One of the main complaints we had from cyclists is they would get the green indication, and then start pedaling and then get halfway through the intersection and see it turn yellow and then red on them,” said Pleasanton traffic engineer Mike Tassano.
“I can think of quite a few times when I’ve been stuck in an intersection,” said cyclist Evan Haase.
Haase knows the problem all too well. So-called smart traffic lights seem just a little too dumb to notice a bicycle. Sometimes, they turn red too quickly. Other times, they never turn green.
But in Pleasanton all that has changed. They call it the Intersector and it looks like a big radar gun mounted next to a traffic light. It fires microwaves down into the intersection and when they bounce back, it can tell if it’s looking at a car, a pedestrian, or even a bicycle.
“Once it does, it can then tell the traffic controller there’s a bicycle here and provide the extra time it needs to get across the intersection,” said Tassano.
On a computer screen, there are black numbers for cars and a blue box is put around the number if it is a bike. The computer will give that bike an extra 10 seconds to cross the intersection and if there’s no bike, the computer speeds up the traffic lights to get more cars through.
Cyclists only require signals with sufficient greentime, something that can be accomplished for free by reprogramming the timer. If traffic engineers have a more sophisticated solution involving microwaves to speed things up for cars, that’s all well and good — but should bike/ped funding be paying for it?
Due to how the detection typically works at intersections, yes, this seems to be an appropriate use of bike-ped funding. The minimum green time may be set to 7 to 10 seconds on a side street which may not be enough time for a bike to clear a large intersection. By detecting a bike it will increase the minimum green time for cyclists.
So you think it is ok to have intersections timed with insufficient green time? There is a huge number of intersections with this problem. If the solution is installing ITS technology, bike funds will be rapidly depleted.
Signals can be adjusted more rapidly than concrete or asphalt. If there are enough bikes at the intersection one could time it so they always have enough time. In most areas there are not enough bikes to “waste” an extra 10 seconds on a side street when in most cases the car cleared the intersection 10 seconds ago. Extra green time on a side street generates phone calls to the local jurisdiction which is why they are timed the way they are.
What they are doing here is the same thing that happens for pedestrians, they push a button and it extends the green time. Yes, those buttons can be very expensive, particularly with ADA requirements. You’re welcome to make the same case for pedestrian crossing times, but my response would be the same.
The buttons aren’t just expensive; they’re also a chore. Think of the alternative: how would drivers react, even in pedestrian-oriented places in San Francisco and New York, if they had to press a button every time they wanted a green light?
At some intersections in Providence, the pedestrian light remains red even when all car traffic that could conflict has red and right turns on red are prohibited. And for the record, this includes intersections on Thayer Street, the main street of the Brown student ghetto, with way more pedestrians than cars.