REGION: Caltrans recommends $5 million for traffic signals

San Marcos project ranks 9th statewide, Temecula comes in at 18th

By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | Monday, May 12, 2008 6:57 PM PDT ∞

California transportation planners Monday recommended awarding $4.43 million to North County and $1 million to Southwest Riverside County for traffic synchronization projects that aim to make signals turn green in time for drivers to clear several lights in a row without stopping.

Near the front of the line are projects in San Marcos and Temecula that rank among the top 20 statewide.

The cash would come from a $98 million pool of money that is about to be divided up among communities throughout the state. The pool is one of the smallest and least sexy components of the $20 billion state transportation bond California voters passed in November 2006.

Earlier, $4.5 billion was distributed for projects that boost freeway capacity and $3 billion was divided up for projects that accelerate delivery of goods.

The California Transportation Commission is scheduled to decide at its May 28-29 meeting in San Diego whether to adopt the list of 62 traffic-signal projects as it is, or to make changes.

By far the biggest chunk of traffic money that could be headed for the area is the $2.16 million recommended for an ambitious attempt to synchronize signals on freeway onramps and cross streets with the enormous volume of commuter traffic on Interstate 15 in North County.

Jack Boda, director of mobility management for the San Diego Association of Governments, the agency that applied for the I-15 money, said that project is focused on the 8-mile section of I-15 under construction between Rancho Penasquitos and Lake Hodges.

The area project scoring highest in the California Department of Transportation's evaluation of about 100 competing projects was San Marcos Boulevard, one of North County's busiest thoroughfares.

"We were really pleased to be No. 9 statewide," said Mike Edwards, San Marcos city engineer.

"Right now our signals are synchronized and interconnected along the whole corridor within San Marcos," Edwards said. "This grant would take it to the next level and implement what we call an adaptive traffic signal system."

Edwards said the city plans to install high-tech cameras at key intersections to gauge the volume and speed of traffic, and to automatically adjust the cycle of red and green lights and adapt to changing conditions.

"If it all works right, the traffic will flow much more seamlessly," he said.

Temecula, scoring 18th statewide, proposed a similar automated system that would trigger timing changes as traffic volumes shift along the city's busiest corridors, such as when special events are held at the Pechanga Resort & Casino. Bill Hughes, the city's public works director, said Temecula's system would use instruments in the pavement to gauge the traffic flow.

Hughes said the system would target six streets: Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway, Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Jefferson Avenue.

"We're planning on revamping our entire signal system with upgraded new controllers," he said, referring to the computers that control how quickly a signal changes from green to red. "The new controllers can actually reprogram themselves so that they are making the most efficient use of an intersection's timing."

San Marcos is in line to receive $549,000 for the San Marcos Boulevard project and Temecula was recommended for $515,000.

Caltrans also recommended awarding:

-- $478,000 to Murrieta for a synchronization project on Murrieta Hot Springs Road.

-- $267,000 to Vista to improve traffic-light timing on South Melrose Drive.

-- $266,000 to San Marcos for Rancho Santa Fe Road.

-- $161,000 to Vista for North Santa Fe Avenue.

-- $78,000 to San Diego County for South Mission Road.

Caltrans also recommended awarding the San Diego association $951,000 for sophisticated traffic signals that would give buses priority over cars along planned "bus rapid transit" lines.

One of those lines would be in Escondido, along Escondido Boulevard between downtown and the Westfield North County mall. The other would be on something regional planners are calling the "super loop," a proposed shuttle for the University Towne Centre-Sorrento Valley area.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.

Previous

More Stories

Tags: Top NCT News Local Regional

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

a traffic engineer wrote on May 12, 2008 8:57 PM:In my opinion, adaptive signals are really a waste of the money that is required to make them work. They work well at adapting to traffic where there are major events occuring (like Petco, Disneyland,etc.) For regular day to day operation a good traffic engineer that understands signals and coordination can implement coordination plans and refine them far better than a computer can. In my opinion, there are a lot of traffic engineers that do not seem to understand signal coordination timing and asign that task to a signal technician or maintenance worker who may only understand the basics. I've seen cities that spend lots of money on cameras and fiber optics but fail to learn how to program the signals and understand coordination plans and other tricks to make the traffic flow better. I think some of the money should go for mandatory signal timing training for any agency that receives funding. It looks good to say that the signals are interconnected and there are cameras but the motorist does not care about that when the input is trash and traffic fails to flow like it could.

Floyd wrote on May 12, 2008 9:28 PM:Why do you need new cameras when you've already got those sensors embedded in the lanes?

Logic wrote on May 13, 2008 5:56 AM:How about timing lights so people can get from point A to B without hitting every light red? Technology used in traffic signals is the same it has always been. Just go to highway 76 and Douglas and watch the light stay green for the west bound traffic - until the next wave of traffic approaches and then it turns red - every single time. Is this energy wise Caltrans????

Max Headroom wrote on May 13, 2008 6:17 AM:How about fixing the signals on 79 South -- er, Temecula Parkway-- so that they don't turn red every time a single car approaches from a side street? It's asinine to stop hundreds of cars on a major thoroughfare so that one or two cars on the side streets or shopping center parking lots don't have to wait more than a few seconds. (And half the time the side-street car is making a right turn and just trayed too far out into the road and tripped the signal.)

How about Emerald wrote on May 13, 2008 7:33 AM:How about fixing Emerald Drive at SR-78. That whole intersection is a joke and due for a realignment. All of the connectors on the 78 are a joke except for the one in San Marcos which was recently renovated with the lane expansion. It's a joke the money keeps getting pumped into places that have already been improved. How about improving conditions for others.

And... it's about time the North County grows up by receiving a real freeway interchange at I-5 and SR-78.

Driver wrote on May 13, 2008 7:49 AM:What are the lights synchronized with? I have seen many times, in many locations where a turn light will go green, even when there is no one in the lane, making me and other drivers sit there waiting to go straight ahead.

I ask again, what is that synchronized to?

traffic engineer wrote on May 13, 2008 2:19 PM:To Driver - Could be a lagging left turn that keeps the through green for a platoon of vehicles that may or may not arrive.

Walt wrote on May 13, 2008 2:39 PM:Hooray for interactive on ramp signal cordination. Properly done to max out the total freeway flow actually can reduce congestion on nearby surface streets. But it must replace HOT or HOV lanes on freeways.

Dennis wrote on May 14, 2008 10:15 AM:I agree with almost all the comments here.

In Temecula we need traffic engineers that know how to sychronize the lights on Major streets. Lights are going off in minor intersections without regard of the priorities.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos