Economic Impact of Traffic Signals

Economic impact of traffic signals
copyright
Greater London Authority

November 2009
Published by
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk
enquiries 020 7983 4000
minicom 020 7983 4458
ISBN: 978-1-84781-310-7
Cover photograph
© istock
Paper
Printed on 9Lives 80 silk – 80 per cent recycled fibre,
20 per cent from sustainable forest management, totally chlorine free fibre.
For more information about this publication, please contact:

GLA Economics
telephone 020 7983 4922
email glaeconomics@london.gov.uk
GLA Economics provides expert advice and analysis on London’s economy and
the economic issues facing the capital. Data and analysis from GLA Economics
form a basis for the policy and investment decisions facing the Mayor of London
and the GLA group. The unit is funded by the Greater London Authority,
Transport for London and the London Development Agency.
GLA Economics uses a wide range of information and data sourced from third
party suppliers within its analysis and reports. GLA Economics cannot be held
responsible for the accuracy or timeliness of this information and data.
GLA Economics, the GLA, LDA and TfL will not be liable for any losses suffered
or liabilities incurred by a party as a result of that party relying in any way on
the information contained in this report.
Economic Impact of
Traffic Signals
Report
colinbuchanan.com
Economic Impact of Traffic Signals
Report
Project No: 16365
10 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk
Prepared by: Approved by:
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Ashish Chandra John Siraut
Status: Final
(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
Report
Contents
Executive Summary 2
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Context 7
1.2 Economic impacts 8
1.3 This study 8
1.4 Report structure 9
2 Traffic signals in London 10
2.1 Administrative setup 10
2.2 Greater London traffic signals statistics 11
3 Methodology 13
3.1 Overview 13
3.2 Framework for assessment 13
3.3 Key assessment criteria 15
3.4 Junctions selected for study 16
3.5 Pedestrians 18
3.6 Safety 18
3.7 Alternative traffic control regimes 18
4 Junction assessment 21
4.1 Micro-simulation modelling 21
4.2 Edgware Road 21
4.3 Target Roundabout 24
4.4 River Road 26
4.5 East Barnet Road/Margaret Road 28
4.6 A215 Norwood Road/Palace Road 29
5 Economic impact analysis 32
5.1 Introduction 32
5.2 Methodology 32
5.3 Results 33
5.4 Pedestrians 43
5.5 Road safety 43
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 45
6.1 Conclusions 45
6.2 Recommendations 46
Appendix – Assumptions used for economic analysis 47
1
Report
Executive Summary
Context
In recent years there has been a sustained debate on the role of traffic signals in London. The number
of traffic signal installations has steadily increased with around 1,000 new sets being introduced since
the year 2000 so that the total is now over 5,000. At the beginning of 2009 there were 2,532 signalised
road junctions in Greater London. These are roughly split 50:50 between inner and outer-London with
two thirds on non-Transport for London roads. Stand alone signalised pedestrian crossings make up
the remaining installations (these are not addressed in this study).
This increase in traffic signals has led to a perception that there are now too many and at the margins
their benefits may be outweighed by increased congestion, or at least unnecessary delays outside
peak hours.
The Mayor of London is committed to tackling congestion by ensuring smoother traffic flow and
Transport for London (TfL) continues to review all London traffic signals to ensure that they operate in
the most efficient way in line with their own and Department for Transport standards - so traffic is
stationary for shorter periods of time, whilst maintaining pedestrian safeguards. TfL has examined
various options for reducing the impact of traffic signals including allowing left-turns on red and the
introduction of flashing amber (this would indicate the need for caution and to possibly give-way to
conflicting traffic but not necessarily having to stop). Such changes, however, require government
approval which to date has not been forthcoming.
To inform the debate on the cost and benefits of traffic signals GLA Economics commissioned Colin
Buchanan (CB), in 2007, to undertake an initial exploratory study which used a model of a theoretical
junction to investigate whether or not it is beneficial, in economic terms, to remove traffic signal control
and revert in that instance to a major / minor road priority rule.
The initial study concluded that the economic benefits and disbenefits of traffic signals are heavily
dependent not only on the volumes of traffic but also traffic composition, vehicle occupancy,
pedestrian volumes and time of day. The study also highlighted that any assessment of traffic signals
should take into account a wider spectrum of influencing factors including safety and network
management issues. Whilst a theoretical study using a simplified approach, the initial work
demonstrated that there was indeed merit in considering the issue in greater detail.
For this study, further analysis was undertaken using actual traffic flows at signalised junctions in
London during different times of the day. Junctions were evaluated using an assessment framework to
assess the requirement for traffic signals and to define the considerations required to determine
suitable alternative methods of control in place of existing traffic signals.
In appraisal of transport schemes, an assessment is made of the impacts of the scheme on the
welfare of transport users. Travel is a ‘cost’ in the sense that an individual has to spend time and
money making a journey, so a reduction in those travel costs is considered to be an economic benefit.
Economists use the concept of generalised cost which combines the monetary cost of a journey (fare,
petrol costs, etc.) with the time taken for the journey and various attributes associated with that
journey such as crowding.
Traffic signals impact on travel costs by either increasing or decreasing journey delay depending on
the journey conditions. As journey purpose, volume of trips and modal split varies by time of day and
location it is necessary to explore the impacts of traffic signals taking account of these variations.
The management of London’s road network is mainly the responsibility of TfL and the individual
boroughs, however, the management of traffic signals is the sole responsibility of TfL. TfL’s
Directorate of Traffic Operations (DTO) issues guidance to the boroughs with regard to the
2
Report
circumstances where it is appropriate to install signals. In essence signals will be installed at a junction
only if:
a) it has an accident rate equal to or greater than the average signalised junction in inner or outer-
London as appropriate, and;
b) traffic flows are above a certain level, or;
c) turning traffic or pedestrian flows are above a certain level.
So traffic signals fulfil both a safety and a traffic management function. In the past the case for traffic
signals was principally made on traffic conditions during weekday peak traffic periods. More recently
account has also been taken of off-peak periods and weekends. The choice for junction control has,
however, generally been between full time traffic signal control or conventional priority control without
traffic signals, rather than also considering whether there is a case for having traffic signals
operational only for particular times of day.
Methodology
In assessing the impact of traffic signals a representative sample of these 2,500 road junctions is
needed. In choosing which junctions were modelled account was taken of:
The availability of an existing and DTO approved traffic model
The availability of all-day traffic flow data
The location and type of junction
Whether the junction was a stand alone junction or part of a network of junctions
Safety (in principle there was no overriding safety reason why consideration should
not be given to switching off the traffic signal)
Junction geometry (principally linked to safety issues)
Following discussions with TfL, five junctions were chosen, namely
A section of the Edgware Road covering seven separate junctions (all 4-arm
junctions, inner-London)
A312/B455 Target Roundabout (4-arm roundabout, outer-London)
A13/River Road junction (3-arm junction, outer-London)
East Barnet Road/Margaret Road (4 arm junction, outer-London)
A215 Norwood Road/Palace Road (3-arm junction, inner-London)
These five junctions are broadly representative of two thirds of signalised junctions in London in terms
of type and location, however it needs to be stressed that each junction is unique in terms of traffic
volumes, composition and turning movements.
In modelling the junctions two scenarios were compared: ‘Do Minimum’, that is, the traffic signals
operate as now yet with minor timing adjustments to achieve optimum performance if necessary, and
‘Do Something’ which is to remove the traffic signal control. In modelling traffic movements some
assumptions are needed as to how traffic will react without signals. When the traffic signals are
removed traffic is assumed to give-way to the right as normal on roundabouts, to give-way to traffic on
the right on 4-arm junctions and to revert to major-minor road status for 3-arm junctions.
For each junction the model output included data on average delay per vehicle for the morning peak,
inter-peak (ie the time between the morning and evening peaks), the evening peak and at night for the
with and without traffic signal scenarios.
These delay figures were then converted to financial values using standard transport economic
appraisal guidance from the Department for Transport. To do this account is taken of traffic
composition, vehicle occupancy rates and journey purpose. This data comes from traffic counts and
the London Area Transport Survey. The analysis valued the changes in time savings, vehicle
operating costs and emissions between having traffic signals and no traffic signals by junction.
3
Report
Modelling Assumptions
Transport modelling tools were used to develop computer simulations of real-life junctions where
individual vehicle movements were simulated using established driver behaviour and car-following
theories.
These micro-simulation models are regularly used throughout the UK for assessment of traffic
operations and major new traffic generators such as property developments. The DTO has developed
a number of such micro-simulation models for traffic junctions in London and provides guidelines for
development and use of these models.
For the purpose of the present study, micro-simulation models approved by DTO were used to
analyse a number of key performance indicators at selected signalised junctions. Each of the
modelled junctions was used to analyse two sets of results: the existing situation and a scenario
where the traffic signals are replaced with an alternate measure of control. These model results were
then input into an economic model to determine the difference in economic terms between the with
and without traffic signal scenarios.
These modelling tools represent only standard traffic behaviour. They are unable to accurately predict
accidents and unobserved driver behaviour. In addition, there is currently no quantitative evidence in
the UK that provides data on the likely form of behavioural response from road users including
pedestrians before and after a change in junction control regime to the degree envisaged by this
study.
In the absence of any substantial evidence, it was therefore assumed that if traffic signals were to be
switched-off for all or part of the day, drivers would behave as they would normally do under
whichever alternative traffic regime scenario was put in its place. For example, at a roundabout when
the signals are removed they would ‘give-way to the right’ as usual while at a T-junction traffic on the
minor arm would give-way to traffic on the major arm. This behaviour may be different to that
commonly seen when traffic signals “fail” as there is usually little guidance to drivers, cyclists or
pedestrians as to who has priority. It is not known whether these assumptions represent an optimistic
or pessimistic evaluation of likely traffic capacity. Based, however, on anecdotal evidence from
occasions when traffic signals fail, as well as engineering judgement, it is considered a reasonable
approximation to the likely overall, average performance of the junction.
The present study highlights the limitations to firmly evaluating potential benefits of traffic signals; and
the need for further understanding these potential behavioural responses through appropriate case
studies.
Results
The results of the individual junction analysis showed considerable variation. All the junctions showed
time savings at night by the removal of signals and hence an economic benefit. Four junctions showed
benefits of removing signals during the inter-peak period, but at one, the Target Roundabout, there
was a significant disbenefit due to the proportion of conflicting movements taking place. In three
instances there are clear benefits from traffic signals in the morning and evening peaks.
The total benefits of signals by junction vary from a disbenefit of around £10,000 a year to a benefit of
over £800,000 a year. These figures do not, however, fully take into account all the relevant costs and
benefits. In some cases removing traffic signals reduces the capacity of the junction meaning it could
not handle all the traffic which wished to pass through it. This leads to a build up of a queue and the
disbenefit to this traffic that is not able to pass through the junction is not captured by the model. In
addition for reasons discussed below the results do not take account of the impact on pedestrians or
safety.
4
Report
While there were some similarities between the results by junctions, given the small number of
junctions modelled and the fact that each junction is unique in terms of traffic composition and
volumes it was not felt appropriate to scale up the results to a London wide figure.
Pedestrians
The results do not take into account the benefits and disbenefits to pedestrians. This is due to a lack
of data on pedestrian movements during off-peak hours and also due to a lack of validated methods of
forecasting and modelling pedestrian behaviour when traffic signals are not in use.
It is apparent from the analysis that there are disbenefits from removing traffic signals during morning
and evening peaks, and this generally coincides with periods when pedestrian numbers are also high.
The inter-peak period is more complex; in parts of London both pedestrian and vehicle numbers are
high during this time, but in other locations numbers are much reduced.
Where it has been shown that there are benefits from switching off (or introducing flashing amber)
traffic signals during certain periods, it is possible that these benefits would significantly reduce if
pedestrian actuation of an all-red pedestrian crossing stage was introduced, resulting in additional
delay to vehicles. This is more likely to be an issue at inner-London sites and could therefore negate
any benefits. At night however, traffic and pedestrian movements are lower and disbenefits to
pedestrians in most parts of London are likely to be very low.
Road safety
The results also do not take into account safety issues. There are very limited studies of the impact of
removing formal control at junctions on road safety, and what data there is seems to provide mixed
messages. The only recent study, published by TRL and commissioned by TfL, concludes that there is
not a safety case one way or other when considering ‘simplified streetscapes’ (with minimal traffic
regulations, signs and lines), and so it is possible that removal of signal control would have a neutral
effect on safety.
Although there is data available regarding personal injury accidents that occur when traffic signals fail,
it is rarely clear whether the accident occurred as a direct result of the signal failure, or if this was a
coincidence and other factors such as weather conditions or lighting were not greater contributory
factors. It is possible that the lack of guidance to road users on appropriate behaviour in these
situations is an important factor, which would not be the case if traffic signals are removed or
switched-off with sufficient advance warning and public awareness. The use of flashing amber signals
at junctions to advise users on junction behaviour is seen as a method to reduce risk where it has
been adopted on the continent. The UK, however, has no experience of using flashing amber signals
to warn of potential conflicting traffic movements at junctions and its use would require alterations to
highways legislation.
The average cost of a personal injury accident on London’s road network is around £90,000 and an
assessment would need to be made at each location where traffic signals could potentially be
removed or switched-off to ascertain what, if any, are the safety risks and whether there is likely to be
a net gain in economic benefits when compared to possible savings in travel time.
Conclusions and Recommendations

The study has demonstrated that on the basis of the junctions modelled there are significant benefits
to road users arising from having traffic signals in London. If benefits to pedestrians were added and
account taken of the higher junction capacity that signals can provide this figure would be higher. The
study also shows that there are benefits of removing traffic signals in certain locations and at certain
times provided safety was not compromised.
5
Report
It is recommended that consideration is given to a pilot of switching off traffic signals at junctions at
times when the level of traffic does not justify such controls subject to a safety audit. There is present
Department for Transport guidance as to the level of daily traffic that justifies particular types of traffic
control. Based on this guidance it is possible to determine the hourly level of traffic below which formal
control is not necessarily appropriate and therefore junctions which could be piloted. (The actual traffic
numbers depend on the flows on each arm of the junction so is not a single number.)
In the UK legislation does not allow for the use of switching all signals at a junction to flashing amber
at less busy times, a measure which is commonplace in a number of European countries. We
recommend discussions should take place with the appropriate European traffic authorities to obtain
evidence and ascertain their views on the impact that such traffic control methods have on safety,
vehicle and pedestrian movement.
The study assumes that when traffic signal control is disabled, traffic behaviour would revert to some
form of conventional priority control, which might even be stipulated through analysis of traffic demand
and turning patterns and the use of advance signing. It is possible, however, that junctions could
operate without any imposition of regulated traffic controls, with the expectation that road users would
behave appropriately. This form of behaviour cannot, at present, be modelled – yet it is recommended
that scope for this form of uncontrolled arrangement is also investigated. This can only be achieved
through live trials at a variety of sites. The results would have the potential of determining precisely
how traffic would behave at ‘shared space’ type environments and could provide unparalleled
knowledge in this field. Such work would also need to monitor the behaviour of pedestrians.
6
Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
1.1.1 Over the last few years there has been a sustained debate on the role of traffic signals in
London. The number of traffic signal installations has steadily increased with around
1,000 new sets being introduced since the year 2000 and there are now over 5,000.
Around half of these are at junctions, the remainder being stand alone pedestrian
crossings.
1.1.2 This increase in traffic signals has led to a perception that there are now too many and at
the margins their benefits may be outweighed by increased congestion or delay. In 2007
the Transport Commissioner was quoted as saying "We have a problem with traffic
signals. We would quite like to remove some and if we can it would make a difference. If
they do not add to road safety, why have them?"1 The majority of signals he was referring
to were in relation to junctions leading to roads serving new developments.
1.1.3 Transport for London (TfL) has examined various options for reducing the impact of traffic
signals including allowing left-turns on red and the introduction of flashing amber,
however such changes require government approval which to date has not been
forthcoming.
1.1.4 The Mayor of London is committed to tackling congestion by ensuring smoother traffic
flow and TfL continues to review all London traffic signals to ensure that they operate in
the most efficient way, rephasing lights in line with their own and Department for
Transport standards so that traffic is stationary for shorter periods of time, whilst
maintaining pedestrian safeguards. The significant extension of SCOOT (a traffic-
responsive Urban Traffic Control system which adjusts traffic signal timings to meet real-
time traffic conditions) will also help to maximise the effectiveness of traffic signals and
minimise delays.
1.1.5 There remains, however, a desire to further reduce the impact of traffic signals on road
users and a number of Local Authorites both in and outside London are reviewing the
removal or switching off of traffic signals which are no-longer required/justified.
1.1.6 To inform the debate on the cost and benefits of traffic signals, GLA Economics
commissioned Colin Buchanan, in 2007, to undertake an initial exploratory study which
used a model of a theoretical junction to investigate whether or not it is beneficial, in
economic terms, to remove traffic signal control and revert in that instance to a major /
minor road priority rule.
1.1.7 The initial study concluded that the economic benefits and disbenefits of traffic signals
are heavily dependent not only on the volumes of traffic but also traffic composition,
vehicle occupancy, pedestrian volumes and time of day. The study also highlighted that
any assessment of traffic signals should take into account a wider spectrum of influencing
factors including safety and network management issues. Whilst a theoretical study using
a simplified approach, the initial work demonstrated that there was indeed merit in
considering the issue in greater detail.
1
Evening Standard 27.11.07
7
Report
1.2 Economic impacts

1.2.1 In the appraisal of transport schemes, an assessment is made of the impacts of the
scheme on the welfare of transport users. Travel is a ‘cost’ in the sense that an individual
has to spend time and money making a journey, so a reduction in those travel costs is
considered to be an economic benefit. Economists use the concept of generalised cost
which combines the monetary cost of a journey (fare, petrol costs, etc.) with the time
taken for the journey and various attributes associated with that journey.
1.2.2 To turn time into a financial value, standard Department for Transport (DfT) approved
values of time are used. These vary by journey purpose (that is, travel in work time,
commuting to and from work and other travel reasons) and hence by mode and time of
day reflecting the different use of each mode by different user types. Other attributes of a
journey, such as crowding can also be turned into monetary values using standard DfT
values.
1.2.3 Traffic signals impact on travel costs by either increasing or decreasing journey delay
depending on the journey conditions. As journey purpose, volume of trips and modal split
varies by time of day and location it is necessary to explore the impacts of traffic signals
in a variety of situations.
1.3 This study

1.3.1 This study builds upon the initial exploratory study, using actual traffic flows at signalised
junctions in London during different time periods. Junctions were evaluated using an
assessment framework to assess the requirement for traffic signals and to define the
considerations required to determine suitable alternative methods of control in place of
existing traffic signals.
1.3.2 Traffic models of selected junctions were then tested for two scenarios, that is, with and
without traffic signals and the results were compared to determine the net economic costs
and benefits of traffic signals by location and time of day using TfL approved traffic
simulation models.
1.3.3 These micro-simulation models are regularly used throughout the UK to assess traffic
operations and impact of different traffic management measures. The Directorate of
Traffic Operations (DTO) at TfL has developed a number of such micro-simulation
models for traffic junctions in London and provides guidelines for development and use of
these models.
1.3.4 For the purpose of the present study, micro-simulation models approved by DTO were
used to analyse a number of key performance indicators at selected signalised junctions.
Each of the modelled junctions was used to analyse two sets of results: the existing
situation and a scenario where the traffic signals are replaced with an alternate method of
control.
1.3.5 The models are based and calibrated on average and observed traffic behaviour and are
good predictors of how traffic will respond to known conditions. They are, however, not
calibrated when it comes to predicting behaviour for conditions which are not
conventional. For example, traffic response to the removal or switching off of traffic
signals on a four-arm junction where there is no dominant traffic flow and pedestrians are
present is currently not quantifiable.
1.3.6 In the absence of any recorded evidence, the assumptions used in the model are based
on how drivers are predicted to behave rather than how they have been observed to
behave. For example, the models assume that at a roundabout when the signals are
removed they would ‘give-way to the right’ as usual while at a T-junction traffic on the
8
Report
minor arm would give-way to traffic on the major arm. This behaviour is different to that
commonly seen when traffic signals “fail” as there is usually little guidance to drivers,
cyclists or pedestrians as to who has priority. It is not known what impact these
assumptions have on junction capacity which is a key determinant of delay. Based,
however, on anecdotal evidence from occasions when traffic signals fail, as well as
engineering judgement, it is considered a reasonable approximation to the likely overall,
average performance of the junction.
1.4 Report structure

1.4.1 The remainder of this reported is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 presents an overview of traffic signals in Greater London;
Chapter 3 discusses the study methodology for assessing the utility of traffic
signals based on traffic management and safety criteria;
Chapter 4 presents the results of the traffic modelling;
Chapter 5 describes the methodology and results of the economic evaluations; and
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations from the study.
1.4.2 Full technical details of the traffic modelling used are provided in a separate appendix.
9
Report
2 Traffic signals in London
2.1 Administrative setup

2.1.1 There is a three level hierarchy of highway authorities within Greater London:
The Highways Agency;
TfL; and
The London Boroughs and Corporation of London.
2.1.2 Each highway authority is responsible for the management and maintenance of its own
network, but some attributes, for example traffic signals, are the responsibility of a
separate administration for the entire Greater London area.
2.1.3 London Streets, part of TfL, is responsible for managing the Transport for London Road
Network (TLRN) shown in red in Figure 2.1. The TLRN accounts for about 5% of
London’s roads by length and carries over a third of its traffic. The roads shown in blue
are the responsibility of the Highways Agency.
Figure 2.1: Greater London Road Network
10
Report
2.1.4 Individual London Boroughs and the Corporation of London are responsible for the rest of
the Greater London road network, including the Strategic Road Network (SRN), which
has a primary function and carries considerable volumes of traffic.
2.1.5 TfL's DTO is responsible for the management and operation of all London's traffic signals
and systems. Traffic signals are therefore managed by a specialised administration and
not by the highway authorities directly, although the identification of the need for traffic
signal control is a Borough responsibility on their own roads. The DTO issues guidance to
the boroughs with regard to the circumstances where it is appropriate to install signals. In
essence signals will be installed at a junction only if it has an accident rate equal to or
greater than the average signal junction in inner or outer-London as appropriate, and:
traffic flows are above a certain level; or
turning traffic or pedestrian flows are above a certain level.
2.1.6 So traffic signals fulfil both a safety and a traffic management function. In the past the
case for traffic signals was principally made on traffic conditions during the morning and
evening peaks. More recently account has also been taken of off-peak periods and
weekends. The option has, however, generally been between 24-hour traffic signals or
no traffic signals rather than also considering whether there is a case for having traffic
signals but only for particular times of day.
2.2 Greater London traffic signals statistics

2.2.1 At the beginning of 2009 there were 5,224 sets of traffic signals in Greater London. Of
these 2,692 are stand alone pedestrian crossings and 2,532 are traffic junctions. Table
2.1 shows the breakdown of these traffic junctions by location (inner / outer-London), with
the inner-London category subdivided into Congestion and non-Congestion Charging
(CC) zones and by network (TLRN / non-TLRN).
Table 2.1: Number of signalised traffic junctions
Location Non-TLRN TLRN Total

Inner-London within CC area 326 110 436
Inner-London outside CC area 427 453 880
Outer-London 924 292 1216
Total 1,677 855 2,532
2.2.2 Table 2.2 shows a further breakdown by:

Number of arms (3 / 4 or more);
Location (inner / outer-London); and
Network (TLRN / non-TLRN).
2.2.3 These categories are used to generalise key junction types in Greater London and form
the basis of our junction selection process for further analysis.
11
Report
Table 2.2: Greater London junctions by number of arms, location & network
Number of % of the total number of

Junction type
junctions junctions
3 arms – inner-London – non-TLRN 538 21%
3 arms – inner-London – TLRN 387 15%
3 arms – outer-London – non-TLRN 638 25%
3 arms – outer-London – TLRN 220 9%
4 and more arms – inner-London – non-TLRN 215 8%
4 and more arms – inner-London – TLRN 176 7%
4 and more arms – outer-London – non-TLRN 286 11%
4 and more arms – outer-London – TLRN 72 3%
Total 2,532 100%
12
Report
3 Methodology
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 As noted earlier, this study follows on from an initial exploratory study which modelled a
hypothetical junction to test whether there is a tipping point in terms of the level of traffic,
taking into account its composition and journey purpose, at which it is beneficial in
economic terms to switch-off2 the traffic signals.
3.1.2 The aim of this study was to advance our understanding of the economic impacts of
traffic signals across London taking on board the key issues arising from the initial study.
3.1.3 To do this required us to consider a range of different junction types:

In both inner and outer-London;
On and off the TLRN giving a wide range of traffic volumes and differing traffic
compositions;
At different times of day;
That are stand alone and part of a wider network.
3.1.4 In addition we need to take account of pedestrian issues and safety.
3.1.5 To identify representative junctions an assessment framework was developed as a

means to identify factors that influence the decision whether to signalise a junction or not
and to determine suitable alternative methods of control in place of existing traffic signals.
3.2 Framework for assessment

3.2.1 In the past most junction appraisals which led to the installation of traffic signals
evaluated peak traffic flow conditions and generalised the use of signals over the
complete day, week, month and year. This approach however, although comprehensive
in evaluating the impact of traffic signals on safety and traffic flow in general, failed to
differentiate the operational requirements and benefits during other times of the day.
Extending the analysis to different times of day is a key parameter that has been taken
into account in this study.
3.2.2 Traffic signals are used to control traffic movement through:

Improved road safety;
Major reductions in congestion and delay; and
Specific strategies which regulate the use of the road network.
3.2.3 These factors have been taken into consideration in selecting junctions for analysis and
reviewing alternative methods of control in the case where traffic signals are switched-off
for complete or partial time periods in the day.
3.2.4 The assessment methodology is shown in Figure 3.1.
2
The term "switch off” is used as a short hand to suggest an alternative method of control at a junction. It may
not literally be the switching off of the traffic signals.
13
Report
Figure 3.1: Methodology for assessment of traffic signals
14
Report
3.3 Key assessment criteria

3.3.1 Key assessment criteria include safety, network management and capacity issues.
Individual site road safety

3.3.2 Road safety analysis needs to be specific to the site and time of day. Consideration of the
safety issues which could arise and which should be considered prior to any formal
decision-making include:
The ratio of pedestrians and cyclists to motorised vehicles
Carriageway widths
Junction layout and geometry
Pedestrian and cyclist provision
Characteristics of traffic, including
- Approach speeds
- Through speeds
- Proportion of goods vehicles
Collision history.
Road network management

3.3.3 The use of traffic signals is, in parts of the road network, dictated by traffic management
imperatives over local congestion or road safety considerations. The following key
assessments are required:
Is the traffic signal part of any strategic network, eg TLRN?
Is the signal used for enforcing flow metering?
Is the signal part of a group of inter-connected or synchronised signals?
Congestion and capacity assessment

3.3.4 The positive or negative impact of traffic signals on congestion will be assessed through:
The degree of saturation (that is, the degree to which the traffic through the
junction exceeds its capacity);
Traffic throughput and reserve capacity;
Vehicle delay;
Delay to passengers and other street users;
Scope for further signal timing optimisation; and
Requirements during different times of the day.
3.3.5 Figure 3.2 shows the conventional approach to choosing junction control methods based
on the simple relationship between traffic flows on major / minor roads, using average
daily traffic demand. This diagram does not compare the type of junction to time of the
day, but it gives a good indication of possible alternatives. It does not, however, take into
account the economic value of people and goods travelling on the network where these
may be markedly different by time of day or even by each arm of the junction.
15
Report
Figure 3.2: Junction type appropriate for different traffic flows on major / minor
roads
Source: Transport in the Urban Environment
3.4 Junctions selected for study

3.4.1 To provide economic results for Greater London, junctions were selected which are
representative of the characteristic mix of junctions present in London.
3.4.2 As discussed in Section 2.2, road junctions can be categorised by the following key
attributes:
Number of arms (3 / 4 or more);
Location (inner / outer-London); and
Network (TLRN / non-TLRN).
These categories form the basis of grossing up the modelling results to a London wide
assessment. Signalised pedestrian crossings, eg PELICANs and PUFFINs, are excluded
from the analysis.
3.4.3 In selecting junctions suitable for analysis account was taken of:
The availability of DTO compliant traffic models;
The availability of all-day traffic flow data;
The type and location of junction, to ensure a representative sample;
Safety (in principle there were no overriding safety reasons why consideration
should not be given to switching off the traffic signal);
Junction geometry (principally linked to safety issues).
3.4.4 A long list of possible junctions was reviewed with DTO against these criteria leading to
the agreed short listed junctions shown in Table 3.1.
16
Report
Table 3.1: List of selected junctions
Type of Peak major arm

Junction
Key arms and intersections junction (no. traffic flow Location
location
of arms) (morning peak)
Edgware Road/ Harrow Road/
4-arm 615
Marylebone Road
Edgware Road/ Praed Street/ Chapel
4-arm 910
Street
Edgware Road/ Sussex Garden/ Old
A5 Edgware Road 4-arm 884
Marylebone Road
(inter-connected Edgware Road/ Burwood Place/ inner-
traffic signals) 4-arm 941 London
Harrowby Street
Edgware Road/ George Street/ Kendal
4-arm 907
Street
Edgware Road/ Connaught Street/
4-arm 952
Upper Berkeley Street
Edgware Road/ Seymour Street 4-arm 987
outer-
Church Road (A312/B455)-Target roundabout Roundabout 1475
London
3-arm outer-
A13/ River Road River Road - Bastable Avenue 884
(T-junction) London
outer-
East Barnet East Barnet Road / Margaret Road 4-arm 640
London
3-arm inner-
West Norwood A215 Norwood Road - Palace Road 888
(T-junction) London
3.4.5 These five sets of junctions together represent about 67.5% of signalised junctions in
London as shown below in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Percentage representation of selected junctions
Number of % of the total number of

Junction type
junctions junctions
3 arms – inner-London – non-TLRN 538 21.2%
3 arms – inner-London – TLRN 387 15.3%
3 arms – outer-London – non-TLRN 638 25.2%
3 arms – outer-London – TLRN 220 8.7%
4 and more arms – inner-London – non-TLRN 215 8.5%
4 and more arms – inner-London – TLRN 176 7.0%
4 and more arms – outer-London – non-TLRN 286 11.3%
4 and more arms – outer-London – TLRN 72 2.8%
Total number of traffic junctions 2,532 100.0%
Percentage represented by selected junctions 67.5%
17
Report
3.4.6 In terms of traffic flow at these junctions they are broadly in line with London as a whole.
Table 3.3 shows data from CELLO, which is a strategic transport model for CEntraL
London covering most of the junctions in inner-London and major junctions in outer-
London. So the figures are broadly in line for inner-London while in outer-London the
study figures are lower but this is due to CELLO not covering the large number of smaller
junctions in this area.
Table 3.3: Average traffic flows at London junctions
All Junctions in CELLO

Selected Junctions
Model
3 arm 4 arm 3 arm 4 arm
Roundabout Outer 4532 3299
Inner 2324 2484 1968 2216
Signalised
Outer 1784 1471 2346 2751
3.5 Pedestrians
3.5.1 While there was ready access to traffic flow data there is no consistent and
comprehensive data available for pedestrian movements at junctions. The previous
theoretical analysis modelled different levels of pedestrian flows as if a ZEBRA crossing
was installed at the previous signalised junction. As this exercise was using actual traffic
flow data it was not felt appropriate to introduce theoretical pedestrian data. The
implications of not modelling pedestrians are discussed in Section 5.4.
3.6 Safety
3.6.1 A key reason for traffic signals is to manage conflicts at junctions which can in turn bring
about safety benefits. It was envisaged that safety benefits/disbenefits would be
assessed in this study, however, on the advice of our road safety experts we have used a
scenario approach to assess the safety impacts. This is due to conflicting evidence about
the impacts of removing traffic signals on safety and due to the wide variation at present
in accident rates at signalised junctions in London. This issue is addressed in Section 5.5.
3.7 Alternative traffic control regimes

3.7.1 Traffic signals are one of a number of measures that can be used to manage conflicting
movements at junctions. Traditionally traffic signal installations tend to operate 24 hours a
day. The signal timing strategy will normally vary throughout the day, either using pre-set
plans based on traffic demand measurements or (as in an increasing number of cases)
using adaptive systems to reflect changing traffic flows. The simplest form of control is
vehicle actuation (VA), where the signal remains green for the major road until a vehicle
is detected approaching or waiting on the minor road, or a pedestrian pushes a demand
button.
3.7.2 A detailed review of existing measures and provisions within the legislation to provide for
alternatives to current junction design has been conducted. These include:
Part–time signal control;
Use of flashing amber signals to traffic during certain times;
Optimising the signal settings for all periods of day where not already done.
18
Report
3.7.3 Part-time signal control is currently in limited use in the UK, mainly at roundabouts,
although the number of sites has diminished in recent years due to safety and design
concerns. Traffic signals are switched-off for most of the day but if the entry arms suffer
long queues, the traffic signals are automatically switched on to regulate conflicts. This
method is also considered at standard crossroads and T-junctions.
3.7.4 There are no specific regulations relating to the use of part-time traffic signal control. DfT
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals (Part 2)
states that:
“In most situations, there is no need for part-time operation and if used there may be an
increase in accident potential. If the junction is working efficiently on vehicle actuation
during off-peak periods, unnecessary delays are minimised and the advantages of
control, especially for the more vulnerable users, retained.”
3.7.5 Under the DTO Design Standards for Signal Schemes in London (SQA-0064) there is no
mention at all of part-time signal control, or indeed any statement that traffic signal control
should be 24-7.
3.7.6 This clearly infers that use of part-time signals is not contrary to any DfT or DTO
standards even though DfT state that it 'may' be more hazardous. Because 'part-time' is
not defined at all, by omission this could mean part-time over a monthly/ annual basis
(where signals may be turned off for days/ weeks at a time) as easily as it could mean for
periods of the day. Coupled with the DfT advice in Manual for Streets and LTN 1/08
Traffic Management and Streetscape that there is no statutory requirement for any form
of priority or traffic control regulations, it means that switch-off is perfectly legitimate. It is
logical, however, that flashing amber arrangements might be preferred.
3.7.7 Presenting a flashing amber signal to traffic at a road junction does not currently
constitute a possible alternative in the UK, but is supported by the Vienna Convention
and is common within continental Europe and across the World. The DfT could not
currently authorise use of a flashing amber other than at PELICAN crossings, yet with
these increasingly being replaced with PUFFIN and TOUCAN crossings facilities in the
UK, there would seem to be scope to re-evaluate use of the flashing amber signal.
3.7.8 It is very difficult to predict what road-user response and behaviour would be during a
traffic signal switch-off. The closest condition in the UK, save for a very few sites that
have had no technical evaluation of behaviour, is that which occurs during a signal
failure. Attempts to standardise modelling/ forecasting techniques of this condition have,
to date, not been particularly successful. This study considers a range of responses and
possible methods of simplifying the assessment of these responses.
3.7.9 Table 3.4 presents the closest approximation to alternative conventional methods of
control, or road-user responses, envisaged in the absence of formal traffic signal
arrangements with the traditional green, red and amber signal. The two approaches used
in this study have been the off-side priority rule (as at a roundabout) and major-minor
priority control where traffic on the minor road gives way to traffic on the major road.
Where traffic is moving very slowly on the major road it is assumed that drivers move to
an almost filter in turn type arrangement letting traffic out of the side road as is commonly
observed in reality.
19
Report
Table 3.4: Alternative traffic control regimes
20
Report
4 Junction assessment
4.1 Micro-simulation modelling

4.1.1 Traffic data collected from junction sites is used to develop traffic models of the existing
conditions. These base scenario models can then be modified to create a proposed
scenario model. A number of proposed scenario models can then be used to evaluate the
best possible option based on traffic and economic comparisons.
4.1.2 For the purpose of the present study, DTO approved VISSIM models were used to
analyse a number of key performance indicators at signalised junctions. Each of the
modelled junctions was used to analyse two sets of results: the existing situation and a
scenario where the traffic signals are replaced with the alternate measures of control
discussed previously. The VISSIM model results were then input into an economic model.
4.1.3 It was assumed that if traffic signals were to be switched-off for all or part of the day,
drivers would behave as they would normally do under whichever alternative traffic
regime scenario was in place. For example, at a roundabout when the signals are
removed they would give-way to the right as usual while at a T-junction traffic on the
minor arm would give-way to traffic on the major arm. This behaviour is different to that
commonly seen when traffic signals “fail” as there is usually little guidance to drivers as to
who has priority, yet it is considered likely that the average results in terms of journey
time, delay and queues is similar. This, however, requires further research to verify this
assumption.
4.1.4 The following sections present model results for the two scenarios (‘Base’ - the same as
Do Minimum – and ‘Do Something’) for each of the selected junctions. Charts showing
impacts on the following are provided:
Average delay – a reduction in the Do Something relative to the Base means that
there is a benefit from switching off traffic signals;
Average speed – an increase in the Do Something relative to the Base means that
there is a benefit from switching off traffic signals;
Total number of vehicles crossing the junction – this will generally be similar in the
Base and Do Something scenarios, but any major differences can indicate
distortions in the model results (usually an indication of gridlock) and are explained
in the following sections.
4.2 Edgware Road

4.2.1 The stretch of road modelled consists of seven separate junctions, located within the City
of Westminster. This is a busy stretch of road with large numbers of shops and
restaurants, offices and high density housing. The level of traffic going through these
individual junctions is in the order of 7-10,000 vehicles in both the three-hour morning and
evening peaks. Traffic levels remain high in the inter-peak and late into the evening.
Pedestrian activity is high throughout the day and evening.
21
Report
4.2.2 The existing (slightly revised) A5 VISSIM models were used for the morning (07:00 -
08:00), inter-peak (12:00 - 13:00), evening (17:00 - 18:00) and off-peak (22:00 - 01:00)
periods for the existing traffic signal regime. The alternative regime modelled assumed
that priority control is given to traffic approaching from the right with signals switched-off
at the following locations (as shown in Figure 4.1);
Edgware Road / Marylebone Road / Harrow Road junction
Edgware Road / Praed Street / Chapel Street junction
Edgware Road / Sussex Gardens / Old Marylebone Road junction
Edgware Road / Burwood Place / Harrowby Street junction
Edgware Road / Kendal Street / George Street junction
Edgware Road / Seymour Street junction
Figure 4.1: Location of junctions with switched-off signal control
4.2.3 The key results of the analysis are summarised in the figures below.
22
Report
Figure 4.2: Average delay time (s) per vehicle at Edgware Road
Average Delay Time per Vehicle (s)

250
200
154
150
129
Seconds
111 106
100 85
76
70
60
50
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.2.4 As Figure 4.2 illustrates, the average delay time per vehicle decreases in the inter-peak
and off-peak periods without traffic signals and increases during the morning and evening
peaks due to heavy traffic flow during these periods.
Figure 4.3: Average speed (mph) at Edgware Road
Average speed [mph]

24
21
18
15
12
MPH
9 8
7
6 6
6 5 6
6 5
0
AM IP Base Do-Something PM OP
4.2.5 Change in average delay is reflected in associated changes in average speeds, as shown
in Figure 4.3. In the without signal scenario average speeds in the inter-peak are virtually
the same as the morning peak showing that traffic volumes remain fairly constant
throughout the day.
23
Report
Figure 4.4: Total number of vehicles crossing the junction at Edgware Road
Number of vehicles crossingthe Junction

21000
19112 19072
18000
15000
12229
12000 10851 10813
8975
9000 8047 8035
6000
3000
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.2.6 The total traffic numbers in both scenarios should be broadly the same subject to some
minor fluctuations in the modelling. Where the numbers are markedly different, eg in the
morning and evening peaks in Figure 4.4, it is an indication that there is severe
congestion or gridlock at certain times and not as many vehicles can travel through this
section of road in the without signals scenario. The implication is that the economic
benefits of traffic signals are higher than the modelling shows in this instance.
4.3 Target Roundabout

4.3.1 Target Roundabout on the A312 is located in the London Borough of Ealing in an area
that is mostly residential in character, with schools, parks and golf courses located
nearby. The volume of traffic using the roundabout is around 14,000 vehicles in both the
morning and evening three-hour peaks.
4.3.2 The existing A312 Church Road corridor VISSIM models were used for the present
signalised junction. The alternative modelling was for the usual priority to the right
expected at a roundabout.
4.3.3 The results for average delay time per vehicle, average speed and number of vehicles
leaving the network are shown in Figures 4.5 to 4.7.
24
Report
Figure 4.5: Average delay time (s) per vehicle at Target Roundabout
Average delay time per vehicle (s)

250 243 243
208
197
200
162
150
Seconds
113
100
47
50 37
0
AM IP Base Do-SomethingPM OP
4.3.4 The average delay time per vehicle increases in the inter-peak and evening peak periods
without traffic signals. This is due to the large proportion of conflicting movements taking
place. There is no difference in the morning peak and a slight benefit at night from
removing signals.
Figure 4.6: Average speed (mph) at Target Roundabout
Average speed [mph]

24
22
21
21
18
16
MPH
15
13
12
12 11
10 10
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.3.5 The average speed increases for the off-peak when traffic signals are switched-off,
reflecting low traffic volumes. For the other times of day, however, it remains the same or
decreases. This is due to heavy traffic flows during the day hours.
25
Report
Figure 4.7: Total number of vehicles crossing the Target Roundabout

21000
17563 17551
18000
15000
12000
9703 9287
9233
8672 8782
9000 7902
6000
3000
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.3.6 The marked reduction in traffic numbers in the inter-peak period reflects the high level of
congestion during that time period.
4.4 River Road

4.4.1 The River Road/ Bastable Avenue junction is located in the London Borough of Barking
and Dagenham. The area is both residential and commercial in character with the Lyon
Business Park located north of Bastable Avenue. The junction is used by around 5,000
vehicles over a three-hour time period incorporating the morning, evening and inter-peak
periods.
4.4.2 Existing VISSIM models for the A13 were used for the with signals scenario. In the
without signal scenario the junction was treated as having a major/ minor priority control
with River Road having the priority over Bastable Avenue.
Figure 4.8: Average delay time (s) per vehicle at A13 River Road junction
Average delay time per vehicle [s]

250
200
150
100
79
66
55 59 57 59
50 36 31
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
26
Report
4.4.3 The results are what might typically be expected - disbenefits of switching off signals
during the morning and evening peaks in terms of additional delay, with marginal time
savings in the inter-peak and off-peak periods.
Figure 4.9: Average speed (mph) at A13 River Road junction
Average speed [mph]

24
21
18
16
16
15
13 13 13 12
12
MPH
12 11
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.4.4 With traffic signals the average speed in the morning and evening peaks is kept at the
level of the inter-peak. Average speeds are improved slightly at night when the signals
are switched-off.
Figure 4.10: Total number of vehicles crossing at the A13 River Road junction

21000
18000
15000
12000
9000
6000
3570 3570
3000 2088 2079 1972 1971 2226 2234
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.4.5 The total number of vehicles in both scenarios is the same illustrating that the junction
can handle the volume of traffic presented with no traffic signals.
27
Report
4.5 East Barnet Road/Margaret Road

4.5.1 The East Barnet Road/Margaret Road junction is located within the London Borough of
Barnet forming part of the northern outskirts of Greater London with a largely residential
character. The junction is used by around 4,000 vehicles in the morning and evening
peaks.
4.5.2 The existing New Barnet VISSIM model was used for the with signals scenario. In the
without signal scenario, priority was given to vehicles coming from the right.
Figure 4.11: Average delay time (s) per vehicle at East Barnet junction

250
200
150
Seconds
100
48
50 36
30 25
22 18
12 11
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.5.3 The average delay time per vehicle is reduced in each time period in the without traffic
signal scenario.
Figure 4.12: Average speed (mph) at East Barnet junction
Average speed [mph]

24
21
18
15
MPH
12
9 9 10 10
9
9 8 8
9
0
28
Report
4.5.4 The average speed increases marginally for all time periods, showing the benefit of
removing signals.
Figure 4.13: Total number of vehicles crossing the East Barnet junction

21000
18000
15000
12000
9000
6000
2649 2658 2735 2732

3000 2023 2016 1723 1722
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.5.5 The total number of vehicles in the with and without scenario is the same, showing that
the junction can handle the volume of traffic in the with and without scenarios.
4.6 A215 Norwood Road/Palace Road

4.6.1 The A215 Norwood Road / Palace Road junction is located within the London Borough of
Lambeth. The area is largely residential in character with Tulse Hill railway station in
close proximity. The junction is used by around 2,000 vehicles in both the morning and
evening peaks.
4.6.2 Existing VISSIM West Norwood models were used for the with signals scenario; in the
without signal scenario the junction was modelled as a major / minor priority control, with
the traffic on A215 Norwood Road having the priority over Palace Road.
29
Report
Figure 4.14: Average delay time (s) per vehicle at Norwood Road junction

250
200
Seconds
150
100
62 60
56 56
49
50 43
32 29
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.6.3 The average delay time per vehicle is lower without signals during the inter-peak and off-
peak periods and higher during the morning and evening peaks.
Figure 4.15: Average speed (mph) at Norwood Road junction
24
Average speed [mph]
21
18
15
MPH
12 11
11
10 10 10 10 10 9
9
0
4.6.4 The average speed decreases during the morning and evening peak time periods without
signals and increases in the inter-peak and off-peak periods.
30
Report
Figure 4.16: Total number of vehicles crossing the Norwood Road junction

21000
18000
15000
12000
9000
6000 5245 5237 5254 5239 5481 5473

4075 4075
3000
0
AM IP PM OP
Base Do-Something
4.6.5 The total number of vehicles in the with and without signals scenarios is the same,
showing that the junction can handle the volume of traffic.
31
Report
5 Economic impact analysis
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 An economic model was developed, using the outputs from the VISSIM modelling and
the economic parameters set out in the DfT’s WebTAG guidance for transport appraisals.
For each of the five junctions, model outputs were produced for the following time
periods:
Morning peak (8.00 – 9.00)
Inter-peak (12.00 – 13.00)
Evening peak (17.00 – 18.00)
Off-peak (22.00 – 01.00)
5.1.2 The following vehicle types are covered:
Car
Light goods vehicle (LGV)
High goods vehicle (HGV)
Bus
Taxi
Motorbike
Bicycle
5.1.3 Each of the modelled junctions was used to analyse two sets of results: the existing or
base (‘Do Minimum’) scenario and a ‘Do Something’ scenario where the traffic signals
were replaced with an alternative measure of control as discussed earlier in the report.
5.1.4 The following categories of benefit have been quantified and valued:
Time savings;
Vehicle operating costs (fuel);
Vehicle operating costs (non-fuel); and
Carbon emissions.
5.1.5 Some of the assumptions that have been used in the economic analysis are described in
the next section, and a full assumptions register is provided in the Appendix to this report.
5.2 Methodology
Time savings
5.2.1 The VISSIM model outputs show the average delay time and the number of vehicles for
each vehicle type / time of day / junction, thus enabling total delay time to be calculated.
The difference between total delay time in the Do Minimum (existing case with optimised
traffic signals) and Do Something (without traffic signal control) shows whether there is a
benefit or disbenefit as a result of removing traffic signals in each case.
5.2.2 The change in delay time can be valued by applying a value of time. Standard values of
time per person from the DfT’s WebTAG guidance have been used. These are then
converted into values of time per vehicle by applying journey purpose splits and average
vehicle occupancy rates from WebTAG and the London Area Transport Survey (LATS).
32
Report
5.2.3 The results for each individual time period are then scaled-up so that they represent a
total for the whole year. It has been assumed that benefits can be scaled-up in proportion
to the observed hourly flows at each junction. This means that if, for instance, the
observed flow at a junction between 7.00 and 8.00 is 20% lower than the observed flow
between 8.00 and 9.00, then the benefit / disbenefit for 7.00-8.00 is assumed to be 20%
lower than the benefit calculated for 8.00-9.00 from the model results. It is not necessarily
the case that there is a linear relationship between flow and benefit, although to prove
otherwise would require an enormous amount of modelling to be undertaken.
Vehicle operating costs (fuel)

5.2.4 WebTAG guidance provides a formula that can be used to estimate the rate of fuel
consumption by vehicles travelling at different speeds. This has been applied to the
average speeds in the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in order to estimate
differences in fuel consumption rates between the two scenarios. This in turn is then
applied to the average distance travelled, that is, the distance covered by the area
modelled, to calculate changes to total fuel consumption, and WebTAG values for the
cost of fuel are applied to estimate the total change to fuel vehicle operating costs. The
model results are factored up in the same way as the time savings to obtain an annual
total.
Vehicle operating costs (non-fuel)

5.2.5 A very similar approach is used for the non-fuel operating costs – again, a WebTAG
formula is used to estimate the change to non-fuel vehicle operating costs as a result of
different speeds between the two scenarios and the results are scaled-up and annualised
accordingly.
Emissions
5.2.6 Emissions benefits are related to fuel consumption, which is estimated as part of the
vehicle operating costs. WebTAG values for carbon emissions per litre of fuel consumed
are applied to calculate total emissions, and then monetised also using WebTAG values.
5.3 Results
Individual junctions
5.3.1 The charts in this section are based on the results for the individual junctions, ie they do
not represent a total benefit / disbenefit for all London. Figures 5.1 to 5.5 below show the
results for each of the five junctions that were modelled, split by benefit type and time
period.3
3
It should be noted that the scale of the y-axis is different for each chart, as the benefits / disbenefits for some
junctions are much larger than others
33
Report
Figure 5.1: Impact of removing traffic signals on Edgware Road
200,000
100,000
0
Time saving Fuel VOC Non-fuel VOC Emissions Total
£ per year
-100,000
-200,000
-300,000
-400,000
-500,000
AM peak Inter peak PM peak

Off peak Total
5.3.2 The results for Edgware Road show a disbenefit from removing traffic signals in the
morning and evening peak periods. In the case of the evening peak the disbenefits are
substantial - over £400k a year - reflecting a high traffic flow. There is a benefit from
removing traffic signals during the inter-peak of over £100k a year, and a slight benefit in
the off-peak.
Figure 5.2: Impact of removing traffic signals at Target Roundabout
100,000
0
-100,000
-200,000
-300,000
£ per year
-400,000
-500,000
-600,000
-700,000
-800,000
-900,000

Off peak Total
34
Report
5.3.3 Figure 5.2 indicates that there would be a significant disbenefit (approximately £660k a
year) from removing traffic signals during the inter-peak at the Target Roundabout, and to
a lesser extent during the evening peak (disbenefit of approximately £190k a year). There
would be a slight benefit from removing traffic signals in the off-peak, with a neutral
impact in the morning peak since the level of gridlock is such that the signalling system
does not influence delay time. Overall the total for the whole day shows a large
disbenefit. It should be noted that roundabouts are peculiar examples of traffic junctions
where the delay for individual arms and that for overall traffic is highly dependent on the
balance of flows and available gaps for major traffic movements. Unbalanced flows, for
instance in the inter-peak scenario, can result in higher delay for all traffic but can be
easily minimised by introducing demand operated traffic signals.
Figure 5.3: Impact of removing traffic signals, A13 River Road
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
£ per year
-4,000
-6,000
-8,000
-10,000
-12,000

Off peak Total
5.3.4 As shown in Figure 5.3, the A13 River Road has similar results to Edgware Road, albeit
on a smaller scale, as there would be disbenefits from removing traffic signals during the
morning and evening peak and a benefit during the inter-peak and off-peak. These are in
line with the results that would be expected, with traffic signals required at busier times of
day to regulate flows but less necessary at times when flows are lower.
35
Report
Figure 5.4: Impact of removing traffic signals at East Barnet junction
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
£ per year
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
Off peak Total
5.3.5 As shown in
36
Report
Figure 5.4, the East Barnet junction benefits from the removal of traffic signals at all times
of day, with the largest benefit occurring during the morning peak. Again, the size of flow
is an important factor in determining whether there is a benefit – the flows at this junction
are relatively low throughout the day therefore traffic signals are less necessary to
regulate flows.
Figure 5.5: Impact of removing traffic signals at Norwood Road junction
12,000
10,000
8,000
£ per year
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
Off peak Total
5.3.6 West Norwood has an overall benefit from removing traffic signals of approximately £11k
a year, as shown in Figure 5.5. This is on a smaller scale than the benefits at some of the
other junctions. There would be a slight disbenefit from removing traffic signals during the
morning peak.
5.3.7 Overall the results show that there are differences between individual junctions. For
instance, the junctions at Edgware Road and A13 River Road indicate that there would
be a disbenefit from removing traffic signals in the morning and evening peak, but a
benefit from doing so during the inter-peak. The East Barnet junction appears to benefit
from removal of traffic signals at all times of day. One consistency is that all junctions
benefit from the removal of traffic signals during the off-peak, when flows are typically
lower.
5.3.8 As tends to be the case in transport economic appraisals, the results are driven by the
time savings, while the weighting given to the vehicle operating costs and emissions is
comparatively smaller.
5.3.9 The junctions with the largest scale of benefit / disbenefit are Edgware Road and Target
Roundabout (Church Road); consequently the results for these junctions have the largest
influence when a weighted average4 is produced, as shown in Figure 5.6.
4
The five junction types modelled cover approximately 67% of junctions in London, but an
adjustment has been made to effectively assume that they cover 100%. In other words, the results
in Figure 6 act as a proxy for the average benefit / disbenefit per London junction.
37
Report
Figure 5.6: Impact of removing traffic signals, weighted average of five modelled
junctions
10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000
£ per year
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
-60,000
-70,000
-80,000
Off peak Total
5.3.10 The results in Figure 5.6 indicate that, on average, it would not be beneficial to remove
traffic signals from junctions with the exception of the off-peak period.
5.3.11 Other splits of results are also possible. Figure 5.7 to Figure 5.11 show results split by
mode.
38
Report
5.3.12
£ per year
£ per year A4
1
A4 A4 AM
-800,000
-700,000
-600,000
-500,000
-400,000
-300,000
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
1 1 p
In eak
A4 AM t
-3,500
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1 p A4 er p
In eak
te 1 e
Figure 5.8:
Figure 5.7:
A4 r pe
PM ak
1 A4 pe
PM ak 1
A4 Ch Of ak
pe fp
1 ur e
Ch Of ak c
Ch h R A4 ak
fp
ur e ur oa 1 T
o
Ch ch R A41 ak ch d ta
ur o Ch Roa AM l
ch ad Tot
A a ur d pe
Ch Roa M l ch In a
ur d p Ch Ro t er k
p
ch Int eak ur a
Ch Ro er ch d P eak
ur a p Ro M
ch d P eak Ch ad pea
Target Roundabout disbenefit.

Ro M u O k
Ch ad pea Ea rch ff
O k st
Ea urch ff Ea ar B Ro pea
a k
st Ro pea st n dT
Ea ar B a k Ba et , A ot a
st n dT Ea rne M p l
Ba et , A ot a st t , I
r
Ea net M p l B nt eak
st , ea Ea arn er p
B Int k st et , e
Ea arne er p Ba PM ak
st t, e rn p
Ba PM ak e
rn W Ea t , O eak
e p es st
t B ff
W Ea t , O eak W No arn pea
es st
t N Ba ff p es r k
W e t N wo et , T
o
es orw rnet ak W orw d A ot al
tN o ,T
o o es oo M
W orw d A t al tN d p
Impact of removing traffic signals, car
es oo M W or Int eak
p
Impact of removing traffic signals, LGV

tN d es wo er
W or Int eak tN o p
es wo er or d P eak
tN o p W woo M p
or d P eak es e
W woo M p t N d O ak
es e or ff p
t N d O ak w e
or ff p oo ak
w A1 d T
oo eak 3 ot
a
A1 d T A1 AM l
3 ot
a 3 pe
A1 AM l In
t ak
3 pe A1 er p
In ak e
t 3
A1 er p PM ak
3 ea A1 pe
PM k 3
A1 pe Of ak
3 fp
disbenefits to cars are particularly large for Target Roundabout (Church Road); a
Of ak A1 eak
fp 3
To
disbenefit of approximately £690k a year which is equivalent to over 80% of the total
A1 eak
3 ta
l
To
39
ta
l
On the whole the disbenefits to cars of removing traffic signals outweigh the benefits. The
Report
5.3.13 The impact on LGV is relatively small. The biggest impact is at the Edgware Road
junction, with disbenefits from removing traffic signals in the morning and evening peak
and a benefit in the inter-peak and off-peak. LGVs are not present in the Target
Roundabout model.
Figure 5.9: Impact of removing traffic signals, heavy goods vehicle
2,000
0
PM ak
PM ak
In eak
Of ak
Ch ch R A41 ak
ch d P eak
Of ak
A1 eak
Ch Ro t er k
Ba PM k
W or Int eak
or d P eak
W Ea t , O eak
t N d O ak
oo eak
Ch Roa M l
Ea rnet M p l
W orw d A t al
l
A1 AM l
a
Ba et , A ot a
ta
a
Ch ad pea
W No arn pea
a
a
Ro pea
ea
ea
ch ad Tot
ot
e
e
pe
pe
pe
pe
e
To
o
p
A4 er p
fp
A1 er p
fp
Ea arne er p
p
p
W woo M p
or ff p
n dT
t N wo et , T
A1 d T
A4 AM
Ro M
Ea rch ff
es wo er
es oo M
3
f
-2,000
a
A
t
t
B Int
In
n
1
3
1
3
t,
1
3
I
w
A4
A1
e
a
A4
tN o
1
3
d
tN d
o
B
rn
o
Ea ar
es st
u
ch
es
st
ur
ur
st
st
ur
st
ur
Ch
t
-4,000
es
£ per year
-6,000
-8,000
-10,000
-12,000
-14,000
5.3.14 Heavy goods vehicles have a disbenefit from removing traffic signals during the inter-
peak and evening peak at the Target Roundabout. The scale of benefits / disbenefits is
small at the other junctions.
40
Report
5.3.15
£ per year £ per year
A4
1
A4 A4 AM
-120,000
-100,000
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000
0
20,000
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
1 1 p
AM In eak
pe t
Figure 5.11:
Figure 5.10:
A4 er p
ak 1 e
evening peak.
PM ak
A4 A4 pe
1 1
In Ch Of ak
te ur fp
rp e
ea Ch ch R A4 ak
k 1
ur
ch
oa
d Tot
A4 a
Ch Roa AM l
1 ur d pe
PM ch Int ak
pe Ch Ro er
ak ur a p
ch d P eak
Ro M
A4 Ch ad pea
1 O k
Of Ea urch ff
f st R pe
pe a
ak Ea Bar oad k
st n T
Ba et , A ot a
Ea rnet M p l
A4 st , ea
1 B Int k
To Ea arne er p
Ea ta st t, e
st l Ba PM ak
Ba rn
rn e p
et W Ea t , O eak
, AM es st
t N Ba ff p
Ea pe W e
st ak es orw rne ak
t N o t, T
Ba o
rn W orw d A ot al
et
Impact of removing traffic signals, taxi

Impact of removing traffic signals, bus
, es oo M
In tN d p
te W or Int eak
rp es wo er
Ea ea tN o p
st k or d P eak
Ba W woo M p
rn es e
et
, PM
t N d O ak
or ff p
pe w
Ea ak oo eak
st A1 d T
Ba 3 ot
a
rn A1 AM l
et 3
, pe
Of
f
In
t ak
pe A1 er p
ak 3 e
Ea PM ak
st A1 pe
Ba
rn 3
Of ak
et fp
, To
Overall buses experience a significant disbenefit from removing traffic signals at the
ta A1 eak
l 3
To
41
ta
l
Edgware Road (A41) and Target Roundabout junctions, largely due to disbenefits in the
Report
5.3.16 Taxis are only present in the Edgware Road (A41) and East Barnet models. There is a
benefit to taxis from removing traffic signals at East Barnet, but this is negligible and does
not show up on the chart. There is a relatively large disbenefit to taxis from removing
traffic signals at the Edgware Road junction (just over £100k a year). Impacts on
motorbikes and bicycles are negligible and are not shown here.
5.3.17 The main observation from the charts for individual modes is that the largest benefits /
disbenefits apply to car and bus. This is unsurprising as cars form the majority of vehicle
flows and bus has the highest value of time per vehicle due to its level of passenger
occupancy.
5.3.18 Another split that can be shown is the benefits by junction type. In this case we have split
by 4-arm junction, 3-arm junction and roundabout (a 4-arm junction but treated separately
here). The 4-arm junction results are a weighted average of Edgware Road (A41) and
East Barnet results; the 3-arm junction results are a weighted average of West Norwood
and A13 River Road results. Only one roundabout (Target Roundabout, Church Road)
has been modelled.
Figure 5.12: Impact of removing traffic signals, by junction type
100,000
0
ak
ak
ak
ak
k
ak
ak
k
k
l
l
ta
ta
ta
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
To
To
To
rp
fp
rp
fp
rp
fp
-100,000
AM
AM
PM
PM
AM
PM
m
ut
te
te
e
Of
Of
Of
ar
ar
bo
In
In
In
m
m
m
ut
m
ut
4-
3-
ut
da
m
ut
ar
ar
bo
ar
ar
bo
ar
ar
bo
un
ar
ar
bo
4-
3-
4-
3-
4-
3-
da
da
da
4-
3-
-200,000
da
Ro
un
un
un
un
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
-300,000
£ per year
-400,000
-500,000
-600,000
-700,000
-800,000
-900,000
5.3.19 The 4-arm and 3-arm junctions both show a disbenefit of removing traffic signals in the
peak periods, with a benefit during the inter-peak and off-peak. The scale of impacts is
larger for 4-arm junctions, although this may be due to other individual junction
characteristics rather than a reflection of a consistent difference between 4-arm and 3-
arm junctions. Target Roundabout on the other hand shows a large disbenefit in the inter-
peak, as well as a disbenefit in the evening peak.
42
Report
5.4 Pedestrians
5.4.1 The analysis undertaken does not take into account the benefits and disbenefits to
pedestrians. This, as discussed previously, is largely due to a lack of data, but also from
the lack of validated methods of forecasting and modelling pedestrian behaviour when
traffic signals are not in use.
5.4.2 It is apparent from the analysis that there are disbenefits from removing traffic signals
during the morning and evening peaks, and this generally coincides with periods when
pedestrian numbers are also high. The inter-peak period is more complex, in parts of
London both pedestrian and vehicle numbers are high during this time, but in other
locations numbers are much reduced.
5.4.3 Where it has been shown that there are benefits from switching off (introducing flashing
amber) traffic signals during certain periods, it is possible that these benefits would
significantly reduce if pedestrian actuation of an all-red pedestrian crossing stage was
introduced, resulting in additional delay to vehicles. This is more likely to be an issue at
inner-London sites and could therefore negate any benefits.
5.5 Road safety

5.5.1 The economic analysis of switching off traffic signals does not account for the possibility
of benefits or disbenefits arising from the impact of the proposals on road safety, more
specifically personal injury accidents (PIAs).
5.5.2 There are very limited studies of the impact of removing formal control at junctions on
road safety, and what data there is seems to provide mixed messages.
5.5.3 A report written for TfL in 2006 (TRL PPR292 A Review of Simplified Streetscape
Schemes) concluded that the collision data (from a number of European schemes) did
not provide a safety case for simplified streetscapes one way or the other. This did not
specifically deal with part-time switching off of traffic signal control, but provides a
reference to sites with before and after data for the presence of traffic signals.
5.5.4 As part of the study, accident data across London for periods when traffic signals were
not in use due to a fault was examined. LRSU data showed that in three years there were
around 180 PIAs (60 PIAs per annum) at sites where signal faults had occurred. For the
year up to February 2009, there were over 2,700 faults. The length of time that signals
were not in use varied considerably, with a modal average of 2 hours, yet a mean
average of 21 hours. This gives 0.0010 PIAs per hour, or 9 PIAs per site per year if
signals are always out, compared to an average of 2.4 accidents at signalised junctions in
inner-London. It is difficult, however, to draw clear conclusions from the data as when
signals are not working no alternative guidance in terms of priority is provided to drivers.
5.5.5 As shown below in Table 5.1, the average value of a personal injury accident on urban
roads is around £91k. The potential impact on the economic benefits of considering the
effect of the change in PIAs as a result of switch-off could be very significant. With
junction benefits at sites during certain periods of the day valued at around £100k or less,
it would only take one additional injury accident occurring at the junction per year to
negate all benefits. On the other hand, any single accident saving could easily double the
benefits of switch-off.
43
Report
Table 5.1: Collision costs by severity and type of road (£ per accident, June
2007 prices)5
Type of collision Urban Rural

Motorways All roads
roads roads
Fatal 1,769,900 1,930,740 2,145,280 1,876,830
Serious 207,120 231,110 235,690 215,170
Slight 21,000 24,750 29,490 22,230
All injury collisions 59,240 121,420 91,930 75,610
Damage-only collisions 1,840 2,720 2,620 1,970
Average collision cost per injury
collision (including an allowance 91,810 142,640 111,810 104,900
for damage-only collisions)6
Source: Issue 12 of Levels of Collision Risk in Greater London (Feb 09)
5
Values taken from ‘Road casualties Great Britain 2007’ Department for Transport September 2008
6
Department for Transport figures from the ‘in draft’ Accidents Sub-objective Unit on the Transport Analysis
Guidance web site (www.dft.gov.uk/webtag)
44
Report
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
6.1.1 The economic analysis has used VISSIM model outputs to estimate the economic impact
of removing traffic signals at five individual junctions in London.
6.1.2 It was assumed that if the traffic signals were to be switched-off (or flashing amber was
introduced) for all or part of the day, drivers will be informed about the alternative control
regime before being introduced. As such, the study assumes drivers to be informed about
the new regulations and expected behaviour through regulating traffic signs, public
information campaigns, training and through gradual learning and word of mouth.
6.1.3 The set of junctions selected for this study represents a wide range of junctions from both
outer and inner-London. They also represent a good range of traffic and pedestrian
demand throughout the day. It should also be noted that different junctions can display
very different characteristics. It is fair to say that there is no such thing as an ‘average’
junction, so the results should be treated with caution.
6.1.4 In particular, some junctions including roundabouts are peculiar examples of signalised
junctions where the delay for individual arms and that for overall traffic is highly
dependent on the balance of flows and available gaps for major traffic movements.
Unbalanced flows, eg in the inter-peak scenarios, can result in higher delay for all traffic
but can be easily minimised by introducing demand operated traffic signals.
6.1.5 Each of the modelled junctions was used to analyse two sets of results: the existing or
Base (Do Minimum) scenario and a Do Something scenario where the traffic signals were
replaced with an alternate measure of control.
6.1.6 The main conclusions are as follows:

Traffic signals generally provide significant benefits to road users;
It would, however, be beneficial to switch-off traffic signals at some junctions at
particular times of day;
In particular, there would be a benefit at the junctions studied from switching off
during the off-peak, after a full safety assessment.
6.1.7 The results do not include the net economic cost or benefits to pedestrians who are
assumed to cross in gaps in the traffic or at stand alone pedestrian crossings. If delays to
traffic are imposed by pedestrians calling up a pedestrian crossing stage during the
period of flashing amber, this could have a significant impact on any benefits.
6.1.8 The results do not include the net economic cost or benefit due to changes in accident
numbers. The studies that were carried out to attempt to value this impact were
inconclusive, yet with the average cost of a personal injury accident at over £90k, an
increase or decrease in accident levels could have a significant impact on the results.
45
Report
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 This study has identified substantial economic benefits to road users from having traffic
signals and this benefit needs to be more widely promulgated.
6.2.2 The study has also demonstrated that for certain junctions at certain periods of the day
there would, based on the assumptions made regarding traffic and pedestrian behaviour,
be some benefit to switching off traffic signals (or introducing flashing amber). It is
evident, however, that this is site-sensitive and can only be used as a broad guide to the
type of sites that might deliver such a benefit.
6.2.3 It is recommended that consideration is given to a pilot of switching off traffic signals at
junctions at times when the level of traffic does not justify such controls subject to a
safety audit. There is present DfT guidance as to the level of daily traffic that justifies
particular types of traffic control. Based on this guidance it is possible to determine the
hourly level of traffic below which formal control is not necessarily appropriate and
therefore junctions which could be piloted. (The actual traffic numbers depend on the
flows on each arm of the junction so is not a single number.)
6.2.4 In the UK legislation does not allow for the use of switching all signals at a junction to
flashing amber at less busy times, a measure which is commonplace in a number of
European countries. We recommend discussions should take place with the appropriate
European traffic authorities to obtain evidence and ascertain their views on the impact
that such traffic control methods have on safety, vehicle and pedestrian movement.
6.2.5 The study assumes that when traffic signal control is disabled, traffic behaviour would
revert to some form of conventional priority control, which might even be stipulated
through analysis of traffic demand and turning patterns and the use of advance signing. It
is possible, however, that junctions could operate without any imposition of regulated
traffic controls, with the expectation that road users would behave appropriately. This
form of behaviour cannot, at present, be modelled – yet it is recommended that scope for
this form of uncontrolled arrangement is also investigated. This can only be achieved
through live trials at a variety of sites. The results would have the potential of determining
precisely how traffic would behave at ‘shared space’ type environments and could
provide unparalleled knowledge in this field. Such work would also need to monitor the
behaviour of pedestrians.
46
Report
Appendix – Assumptions used for economic

analysis
Journey purpose splits

Car (source: WebTAG)
IWT Commute Leisure
Morning peak 18.1% 46.0% 35.9%
Inter-peak 19.9% 11.4% 68.7%
Evening peak 13.0% 40.8% 46.2%
Off-peak 12.3% 36.2% 51.5%
LGV (source: WebTAG – does not distinguish by time period – and only splits between IWT and
‘other’, so assume the 12% other is allocated evenly to commute and leisure)
IWT Commute Leisure
Morning peak 88.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Inter-peak 88.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Evening peak 88.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Off-peak 88.0% 6.0% 6.0%
HGV (source: WebTAG – assumes 100% work for all time period)
IWT Commute Leisure
Morning peak 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Inter-peak 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Evening peak 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Off-peak 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bus (source: LATS)

IWT Commute Leisure
Morning peak 4.1% 31.5% 64.4%
Inter-peak 2.7% 7.7% 89.6%
Evening peak 4.4% 33.6% 62.0%
Off-peak 4.8% 36.6% 58.6%
Taxi (source: LATS)

IWT Commute Leisure
Morning peak 16.9% 24.2% 58.9%
Inter-peak 15.7% 9.7% 74.6%
Evening peak 9.7% 16.7% 73.5%
Off-peak 4.5% 12.7% 82.8%
47
Report
Motorcycle (source: LATS)
IWT Commute Leisure

Morning peak 15.11% 70.14% 14.75%
Inter-peak 19.44% 33.33% 47.22%
Evening peak 10.83% 66.79% 22.38%
Off-peak 13.08% 51.48% 35.44%
Bicycle (source: LATS)
IWT Commute Leisure

Morning peak 11.37% 57.42% 31.21%
Inter-peak 8.17% 19.52% 72.30%
Evening peak 7.09% 39.71% 53.21%
Off-peak 8.32% 39.87% 51.81%
48
Report
Vehicle occupancies
Mode Occupancy Source
Car Morning peak: WebTAG
IWT: 1.23
Commute: 1.16
Leisure: 1.71
Inter-peak:
IWT: 1.19
Commute: 1.15
Leisure: 1.78
Evening peak:
IWT: 1.17
Commute: 1.13
Leisure: 1.82
Off-peak:
IWT: 1.18
Commute: 1.13
Leisure: 1.77
LGV IWT: 1.20 WebTAG. Weekday average value is used – a split

Commute: 1.46 by time period is not available
Leisure: 1.46
HGV IWT: 1.00 WebTAG. Value of 1.00 at all times is assumed.
Commute: 1.00
Leisure: 1.00
Bus Morning peak: TfL’s ‘Travel in London – key trends and
IWT: 25.1 developments: Report number 1’ indicates that the
Commute: 25.1 all-day average occupancy (not split by journey
Leisure: 25.1 purpose) is currently 15.9 passengers per bus.
Inter-peak: A manual adjustment is then made, assuming that

IWT: 11.9 the inter-peak and off-peak occupancies are 25%
Commute: 11.9 and 50% lower than the average respectively. It
Leisure: 11.9 then turns out that, to ensure that our all-day
average matches the 15.9 above, the morning and
Evening peak: evening peak occupancy is just under 60% higher
IWT: 25.1 than average.
Commute: 25.1
Leisure: 25.1
Off-peak:
IWT: 8.0
Commute: 8.0
Leisure: 8.0
Taxi IWT: 1.625 LATS – overall average, could split by time period
Commute: 1.625 & purpose
Leisure: 1.625
Motorbike / Bicycle 1 at all times
N.B. All Values Include The Vehicle Driver
49
Report
Annualisation factors
Derived by taking hourly flows at each site and scaling up the model results accordingly (eg to derive
the annualisation factor for the morning peak hour, take the ratio between the total flow for 7:00 –
10:00 and the flow for the peak hour (8:00 – 9:00) and multiply by 253 (the number of weekdays in a
year).
3 modelled off-
Morning peak Inter-peak hour Evening peak
peak hours
hour (8:00 – (12:00 – 13:00) hour (17:00 –
(22:00 – 1:00) to
9:00) to morning to inter-peak 18:00) to evening
full off-peak
peak period period (10:00 – peak period
period (19:00 –
(7:00 – 10:00) 16:00) (16:00 – 19:00)
7:00
A41 814 1,600 716 910
New Barnet 676 1,543 733 1,162
West Norwood 763 1,559 750 1,347
A13 678 1,520 735 850
Church Road 731 1,585 754 800
Value of time
2002 values of time per person all taken from WebTAG, with the WebTAG growth rate applied to
obtain 2009 values. The journey purpose splits and vehicle occupancy rates above are then applied to
obtain the values of time per vehicle as shown in the table below:
Morning peak Inter-peak Evening peak Off-peak

Car 12.69 13.89 11.38 11.22
LGV 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70
HGV 12.07 12.07 12.07 12.07
Bus 165.22 79.60 166.90 61.81
Taxi 19.93 19.53 17.76 16.17
Motorbike 9.09 9.85 8.07 8.49
Bicycle 7.20 6.47 6.44 6.63
50
Other formats and languages
For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at
the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Telephone 020 7983 4100
Greater London Authority Minicom 020 7983 4458
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.uk
London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a copy of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the
address above.
Chinese Hindi
Vietnamese
Bengali
Greek
Urdu
Turkish Arabic
Punjabi Gujarati
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA
Tel: 020 7983 4922

Fax: 020 7983 4137
Minicom: 020 7983 4458
Email: glaeconomics@london.gov.uk
www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit

Economic Impact of Traffic Signals - Full Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Impact of Traffic Signals - Full Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greater London Authority

For more information about this publication, please contact:

Project No: 16365

Prepared by: Approved by:

b) traffic flows are above a certain level, or;

c) turning traffic or pedestrian flows are above a certain level.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1.2 Economic impacts

1.3 This study

1.4 Report structure

2 Traffic signals in London

2.1 Administrative setup

Figure 2.1: Greater London Road Network

2.2 Greater London traffic signals statistics

Table 2.1: Number of signalised traffic junctions

Location Non-TLRN TLRN Total

2.2.2 Table 2.2 shows a further breakdown by:

Number of % of the total number of

Total 2,532 100%

3.1.3 To do this required us to consider a range of different junction types:

3.1.5 To identify representative junctions an assessment framework was developed as a

3.2 Framework for assessment

3.2.2 Traffic signals are used to control traffic movement through:

3.2.4 The assessment methodology is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Methodology for assessment of traffic signals

3.3 Key assessment criteria

Individual site road safety

Road network management

Congestion and capacity assessment

Source: Transport in the Urban Environment

3.4 Junctions selected for study

Table 3.1: List of selected junctions

Type of Peak major arm

Table 3.2: Percentage representation of selected junctions

Number of % of the total number of

Percentage represented by selected junctions 67.5%

Table 3.3: Average traffic flows at London junctions

All Junctions in CELLO

3.7 Alternative traffic control regimes

Table 3.4: Alternative traffic control regimes

4.1 Micro-simulation modelling

4.2 Edgware Road

Figure 4.1: Location of junctions with switched-off signal control

Average Delay Time per Vehicle (s)

Figure 4.3: Average speed (mph) at Edgware Road

Average speed [mph]

Number of vehicles crossingthe Junction

4.3 Target Roundabout

Average delay time per vehicle (s)

Figure 4.6: Average speed (mph) at Target Roundabout

Average speed [mph]

Figure 4.7: Total number of vehicles crossing the Target Roundabout

Number of vehicles crossingthe Junction

4.4 River Road

Average delay time per vehicle [s]

Figure 4.9: Average speed (mph) at A13 River Road junction

Average speed [mph]

Number of vehicles crossingthe Junction

4.5 East Barnet Road/Margaret Road

Average delay time per vehicle (s)

Figure 4.12: Average speed (mph) at East Barnet junction

Average speed [mph]