Traffic lights: the downside

Since their (second) introduction, a few years back, there has been an impressive mushrooming of traffic lights all over our islands. People seem to think that the more traffic lights we install indiscriminately all over our roads and streets, the more organised our traffic will become. This is an erroneous concept. Traffic lights, like any other traffic control system, have their own particular use and specific application.

Many European countries conducted a traffic light elimination exercise some 10 to 15 years ago, after realising that these too had their downside, mainly by unnecessarily delaying traffic, and replaced a great number with... roundabouts! So in Malta we are replacing roundabouts with traffic lights when the rest of the civilised world is doing exactly the opposite.

Naturally, traffic lights are a very effective means of traffic control and therefore remain indispensable. However their very effectiveness also seems to be their disadvantage in many cases where they prove to be over-effective. This is why 'intelligent lights' were created more than a decade ago abroad and are now used in many crossroads and intersections. The difference with intelligent lights is that through special sensors, usually beneath the road's surface, the lights change according to the presence or not of cars arriving from the different directions of a crossroads.

Roundabouts were preferred to traffic lights in many intersections because these, unlike lights, allow the gradual but constant flow of traffic from all directions without causing a total stop from any direction. In many cases modified roundabouts were created to increase the flow from one direction in relation to the other.

As to traffic lights at pedestrian crossings on major thoroughfares, wherever possible these were replaced by zebra crossings in urban areas and subways or foot bridges in other areas, so as not to interrupt the great flow of traffic, while allowing pedestrians to proceed in their crossing without undue waiting. Once again, in Malta we seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Some practical examples. In many local intersections, it is hard not to notice the marked increase in traffic flow whenever the lights are not functioning. Rather than the chaos one would expect, there are many intersections where the traffic flow is actually much smoother and faster when the lights are not working. The Kappara (ex-gas tank) roundabout on the Regional Road is a classical example, and if our entire country still cannot afford to construct one small flyover for direct traffic travelling straight across the Regional Road, then let us just scrap the "Christmas tree" lighting and leave a simple roundabout.

As examples of misplaced pedestrian lights one may mention the one recently installed at Bahar ic-Caghaq and the one opposite Bank of Valletta by the Manoel Island bridge in Gzira. Both cause huge traffic jams when these can be easily avoided. The ones at Bahar ic-Caghaq have been unwisely placed on a major thoroughfare and on a typical Sunday may cause great slowing down of traffic for kilometres.

One is led to ask: how many cars are being unnecessarily slowed down for each person wanting to cross the road to buy an ice cream? If the area is being used more frequently by pedestrians, then either a subway or a footbridge should be constructed, allowing free flow of traffic on the principal route between Malta's centre and all its sandy beaches and Gozo.

The pedestrian lights referred to in Gzira have transformed a very heavy traffic area into a nightmare zone. On most days these new lights cause one continuous jam all the way up Testaferrata Street, in all its side streets and in the entire surrounding areas. As I use the area virtually every day both as a driver and as a pedestrian, I can vouch that the situation has deteriorated tremendously for both types of users.

As a driver proceeding down Testaferrata Street and past the lights could take up to 10 minutes (instead of one or two). As a pedestrian you now have to wait a couple of minutes until the lights change, whereas before, being both an urban environment and with the already heavy (and therefore slow) traffic situation, cars would stop immediately to let you cross on the zebra crossing. No doubt, the zebra crossing system worked much better for pedestrians too.

Such lights make sense in large city centres where the flow of pedestrians is as large as the flow of traffic. One good indicator is whether pedestrians are crossing throughout the walk period, or whether, as is the case here, traffic is being continuously stopped for several minutes at a time, simply for one or two people to cross only then to wait unnecessarily until the lights change. The situation is made worse by the many children walking by the lights and pressing the pedestrian button for fun.

One wonders whether there is a futile and childish 'greatest number of traffic lights competition' going on between local councils. What I am suggesting is to seriously and professionally look into the overall effects of all current traffic lights with the resulting elimination of those which have been wrongly installed. Then to conduct such a serious exercise before the installation of all new lights.

Lastly, to do away with the parochial and retrograde mentality that 'pedestrians are good and cars are bad'. Proper town planning should afford equal attention to both, with a bias towards the one that represents the greatest volume in any given location. This is because it has to somehow cater for the real current volumes, vehicles or pedestrians, by facilitating their flows, not by obstructing them further.