Have you ever stood at a pedestrian crossing, waiting endlessly while the road remains empty? You push the button, hoping it will hurry things up, but still, nothing changes. Traffic signals often force pedestrians to wait longer than necessary, prioritising cars over people. But why is this happening, and what’s the cost?
Why Waiting Matters
Waiting at signals isn't just annoying – it's harmful. Research shows that excessive wait times encourage risk-taking behaviours, like jaywalking or ignoring signals altogether (Keegan & O'Mahony, 2003). A study by Hamed (2001) found that pedestrians who experience long delays are more likely to engage in unsafe crossing behaviours. Pedestrians naturally seek the shortest path (Hoogendoorn & Bovy, 2004), and when signal timing doesn't align with human needs, safety suffers. Guo (2009) demonstrated that pedestrians will choose routes that minimise crossing delay, even at the expense of slightly longer walking distances. Miranda-Moreno et al. (2013) further support this, showing that longer wait times lead to increased pedestrian violations at signalised intersections.
When you stand idly at crossings, your perception of waiting time amplifies. According to Osuna (1985), the psychological cost of waiting increases disproportionately with time. Mishalani et al. (2006) found that perceived waiting time is, on average, longer than actual waiting time in transportation contexts. Designing signals without considering this psychological aspect can result in frustration (Duives et al., 2013). In their study on habitual travel choices, Gärling and Axhausen (2003) discussed how transportation experiences can influence future behaviour patterns.
Poor Signal Design is a Choice, Not a Necessity
Many urban centres struggle with balancing the needs of pedestrians against vehicular traffic. Noland (2003) found that traditional traffic engineering often prioritises vehicle flow at the expense of pedestrian safety. Sisiopiku and Akin (2003) demonstrated that pedestrian compliance with signals decreases significantly when wait times exceed 40 seconds. Their research showed that even 30% of pedestrians may engage in risky crossing behaviour when facing excessive delays.
Traffic signals typically focus on maximising vehicle throughput, as documented by Ishaque and Noland (2005), who found systematic bias in signal timing that favours vehicles. Pedestrian wait times often become a secondary consideration in traffic management systems. According to Vallyon and Turner (2011), traditional signal timing models frequently undervalue pedestrian time compared to vehicle delay.
Cinar (2020) adds further insight, showing that pedestrian crossing behaviours vary significantly based on waiting times, with individuals and groups responding differently. This reinforces the need for more flexible and adaptive pedestrian signal timing.
Better Examples Exist
Some cities are challenging traditional approaches to signal timing. Noland et al. (2008) analysed London's pedestrian-friendly signal timing initiatives and found significant reductions in jaywalking behaviour.
Cities that have prioritised pedestrian movement at crossings have demonstrated positive outcomes. Garder (1989) showed that reduced pedestrian wait times directly correlate with fewer pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Additionally, pedestrian-friendly signal timing can benefit local businesses, as documented by Tolley (2011), who found increased pedestrian volumes and higher retail activity in areas with optimised crossing conditions.
Lessons can also be learned from the Netherlands and Germany, where pedestrian-friendly urban design has resulted in improved safety and mobility for walkers and cyclists (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003). These countries have successfully implemented strategies that prioritise non-motorised transport while maintaining overall traffic efficiency.
What Needs to Change?
- Shorter signal cycles – Signals should respond to pedestrian presence immediately and frequently, rather than forcing people to wait.
- Pedestrian priority – Timing should assume pedestrians will cross each cycle, not only when they explicitly ask.
- Design for human psychology – Signals should align with natural human tendencies – reducing wait frustration and risky crossing behaviours.
Time to Put Pedestrians First
Traffic signals reflect how much a city values its pedestrians. If cities are serious about encouraging walking and prioritising safety, they must fundamentally rethink signal design. The evidence is clear: shorter waits are safer, better for cities, and more respectful of pedestrian needs.
Pedestrians aren’t obstacles – so why should signals treat them as if they are?
References
Cinar, G. (2020). Pedestrian crossing behaviour analysis: Differences in waiting and crossing times between individuals and groups. International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology.
Duives, D. C., Daamen, W., & Hoogendoorn, S. P. (2013). State-of-the-art crowd motion simulation models. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 37, 193-209.
Garder, P. (1989). Pedestrian safety at traffic signals: A study carried out with the help of a traffic conflicts technique. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21(5), 435-444.
Gärling, T., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). Introduction: Habitual travel choice. Transportation, 30(1), 1-11.
Guo, Z. (2009). Does the pedestrian environment affect the utility of walking? A case of path choice in downtown Boston. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(5), 343-352.
Hamed, M. M. (2001). Analysis of pedestrians' behavior at pedestrian crossings. Safety Science, 38(1), 63-82.
Hoogendoorn, S. P., & Bovy, P. H. (2004). Pedestrian route-choice and activity scheduling theory and models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 38(2), 169-190.
Ishaque, M. M., & Noland, R. B. (2005). Multimodal microsimulation of vehicle and pedestrian signal timings. Transportation Research Record, 1939(1), 107-114.
Keegan, O., & O'Mahony, M. (2003). Modifying pedestrian behaviour. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(10), 889-901.
Mishalani, R. G., McCord, M. M., & Wirtz, J. (2006). Passenger wait time perceptions at bus stops: Empirical results and impact on evaluating real-time bus arrival information. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(2), 89-106.
Miranda-Moreno, L., Morency, P., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). The impact of waiting time on pedestrian crossings and violations at signalised intersections: A case study in Montreal. ResearchGate.
Noland, R. B. (2003). Traffic fatalities and injuries: The effect of changes in infrastructure and other trends. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(4), 599-611.
Noland, R. B., Ishaque, M. M., & Jones, P. (2008). Signal timing and pedestrian safety in London: A microsimulation analysis. Transportation Research Record, 2073(1), 43-51.
Osuna, E. E. (1985). The psychological cost of waiting. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(1), 82-105.
Pucher, J., & Dijkstra, L. (2003). Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1509-1516.
Sisiopiku, V. P., & Akin, D. (2003). Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: An examination based on observation and survey data. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(4), 249-274.
Tolley, R. (2011). Good for busine$$: The benefits of making streets more walking and cycling friendly. Heart Foundation South Australia.
Vallyon, C., & Turner, S. (2011). Reducing pedestrian delay at traffic signals. New Zealand Transport Agency Research Report 440.
