n recent months, Lahore Development Authority, under the auspices of Caretaker Chief Minister Mohsin Naqvi, has implemented a new “signal free” traffic policy throughout the city. Carried out at mega speed, sometimes haphazardly and often reversed or modified days after inauguration, the construction of new U-turns and signal-free corridors has had a major impact on traffic flow in Lahore, although whether that change has been positive is debatable.

Understanding the implications of replacing traffic signals with U-turn-based signal-free corridors requires an in-depth exploration of both methods in the context of urban planning, traffic engineering and safety analysis. Not only that, but also a thorough review of the crucial aspects of traffic flow, road user safety and environmental impact, grounded in evidence and case studies from various projects from around the world.

Urban areas worldwide face the challenge of managing increasing volumes of traffic while ensuring the safety of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Traditional traffic signals have long been the cornerstone of intersection management, designed to regulate the flow of vehicles and pedestrians through complex crossroads. However, with evolving urban landscapes and the pressing need for more efficient transportation networks, some cities are exploring alternative approaches, such as U-turn-based signal-free corridors, to address congestion and safety concerns.

Signal-free corridors aim to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow by eliminating traditional, signalised intersections. Instead, these designs often incorporate U-turns and grade separations to maintain continuous vehicle movement. Proponents argue that by reducing stop-and-go traffic, signal-free corridors can decrease travel time, lower vehicle emissions and potentially reduce certain types of accidents.

One of the primary concerns with removing traffic signals is the impact on road safety. Signalised intersections, when correctly designed and operated, provide structured movement patterns that can significantly reduce conflict points and manage pedestrian crossings safely. In contrast, signal-free corridors, particularly those relying on U-turns, present a different set of challenges and risks. For example, the increased distance for U-turns may not be suitable for all types of vehicles and the reliance on driver judgment for gap acceptance during U-turns could increase the potential for accidents.

Moreover, the efficiency gains of signal-free corridors must be weighed against the potential for increased vehicle speeds, which could negatively impact pedestrian and cyclist safety. High-speed environments are less forgiving of errors and the severity of accidents can be significantly higher compared to those in signalised settings.

New U-turns have done little to ease congestion and reduce commute times. In fact, at several places such as Johar Town, the U-turns are so poorly designed that traffic policemen have to revert to hand signals to manage traffic.

It is also important to weigh in the historic use of U-turns or rather lack thereof, which is not easily understandable by the majority of motorists. Not only that but the complete lack of initiating a project that completely changes the traffic flow of a mega city without a structured behaviour-change campaign represents a question mark in itself. What seems like a knee-jerk reaction to perhaps sticking a plaque on as many roadways as possible within the limited duration a caretaker government should constitutionally serve, leaves more questions than answers. This is in stark contrast to the campaign enforcing helmets for motorcycle riders a few years back when the traffic police en masse educated motorists on roads.

As any motorist may have observed the new U-turns have done little to ease congestion and reduce commute times. In fact, at several places such as Johar Town, the U-turns are so poorly designed that traffic policemen have to revert to hand signals to manage traffic. Such instances in themselves raise doubts about the readiness of the general public ahead of a massive infrastructure transformation.

Nothing has been done, either, to prevent the flow of drivers and motorcyclists in the wrong direction on U-turns. What little benefit the U-turns could serve by allowing traffic to bypass them at high speeds is reduced because of that, and in many instances increases the risk for traffic accidents.

This mismanagement is also impacting commute times, creating frustration among drivers. Not only that, but the consequent increase in the time vehicles spend on roads increases fuel consumption and causes more emissions, thus having the likelihood of worsening environmental impacts of traffic including smog and air pollution.

crucial aspect of urban traffic management is ensuring accessibility for and safety of non-motorised road users. Signalised intersections typically include pedestrian crossings and signals, providing safe and defined paths for pedestrians and cyclists. In contrast, signal-free designs may prioritise vehicle flow at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, potentially making these corridors less safe or inaccessible for those not in vehicles.

From an environmental perspective, reducing idling at intersections through signal-free designs could lower vehicular emissions. However, if these corridors encourage higher speeds or increase vehicle miles travelled due to longer U-turns or detours, the net environmental impact could be negative, which seems evident in the case of Lahore.

Furthermore, the transformation of intersections into signal-free corridors can have a profound effect on urban form sand land use. These changes might influence local businesses, property values and the overall liveability of neighbourhoods, necessitating careful urban planning and community engagement.

Examining case studies where signal-free corridors have been implemented reveals a mixed picture. Some studies, like those referenced by the US Federal Highway Administration, indicate that certain configurations can lead to a reduction in crashes. However, these benefits are context-specific and must be balanced against potential drawbacks, such as increased complexity for drivers and reduced accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

Switching from signalised intersections to U-turn-based traffic flow without a thorough analysis and consideration of all road users is short-sighted. Such changes can prioritise vehicle flow over pedestrian and cyclist safety, potentially increasing the risk of accidents due to higher vehicle speeds and complex navigation.

Moreover, the environmental and urban impacts, including potential increases in emissions from longer travel routes and negative effects on livability, underscore the importance of a balanced and inclusive approach to traffic management.

The decision to replace traffic signals with U-turn-based, signal-free corridors should not be taken in haste. It requires a holistic consideration of safety, efficiency, environmental impact and urban liveability. While signal-free corridors can offer benefits in specific contexts, their implementation must be carefully planned, with a focus on inclusive design principles that ensure the safety and accessibility of all road users.

Ideally, urban traffic management should embrace a variety of intersection designs, each tailored to the unique needs and contexts of the areas they serve. By leveraging advances in traffic engineering, urban planning and technology, cities can develop transportation networks that are safe, efficient, and sustainable, accommodating the diverse needs of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike.

The writer is a development sector professional with nearly a decade of experience in communications and reporting. He has supported the implementation of The World Bank’s Disaster and Climate Resilience Improvement Project and ADB’s Flood Emergency Reconstruction and Resilience Project in Pakistan