Grand Rapids staff outline signal system scope, staffing shortfalls and planned asset work

Matt Van Dyke, acting signal and lighting superintendent for the City of Grand Rapids, told the Mobile GR Commission on Aug. 7 that the city's traffic signals program maintains signals across the region and is operating with staffing levels well below recommended ratios.

"We maintain nearly 700 traffic signals," Van Dyke said, and later noted the combined technicians and electricians average about "95 signal devices per one of those employees," compared with Federal Highway Administration recommendations of 75–100 signals per engineer and 30–40 signals per technician.

The presentation explained that about one-third of the devices the city services are owned by the City of Grand Rapids; the remainder are owned by partner agencies, including Kent County, Ottawa County and the Michigan Department of Transportation. City staff said the work the city performs for partners is reimbursed under memoranda of understanding, and that the city bills partners for the actual work performed plus a modest overhead markup.

Why it matters

City staff said the services Grand Rapids provides give the city influence over regional signal operation and the ability to prioritize safety measures, but that constrained staffing and aging communications equipment create risks for ongoing maintenance and for planned upgrades. Van Dyke and staff asked the commission to consider the operational tradeoffs that come from maintaining a large regional program with limited city-funded staffing.

What staff presented

Van Dyke described the traffic signals division's staffing and equipment: an acting superintendent, an acting supervisor, eight electricians and two intelligent transportation system (ITS) technicians (job titles in revision), with regional maintenance responsibilities that include traffic signals, overhead flashers, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid beacons. He described field devices and counts mentioned in the presentation: roughly 700 signal devices, nearly 200 flashers, about 37 RRFBs and multiple pedestrian hybrid beacons (the transcript records both "three" and later "two" for hybrid beacons). The presentation also listed modern safety features the city has implemented or expanded, including box-span signal heads, flashing yellow left-turn arrows, signal backplates, countdown pedestrian signals, video and pavement detection, and signal preemption for emergency vehicles and bus-priority systems.

Van Dyke said many partner agencies lack the in-house expertise or equipment to maintain signals, which is why the city performs that work under formal MOUs. He emphasized the revenue the program brings but cautioned that those reimbursements do not change the staffing level the city budget provides: "Our investment from our city budget is... we're staffed at the level to take care of the city signals at the level that we have in our city budget, and that's constrained by budgetary realities," a staff member clarified during discussion.

Safety and local control

Staff framed local maintenance as a way to set local policies and priorities beyond a primary emphasis on traffic throughput. Van Dyke contrasted Grand Rapids' stated additional goals — safety, equity, sustainability — with MDOT's succinct definition that a signal's primary goal is to move traffic efficiently. Several commissioners pushed staff to prioritize safety above other aims and questioned optimization choices that prioritize vehicle throughput over pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Operations and near-term needs

Staff identified several near-term program needs: an asset-management plan for signals, replacement of aging Ethernet switches that support communications to field devices, and a return visit to the commission with more detailed budget information in September or October. Van Dyke also described the traffic management center, communications methods (fiber, broadband radio, cellular), and plans or pilots the city is considering including audible pedestrian signals to meet PROWAG recommendations, bicycle detection at select intersections, low-voltage signal trials and adaptive signal technology pilots.

Costs and long-term planning

Using July 2025 cost estimates, staff said full intersection replacements and modern installations can be expensive — large intersection projects can approach several hundred thousand dollars — and tallied a total replacement asset value across the city in the tens of millions (presentation figure cited $118,000,000). Staff proposed a hierarchy of needs: maintain and operate existing signals, make safety upgrades when possible, invest in infrastructure improvements when funded, and pursue operational or cutting-edge enhancements when resources allow.

Commissioner questions and next steps

Commissioners asked for more financial transparency, including whether partner reimbursements are structured to support FHWA-recommended staffing levels or simply reimburse the current work performed. Staff agreed to return with a detailed breakdown tying staffing, partner workloads and city-budgeted positions together. They also noted plans to continue annual signal optimization work and to expand preemption and detection technology where viable.

Ending

Commissioners signaled support for further, budget-focused follow-up. Staff said they would return in a future meeting with a detailed asset-management plan and budget analysis that breaks out staffing needs and the cost to bring maintenance and replacement cycles into alignment with the city's stated safety and accessibility goals.