adys123
Active Member
It was a sarcastic response to the above post by mistersq1. Both my academic and professional backgrounds are in transportation engineering and planning, so I'm well aware of the misunderstandings in the general public.
|
|
|
- Thread starter reaperexpress
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yeah, to add on to what @innsertnamehere said, the additional trips which are "induced" by the new infrastructure may represent value in itself. People are now willing to make trips that they were not previously willing to make, which is a benefit to them.
This is why it's typically known as "latent demand" in a professional setting, not "induced demand".
This is why it's typically known as "latent demand" in a professional setting, not "induced demand".
afransen
Senior Member
Growth is part of induced demand. Abundant road capacity induced people to live in Brampton, further from employment, education, etc. requiring them to drive. Growth is part of how induced demand plays out.
sche
Active Member
Brampton did not grow because of “abundant road capacity” - most of that road capacity (big arterials, 407, 410) did not exist prior to development.
Brampton grew because of deliberate government policy to zone for and approve new suburban car oriented development and to widen and build new roads in anticipation of and in response to that new development. Road capacity expansion and new suburban development came hand in hand, and I don’t think it’s correct to suggest one directly caused the other. Both are a result of government planning policy, which deliberately directed growth toward car oriented greenfield development and constructed the road infrastructure to serve it.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that suburban development does not necessarily have to occur after road capacity expansion. Development is highly constrained by zoning and government regulation and it is entirely possible that the government can build highways but not permit car oriented development near the highways, essentially eliminating demand induced by suburban development. The typical city in Western Europe has numerous highways, they just don’t allow so much car oriented suburban development.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
A friendly reminder as well that Brampton has some of, if not the highest transit modal shares of any suburban area in Canada and the US.
Dan416
Senior Member
I agree induced demand exists of course. I think Highway 413 will induce demand for sure, but at the same time, the land by what will be the 413 is probably going to be paved over for suburban homes and just end up looking like Brampton. Does the GTA really not have enough suburban homes that we need to build more? We should be redeveloping the existing suburbs to be more dense.
All that said, the 410 is there already, and I know the bottleneck that exists there well and the lanes constantly dropping off from where the recent expansion ends is definitely a problem and speaks to the recent expansion not being sufficient even thought it was recently completed--it was under built/ends too early. Fixing the 410 will reduce the amount of time wasted on a suburban highway that was under built. No matter what time of day I want to head up to the cottage, the 410 is always backed up when you get past the 407. It's literally never free flowing. Even the 401 isn't so bad.
All that said, the 410 is there already, and I know the bottleneck that exists there well and the lanes constantly dropping off from where the recent expansion ends is definitely a problem and speaks to the recent expansion not being sufficient even thought it was recently completed--it was under built/ends too early. Fixing the 410 will reduce the amount of time wasted on a suburban highway that was under built. No matter what time of day I want to head up to the cottage, the 410 is always backed up when you get past the 407. It's literally never free flowing. Even the 401 isn't so bad.
Kitsune
Senior Member
.. another useless set of lights getting installed .. this time its a pedestrian crossing at silver birch / queen being converted to a full set of lights. I dont really see the point of them, the ped crossing was working fine.
toaster29
Active Member
Speaking of Brampton.. can we get lights (or a roundabout) at Countryside and HeartLake? Literally takes 15 minutes to turn left here.
Kitsune
Senior Member
now that I had some time to review ...
community council meeting stated existing set at Queen / Silver Birch (a pedestrian crossing signal) was ok and did not to be modified ( https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2022.TE33.33)
city council reviewed and state it must be upgraded to a full traffic signal (https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2022.TE33.33) . I cant really find why it was done, there a communication stating local residents demanded a pedestrian signal at Victoria Park / Queen. seems to have been done on a whim. What is the point of community council meetings if city council is just going to over ride it ..
smably
Senior Member
I know we have some traffic signal skeptics in this thread so I was curious to hear everyone's take on the city's plans in my neighbourhood.
I put together this map showing the existing (grey) and approved (red) traffic signals in my neighbourhood.
This seems like a lot of new traffic lights. Too many? What could we be doing here instead of adding traffic lights at every other intersection?
I put together this map showing the existing (grey) and approved (red) traffic signals in my neighbourhood.
- Bloor and Perth, approved based on a request from the former councillor
- Bloor and St Helens, approved as part of the section 37 agreement for 1319 Bloor
- Bloor and Pauline, approved as part of the Bloor and Dufferin redevelopment, replacing an existing PXO
- Lansdowne and Paton, apparently required as part of the site plan approval for 640 Lansdowne (see "Traffic Operations Assessment"), replacing an existing PXO
This seems like a lot of new traffic lights. Too many? What could we be doing here instead of adding traffic lights at every other intersection?
Northern Light
Superstar
My instinct is that is too many lights. I'd go so far as to say, my strong instinct.
But I"d still want to look for certain evidence.
1) What are the KSIs (Killed and Seriously injured) at the locations where lights are proposed. Are they inordinate to City norms?
2) Did the installation meet traffic warrants (were they recommended by City staff)
3) What is the distance between the new light and the nearest existing light?
4) What was the gap between the two nearest lights previously?
********
If:
The KSI in the area were lower than the City average; and the installation did not meet warrants, I could consider that affirmation that a new set of lights was not appropriate in that instance, barring extraordinary evidence.
If the the KSI were at or above City averages, that would indicate a need for intervention of some type, whether or not lights were the correct choice.
If the intersection met 'warrants' for lights......I'd be inclined to let it go w/some reluctance.
*******
There are many potential alternatives to traffic lights, it really depends on what the perceived issue justifying the lights is........:
Is it existing danger to cyclists? to pedestrians? to drivers (car on car collision)?
Is it simply the wait to make a turn into/out of a given buiding or on/off a certain side street?
These bits of info are important, because they change how you might respond.
Its simply not possible for me to generalize.
That's a big blob of proposed stuff for someone more qualified than I, like @reaperexpress to look at..........but ya never know, he might humour you, LOL
For my part, I'll simply say, choices range from prohibiting and physically restricting certain turn movements, to protected intersections (space permitting) to greater physical separation of cycle tracks, to elevated crosswalks, to bumpouts/pinch points, to narrower traffic lanes to reducing/eliminating parking (for some combination, as appropriate, of wider sidewalk/streetscape, wider/more buffered cycle track, greater sightlines at intersections etc).
If gaps in traffic allowing turns is the goal, simply adjusting nearby signal times may be sufficient.
Suffice to say, traffic lights are unquestionably over-used in Toronto in general, but one requires a fair bit of info to pick apart individual choices.
Last edited:
smably
Senior Member
I wasn't able to dig up the documentation for Bloor/Perth or Bloor/St Helens. But for Lansdowne/Paton and Bloor/Pauline, neither met the warrant criteria but both were recommended by staff regardless.
Lansdowne and Paton warrant analysis:
Staff response:
Bloor/Pauline:
I'm inclined to think that the Bloor/Pauline signal is justified based on the reasoning in the staff report, but I would have liked to see a bit more analysis for Lansdowne/Paton.
I have no horse in this race, mostly just thought it was curious how many signals were proposed in a fairly small area and was hoping to learn from people with more knowledge on the subject.
Lansdowne and Paton warrant analysis:
Staff response:
Bloor/Pauline:
I'm inclined to think that the Bloor/Pauline signal is justified based on the reasoning in the staff report, but I would have liked to see a bit more analysis for Lansdowne/Paton.
I have no horse in this race, mostly just thought it was curious how many signals were proposed in a fairly small area and was hoping to learn from people with more knowledge on the subject.
TRONto
Active Member
My first thought is that the motions to add traffic signals was originated before the cycle lanes were put in. Bloor is much calmer due to its narrowing and I'm skeptical (without looking into it) that addition lights would be needed.
Dan416
Senior Member
As a driver, all the unnecessary traffic lights in Toronto drive me crazy. So I avoid it as much as possible. Mission accomplished, I guess, City of Toronto, probably.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The problem is that the signals also inconvenience pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, so it does little to actually reduce traffic.