[gweed123]

^If you go back a few TTC board meetings, their transit security were given HTA authority for the lights and such not that long ago. I recall that this gave them the ability to deal with motorists and traffic problems affecting transit operations, particularly around subway stations and loops etc. If they direct traffic around a blockage, motorists have to obey their directions similar to a police officer directing traffic.

I wonder if their powers extend to ticketing motorists on King Street. It’s to clear the way for transit, after all.

- Paul

I wonder if the TTC Special Constables do issue tickets, who does the revenue go to? Maybe it would be worth it to have Council pass some kind of by-law stipulating that any traffic violations on King associated with the pilot, if it's a TTC Constable issuing the ticket, that the TTC gets to keep the revenue. Would be a big cash cow for sure, and every bit of revenue for the TTC helps.

 

[steveintoronto]

I wonder if the TTC Special Constables do issue tickets, who does the revenue go to? Maybe it would be worth it to have Council pass some kind of by-law stipulating that any traffic violations on King associated with the pilot, if it's a TTC Constable issuing the ticket, that the TTC gets to keep the revenue.

It depends on the ticket. HTA ones go to the Province, save for the Red Light Camera offences, which *mostly* goes to the City. Parking goes to the City. QP (via the Transport Minister) can add a clause to the HTA under the Pilot section to do as you suggest.

PART XVI
PILOT PROJECTS
Pilot projects
228 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation authorize or establish a project for research into or the testing or evaluation of any matter governed by this Act or relevant to highway traffic. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33 (1).
[...]
Regulation to create own scheme of rules
(4) A regulation made under this section may regulate the doing of anything or the use of any thing or prohibit the doing of anything or the using of any thing. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33 (1).
[...]
Project prevails over Acts
(7) In the event of a conflict between a regulation made under this section and any provision of this Act, the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act or the Public Vehicles Act or of a regulation made under any of those Acts, the regulation made under this section prevails. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33.

Offence
(8) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $2,500. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33 (1).

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08

That's incredible power for a Transport Minister to wield, but it's there in the Act. (Technically, it's the Lieutenant Governor, but effectively, it's the TranMin)

I'll link reference later. QP should absolutely be involved though in invoking the Pilot Project section of the HTA (which overrules other sections of the HTA and a number of other Acts) to allow enforcement to be revenue neutral or better. Pilot rulings last for ten years, and are declared void on the books for their predetermined expiry date.

Red Light Camera FAQs (for Halton)

Where do the fines go?
$265 goes to Municipal Court Services and the $60 Victim Fine Surcharge goes to the Province of Ontario.

http://www.halton.ca/cms/One.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=71668#Q9

For Toronto (having trouble finding an official TO link for this)

The fine for running a red light is $325, which includes a $60 victim surcharge and $5 court cost. The city keeps $260 from each charge while the province collects the rest. Because the cameras can’t verify who was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction, the fines are sent to the owner of the vehicle and no demerit points are issued.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...meras-curbing-fatal-collisions-city-says.html

The implementation of Red Light Cameras along the Pilot length is a no-brainer, whether the City keeps the project or not. It would also make sense to install more comprehensive and intelligence controlled signals tied into the TTC's (City's actually) priority and dispatch system along that trunk, again *pilot or not*!

QP via the HTA can also allow flashing and steady green turn arrows with a red phase for vehicles turning, and horizontal as well as vertical white bars for streetcars, tied in with Red Light Cameras, to ensure *without constables being there* that the rules are enforced. All these indicator functions are available in traffic lights *off the shelf* (Other jurisdictions do this and more)

Also, unless someone can inform otherwise, the City did not put in a request for Federal Infrastructure funds for the Pilot. One really has to wonder why not?

 

[MetroMan]

Yes, cars ARE going through on King but it is only a small % of the cars CURRENTLY driving on King and a TINY % of the cars that USED to drive on King. Of course, I am in favour of much clearer signage and more enforcement but let's not exaggerate the scale of the problem.

Look again.

https://twitter.com/metromanto/status/982016805056237579

Nearly every car goes through or illegally makes left turns. It’s not a “small percentage” by any means.

 

[innsertnamehere]

what it ignores is the amount of cars on the street is a small fraction of what was on the street before. The vast majority of drivers are obeying the law - by simply not driving on King at all.

I remember reading that planning said that traffic was cut by far larger levels than they expected. All the right advance signals and whatnot almost seem pointless since traffic on King is so low, even with the scofflaw drivers.

 

[steveintoronto]

what it ignores is the amount of cars on the street is a small fraction of what was on the street before. The vast majority of drivers are obeying the law - by simply not driving on King at all.

I remember reading that planning said that traffic was cut by far larger levels than they expected. All the right advance signals and whatnot almost seem pointless since traffic on King is so low, even with the scofflaw drivers.

There's more than enough to still jam intersections, and foul clear travel for streetcars.

You're using the figures witnessed in a misleading way. Allow mean to rephrase the situation: "Of the cars travelling along King Street, and required to turn at the next marked intersection, many continue to travel through, not just one marked intersection, but many".

Of course, "one can travel the wrong way on a one-way street, but if no-one is hurt, what's the problem?" (Far less drivers are doing it now than before, as most are observing the law...)

It was exactly this flaunting of the law that required the "King Street rush hour clearway" to have to move to this incantantation in the first place.

 

[DSC]

Look again.

https://twitter.com/metromanto/status/982016805056237579

Nearly every car goes through or illegally makes left turns. It’s not a “small percentage” by any means.

At some times yes (like on QQE there seems to be a tendency to 'follow the leader') BUT the number of cars on King compared to BEFORE the project is tiny.

 

[crs1026]

We have to remember that this is a pilot, and if conditions vary over its duration that’s not a bad thing. It’s all good learning. Discovering what happens if there is minimal enforcement answers a key question. If we find out that it takes relentless enforcement to make this work, the cost of that enforcement has to be in the cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day. (We do kinda know already, as has been pointed out.... the previous prohibition on King West has faded to meaninglessness... but anyways...).

The stated goal of the pilot is claimed to be clearing a path for streetcars. The longer the pilot goes on, the more I’m thinking that this isn’t true.... that purpose is confounded with the goal of transforming King to a different kind of street space. (Again, has been pointed out previously by others, I’m just warming to their viewpoint). Maybe we need to get back to basics since the latter objective is the one that is creating all the acrimony. Get streetcars flowing, be less harsh on motorists, and let the urban transformers fight their own battle later.

We have to remember that in Canadian legal space, and especially in Ontario HTA enforcement, any kind of anal-retentive, by the book enforcement doesn’t fly with public opinion nor with the judiciary. We won’t see police blitzes on King for the same reason that most speeding tickets get written down to 15 kph over.... and even when they don’t, the Crown will accept that as a plea bargain at pre trial. Maybe the end rule will become - through traffic isn’t ticketed, but if your car is seen impeding a streetcar, you get nailed. Kinda like you won’t get pulled over driving in the left lane on a freeway, until you are observed blocking a car that is trying to go faster. If that became the norm for all streetcar routes in the city, I could live without whatever urban utopia the planners envision for King Street. It’s about keeping our eye on the prize.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The stated goal of the pilot is claimed to be clearing a path for streetcars. The longer the pilot goes on, the more I’m thinking that this isn’t true.... that purpose is confounded with the goal of transforming King to a different kind of street space.

Even if the 'go easy' approach is taken...then it invites the chaos to return (some has never left, I've been on King every other day the last few weeks and witnessed it) by denying the law abiding driver passage uninterrupted along King, while the scofflaws travel unhindered.

So at what point do you allow all to drive through unhindered again, and declare the Pilot a failure?

If any other city tried to do a "pilot" this way, they'd be laughed at. Rightly so. The problem starts with just budgeting $1.5M for this. That's a killing joke right there, and the laughter (and groans) continue thereafter.

If the City was serious about this, they'd invest in the infrastructure to make this happen, declared "pilot" or not. And that's a traffic light/red light camera/priority signal system that's need-sensitive to block vehicles from entering when congestion dictates. Not unlike traffic signals to control flow onto a highway.

Not enough available funding? ("Phhhhh") Then why didn't they ask the Feds when they came calling for a project the Feds would surely have liked for Infrastructure grants?

It's not even the number of scofflaws breaking the law as much as the City being wholly unprepared to deal with it, contrary to warning after warning.

We have to remember that in Canadian legal space, and especially in Ontario HTA enforcement, any kind of anal-retentive, by the book enforcement doesn’t fly with public opinion nor with the judiciary.

Have to disagree with that. Red Light Cameras for just a start state otherwise.

The problem isn't the court finding guilt, it's lack of budgeting for constable enforcement to issue tickets. And in the absence of persons legally enabled to issue tickets, then where's the investment in programmable and modern signalling systems?

Again, the Feds would have been more than willing to contribute to funding.

I'm reminded of the quip ascribed (falsely) to Goebbels: "Tell them a small lie, they won't believe it, tell them a big one, and they will". There's huge interest in funding subways to nowhere, at the cost of $Bs, but only $1.5M to fund a pilot that moves multiples more people than the SSE would? And have it up and running in a year or two?

Toronto...

 

[crs1026]

So at what point do you allow all to drive through unhindered again, and declare the Pilot a failure?

You don’t. But the pilot may wax and wane. We have this period of non-enforcement. It produces a result that we (and now the Star) don’t like. So, the cops are told, look, don’t bust a gut, but do a little enforcement down there, and let’s see how little we can do and maybe improve things. Let’s not look like d**ks about it. And so, as was posted above, a little enforcement appears - in unmarked vehicles. Occasionally.

Have to disagree with that. Red Light Cameras for just a start state otherwise.

Well, look at how photo radar turned out.

People will tolerate red light cameras - and maybe photo radar in school zones - because the risk is so high. One might make the same argument for egregious speed violations, but being a little over the limit is not considered unsafe, so people bristle at speed enforcement. The King Street pilot isn’t about safety, at least not until someone blows through a streetcar stop.

It’s a relatively long pilot, doesn’t need to be the same every month.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

It produces a result that we (and now the Star) don’t like.

Errr...it's been the Globe, the CBC, Reuters, CP, Global, CTV too.

I can see how this is becoming a selective observation based on political persuasion, not logic.

Red Light Camera legislation provides the bulk of the fine to the municipality. Other than parking, (which is Bylaw) the other infractions don't. Council is claiming the 'costs' angle. That argument is rendered moot by the Red Light Camera legislation. Is there a sunk cost? Of course, but it *pays for itself* over time. How conservative can that be? So would a modern, integrated, gated and sensored traffic signalling/streetcar control system. Just like other cities have. Progressive ones...

Also pays for itself over time. What a concept...

Addendum: Red Light Camera legislation apparently is already enabled (I'll search for actual clause and link later, case law shows many instances) to catch illegal right and left hand turns at red lights.

 

[Aylmer]

Kinda like you won’t get pulled over driving in the left lane on a freeway, until you are observed blocking a car that is trying to go faster. If that became the norm for all streetcar routes in the city, I could live without whatever urban utopia the planners envision for King Street. It’s about keeping our eye on the prize.

- Paul

What I'd love to see is a streetcar- or bus-mounted camera. If a car is blocking a streetcar illegally, the footage is sent for a brief analysis, the license plate is run, and a ticket is neatly sent to the driver's address. Transit vehicles would enforce its own priority 100% of the time while using almost no police ressources.

 

[raptor]

What I'd love to see is a streetcar- or bus-mounted camera. If a car is blocking a streetcar illegally, the footage is sent for a brief analysis, the license plate is run, and a ticket is neatly sent to the driver's address. Transit vehicles would enforce its own priority 100% of the time while using almost no police ressources.

The problem with cameras is that they can't prove who is driving the vehicle. Owning the vehicle vs. actually driving it are 2 different things.

 

[BMO]

Even if the 'go easy' approach is taken...then it invites the chaos to return (some has never left, I've been on King every other day the last few weeks and witnessed it) by denying the law abiding driver passage uninterrupted along King, while the scofflaws travel unhindered.

So at what point do you allow all to drive through unhindered again, and declare the Pilot a failure?

...

I mean I could pull a Metro Man and video record people on the bus every evening on a different route for a year and I would bet my top dollar that on most routes I'd catch more fare evaders getting on a crammed bus than vehicles going through intersections on King. And that's considering I have NEVER seen a fare officer on a bus. At some point we have to have a little bit of faith in society and some common sense. Cities are beautiful and chaotic places where half their charm comes from the fact that not everything that happens in the city is sterile and perfect. Should these people going through the intersection be ticketed? Of course, but the reality is money and time would likely be spent catching...you know people murdering other people instead of catching drivers who aren't even slowing down transit or running over pedestrians on King

 

[crs1026]

The problem with cameras is that they can't prove who is driving the vehicle. Owning the vehicle vs. actually driving it are 2 different things.

True, but most people know who is driving their vehicle. The issue is whether they should be expected to rat the person out, or just pay the fine themselves and get their revenge -oops, I mean, address the issue - privately.

Personally I favour requiring the rat. But I would settle for no fine if someone -anyone- signs for the demerit points. There is an element of the public who see traffic fines as a cash grab by the city. I would rather the points and the lesson be the message.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

True, but most people know who is driving their vehicle. The issue is whether they should be expected to rat the person out, or just pay the fine themselves and get their revenge -oops, I mean, address the issue - privately.

Personally I favour requiring the rat. But I would settle for no fine if someone -anyone- signs for the demerit points. There is an element of the public who see traffic fines as a cash grab by the city. I would rather the points and the lesson be the message.

- Paul

Surely the existing red light cameras work on the "s/he who owns the car pays"? If the owner then extracts the fine from the actual driver that's their business.