[innsertnamehere]

yup. Too often councillors these days view "road safety" as "slow down travel as much as possible". Which is honestly ridiculous as it's already insanely slow to get around Toronto in general, regardless of form of transportation you choose.

 

[Northern Light]

yup. Too often councillors these days view "road safety" as "slow down travel as much as possible". Which is honestly ridiculous as it's already insanely slow to get around Toronto in general, regardless of form of transportation you choose.

While we have been known to disagree on some things as it pertains to highways; we are in complete agreement here.

The number of traffic lights in Toronto is already needlessly high; and lights that are ~50M apart is worse than sub-optimal, its objectively foolish, not to mention a waste of money.

If one wants to slightly slow fast traffic, and/or smooth it out which I think is often the most substantive issue on safety, the choice is to narrow travel lanes for cars and/or reduce them in number.

This results in fewer things for drivers to keep an eye on; fewer things for pedestrians to keep an eye on, and shorter crossing distances.

Collectively much more effective than traffic light litter.

Add to that list, protected intersections, tighter turning radii, and highly visible crossing points and you can achieve wonders without forcing stops in traffic when there is no demand for cross-traffic of any mode, or none that can't be easily accommodated nearby.

 

[afransen]

yup. Too often councillors these days view "road safety" as "slow down travel as much as possible". Which is honestly ridiculous as it's already insanely slow to get around Toronto in general, regardless of form of transportation you choose.

Road safety is about separating incompatible uses, and slowing them down where they cannot be separated. In Toronto we have a fascination with every road needing to be a 'complete street'. Toronto also serious screwed up by not keeping any proper arterials. You need to have very low or no access off an arterial. It should not have on-street bike lanes and retail fronting it. You should put retail on low speed streets that are transit oriented, pedestrian and cyclist friendly. The outer suburbs did a somewhat better job of having roads that are roads (still too much access off them) that are effective at moving you quickly between places. Where they failed is creating a separate network of active transportation oriented streets that make effective urban places. I die inside every time I see some cockamamie rendering with a street cafe facing onto 10 lane arterial intersection in Brampton. Street cafes are a great idea, but they should be on non-arterial streets (not roads) that are max 3 lanes of vehicular traffic with sidewalks and bike lanes.

 

[reaperexpress]

Road safety is about separating incompatible uses, and slowing them down where they cannot be separated. In Toronto we have a fascination with every road needing to be a 'complete street'. Toronto also serious screwed up by not keeping any proper arterials. You need to have very low or no access off an arterial. It should not have on-street bike lanes and retail fronting it. You should put retail on low speed streets that are transit oriented, pedestrian and cyclist friendly. The outer suburbs did a somewhat better job of having roads that are roads (still too much access off them) that are effective at moving you quickly between places. Where they failed is creating a separate network of active transportation oriented streets that make effective urban places. I die inside every time I see some cockamamie rendering with a street cafe facing onto 10 lane arterial intersection in Brampton. Street cafes are a great idea, but they should be on non-arterial streets (not roads) that are max 3 lanes of vehicular traffic with sidewalks and bike lanes.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The closest thing we have to a street which follows Sustainable Safety principles is Shaw Street. As of a couple years ago, they eliminated through traffic by alternating the one-way restrictions for motor traffic, closing one block to motor traffic entirely. The route is just as direct as its motor traffic counterpart (Ossington), but unfortunately the effectiveness as a through route is wrecked by the number of stop signs. Here in the Netherlands, such minor intersections in a 30 km/h zone wouldn't even have a yield sign, let alone all-way stop signs. They just raise up the intersection to create an unregulated area, which works fine because there's barely any car traffic and what little there is is moving very slowly. Uncontrolled intersections may be a bit of a stretch for incompetent Canadian motorists, but they could at least use yield signs and pedestrian crossovers instead of all-way stop signs. Sadly the separation of vulnerable road users from through motor traffic routes doesn't extend to pedestrians - far more destinations are on Ossington than on Shaw.

The worst insult to Sustainable Safety principles is the Allen District plan which will be redeveloping the area around Sheppard West subway station. They plan to turn Allen Road from an expressway - where motor traffic has no effect on pedestrians/cyclists/residents, to an "avenue" with shops and apartments (and high volumes of fast-moving motor traffic). And since this will reduce the capacity of Allen Road, they will build more through streets parallel to it, also with shops, residents and through motor traffic. So basically the exact opposite of what transportation planners do here in the Netherlands.

 

[imerk]

That's insanity. Anyone worked up enough to write an email to the Councillors? Might draft something later..

 

[reaperexpress]

That's insanity. Anyone worked up enough to write an email to the Councillors? Might draft something later..

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is basically standard practice for Councillors to make stupid transport planning decisions against the recommendation of staff. And it's not just traffic signals, it's also stop signs, bus stops, streetcar stops, etc.

If anyone were willing to spend the time to dig them up, they'd find a heck of a lot.

 

[Amare]

^All these are reasons i'd never want to be a public sector planner of any kind in Canada, and more specifically Toronto. Politicians pretty much piss all over plans, and the end result is dull and generic copy-pasted ideas in places where it just doesnt work. Half the time this is why we end up with failed neighborhoods that dont function properly.

Now regarding traffic signals, does anyone remember that "temporary" traffic signal installed outside of Kipling station by Aukland Road? This was installed to accommodate the temporary Passenger Pick Up and Drop off area during the Kipling Hub construction. Now this project has been completed for basically 2 years now, and guess what, the lights are still there! Even better then that, i've seen drivers literally drive onto the sidewalk on the right and directly along the pedestrian plaza entrance in front of the Kipling station entrance. Someone is actually going to get killed one day because of this idiocy, but no one in the city seems to care. Vision Zero right?

 

[Undead]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks we have too many lights and all way stop signs. I was beginning to think I was crazy.

 

[Towered]

New traffic light being installed at Dundas and Palmerston, just west of Bathurst. Much needed. The crosswalk that's currently there has stood out to me as a dangerous source of irritation for many years now. I'm relieved to see this upgrade.

 

[afransen]

Excellent video explaining differences in approach to signal timings in North America and NL.

 

[reaperexpress]

Excellent video explaining differences in approach to signal timings in North America and NL.

Thanks!

 

[innsertnamehere]

excellent vid! big intersections like that one shown in Vaughan are extremely frustrating to drive through. Changes like this, especially if multiplied across hundreds of intersections, would actually substantially improve traffic flow and safety at the same time - a win-win. It would also especially help situations like the dedicated left turn phases before central median transit service phases.

 

[Northern Light]

Excellent video explaining differences in approach to signal timings in North America and NL.

Excellent video; but I think the tail end only scratches the surface of the challenges to incorporating these excellent Dutch ideas in Toronto.

The way intersections are configured are different, lane widths and turning radii are different, traffic light placement is different, crosswalk placement is different, driver behavior is different.

That's not to suggest we shouldn't take many or all of these ideas and bring them here; but doing so would involve a great deal of change and no small sum of money.

***

With respect to efficiency of intersections here, I really want 'smarter' intersections with all-way actuation, and not just near approach sensors, but ones at distances that allow a light change by the time an approaching car arrives, if there is no conflict.

Likewise, real-time permission for pedestrians to cross, when there is no conflicting traffic.

We really need to work on 'smart' tech.

We also need fewer traffic lights (and stop signs) we engage in litter on these fronts using lights as a 'safety' measure where they are not warranted; and what is warranted is narrower roads, narrower lanes and yes, in many places, more through streets.

Grid Streets at 2km intervals create the (apparent) need for six and eight lane arterials, where four or even two lanes would suffice, on a 1km or 500M grid.

 

[reaperexpress]

Excellent video; but I think the tail end only scratches the surface of the challenges to incorporating these excellent Dutch ideas in Toronto.

The way intersections are configured are different, lane widths and turning radii are different, traffic light placement is different, crosswalk placement is different, driver behavior is different.

That's not to suggest we shouldn't take many or all of these ideas and bring them here; but doing so would involve a great deal of change and no small sum of money.

This video is not intended to be an all-encompassing explanation of Dutch traffic signals, it's merely an explanation of clearance time calculations.

You are absolutely correct that the various features are interconnected. Precise clearance time calculations are most efficient when phases can be fully independent from each other, which requires a traffic signal controller able to handle that, and fully-protected left turn signals. But we don't like implementing fully-protected left turn signals in Ontario, because they aren't efficient. But the reason the aren't efficient is that we don't use precise clearance time calculations and we don't have traffic signal controllers which can independently handle signal phases. It's a vicious cycle.

For this reason, I am making a series of 9 videos which each cover a particular feature of Dutch signals which is uncommon or non-existant in Ontario. Any one of those features would provide some benefit on its own, but combining them will provide more than the sum of the parts. One of the last videos in the series will be "fully-protected turn signals", in which I link together how the various features affect each other, referring to the detailed videos on each topic.

More precise clearance calculations would already provide major benefits at many existing intersections, as I demonstrated with the example of Bathurst & Centre in the video.

Many of the other features of Dutch signals are already being brought to Ontario. Ottawa has already built many Dutch-style protected intersections, and Toronto is about to build some as well. But their efficiency is severely hampered by the lack of two-stage crossings (topic of my first video in the series), the long clearance time for left turn phases (topic of the current video), and the lack of flexibility to provide additional green opportunities when possible (topic of my next video in the series).

With respect to efficiency of intersections here, I really want 'smarter' intersections with all-way actuation, and not just near approach sensors, but ones at distances that allow a light change by the time an approaching car arrives, if there is no conflict.

Likewise, real-time permission for pedestrians to cross, when there is no conflicting traffic.

We really need to work on 'smart' tech.

The funny part about the "smart" signals from the Netherlands is that they've already worked this way since the 90's when personal computers became affordable. It's far from cutting-edge technology. Mostly what the new advancements have done is to make them cheaper. For example nowadays instead of a bajillion metal detectors, you can monitor traffic conditions with a handful of cameras with AI image recognition, and GPS positions sent by connected vehicles (mostly buses nowadays, but also an increasing number of cars).

We also need fewer traffic lights (and stop signs) we engage in litter on these fronts using lights as a 'safety' measure where they are not warranted; and what is warranted is narrower roads, narrower lanes and yes, in many places, more through streets.

Grid Streets at 2km intervals create the (apparent) need for six and eight lane arterials, where four or even two lanes would suffice, on a 1km or 500M grid.

Jason from Not Just Bikes has been making videos covering the non-signal-related list of essential Dutch traffic engineering/planning methods, such as removing stop signs, disentangling car and bike networks, bicycle parking, continous sidewalk crossings, etc. so I don't feel the need to cover those myself.

Again, each one of those methods can be implemented on its own incrementally. It is not necessary to overhaul everything at once. Trying to do so would be overwhelming and daunting to the point we'd never start, just like how I was daunted by and eventually dissuaded from make one single video about all the features of Dutch traffic signals.

 

[Northern Light]

This video is not intended to be an all-encompassing explanation of Dutch traffic signals, it's merely an explanation of clearance time calculations.

You are absolutely correct that the various features are interconnected. Precise clearance time calculations are most efficient when phases can be fully independent from each other, which requires a traffic signal controller able to handle that, and fully-protected left turn signals. But we don't like implementing fully-protected left turn signals in Ontario, because they aren't efficient. But the reason the aren't efficient is that we don't use precise clearance time calculations and we don't have traffic signal controllers which can independently handle signal phases. It's a vicious cycle.

For this reason, I am making a series of 9 videos which each cover a particular feature of Dutch signals which is uncommon or non-existant in Ontario. Any one of those features would provide some benefit on its own, but combining them will provide more than the sum of the parts. One of the last videos in the series will be "fully-protected turn signals", in which I link together how the various features affect each other, referring to the detailed videos on each topic.

Many of the other features of Dutch signals are already being brought to Ontario. Ottawa has already built many Dutch-style protected intersections, and Toronto is about to build some. But their efficiency is severely hampered by the lack of two-stage crossings (topic of my first video in the series), the long clearance time for left turn phases (topic of this video), and the lack of flexibility to provide additional green opportunities when possible (topic of my next video in the series).


The funny part about the "smart" signals from the Netherlands is that they've already worked this way since the 90's when personal computers became affordable. It's far from cutting-edge technology. Mostly what the new advancements have done is to make them cheaper. For example nowadays instead of a bajillion metal detectors, you can monitor traffic conditions with a handful of cameras with AI image recognition, and GPS positions sent by connected vehicles (mostly buses nowadays, but also an increasing number of cars).



Jason from Not Just Bikes has been making videos covering the non-signal-related list of essential Dutch traffic engineering/planning methods, such as removing stop signs, disentangling car and bike networks, bicycle parking, continous sidewalk crossings, etc. so I don't feel the need to cover those myself.

Again, each one of those methods can be implemented on its own incrementally. It is not necessary to overhaul everything at once. Trying to do so would be overwhelming and daunting to the point we'd never start, just like how I was daunted by and eventually dissuaded from make one single video about all the features of Dutch traffic signals.

My post was not a critique on your excellent efforts; only a reminder to everyone about the interconnectedness of things, and the scale of required change.