Towered
Superstar
Good luck changing the yellowbelt designation along this major "avenue".
|
|
|
- Thread starter reaperexpress
- Start date
Good luck changing the yellowbelt designation along this major "avenue".
Towered
Superstar
New traffic light finally being installed at Dundas and Quebec in the Junction. This one has been a no-brainer to me for ages, so I'm baffled why it took until now for it to actually happen.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I happened to notice in Streetview that they were installing a new traffic signal at Yonge & Price/Marlborough, which is insanely close to the existing signals at Yonge & Scrivener Square (75 metres) and at Yonge & Macpherson/Rowanwood (88 metres). To put that into perspective, each of these minor intersections is about 30 metres wide, which will leave about 45 metres of space between them.
I couldn't believe that City staff would approve such a nonsensical location for a traffic signal, and it tuns out that actually they didn't.
Councillor Mike Layton requested a signal at that location, since a guy who works on Price Street (a dead end with 8 buildings) is worried traffic will increase with the condo development on the south side of Scrivener Square, and it will take him too long to turn left on Yonge when he drives home at the end of the day. Staff rejected the request for a signal, because it's exceedingly close to the other existing signals, and that traffic from the Scrivener Square development can use the existing traffic signals at (you guessed it!) Scrivener Square.
From the staff report:
But then during the City council meeting regarding the signal, Councillor Joe Cressy motioned to build the signals anyway, and the motion was passed without a counted vote. So the signals got built.
If this is the way that transport planning occurs - by untrained elected officials disregarding the engineers and planners who have spent their careers learning how to make streets safer - then it should not be any surprise that traffic safety is so poor in Toronto.
In places where Vision Zero programs are implemented thoughtfully and systematically, the intersection would have been evaluated for a variety of intersection changes to improve safety, not just a yes/no on signals. In this case, running a median along Yonge Street would prevent the left turns which were apparently the problem at this intersection, and it would make it safer for pedestrians to cross Yonge. The safety of pedestrians walking along Yonge could also be improved by extending the raised sidewalk across Price/Marlborough, slowing down turning car traffic.
Of course the councillors didn't consider any of these options, because they're not traffic engineers. But apparently they think they are, because they approved the installation of these signals in the name of safety, despite being told by their own traffic engineers that the signals would make the road network less safe by eroding the respect that citizens have for traffic engineering.
It's not just drivers who are frustrated by unnecessary waits, it's all people, especially while walking and cycling. Many pedestrians and cyclists along Yonge aren't going to stop at this signal, they will look at it and decide that it was stupid to have a signal anyway and just walk/bike across when there's no traffic.
I couldn't believe that City staff would approve such a nonsensical location for a traffic signal, and it tuns out that actually they didn't.
Councillor Mike Layton requested a signal at that location, since a guy who works on Price Street (a dead end with 8 buildings) is worried traffic will increase with the condo development on the south side of Scrivener Square, and it will take him too long to turn left on Yonge when he drives home at the end of the day. Staff rejected the request for a signal, because it's exceedingly close to the other existing signals, and that traffic from the Scrivener Square development can use the existing traffic signals at (you guessed it!) Scrivener Square.
From the staff report:
But then during the City council meeting regarding the signal, Councillor Joe Cressy motioned to build the signals anyway, and the motion was passed without a counted vote. So the signals got built.
If this is the way that transport planning occurs - by untrained elected officials disregarding the engineers and planners who have spent their careers learning how to make streets safer - then it should not be any surprise that traffic safety is so poor in Toronto.
In places where Vision Zero programs are implemented thoughtfully and systematically, the intersection would have been evaluated for a variety of intersection changes to improve safety, not just a yes/no on signals. In this case, running a median along Yonge Street would prevent the left turns which were apparently the problem at this intersection, and it would make it safer for pedestrians to cross Yonge. The safety of pedestrians walking along Yonge could also be improved by extending the raised sidewalk across Price/Marlborough, slowing down turning car traffic.
Of course the councillors didn't consider any of these options, because they're not traffic engineers. But apparently they think they are, because they approved the installation of these signals in the name of safety, despite being told by their own traffic engineers that the signals would make the road network less safe by eroding the respect that citizens have for traffic engineering.
It's not just drivers who are frustrated by unnecessary waits, it's all people, especially while walking and cycling. Many pedestrians and cyclists along Yonge aren't going to stop at this signal, they will look at it and decide that it was stupid to have a signal anyway and just walk/bike across when there's no traffic.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
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
Superstar
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.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
imerk
Active Member
That's insanity. Anyone worked up enough to write an email to the Councillors? Might draft something later..
reaperexpress
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
^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?
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?
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
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
Superstar
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
Senior Member
Excellent video explaining differences in approach to signal timings in North America and NL.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Thanks!
innsertnamehere
Superstar
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.