News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Agreed. I was recently stuck at the stem of a T intersection for several minutes in a long line of cars because the car at the head of the left lane stopped one car length back, behind the loop. Eventually people started using the right lane to turn left on the red in front of him, and when our turn came we stopped, got his attention, and motioned for him to move up (he was on his phone without a care in the world). After we made our left on the red across him he finally moved, and in the rearview mirror the light cycled and began clearing the backlog. That would not have happened with a camera instead of the loop.
It also would not have happened with proper in ground loop detector placement. Putting only a single loop in the lane guarantees lots of wasted time because the signal has no way of knowing what cars are coming until they are already entering the intersection, by which time it's too late. I explained this in my blog post linked earlier.

capture.jpg
 
Last edited:
It also would not have happened with proper in ground loop detector placement. Putting only a single loop in the lane guarantees lots of wasted time because the signal has no way of knowing what cars are coming until they are already entering the intersection, by which time it's too late. I explained this in my blog post linked earlier.

Very true, but I doubt that Waterloo Region would ever pay to put multiple loops into any intersection, especially this one which is slated to become a roundabout. (It's only had signals for two years.) A camera at least can be redeployed.
 
Very true, but I doubt that Waterloo Region would ever pay to put multiple loops into any intersection, especially this one which is slated to become a roundabout. (It's only had signals for two years.) A camera at least can be redeployed.
Indeed this is precisely the advantage of cameras: they are much cheaper to install per detection zone, since one camera can inclue many detection zones. With more and more cities moving towards cameras rather than in-ground detectors, they should update their detection zone configuration standards to take advantage of the fact that you can add additional detection zones at no cost (using the same camera). So far they seem to be replicating the old inefficient detection layout which was designed based on minimizing the number of detection zones to cut costs.
 
Collectively, UT, we need to badger our new Mayor, and several members of Council to say this is not ok, that it has to stop.

A traffic light on ever single block is ridiculous, does not add to safety in the least and obstructs transit, cyclists and pedestrians as much as it does drivers.

Safety is important and ought to be improved, but the art form is narrowing roads, narrowing travel lanes, eliminating slip lanes, tightening turning radii, prohibiting super-long tractor-trailers on City streets, mandating side guards on trucks/buses etc; as well as creating protected, separated cycling facilities, adequate night-time illumination, protected intersections where appropriate and feasible.

It is not about endless traffic lights.
 
New traffic lights being installed at Dundas and Wimbleton. In this case I'd say they are very justified.
 
Last spring, traffic lights were approved (by TYYCC) for installation at Frederick and Front (at Young peoples Theatre) and are in 'final planning stage for fall 2023 instalaltion. Initially, I thought this was a stupid idea but with the one-way maze on The Esplanade (which I like), lots of traffic is now going north on Frederick St and it REALLY is very hard to cross Front or turn west for a larger and larger part of the day.
 
Traffic signals are being installed at Dundas and Mutual, just one short block west of Jarvis.

I suspect all these will do is slow down streetcars even more. View attachment 496778
This is just getting comically ridiculous and asinine.

Collectively, UT, we need to badger our new Mayor, and several members of Council to say this is not ok, that it has to stop.

A traffic light on ever single block is ridiculous, does not add to safety in the least and obstructs transit, cyclists and pedestrians as much as it does drivers.

Safety is important and ought to be improved, but the art form is narrowing roads, narrowing travel lanes, eliminating slip lanes, tightening turning radii, prohibiting super-long tractor-trailers on City streets, mandating side guards on trucks/buses etc; as well as creating protected, separated cycling facilities, adequate night-time illumination, protected intersections where appropriate and feasible.

It is not about endless traffic lights.
Not to say that I dont agree, because I agree with most of the points you've mentioned here. But it doesn't help when we have people in this city who go complain to the city that there needs to be a traffic light installed at X place because "its dangerous" and "cars are speeding" or whatever other reason that's given.

I remember for instance just a few years ago on Brown's Line where the former councillor made it a point of pride that he installed traffic lights south of Horner Ave which replaced 2 cross-walks with pedestrian islands.
 
This is just getting comically ridiculous and asinine.


Not to say that I dont agree, because I agree with most of the points you've mentioned here. But it doesn't help when we have people in this city who go complain to the city that there needs to be a traffic light installed at X place because "its dangerous" and "cars are speeding" or whatever other reason that's given.

I remember for instance just a few years ago on Brown's Line where the former councillor made it a point of pride that he installed traffic lights south of Horner Ave which replaced 2 cross-walks with pedestrian islands.

Sure, but politicians and staff are both guilty of either:

a) Accepting that position and just installing the light

b) Staff oppose the installation of the light w/standard language around 'warrants' without actually identifying a preferable way to improve safety/perception of same.

****

To flip the above. Staff need to say 'No', but then also provide alternatives to address any real or perceived issue.

Even I find that I can identify a useful project to staff of this type (road diet/bump out etc.) and get a private nod of approval, and, then something to the effect of......it probably has to wait until road reconstruction (in 2036) .......

That doesn't work, traffic lights can by--pass the 'it must wait for major road work' rule; but road diets cannot.

Where lights cost upwards of $250,000 per set to install (sometimes more); I think that's a sum that should automatically be available for alternative works in the same location.

Once staff provide a good solution; Council needs to back them up; not thwart them to win two dozen votes.
 
If the traffic signals were actually sequencized with the streetcars, AND with REAL transit priority, maybe they will work in the streetcar favour. Otherwise, the single-occupant automobile will continue to be prioritized. Currently, Drivers Services, I mean, Transportation Services considers a streetcar with 100+ passengers to be a vehicle equal to a single-occupant automobile. Streetcars, light rail vehicles, and buses should get a higher priority.
 
If the traffic signals were actually sequencized with the streetcars, AND with REAL transit priority, maybe they will work in the streetcar favour. Otherwise, the single-occupant automobile will continue to be prioritized. Currently, Drivers Services, I mean, Transportation Services considers a streetcar with 100+ passengers to be a vehicle equal to a single-occupant automobile. Streetcars, light rail vehicles, and buses should get a higher priority.

While I certainly support transit priority, @reaperexpress has been kind enough to explain in some detail why traffic-light controlled intersection this close together, more or less, don't function well for anyone and probably can't.
 
While I certainly support transit priority, @reaperexpress has been kind enough to explain in some detail why traffic-light controlled intersection this close together, more or less, don't function well for anyone and probably can't.
Banning of private automobiles (non-taxi or non-delivery vehicles) in the downtown would help. That's what world class cities are doing, which is why Toronto is not doing it.
 
Banning of private automobiles (non-taxi or non-delivery vehicles) in the downtown would help. That's what world class cities are doing, which is why Toronto is not doing it.

Would you please list all the City Regions of 10,000,000 people or greater that have banned cars from their entire downtown, Walter.

Much appreciated, thanks!
 

Back
Top