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

What you are proposing as I understand is for pedestrians in a semi-actuated signal is for the green/don’t walk “rest” on the main road to instantly change to amber on the push of the pedestrian call button?

I always thought that “rest”, which you often see in suburbia, was for a dedicated time when pedestrians (in theory) shouldn’t be in the intersection to allow left or right turns to happen more easily.


Also, if the main road light is programmed to end instantly at the push of the button, I assume this means that the loops on the side street will also change instantly? The problem with this scenario is that you can run into situations where the side street light will cycle to green when there’s no reason to, such as when a right on red vehicle from a side street makes a right turn. In the loop on the side street, the vehicle will cause an amber on the main road. While in the current situation, the vehicle that makes the right turn on red will start the countdown, if the vehicle can get out of the loop by the end of the countdown, the main road signal will revert back to green/walk.

Another thing to consider, here in Brampton, if we’re talking about a fast road, like say Airport Road which mostly has a speed limit of 80km/h, the flashing don’t walk signal acts as a kind of pre-amber signal to drivers warning that the light could change to yellow and thus to prepare to stop. It is somewhat jarring to have to be going at a quick pace, say 80km/h, and thus have to jam hard on the brakes when the amber seemingly appears out of nowhere

I know I may have trouble articulating what I’m trying to say and it’s my two cents on the matter.

EDiT: There’s one other problematic scenario that I missed with holding on green/don’t walk. Presuming the light stays green like a semi actuated signal, how does the pedestrian travelling on the main road crossing the side road make it through the sidewalk safely. Because any push of the call button or a car activating a loop on the side road would trigger an amber on the main road and the pedestrian trapped.

The only safe option the pedestrian would have in this situation would be to push the button to cross the main road (travel on side road) and wait until the pedestrian fades a walk signal on the main road.
Brampton is a "suburban city" of stroads, built for the automobile, SUVs, and private pickup trucks. Not for pedestrians. Not for cyclists. The stroads are designed for the "safety" of speeders, not for the safety of pedestrians. They may change the speed limit signs downward, but the stroads remain designed for high speeds, so they do.

The stroads are very wide, without pedestrian refugee islands in the middle. Many of the so called "safety" islands don't even have beg buttons to activate the pedestrian signals if the pedestrians get caught half way.

Brampton just copied what "worked" in America. We should be copying what works in Europe for all traffic signals; pedestrian, motor vehicles, and cyclists. Starting with locating f traffic signal on the nearside of intersections, instead of the farside of intersections like we have here. See the video at this link.
 
Brampton is a "suburban city" of stroads, built for the automobile, SUVs, and private pickup trucks. Not for pedestrians. Not for cyclists. The stroads are designed for the "safety" of speeders, not for the safety of pedestrians. They may change the speed limit signs downward, but the stroads remain designed for high speeds, so they do.

The stroads are very wide, without pedestrian refugee islands in the middle. Many of the so called "safety" islands don't even have beg buttons to activate the pedestrian signals if the pedestrians get caught half way.

Brampton just copied what "worked" in America. We should be copying what works in Europe for all traffic signals; pedestrian, motor vehicles, and cyclists. Starting with locating f traffic signal on the nearside of intersections, instead of the farside of intersections like we have here. See the video at this link.
It would be nice if you could actually respond to what I was saying rather than the condescending hostile reply you just gave.

I was responding to what the actual traffic engineer (which I presume he is with the terminology he uses) said in regards to this.

You said absolutely nothing to help the discussion.
 
What you are proposing as I understand is for pedestrians in a semi-actuated signal is for the green/don’t walk “rest” on the main road to instantly change to amber on the push of the pedestrian call button?
Yes.
I always thought that “rest”, which you often see in suburbia, was for a dedicated time when pedestrians (in theory) shouldn’t be in the intersection to allow left or right turns to happen more easily.
No, that's not what it's for. If that were the intention they would provide a green right turn arrow. Green/Solid Don't Walk typically occurs because the signal is extending in real time based on vehicle detection. It can't extend the pedestrian signal in real time based on approaching vehicles because there would be pedestrian countdown between the last vehicle being detected and the light changing to yellow, making the vehicle detection virtually useless.
Also, if the main road light is programmed to end instantly at the push of the button, I assume this means that the loops on the side street will also change instantly? The problem with this scenario is that you can run into situations where the side street light will cycle to green when there’s no reason to, such as when a right on red vehicle from a side street makes a right turn. In the loop on the side street, the vehicle will cause an amber on the main road. While in the current situation, the vehicle that makes the right turn on red will start the countdown, if the vehicle can get out of the loop by the end of the countdown, the main road signal will revert back to green/walk.
No. All detector inputs have a setting called "delay", which delays the call to the controller for a certain duration. In York Region they put a 10 second delay on detectors in lanes where a right turn on red is permitted so that the light doesn't change for someone who turning right immediately after arriving.

Another thing to consider, here in Brampton, if we’re talking about a fast road, like say Airport Road which mostly has a speed limit of 80km/h, the flashing don’t walk signal acts as a kind of pre-amber signal to drivers warning that the light could change to yellow and thus to prepare to stop. It is somewhat jarring to have to be going at a quick pace, say 80km/h, and thus have to jam hard on the brakes when the amber seemingly appears out of nowhere
The pedestrian signal is not a signal for drivers. It is a signal for pedestrians. The amber interval for vehicle signals is determined such that it is sufficient for drivers to react to the start of the amber and reach the stop line if they are too close to stop considering the speed limit. Drivers do not need to jam on the brakes - the amber duration is based on a typical routine deceleration rate. If additional warning is desired, a flashing "prepare to stop when flashing" sign can be installed upstream which flashes just prior to the start of yellow.

Expecting the pedestrian signal to act as a signal for drivers is very problematic, because the two signals don't necessarily need to correspond with each other. For example, at high speed intersection approach, there will often be a detector about 4.5 seconds in advance of the intersection which holds the green for 3 seconds to prevent the light from changing to yellow while there is a vehicle in the 'dillemma zone' (where it's ambiguous whether to stop or not). This will produce Green + Don't Walk after the end of the countdown. Trying to guess when the light will change based on the pedestrian countdown will likely cause drivers to speed up or slow down, undermining the effectiveness of the dilemma zone protection.

Please stop expecting the pedestrian signal to be a signal for drivers. That is not what it is.

EDiT: There’s one other problematic scenario that I missed with holding on green/don’t walk. Presuming the light stays green like a semi actuated signal, how does the pedestrian travelling on the main road crossing the side road make it through the sidewalk safely. Because any push of the call button or a car activating a loop on the side road would trigger an amber on the main road and the pedestrian trapped.
No. The pedestrian on the main road presses the pedestrian button and immediately receives a Walk indication, followed by the required Flashing Don't Walk clearance time. See the example from York Region I showed at the start of the video I linked in my earlier post. This is literally the reason we provide pedestrian signals in the first place: it takes longer for a pedestrian cross than the amber and red clearance time available for vehicles, so we provide them with a dedicated signal which guarantees them enough time to cross the street.
The only safe option the pedestrian would have in this situation would be to push the button to cross the main road (travel on side road) and wait until the pedestrian fades a walk signal on the main road.
Why would someone travelling along the main road suddenly choose to cross perpendicular to their intended direction? Even if you assume that the Walk light can't come on after the parallel vehicle phase has turned green (which is not what I'm suggesting), surely someone travelling along the main street would just press the main street pedestrian button and wait for the main street signal to change to Walk.
 
Last edited:
I think I was somewhat misunderstood in the point I was trying to make in my post. Sorry for taking so long to reply.

The purpose of my original post was in response to one specific portion of your earlier post.

For major streets, the policy in Toronto is that the signal should rest in Walk until there's actually some specific reason for the light to end (either a timed end-of-green moment or someone detected on the side street). In which case there would only be Green + Don't Walk if there is currently a TTC bus/streetcar extending the green light (and the signal therefore doesn't know exactly when the green will end). But in some other places, including York Region, signals can also rest in Green/Don't Walk, which works really well at intersections with few pedestrians. In that situation, when someone is detected on the side street, the main street signal can immediately change to yellow, whereas in Toronto the person on the side street would first need to wait for the main street pedestrian countdown. If a pedestrian is detected on the main street while the signal is resting in Green / Don't Walk, the pedestrian signal can change immediately to Walk.

Just so we don't get confused which I think we did last time, let's say that the main street is Islington, and the side street is Jutland. Thus, a pedestrian who wishes to CROSS Islington is travelling on Jutland, while the pedestrian who wants to CROSS Jutland is travelling on Islington. The Islington/Jutland intersection is simple in that it's a simple RYG intersection with three signal heads, no protected turns or anything.

Therefore, Islington's phase, if we are going to have a rest on a steady "Don't Walk" would have three separate pedestrian "phases", which are of course

1. Green + Solid WALK

2. Green + Flashing DONT WALK (Countdown optional)

3. Green + Steady DONT WALK

Normally of course, signals rest in Phase 1 indefinitely unless the pedestrian call button (on the side street (Jutland) to cross the main street (Islington)) is pushed OR a vehicle is in the loop on the side street.

The point I was trying to make, if signals naturally rest in Phase 3, how does a pedestrian on Islington cross Jutland? As Islington wouldn't have a call button, (it doesn't need one as it's set up for semi-actuated) therefore my solution I presented was that the pedestrian on Islington would need to push Jutland's call button to get a walk signal again on Islington? (as that's the only way to return to Phase 1 as it would return there after Jutland gets its phase)

Unless you are implying that a call button should be installed on Islington? So if you push that call button, that the signal would return to Phase 1 (presuming Jutland's button isn't pushed and no vehicles are in Jutland's loops?)

On this site especially, people have a serious problem with call buttons and posters almost always refer to them as "beg buttons" as it's seen as having to ask a favour to cross the street. Ideally, wouldn't having less call buttons be more what the pedestrian ideally wants?
The pedestrian signal is not a signal for drivers. It is a signal for pedestrians. The amber interval for vehicle signals is determined such that it is sufficient for drivers to react to the start of the amber and reach the stop line if they are too close to stop considering the speed limit. Drivers do not need to jam on the brakes - the amber duration is based on a typical routine deceleration rate. If additional warning is desired, a flashing "prepare to stop when flashing" sign can be installed upstream which flashes just prior to the start of yellow.

Expecting the pedestrian signal to act as a signal for drivers is very problematic, because the two signals don't necessarily need to correspond with each other. For example, at high speed intersection approach, there will often be a detector about 4.5 seconds in advance of the intersection which holds the green for 3 seconds to prevent the light from changing to yellow while there is a vehicle in the 'dillemma zone' (where it's ambiguous whether to stop or not). This will produce Green + Don't Walk after the end of the countdown. Trying to guess when the light will change based on the pedestrian countdown will likely cause drivers to speed up or slow down, undermining the effectiveness of the dilemma zone protection.

Please stop expecting the pedestrian signal to be a signal for drivers. That is not what it is.
Drivers shouldn't use the pedestrian signal as a signal, sure. But there's many things that can be deduced from the current state of the pedestrian signal.

Heck, even when I did driver's ed, the instructor told me to be careful during a flashing don't walk, as the light could change soon. (This was in the era before countdown was mainstream)


There are a few universal truths (or rather axioms) that one can easily deduce by the state of the pedestrian signal, and I'm sure most drivers do pay attention to it somewhat, especially in suburbia.

1. A circular green along with a white walk signal being displayed means that the green phase will NOT end soon

2. When a countdown is shown, the green phase will NOT end on any number greater than zero.

While it is true, that the zero on the countdown will not necessarily immediately correspond to a yellow signal, the other two situations are always true.



I know that higher speed limits and line of sight lead to longer amber times, as I believe this is laid out in OTM Book 12, one of my main concerns is the rather seriousness from a legal standpoint the amber light holds in Ontario, and thus why it is important when to anticipate when the amber will occur.

Section 144 (15) plainly states that drivers must stop when they see an amber light unless they are unable to do so safely. There is a sort of dilemma zone in the mind of a driver as to when this point of safety exists. At what point is this safety point, does it mean if I can stop, even if I jam on the brakes, that I should do it. I could "safely" stop in that situation, and therefore I must do it.

(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Advanced warning flashers can help, I understand that, but seeing a white light adjacent to the traffic light, let's me know that I won't have to worry about making a split second decision if I should stop or not.
 
Just so we don't get confused which I think we did last time, let's say that the main street is Islington, and the side street is Jutland. Thus, a pedestrian who wishes to CROSS Islington is travelling on Jutland, while the pedestrian who wants to CROSS Jutland is travelling on Islington. The Islington/Jutland intersection is simple in that it's a simple RYG intersection with three signal heads, no protected turns or anything.

Therefore, Islington's phase, if we are going to have a rest on a steady "Don't Walk" would have three separate pedestrian "phases", which are of course

1. Green + Solid WALK

2. Green + Flashing DONT WALK (Countdown optional)

3. Green + Steady DONT WALK

Normally of course, signals rest in Phase 1 indefinitely unless the pedestrian call button (on the side street (Jutland) to cross the main street (Islington)) is pushed OR a vehicle is in the loop on the side street.

The point I was trying to make, if signals naturally rest in Phase 3, how does a pedestrian on Islington cross Jutland? As Islington wouldn't have a call button, (it doesn't need one as it's set up for semi-actuated) therefore my solution I presented was that the pedestrian on Islington would need to push Jutland's call button to get a walk signal again on Islington? (as that's the only way to return to Phase 1 as it would return there after Jutland gets its phase)

Unless you are implying that a call button should be installed on Islington? So if you push that call button, that the signal would return to Phase 1 (presuming Jutland's button isn't pushed and no vehicles are in Jutland's loops?)

On this site especially, people have a serious problem with call buttons and posters almost always refer to them as "beg buttons" as it's seen as having to ask a favour to cross the street. Ideally, wouldn't having less call buttons be more what the pedestrian ideally wants?
I didn't get confused. What you describe here is the same as what you described in your previous post, and the same as what I described in my response.

For the third time, I ask that you watch this video, since it answers all of your questions..

Drivers shouldn't use the pedestrian signal as a signal, sure. But there's many things that can be deduced from the current state of the pedestrian signal.

Heck, even when I did driver's ed, the instructor told me to be careful during a flashing don't walk, as the light could change soon. (This was in the era before countdown was mainstream)

There are a few universal truths (or rather axioms) that one can easily deduce by the state of the pedestrian signal, and I'm sure most drivers do pay attention to it somewhat, especially in suburbia.

1. A circular green along with a white walk signal being displayed means that the green phase will NOT end soon

2. When a countdown is shown, the green phase will NOT end on any number greater than zero.

While it is true, that the zero on the countdown will not necessarily immediately correspond to a yellow signal, the other two situations are always true.
Your driver's ed instructor was wrong and these are not universal truths.

The light can change to yellow while the Walk signal is on on the left side, if there is a lagging left turn phase in the oncoming direction.

The light can change to yellow while the Flashing Don't Walk countdown has not finished. According to OTM Book 12, section 3.5: "... it is permissible to continue the FDW through the amber or all-red clearance intervals as this may provide additional information or reassurance to crossing pedestrians". Toronto does not currently do this, but it would be a good idea to do so where the side street always has a leading pedestrian interval, to avoid the massively excessive Don't Walk time which currently exists between the end of FDW and the start of the next green across that crosswalk. Massively unrealistic clearance intervals result in non-compliance, which undermines the basic function of a traffic signal.
I know that higher speed limits and line of sight lead to longer amber times, as I believe this is laid out in OTM Book 12, one of my main concerns is the rather seriousness from a legal standpoint the amber light holds in Ontario, and thus why it is important when to anticipate when the amber will occur.

Section 144 (15) plainly states that drivers must stop when they see an amber light unless they are unable to do so safely. There is a sort of dilemma zone in the mind of a driver as to when this point of safety exists. At what point is this safety point, does it mean if I can stop, even if I jam on the brakes, that I should do it. I could "safely" stop in that situation, and therefore I must do it.

(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Advanced warning flashers can help, I understand that, but seeing a white light adjacent to the traffic light, let's me know that I won't have to worry about making a split second decision if I should stop or not.
Your descriptions of the HTA and the dilemma zone are correct, but that in no way justifies using pedestrian signals when you are a driver. The duration of the amber interval calculated as per OTM Book 12 is based on a routine deceleration rate from the speed limit. You do not need to anticipate when the amber will occur. And if you would need to jam on the brakes to stop by the stop line, then clearly you are beyond the dilemma zone. Trying to anticipate the start of amber using a signal which is not even intended for drivers, let alone predicting their amber intervals, is dangerous and counterproductive. You even mentioned in your post that seeing the white pedestrian signal causes you to ignore the signal which actually applies to you, on the assumption that it won't change to amber.

You should only anticipate amber signals based on signs which specifically warn you of an imminent amber (i.e. the flashing "Prepare to stop" signs).
 
Your driver's ed instructor was wrong and these are not universal truths.

The light can change to yellow while the Walk signal is on on the left side, if there is a lagging left turn phase in the oncoming direction.

The light can change to yellow while the Flashing Don't Walk countdown has not finished. According to OTM Book 12, section 3.5: "... it is permissible to continue the FDW through the amber or all-red clearance intervals as this may provide additional information or reassurance to crossing pedestrians". Toronto does not currently do this, but it would be a good idea to do so where the side street always has a leading pedestrian interval, to avoid the massively excessive Don't Walk time which currently exists between the end of FDW and the start of the next green across that crosswalk. Massively unrealistic clearance intervals result in non-compliance, which undermines the basic function of a traffic signal.

Your descriptions of the HTA and the dilemma zone are correct, but that in no way justifies using pedestrian signals when you are a driver. The duration of the amber interval calculated as per OTM Book 12 is based on a routine deceleration rate from the speed limit. You do not need to anticipate when the amber will occur. And if you would need to jam on the brakes to stop by the stop line, then clearly you are beyond the dilemma zone. Trying to anticipate the start of amber using a signal which is not even intended for drivers, let alone predicting their amber intervals, is dangerous and counterproductive. You even mentioned in your post that seeing the white pedestrian signal causes you to ignore the signal which actually applies to you, on the assumption that it won't change to amber.

You should only anticipate amber signals based on signs which specifically warn you of an imminent amber (i.e. the flashing "Prepare to stop" signs).
Nowhere did I say that I am ignoring the RYG traffic signal when I saw the white light of the walk signal, what I said is that I don't have to fear being caught in a dilemma zone if that is seen.

Universal Truth #2 is busted, but currently nowhere to my knowledge in Ontario sets up hand flashes during the yellow or red clearance, at least with a traditional signalling scenario. (Not counting situations like pedestrian scrambles)

I know Hamilton used to Don't Walk flash into the yellow phase, but that was discontinued when the countdown was introduced sometime in the late 20-aughts or early 2010s.


With my experience in downtown Toronto as a pedestrian, the steady don't walk is the main signal that pedestrians respect. I understand what you're saying, a longer walk phase can be shown by extending the flashing don't walk right until the cross street gets their leading pedestrian interval. But watching pedestrian behaviour, you notice that the vast majority of pedestrians do not obey the flashing don't walk at all. My guess is that extending the walk signal display time, by making the steady don't walk appear later on won't change how pedestrians behave in regards to the flashing don't walk.

Besides, the amount of time that is chopped off the steady don't walk is almost negligible, a four second amber plus a two second all red is 6 seconds. More recently, downtown Toronto has dramatically shortened the amber to 1 or 2 seconds, I'll get back to that point later, so even so, now that time which is lost is a mere 4 seconds.

Also, somewhat ironically, I've always felt that the countdown actually encourages pedestrians to enter the intersection on a flashing don't walk signal. As the countdown implies to many pedestrians the amount of time they have left. "I see 8 seconds left, if I walk fast I can make it to the other side). I understand that's not the intended purpose of the countdown, but I'm sure most pedestrians see it the way I'm describing it. When before we had countdowns, when the steady don't walk would appear would make you less likely to enter during a flashing don't walk.



As for Universal Truth #1, it still holds true if we are looking at the RIGHT pedestrian signal relative to the direction we are traveling, and this concept must be considered if we are going to allow cyclists to proceed legally on a leading pedestrian interval. The law would have to be written as something like "Cyclists can only proceed on a circular red and walk signal if the walk signal is to the right of their direction of travel". Technically speaking, if we allow cyclists to proceed on a "walk signal", that would mean on SB Yonge at Front for example, cyclists could see the walk signal on the left side (which would appear when NB Yonge gets its protected left turn) and thus legally be allowed to proceed, which would of course cause a nasty conflict involving turning vehicles, that's why this law must be carefully written.

While I do know that the intersections of Lake Shore just east of the Humber use lagging left turns or lead-lag left turns (and they are all FPLT situations mind you), generally speaking, lagging left turn movements are rare in the province. Lagging PPLTs even more so because of the safe strict conditions to avoid the "yellow trap" situation.



To my last points about amber/yellow lights, as I understand, the traffic control systems inside those cabinets are generally the same system across North America. However, the legality of the yellow signal itself varies by jurisdiction. As we described, a yellow signal in Ontario, means you MUST stop unless unable to do so, in a sense, this yellow can be thought of as an extension of the red signal. While in neighbouring New York State on the other hand, drivers can proceed on a yellow no matter what, this alternatively can be thought of as an extension of the green.

Remember that police officers enforce the highway traffic act, so the ball is in their court at the end of the day as to what point in the yellow can the driver stop safely. I'd much prefer to make a harder stop then to risk "proceeding with caution" on the yellow, because I'm not sure legally in the eyes of the police officer if I had enough time to stop or not.

Also, factor in the ultra short yellow signals in downtown Toronto nowadays (which I can see being a problem in the night hours especially) and it almost becomes impossible to stop on time if you're travelling even at 30km/h at a quiet time downtown.

If our yellow light is going to be seen legally as an extension of a red light, then we almost need a pre-yellow signal, like the slow green flash they use in Eastern Europe for example. The advanced warning flashers do help, but they are generally rare to be seen around here.
 
I think the rules are needlessly unclear when police say things like you should stop for an amber signal. The rule I go by is that you should proceed if you will be beyond the stop line before the light turns red. This is what clearance time is for. You should stop on amber if you can do so with a safe, normal level of braking before the stop line. Slamming on the brakes is inviting a rear-end collision. Even the times where I feel like I am pushing it (the light turns red while I am in the intersection), I regularly have cars follow behind me through the intersection.
 
I think the rules are needlessly unclear when police say things like you should stop for an amber signal. The rule I go by is that you should proceed if you will be beyond the stop line before the light turns red. This is what clearance time is for. You should stop on amber if you can do so with a safe, normal level of braking before the stop line. Slamming on the brakes is inviting a rear-end collision. Even the times where I feel like I am pushing it (the light turns red while I am in the intersection), I regularly have cars follow behind me through the intersection.
That interpretation of the yellow conforms to how the law works as I said in New York, you can legally proceed through the yellow at any point.

Proceeding beyond the stop line before the light turns red would be illegal under the law.

15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Compare that to the text of the law regarding red lights.

18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).

Both amber and red don’t say you “should” stop, but rather you MUST stop. The only difference between these two laws is that the Amber allows the exception to proceed if one can’t stop safely. Clearly, if one’s doing the speed limit, passing the stop line at the last millisecond of the Amber clearly would indicate that drive had a safe opportunity to stop.

Even if you have a dashcam and record every move make proving your innocence in the matter, the fact remains that if you are charged with a HTA, you lose either way. Because of (most likely) lost wages in order to go to Provincial Offences Court to file for a trial, and then the actual court date itself.
 
Some might enjoy this compilation:

The City (Toronto) recently installed new pedestrian buttons at my intersection that are only meant to activate the audible signal for Leslie, the walk sign appears automatically. To my annoyance, they opted for the four-tone chime (I’m familiar with from North Bay). It’s somehow more annoying than the birds chirping - the slow/fast clicking (European) sounds would’ve been preferable. In Minneapolis, the same buttons we have would announce ”Walk sign is on for X Street”.

Oddly enough, only the buttons crossing the side-street make the chime - the new buttons actually crossing Leslie make no sound. The red (acknowledge) light doesn’t even activate on all four units when one is activated, although working together. The old buttons would light up together.
 
Brampton is a "suburban city" of stroads, built for the automobile, SUVs, and private pickup trucks. Not for pedestrians. Not for cyclists. The stroads are designed for the "safety" of speeders, not for the safety of pedestrians. They may change the speed limit signs downward, but the stroads remain designed for high speeds, so they do.

The stroads are very wide, without pedestrian refugee islands in the middle. Many of the so called "safety" islands don't even have beg buttons to activate the pedestrian signals if the pedestrians get caught half way.

Brampton just copied what "worked" in America. We should be copying what works in Europe for all traffic signals; pedestrian, motor vehicles, and cyclists. Starting with locating f traffic signal on the nearside of intersections, instead of the farside of intersections like we have here. See the video at this link.
Why change it if 95% of the residents are happy? Everyone here is obsessed with density but look at the densest areas of Toronto? It took city place 15 years to get a school? There's still just 1 streetcar that serves the area with a transit line potentially opening 30 years after it was made? Or humber bay that has had their streetcar line closed most of the last decade with a go station only added due to political medaling.

Some people want wide roads and backyards!
 
Why change it if 95% of the residents are happy? Everyone here is obsessed with density but look at the densest areas of Toronto? It took city place 15 years to get a school? There's still just 1 streetcar that serves the area with a transit line potentially opening 30 years after it was made? Or humber bay that has had their streetcar line closed most of the last decade with a go station only added due to political medaling.

Some people want wide roads and backyards!
And I'm sure there are plenty of differing opinions on this front, but, we are currently living in a climate crisis and we need to move and house people more efficiently. Wide roads are just not going to cut it.

People also want safe streets, clean air, clean water, and natural spaces. These are directly in conflict with wide roads and large backyards. However, compact streets and communities are compatible with these goals. Goals with a larger societal impact.
 
And I'm sure there are plenty of differing opinions on this front, but, we are currently living in a climate crisis and we need to move and house people more efficiently. Wide roads are just not going to cut it.
Honestly, peoples QOL's have fallen so bad I don't think the majority of people care, especially when Canada is such a small percentage on the world scale.
If you care about carbon just mandate 1 or 2 days of WFH
 
Honestly, peoples QOL's have fallen so bad I don't think the majority of people care, especially when Canada is such a small percentage on the world scale.
If you care about carbon just mandate 1 or 2 days of WFH
When people work from home they are more likely to live further (and travel farther on the days they do commute) and the road space freed up by less commuting immediately gets filled up by new car trips for other purposes, resulting in absolutely zero reduction in vehicle-kilometres.

We keep on trying administrative approaches to traffic demand management (and now climate action) and they keep proving not to work.

Meanwhile we consistently see that changing street networks prioritize other modes relative to driving nearly always reduces vehicle kilometres.

Just because it sounds like it would work in your head doesn't mean it works in real life in a complex urban environment where there are countless interacting variables and feedback loops. We have decades of practice to observe and we can see what actually works and what actually doesn't and that's what we base transport policy on, at least when the evidence-based process doesn't get overruled by citizens or politicians who think their "common sense" solution is equally valid despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.
 
When people work from home they are more likely to live further (and travel farther on the days they do commute) and the road space freed up by less commuting immediately gets filled up by new car trips for other purposes, resulting in absolutely zero reduction in vehicle-kilometres.

We keep on trying administrative approaches to traffic demand management (and now climate action) and they keep proving not to work.

Meanwhile we consistently see that changing street networks prioritize other modes relative to driving nearly always reduces vehicle kilometres.

Just because it sounds like it would work in your head doesn't mean it works in real life in a complex urban environment where there are countless interacting variables and feedback loops. We have decades of practice to observe and we can see what actually works and what actually doesn't and that's what we base transport policy on, at least when the evidence-based process doesn't get overruled by citizens or politicians who think their "common sense" solution is equally valid despite all the evidence that it doesn't work.
I'm an essential worker and travel all around the GTA, and I noticed a big drop in traffic while people were working from home 3-4 days a week. I even filmed it since I knew people would say things like I'm making things up lmfao.
You really think mandating 1 day of wfh is suddenly going to convince people to sell their homes and move to the countryside? Or that people will magically get the time to drive around for fun at 9am? I get your point if it was a 100% thing but even then look at the land transfer taxes etc.
 
I'm an essential worker and travel all around the GTA, and I noticed a big drop in traffic while people were working from home 3-4 days a week. I even filmed it since I knew people would say things like I'm making things up lmfao.
You really think mandating 1 day of wfh is suddenly going to convince people to sell their homes and move to the countryside? Or that people will magically get the time to drive around for fun at 9am? I get your point if it was a 100% thing but even then look at the land transfer taxes etc.
No one is saying that you're making it up. Traffic volumes decrease in the short-term from administrative policies, but they are not sustainable long-term policies. That's been consistent across the transportation planning industry, we cannot be designing for the short term given how long it takes for travel patterns to change and for infrastructure to change.
 

Back
Top