[Northern Light]

I know we have some traffic signal skeptics in this thread so I was curious to hear everyone's take on the city's plans in my neighbourhood.

I put together this map showing the existing (grey) and approved (red) traffic signals in my neighbourhood.
View attachment 519250

• Bloor and Perth, approved based on a request from the former councillor
• Bloor and St Helens, approved as part of the section 37 agreement for 1319 Bloor
• Bloor and Pauline, approved as part of the Bloor and Dufferin redevelopment, replacing an existing PXO
• Lansdowne and Paton, apparently required as part of the site plan approval for 640 Lansdowne (see "Traffic Operations Assessment"), replacing an existing PXO

This seems like a lot of new traffic lights. Too many? What could we be doing here instead of adding traffic lights at every other intersection?

My instinct is that is too many lights. I'd go so far as to say, my strong instinct.

But I"d still want to look for certain evidence.

1) What are the KSIs (Killed and Seriously injured) at the locations where lights are proposed. Are they inordinate to City norms?

2) Did the installation meet traffic warrants (were they recommended by City staff)

3) What is the distance between the new light and the nearest existing light?

4) What was the gap between the two nearest lights previously?

********

If:

The KSI in the area were lower than the City average; and the installation did not meet warrants, I could consider that affirmation that a new set of lights was not appropriate in that instance, barring extraordinary evidence.

If the the KSI were at or above City averages, that would indicate a need for intervention of some type, whether or not lights were the correct choice.

If the intersection met 'warrants' for lights......I'd be inclined to let it go w/some reluctance.

*******

There are many potential alternatives to traffic lights, it really depends on what the perceived issue justifying the lights is........:

Is it existing danger to cyclists? to pedestrians? to drivers (car on car collision)?

Is it simply the wait to make a turn into/out of a given buiding or on/off a certain side street?

These bits of info are important, because they change how you might respond.

Its simply not possible for me to generalize.

That's a big blob of proposed stuff for someone more qualified than I, like @reaperexpress to look at..........but ya never know, he might humour you, LOL

For my part, I'll simply say, choices range from prohibiting and physically restricting certain turn movements, to protected intersections (space permitting) to greater physical separation of cycle tracks, to elevated crosswalks, to bumpouts/pinch points, to narrower traffic lanes to reducing/eliminating parking (for some combination, as appropriate, of wider sidewalk/streetscape, wider/more buffered cycle track, greater sightlines at intersections etc).

If gaps in traffic allowing turns is the goal, simply adjusting nearby signal times may be sufficient.

Suffice to say, traffic lights are unquestionably over-used in Toronto in general, but one requires a fair bit of info to pick apart individual choices.

 

[smably]

I wasn't able to dig up the documentation for Bloor/Perth or Bloor/St Helens. But for Lansdowne/Paton and Bloor/Pauline, neither met the warrant criteria but both were recommended by staff regardless.

Lansdowne and Paton warrant analysis:

Staff response:

Bloor/Pauline:

I'm inclined to think that the Bloor/Pauline signal is justified based on the reasoning in the staff report, but I would have liked to see a bit more analysis for Lansdowne/Paton.

I have no horse in this race, mostly just thought it was curious how many signals were proposed in a fairly small area and was hoping to learn from people with more knowledge on the subject.

 

[TRONto]

My first thought is that the motions to add traffic signals was originated before the cycle lanes were put in. Bloor is much calmer due to its narrowing and I'm skeptical (without looking into it) that addition lights would be needed.

 

[Dan416]

As a driver, all the unnecessary traffic lights in Toronto drive me crazy. So I avoid it as much as possible. Mission accomplished, I guess, City of Toronto, probably.

 

[reaperexpress]

As a driver, all the unnecessary traffic lights in Toronto drive me crazy. So I avoid it as much as possible. Mission accomplished, I guess, City of Toronto, probably.

The problem is that the signals also inconvenience pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, so it does little to actually reduce traffic.

 

[Dan416]

The problem is that the signals also inconvenience pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, so it does little to actually reduce traffic.

That's true. If I'm sitting on a bus and it stops a million times for traffic lights it definitely reduces the overall speed of the bus. Currently when you take the all-night bus on Bloor it actually moves at a decent pace.

 

[reaperexpress]

My instinct is that is too many lights. I'd go so far as to say, my strong instinct.

But I"d still want to look for certain evidence.

1) What are the KSIs (Killed and Seriously injured) at the locations where lights are proposed. Are they inordinate to City norms?

2) Did the installation meet traffic warrants (were they recommended by City staff)

3) What is the distance between the new light and the nearest existing light?

4) What was the gap between the two nearest lights previously?

********

If:

The KSI in the area were lower than the City average; and the installation did not meet warrants, I could consider that affirmation that a new set of lights was not appropriate in that instance, barring extraordinary evidence.

If the the KSI were at or above City averages, that would indicate a need for intervention of some type, whether or not lights were the correct choice.

If the intersection met 'warrants' for lights......I'd be inclined to let it go w/some reluctance.

*******

There are many potential alternatives to traffic lights, it really depends on what the perceived issue justifying the lights is........:

Is it existing danger to cyclists? to pedestrians? to drivers (car on car collision)?

Is it simply the wait to make a turn into/out of a given buiding or on/off a certain side street?

These bits of info are important, because they change how you might respond.

Its simply not possible for me to generalize.

That's a big blob of proposed stuff for someone more qualified than I, like @reaperexpress to look at..........but ya never know, he might humour you, LOL

For my part, I'll simply say, choices range from prohibiting and physically restricting certain turn movements, to protected intersections (space permitting) to greater physical separation of cycle tracks, to elevated crosswalks, to bumpouts/pinch points, to narrower traffic lanes to reducing/eliminating parking (for some combination, as appropriate, of wider sidewalk/streetscape, wider/more buffered cycle track, greater sightlines at intersections etc).

If gaps in traffic allowing turns is the goal, simply adjusting nearby signal times may be sufficient.

Suffice to say, traffic lights are unquestionably over-used in Toronto in general, but one requires a fair bit of info to pick apart individual choices.

I'm not going to dig into the history of these signals in particular, but based on the two warrants that @smably helpfully provided it sounds like a typical case of City Council mindlessly approving signals contrary to the recommendations of their traffic engineers under the (false) pretense of improving pedestrian friendliness and safety.

I don't agree with the methodology for safety evaluation you presented here. Per Vision Zero principles, it is not relevant whether the number of collisions is above or below average, it only matters if the risk of human consequences (injury/death, not property damage) can be reduced. The problem in Toronto is that the only tools that Council uses to "improve" safety for people crossing arterial roads is to add signals. This is where they end up actually undermining the Vision Zero program, because installing signals in unnecessary places reduces their credibility. And signals only improve safety if people obey them. The less the traffic signals respect people's time (e.g. by displaying a Don't Walk signal along Bloor while no vehicles are coming out of the side street), the less people will respect the signals. This is especially sensitive for people riding bikes, who have invested physical effort to gain kinetic energy, and if they press the brakes that energy will be lost as heat.

The safer alternative to traffic signals used along collector and minor arterial roads (1 motor traffic lane per direction) typically used in the Netherlands is to install a median, so pedestrians only need to cross one lane at a time. This median also reinforces the lane shift before the intersection, further slowing traffic down compared to the current painted lane shift around the left turn lane. If pedestrian priority is desired, a pedestrian crossover ('zebrapad') is installed, ideally with a raised crossing to further slow motor traffic at the conflict point.

Example from the Netherlands: Ruys de Beerenbrouckstraat, Delft, South Holland. This example does not have a raised table for the pedestrian crossover, but the surface does change to bricks through the intersection. This street has a 19.5m ROW, which is 1 metre narrower than Bloor West. It has parking on both sides of the street, whereas on Bloor West there is only parking on one side to enable wider sidewalks.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't agree with the methodology for safety evaluation you presented here.

I not only know better than to disagree with someone more expert than I; I happen to actually agree w/the criteria you subsequently stated.

. The problem in Toronto is that the only tools that Council uses to "improve" safety for people crossing arterial roads is to add signals.

Agree 100%

This is where they end up actually undermining the Vision Zero program, because installing signals in unnecessary places reduces their credibility. And signals only improve safety if people obey them. The less the traffic signals respect people's time (e.g. by displaying a Don't Walk signal along Bloor while no vehicles are coming out of the side street), the less people will respect the signals.

Well noted, smarter traffic lights help achieve a great deal.

The safer alternative to traffic signals used along collector and minor arterial roads (1 motor traffic lane per direction) typically used in the Netherlands is to install a median, so pedestrians only need to cross one lane at a time. This median also reinforces the lane shift before the intersection, further slowing traffic down compared to the current painted lane shift around the left turn lane. If pedestrian priority is desired, a pedestrian crossover ('zebrapad') is installed, ideally with a raised crossing to further slow motor traffic at the conflict point.

Helpful example! Thanks.

 

[afransen]

My first thought is that the motions to add traffic signals was originated before the cycle lanes were put in. Bloor is much calmer due to its narrowing and I'm skeptical (without looking into it) that addition lights would be needed.

Yes, I think they should start with other traffic calming and only put in signalized crossings if needed. Each of these cost money to operate and contribute to congestion and non-compliance (necessitating red light cameras and so on).

 

[reaperexpress]

Well noted, smarter traffic lights help achieve a great deal.

This is true, but it's also worth noting that smarter signals require a greater level of maintenance, partly in terms of equipment but mostly in terms of staff time for design and optimisation.

City Council's signals obsession has resulted in the signals department (ITS Operations) being stretch thinner than thin. In their mad rush to design and install the various signals and signal features (e.g. LPI) that Council requires them to, they don't have time to give any thought to the design of each individual signal. They just blindly copy/paste programs from other signals, resulting in many nonsensical situations.

Jackson Bourret has been documenting the stupidity of Toronto's traffic signals operations. Here's one example:

He submits these videos to the City as 311 requests, and thankfully the nonsensical operations typically do subsequently get fixed, since the City is forced to actually think about the signal's operations to respond to his very specific requests. It is however concerning that we are depending on a member of the public to volunteer their own time to identify problematic signal operations rather than City staff.

In the Netherlands, part of the reason they can afford to have such intelligent signals, is that they have fewer of them. Signals are reserved for places where large volumes of traffic intersect, or moderate volumes intersect and there isn't room for a roundabout.

The entire country of the Netherlands (population 18 Million) has 5500 traffic signals. That's about the same as the number in the Greater Toronto Area (population 6 Million).

 

[afransen]

This is true, but it's also worth noting that smarter signals require a greater level of maintenance, partly in terms of equipment but mostly in terms of staff time for design and optimisation.

City Council's signals obsession has resulted in the signals department (ITS Operations) being stretch thinner than thin. In their mad rush to design and install the various signals and signal features (e.g. LPI) that Council requires them to, they don't have time to give any thought to the design of each individual signal. They just blindly copy/paste programs from other signals, resulting in many nonsensical situations.

Jackson Bourret has been documenting the stupidity of Toronto's traffic signals operations. Here's one example:

He submits these videos to the City as 311 requests, and thankfully the nonsensical operations typically do subsequently get fixed, since the City is forced to actually think about the signal's operations to respond to his very specific requests. It is however concerning that we are depending on a member of the public to volunteer their own time to identify problematic signal operations rather than City staff.

In the Netherlands, part of the reason they can afford to have such intelligent signals, is that they have fewer of them. Signals are reserved for places where large volumes of traffic intersect, or moderate volumes intersect and there isn't room for a roundabout.

The entire country of the Netherlands (population 18 Million) has 5500 traffic signals. That's about the same as the number in the Greater Toronto Area (population 6 Million).

I feel like one of the challenges we have in the GTA that is not seen much in NL, is the preponderance of 6 lane arterials. It makes sense that the intersections of these roads need to be signalized. But intersections with minor collectors should maybe be more RIRO and unsignalized, and replace the lights with centre refuge islands and pedestrian cross-overs. The signals should also be timed in a way to coordinate with the neighbouring intersections and the speed limit, which could help with traffic calming and minimize delay for pedestrians to cross

I have to question if these 6 lane monstrosities are even warranted.

Eglinton Ave & Erin mills · Eglinton ave & Erin, Canada

âââââ · Condominium complex

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[reaperexpress]

I feel like one of the challenges we have in the GTA that is not seen much in NL, is the preponderance of 6 lane arterials. It makes sense that the intersections of these roads need to be signalized. But intersections with minor collectors should maybe be more RIRO and unsignalized, and replace the lights with centre refuge islands and pedestrian cross-overs. The signals should also be timed in a way to coordinate with the neighbouring intersections and the speed limit, which could help with traffic calming and minimize delay for pedestrians to cross

I have to question if these 6 lane monstrosities are even warranted.


View attachment 519536

Eglinton Ave & Erin mills · Eglinton ave & Erin, Canada

âââââ · Condominium complex

maps.app.goo.gl

6-lane arterials are indeed less common in NL than they are here, but 4-lane arterials are quite common and pedestrians need grade separated or signalized crossing facilities either way.

The difference is that modern Dutch urban planning (since the 1970's, and especially since the late '90s) has been focused on completely removing primary motor traffic routes from the urban fabric. This means building arterial roads without frontage, or grade-separated expressways.

Houten, a new-build suburb of Utrecht, represents the ideals of Dutch planning. The entire community is transit-oriented: the highest densities are around the train stations, with lower densities further away. The town is shaped such that every home is a short bike ride from a train station. Through motor traffic is only permitted along the ring road around the town, as well as one shortcut in the middle of the town, in the low-density area halfway between the two train stations. It is easy to see how this type of design minimizes the need for pedestrians to cross arterial roads - improving motor traffic efficiency, cutting maintenance costs, improving urban quality of life and improving safety.

Beatrixlaan, below, is one of the main arterial roads through Delft, where I used to live. There are also two parallel freeways, one on each side of the city.

Toronto does exactly the opposite - the Official Plan actively directs development towards arterial roads, which maximizes the conflict between pedestrian desire lines and arterial roads, thereby maximizing the number of fatal collisions which will occur between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

The Netherlands builds a ton of freeways, but unlike in North America, these programs include measures to remove traffic from built-up areas and force it to use the new freeways instead, where it no longer endangers people outside of cars. The remaining streets in the built-up area can be downsized with fewer lanes and fewer signals, or even cut off to no longer permit through motor traffic.

Voorhofdreef is a collector road just east of Beatrixlaan. The former traffic signal at Martinus Nijhoflaan was already converted to a single-lane roundabout in 2009 but it was only last year that the City got around to downsizing the rest of the street to match its current collector road status and improve crossing safety.

2019:

2022:

So there is little need for people to walk or cycle along arterial roads in newly-built Dutch urban areas. Urban life occurs along local and collector streets instead, and those are the places where pedestrians need to cross the street all over the place. People only need to cross the main arterial roads in places where through walking/cycling routes intersect with them, so typically only every three hundred metres or so. These crossings are provided as traffic signals or grade separations.

Bicycle tunnel under Beatrixlaan. This is an old tunnel not quite up to modern security standards.

 

[afransen]

Toronto does exactly the opposite - the Official Plan actively directs development towards arterial roads, which maximizes the conflict between pedestrian desire lines and arterial roads, thereby maximizing the number of fatal collisions which will occur between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

It's not hard to see which approach is more effective. The Dutch approach works very well when the whole urban area doesn't sprawl into one contiguous mass like the GTA. The Strong Towns messaging around avoiding stroads seems to be penetrating the North American consciousness. Unfortunately, in Toronto the idea seems to be that we will just not have any roads, only streets (the only thing coherent will piling all the density on arterials). That is setting ourselves up for maximum political confrontation as a war on cars.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And maximum problems getting around too. Toronto has very few alternatives to getting around other than it’s arterial streets for both driving and alternate modes. If you don’t live next to one of the city’s few freeways or couple of subway lines, arterial roads are the only way of getting around. And toronto seems hell bent on making that experience as slow and frustrating as possible.

A big issue in North America is that freeways are as villianized as arterial roads - but the reality is that they pull traffic off of arterials and away from pedestrians.

The Dutch model not only results in far safer streets, but faster journey times for cars and other modes. Freeways let cars drive quickly and away from pedestrians, and the Dutch model limits car trips for basically only longer trips with local trips done by bike and walking instead.

You don’t need a car as often, but when you do, it’s a nice comfortable trip on a relatively uncongested freeway with minimal stoplights.

 

[Dan416]

Is there really any way to adapt the Dutch model here though?