News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

afransen said:
Thanks for sharing. It's quite melodramatic to say they closed the intersection after a hit and run. Someone hit a bollard and the crossing was closed until it was replaced. I notice that they don't use any sharks teeth to show drivers that they should yield. Maybe not used in the UK? I have seen them here in Canada, such as in right turn slip lanes for pedestrian crossings. It also looks like the geometry might be designed for vehicular speeds too high for pedestrians and cyclists to have priority. In the NL, there are higher speed roundabout where cyclists and pedestrians have to yield for cars, but the crossings are much further from the roundabout so there is time for cars to clear the roundabout and people to see the cars oncoming.

I am amused by the guy quoted saying it just so confusing that he can't just whip through the roundabout and he has to look around. Try slowing down you numpty!

How fast is this guy driving through the roundabout?
Click to expand...

I was somewhat shocked about the level of hate that that roundabout has been getting from Brits. I think the issue is that historically pedestrians and cyclists have never had priority at roundabouts, they've always just needed to run for their lives and motorists never had to think about them. I've always been shocked by the lack of priority that pedestrians get on British roads - they often need to yield to turning traffic at side streets too, even though they're walking along the road with priority.

Thankfully the pedestrian priority in Ontario is (theoretically) pretty much the same as in the Netherlands. Drivers need to yield to pedestrians when entering and exiting roundabouts in urban areas (but typically not in rural areas). And pedestrians always have right-of-way when walking along a street that itself has right-of-way.

To bring some relevance to the thread topic (there is also a roundabout thread btw), I think that part of the reason that Dutch traffic signals are so much more advanced than Ontarian ones is that they simply have fewer of them, and a lot more thought can go into designing each individual signal. The GTA has the same number of traffic signals as the entire country of the Netherlands (about 5000), with less than half the population, so it makes sense that our engineers just use a cookie-cutter approach.

Instead of placing a traffic signal as a knee-jerk reaction every time a pedestrian gets hit crossing the street, they actually consider the various options for improving the intersection, including roundabouts, pedestrian refuge medians, zebra crossing, curve radii, sightlines etc. And they pick the best one based on overall safety, rather than just picking the easiest way to avoid the particular collision that happened. Toronto's Vision Zero program seems to be using the whack-a-mole approach, where they only resolve the type of collision that has been occuring, without considering that their changes may increase another type of collision such that the overall safety hasn't improved and all that's changed is that the road system has become less efficient (a.k.a traffic lights and stop signs everywhere).
 
reaperexpress said:
I was somewhat shocked about the level of hate that that roundabout has been getting from Brits. I think the issue is that historically pedestrians and cyclists have never had priority at roundabouts, they've always just needed to run for their lives and motorists never had to think about them. I've always been shocked by the lack of priority that pedestrians get on British roads - they often need to yield to turning traffic at side streets too, even though they're walking along the road with priority.

Thankfully the pedestrian priority in Ontario is (theoretically) pretty much the same as in the Netherlands. Drivers need to yield to pedestrians when entering and exiting roundabouts in urban areas (but typically not in rural areas). And pedestrians always have right-of-way when walking along a street that itself has right-of-way.

To bring some relevance to the thread topic (there is also a roundabout thread btw), I think that part of the reason that Dutch traffic signals are so much more advanced than Ontarian ones is that they simply have fewer of them, and a lot more thought can go into designing each individual signal. The GTA has the same number of traffic signals as the entire country of the Netherlands (about 5000), with less than half the population, so it makes sense that our engineers just use a cookie-cutter approach.

Instead of placing a traffic signal as a knee-jerk reaction every time a pedestrian gets hit crossing the street, they actually consider the various options for improving the intersection, including roundabouts, pedestrian refuge medians, zebra crossing, curve radii, sightlines etc. And they pick the best one based on overall safety, rather than just picking the easiest way to avoid the particular collision that happened. Toronto's Vision Zero program seems to be using the whack-a-mole approach, where they only resolve the type of collision that has been occuring, without considering that their changes may increase another type of collision such that the overall safety hasn't improved and all that's changed is that the road system has become less efficient (a.k.a traffic lights and stop signs everywhere).
Click to expand...

Narrowing the road is always the key vs more traffic lights.

Specifically in the form of reducing the number of travel lanes.

Its simply about how many things both drivers and pedestrians (or cyclists) can keep an eye on at once.

One lane each way, mid-block, is roughly 2 things to keep an eye on; add in cyclists or any on-street parking and it may be a bit more complex, but is really quite manageable.

That same street intersecting like, now means a minimum of 4 things to keep any eye on at once. (more if you add turn lanes, parking, cyclists etc.)

Now once you get to 4-lane roads meeting 4-lane roads, things get complicated.

Six-lane roads more so. Wider roads, in addition to movement complexity, increase crossing time curb to curb, and often induce higher vehicle speed and variable vehicle speed vs narrower roads.

We could eliminate many traffic lights, first, by eliminating lanes.

This (lane reduction) is likely to occur in the core as bike lanes roll out.

Whether the City is willing to remove previous traffic lights that are no longer necessary will be interesting to watch.

Apart from that; there is also a need to use median barriers to prevent some left-hand turns at uncontrolled intersections off major roads.

Doing so would smooth traffic, reduce accidents and simplify movements for pedestrians to safely navigate a crossing.
 
Northern Light said:
Narrowing the road is always the key vs more traffic lights.

Specifically in the form of reducing the number of travel lanes.

Its simply about how many things both drivers and pedestrians (or cyclists) can keep an eye on at once.

One lane each way, mid-block, is roughly 2 things to keep an eye on; add in cyclists or any on-street parking and it may be a bit more complex, but is really quite manageable.

That same street intersecting like, now means a minimum of 4 things to keep any eye on at once. (more if you add turn lanes, parking, cyclists etc.)

Now once you get to 4-lane roads meeting 4-lane roads, things get complicated.

Six-lane roads more so. Wider roads, in addition to movement complexity, increase crossing time curb to curb, and often induce higher vehicle speed and variable vehicle speed vs narrower roads.

We could eliminate many traffic lights, first, by eliminating lanes.

This (lane reduction) is likely to occur in the core as bike lanes roll out.

Whether the City is willing to remove previous traffic lights that are no longer necessary will be interesting to watch.

Apart from that; there is also a need to use median barriers to prevent some left-hand turns at uncontrolled intersections off major roads.

Doing so would smooth traffic, reduce accidents and simplify movements for pedestrians to safely navigate a crossing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And lane reduction is not something that is "likely to happen" it is something that has already been happening for several years. Just this year for example Scarlett Road was rearranged from 4 lanes to 2 lanes + bike lanes + left turn lanes + parking lanes, and this is an extremely common update which has happened to countless other streets already (Harbord, Wellesley, Dundas East, Gerrard, Shuter, River, Annette, Davenport, Rogers, Cosburn, etc).

Traffic already flows more smoothly regardless of removing signals because the notion of 2 lanes per direction was purely theoretical to begin with given how often one or the other would be obstructed by parked cars, turning cars, stopped buses, cyclists, streetcars, etc. Now there can at least be one efficient traffic lane per direction, with dedicated space elsewhere for people parking, cycling or turning.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any of these road diets being leveraged to eliminate traffic signals (or stop signs). The only win I've seen so far was that as part of the Shaw Street reconstruction this year (which included banning cars for one block in order to prevent cut-through traffic) they removed the all-way stop signs at Essex Street to give priority to Shaw. But the rest of the superfluous stop signs are still there, making Shaw an inefficient cycling route if you obey the law. Which undermines the route's potential to divert cyclists off of Ossington.

I suppose the upside though is that we don't need to focus on bringing about lane reductions, we can simply look at the lane reductions which are already occuring and see what opportunities there are to eliminate traffic signals and stop signs.
 
Last edited:
reaperexpress said:
Absolutely. And lane reduction is not something that is "likely to happen" it is something that has already been happening for several years. Just this year for example Scarlett Road was rearranged from 4 lanes to 2 lanes + bike lanes + left turn lanes + parking lanes, and this is an extremely common update which has happened to countless other streets already (Harbord, Wellesley, Dundas East, Gerrard, Shuter, River, Annette, Davenport, Rogers, Cosburn, etc).

Traffic already flows more smoothly regardless of removing signals because the notion of 2 lanes per direction was purely theoretical to begin with given how often one or the other would be obstructed by parked cars, turning cars, stopped buses, cyclists, streetcars, etc. Now there can at least be one efficient traffic lane per direction, with dedicated space elsewhere for people parking, cycling or turning.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any of these road diets being leveraged to eliminate traffic signals (or stop signs). The only win I've seen so far was that as part of the Shaw Street reconstruction this year (which included banning cars for one block in order to prevent cut-through traffic) they removed the all-way stop signs at Essex Street to give priority to Shaw. But the rest of the superfluous stop signs are still there, making Shaw an inefficient cycling route if you obey the law. Which undermines the route's potential to divert cyclists off of Ossington.

I suppose the upside though is that we don't need to focus on bringing about lane reductions, we can simply look at the lane reductions which are already occuring and see what opportunities there are to eliminate traffic signals and stop signs.
Click to expand...

Also important to note that narrowing and cutting parking near intersections are key to cutting stop signs on side streets.

The narrowing slows the traffic, the removed parking near an intersection (or intended crossing point) provides clear sightlines to all involved.

Adding visual interest in the narrowing (boulevard or chicane) helps (ie. flower display) as its not a distraction in the same way as moving vehicles or pedestrians, but the desire to see a display can have a traffic calming effect.
 
Meanwhile, the city persistently refuses to put up a streetlight along what I think is possibly the longest stretch of road without any crosswalk/signalling in the city:

Birchmount Road (between Ellesmere and Allanford Rd) a stretch of 1.25km

1605041534875.png


EDIT: Which for reference, that's an even longer stretch than this crossing at Lawrence Ave East over the DVP....

1605041770545.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top