News   May 06, 2024
Looks All-But Finished, Isn't
 111     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 703     0 

Roads: Traffic Signals

This was sent to me and no idea where it is located. Interesting to know what the poles are made out to allow them to show the light as well cost and life cycle
1666284596679.png
 
The first stop signs were posted in Michigan in 1915.

A Quick Early History of Toronto’s First Traffic Signals and The ‘Right on Red’ Rule​

From link.

In the first half of the twentieth century, automobiles had quite an impact on the streets of Toronto. In 1913, there were 17,000 cars in Toronto; by 1923, the number grew to about 50,000 cars. New rules and technologies were adopted to better manage and regulate how motorists behaved, especially concerning the other users of the road and their safety.
Click to expand...
On August 8, 1925, Torontonians were introduced to their first set of automated traffic signals. The new ‘semaphores’ were set up at the busy intersection of Yonge Street and Bloor Street on a trial basis and changed the history of Toronto’s streets forever. It was at least three years in the making, with Toronto Chief of Police Samuel J. Dickson advocating for and finally receiving the system in that time.
Click to expand...
Before traffic lights, intersections were regulated by traffic policemen. In the 1910s, this was done largely through hand signals, whistles, and yelling. In 1920, a new ‘semaphore’ was piloted (again at Yonge and Bloor) which consisted of the officer controlling a staffed sign with the words “STOP” and “GO” written on them. The officer rotated the sign to control the flow of traffic. If one peruses archival photos of highly trafficked Toronto intersections, it is common to see a police officer amid the action.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, traffic signals take streetcars and buses as single vehicles. They ignore the number of passengers inside them. Toronto Transportation gives the single-occupant automobile turning left priority over the 70+ passengers on board streetcars on Spadina, St. Clair, The Queensway, and on the light rail vehicles along future light rail lines on Eglinton Avenue East and Finch Avenue West.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1590343455250993152

Maybe we should turn the streetcar and light rail right-of-way intersections into 4-way stops. The streetcars and LRVs will get better service on the right-of-way routes.
 
I pulled the City traffic signal open data for something I was working on, and I figured I'd share here:

The City currently has 2486 traffic signals. This is absurd. The entire country of the Netherlands (which has 18 Million people) only has 5500.

TorontoSignals.jpg


I wish we'd have a moratorium on new signals - so for each new (warranted) signal installed, an existing unwarranted signal needs to be removed.

In general, traffic signals make the most sense where large volumes of motor traffic cross, or where pedestrians need to cross more than one lane at a time (i.e. 4+ lane roads). So many of our existing signals along streets with only 1 lane per direction would actually be safer if the signals were removed, a median added, a chicane around said median to slow speeds and a PXO (potentially raised to further reduce speeds). Pedestrians would no longer need to wait to cross the street in any direction, cyclists would hardly ever need to stop when travelling along the main street, and motor traffic would also stop less often.

Furthermore having so many traffic signals means that less attention is paid to each one. I've noticed recently that many intersections had Leading Pedestrian Intervals installed even in places where there was never any conflict between pedestrians and turning cars to begin with (e.g. because turns are prohibited or fully-protected). So transit riders, motorists and cyclists are held back for 4 seconds for no reason whatsoever. If Transportation Services can't even take the time to check whether a conflict even exists at a particular intersection, there is little hope of implementing intelligent signal control which reduces the amount of time we waste at signals.
 
Last edited:
Undead said:
Yep. Confirms what many of us already suspected. We have an insanely excessive number of signals.
Click to expand...
They are very expensive too, aren't they? I heard once it's about $500,000 to install a new fully signalised intersection, and then annual maintenance expenses of ~$10,000 after that, though that might have actually been an accounting entry for depreciation of the equipment, I couldn't sort out that part.
 
Anyone who has driven in Toronto recently can surely attest that 1. There’s a lot of traffic lights and 2. There’s constantly new ones being added at every little street
 
... there's a lot of traffic light because council keeps over ruling the transporation divison. The transportation division will run report with a conclusion stating no traffic lights or crosswalk signal required .. only for council to over rule them. A good example is that shiney new Crosswalk signal @ Queen / Victoria Park. Traffic volume was deemed to low .. and also too close to another crosswalk.., yet Bradford had council overrule them.
 
Kitsune said:
... there's a lot of traffic light because council keeps over ruling the transporation divison. The transportation division will run report with a conclusion stating no traffic lights or crosswalk signal required .. only for council to over rule them. A good example is that shiney new Crosswalk signal @ Queen / Victoria Park. Traffic volume was deemed to low .. and also too close to another crosswalk.., yet Bradford had council overrule them.
Click to expand...
This is exactly it.

Council has the impression that Transportation Services is just some bunch of old fashioned car lovers that they need to overrule in order to support pedestrian safety and Vision Zero etc. But while Transportation Services is indeed a bit slow to adapt, and more car-oriented than Council itself, most of the issues they raise are legitimate concerns regardless of which mode you favour.

The fundamental problem is that Council just uses stop signs and signals as a knee-jerk "safety" improvement anytime there's some kind of incident. They get to claim that they solved the conditions which led to that collision. But since they're in no way qualified to be doing traffic engineering, they fail to realize that all they've done is introduce a new, different type of danger.

They're basically playing collision type whack-a-mole and then they act surprised when the statistics show that the rate of pedestrian fatalties has only increased since the start of their Vision Zero program.

It's honestly a disgrace to the name of Vision Zero, which is supposed to be a systematic analysis-based network redesign which studies the effects of network, street and intersection designs in order to minimize risk overall - taking into account human factors and all potential collision types. Quite often, the actions that City Council takes in the name of Vision Zero are exactly the opposite of the actions taken in places where Vision Zero has actually been successful (such as Sweden and the Netherlands). Both of those countries have actively been removing traffic signals and replacing them with safer intersection designs.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Stop signs and traffic lights are among the only tools in the shed they are willing to use, along with speed humps that are not that effective against ever-growing lifted wankpanzer trucks and SUVs.

Bicycle routes should have as few stop signs as possible, with physical traffic calming built instead.
 
Kitsune said:
... there's a lot of traffic light because council keeps over ruling the transporation divison. The transportation division will run report with a conclusion stating no traffic lights or crosswalk signal required .. only for council to over rule them. A good example is that shiney new Crosswalk signal @ Queen / Victoria Park. Traffic volume was deemed to low .. and also too close to another crosswalk.., yet Bradford had council overrule them.
Click to expand...
Wellington at Scott is another new one that makes no sense. Particularly if/when the St Lawrence Centre for the Arts plans see Scott closed from The Esplanade to Front.
 
After watching recent cab-view LA Metro videos (post-Regional Connector), I couldn’t help but think about Lines 5/6. LRTs that operate at consistent (even slow) speeds have an extra signal at intersections to indicate to operators from a distance that their train has been detected, and the signal is about to change to ”Green”, in addition to the ”Red/Yellow/Green” signals. Three examples:

1. Los Angeles has flashing orange ”TRAIN” lights to warn motorists, but also to indicate to operators that the signal is about to turn ”Green”;

2. Kitchener-Waterloo (and I believe Edmonton too) have the ”Red” signal flash indicating to the operator that the light is about to turn ”Green”;

3. The German four-aspect signals, with a light above the ”Red” signal to indicate to operators that they have been detected, and the light will turn ”Green”. I believe they use the letter ”A”, as in ”Abfahrt”.

This single aspect is missing from both Lines 5/6. Without advance warning, LRVs will slow down to unnecessarily low speeds, just to have to accelerate again.

Maybe this could be mitigated in Toronto by adopting the European practice of showing the ”Red” and ”Yellow” lights at the same time, before turning ”Green”.

(Edited to correct typo.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top