Roads: Traffic Signals

[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?

 

[reaperexpress]

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

Yes of course.

Obviously a 100% separation of cycle/pedestrian routes from through traffic routes is pretty difficult to achieve anywhere other than greenfield developments like Houten or Almere, but the principles of separating destination streets (retail, residential etc.) from movement roads (highways, arterials) is applicable in all planning contexts. After all, it's not like all Dutch cities were built since the late 70's when the current planning principles were introduced. Pre-1970's areas of the Netherlands didn't historically separate movement functions from place functions any more than their counterparts in Toronto. But in the subsequent years Dutch cities have systematically been diverting motor traffic away from areas with higher pedestrian activity towards areas with lower pedestrian activity, ideally to grade-separated motor traffic infrastructure such as the N201 arterial road bypassing Alsmeer and Uithorn (opened 2014), the A2 motorway through Maastricht (opened 2016), the Victory Boogie Woogie Tunnel in Den Haag (opened in 2021), and the A-16 motorway northern extension in Rotterdam (under construction).

For example in the downtown core of Toronto, one would try to identify routes where motor traffic has a relatively low per-vehicle impact on the surrounding urban area (University Ave, Richmond, Adelaide etc) and areas where they have a particularly high conflict with urban life (King, Queen, Yonge), and try to divert traffic from the latter to the former. The King Pilot is an example of a project which aligns well with Dutch Sustainable Safety principles, since King Street is a hotspot of pedestrian activity.

An example of a City project which goes totally against the principle of separating movement from place is the Allen District development plan, which envisions turning Allen Road into an 'urban boulevard', adding sidewalks and buildings fronting directly onto it, thereby creating new pedestrian-vehicle conflicts where few/none currently exist. According to Sustainable Safety principles, Allen Road should instead remain as a limited-access road, and those developments should be centered around the new internal collector streets within the development. The two sides of the development would be linked across Allen Road using pedestrian/cycling underpasses.

 

[Dan416]

Yes of course.

Obviously a 100% separation of cycle/pedestrian routes from through traffic routes is pretty difficult to achieve anywhere other than greenfield developments like Houten or Almere, but the principles of separating destination streets (retail etc.) from movement roads (highways, arterials) is applicable in all planning contexts. After all, it's not like all Dutch cities were built since the late 70's when the current planning principles were introduced. Pre-1970's areas of the Netherlands do include arterial roads with frontage like you find in Toronto, but they still take efforts to downgrade their motor traffic function whenever possible. Meanwhile new motor traffic infrastructure fully separate from urban activity maintain/improve the function of the motor traffic network. There are tons of new grade-separated motor traffic infrastructure projects within existing cities, like the Victory Boogie Woogie Tunnel in Den Haag opened in 2021, the A-13 northern extension under construction (the north portion of ring road around Rotterdam)

For example in the downtown core, one would try to identify routes where motor traffic has a relatively low per-vehicle impact on the surrounding urban area (University Ave, Richmond, Adelaide etc) and areas where they have a particularly high conflict with urban life (King, Queen, Yonge), and try to divert traffic from the latter to the former. The King Pilot is an example of a project which aligns well with Dutch Sustainable Safety principles, since King Street is a hotspot of pedestrian activity.

An example of a City project which goes totally against the principle of separating movement from place is the Allen District development plan, which envisions turning Allen Road into an 'urban boulevard', adding sidewalks and buildings fronting directly onto it, thereby creating new pedestrian-vehicle conflicts where few/none currently exist. According to Sustainable Safety principles, Allen Road should instead remain as a limited-access road, and those developments should be centered around the new internal collector streets within the development. The two sides of the development would be linked across Allen Road using pedestrian/cycling underpasses.

Thanks for explaining.

Do any other countries utilize the Dutch model? Is it well regarded in urban planning circles or is it an outlier? And if it’s well-regarded, why aren’t we learning from it and implementing their learnings? Do other cities in Canada or the US follow the Dutch model?

Sorry, that’s a lot of questions.

 

[reaperexpress]

Thanks for explaining.

Do any other countries utilize the Dutch model? Is it well regarded in urban planning circles or is it an outlier? And if it’s well-regarded, why aren’t we learning from it and implementing their learnings? Do other cities in Canada or the US follow the Dutch model?

Sorry, that’s a lot of questions.

New South Wales (Australia) has adopted the same principles, though they have a lot of work to do before their networks are unravelled to any significant degree.
https://www.movementandplace.nsw.gov.au/about

I just happened across NSW's guidelines, but I'm sure there are plenty of other places which also follow the same principles. I would assume that Sweden does as well given their good track record for road safety but I haven't actually looked into it.

 

[reaperexpress]

Jackson Bourret has just posted this video documenting the shocking number of intersections where the City installed Leading Pedestrian Intervals even though vehicles are not allowed to turn across the path of pedestrians. So transit riders and drivers are held at a red light for 5 seconds for absolutely no reason.

From the description of the video, here is his list of LPIs which are completely pointless.

- Harbord St at Robert St (east/west)
- Harbord St at Brunswick Ave (east/west)
- Harbord St at Palmerston Blvd (east/west)
- Bloor St at Palmerston Blvd (east/west)
- Bathurst St at Richmond St W (north/south)
- Kennedy Rd at Highway 401 eastbound off ramp (north/south)
- Lawerence Ave W at Rosewell Ave (east/west)
- Keele St at Highway 401 eastbound off ramp (north/south)
- Ellesmere Rd at Borough Approach E (east/west)
- Weston Rd at Highway 401 westbound off ramp (north/south)
- Weston Rd at Walsh Ave (northbound)
- W- Islington Ave at Allenby Ave (north/south)
- Islington Ave at Highway 401 eastbound off ramp (westbound split phase)
- The East Mall at Highway 427 northbound off ramp (north/south)
- Yonge St at Harbour St (north/south)
- Davenport Rd at Avenue Rd (east/west
- Bathurst St at Wells St (north/south)
- Bathurst St at Warwick Ave (north/south)
- Bathurst St at Ava Rd (north/south)
- Bathurst St at Neptune Dr (north/south)
- Dufferin St at Auburn Ave (north/south)
- Rogers Rd at Glenholme Ave (east/west)
- Weston Rd at Dennis Ave (north/south)
- Spadina Ave at Richmond St W (north/south)
-Dupont St at Cream Top Ln/Hammond Pl (eastbound LPI with leading left turn phase)
- Kingston Rd at Eglinton Ave E (northeast/southwest)
- Kingston Rd at Midland Ave (northeast/southwest)
- Church St at Gloucester St (north/south LPI after exclusive pedestrian phase)
- Lakeshore Blvd at Windermere Blvd (southbound LPI south half stage only)King St at Brant St (east/west)
- Queen St at Woodfield Rd (east/west)
- Yonge St at Richmond St (north/south)
- University Ave at Front St W (north/south)
- Avenue Rd at Yorkville Rd (north/south)

He has also generally been documenting two other issues with the City's LPI implementaions:

They often install LPIs in locations with leading left turn phases, which results in left turning drivers cutting in front of oncoming traffic and through the crosswalk just as oncoming traffic is released.

They often fail to also give bicycles a leading interval where a bicycle signal is present.

 

[PL1]

Jackson Bourret has just posted this video documenting the shocking number of intersections where the City installed Leading Pedestrian Intervals even though vehicles are not allowed to turn across the path of pedestrians. So transit riders and drivers are held at a red light for 5 seconds for absolutely no reason.

From the description of the video, here is his list of LPIs which are completely pointless.


He has also generally been documenting two other issues with the City's LPI implementaions:

They often install LPIs in locations with leading left turn phases, which results in left turning drivers cutting in front of oncoming traffic and through the crosswalk just as oncoming traffic is released.

They often fail to also give bicycles a leading interval where a bicycle signal is present.

There are intersections with LPI at a T intersection so there is no need for said LPI (see Danforth at Woodington; I have not had time to watch yet, so I apologize if this issue was raised).