Near side bicycle signals are great to see, and the little mini light on the pole (for satisfying redundant light requirements I assume) is also nice to see
The pole and the big overhanging main light look kind of comically large though...
View attachment 397138
The 2016 Highway Traffic Act admendment reduced the
redundant light requirements for Bicycle Signals. The only requirement now is that at least
one signal head be on the far side of the intersection, whereas other types of signal require at least two. Any near-side signals are optional.
Personally I would have just put a single full-size head on the far side as the primary signal head, and the mini-light on the near side as an auxilliary signal head. Note that the Netherlands exclusively uses near-side signals, so there the full-sized bicycle head above the mini light is the only full-sized signal head at all.
During that same HTA amendment, they officially mandated the use of bicycle-shaped lenses to designate Bicycle Signals, making the "BICYCLE SIGNAL" sign obsolete.
The City did start installing bicycle-shaped lenses fairly soon after that amendment, but has continued to install redundant BICYCLE SIGNAL signs nearly everywhere, even when bicycles are the only vehicles facing the signal in the first place.
Shaw Street northbound at College, from Google Maps:
I think the redundant signage and excessive number of signal heads are due to a bizarre form of paranoia among certain City staff.
And the other main nitpick, the pedestrian crosswalk treatement:
Normally at a Dutch intersection the area between the roadway and cycle path at the crosswalk is paved and treated like part of the sidewalk, like a refuge island, making it clear to pedestrians that they can cross the cycle path and wait to cross the street between the cycle path and roadway, as seen in the picture. They also place the crossing button there. This makes the pedestrian crossing a bit shorter and allows for shorter signal cycles. However, on the Toronto design, even when there is clearly enough space for a nice and wide refuge island, this area treated as part of the crossing.
View attachment 397140View attachment 397131
The Dutch even do this when there is less than a meter of space. Not sure if this a good idea if there are high pedestrian volumes (since this island can maybe accomodate 3 people before people start blocking the cycle path), but for moderate pedestrian volumes, I imagine it's probably fine if the cycle path gets partially blocked once in a while, as long as the cycle path is appropriately wide (2m).
View attachment 397144
This is not just a nitpick. This is a major problem. The longer the signalised portion of the crosswalk, the longer the Flashing Don't Walk. And the longer the FDW, the less chance you have to introduce protected turning phases without seriously messing up the efficiency of the intersection (including for pedestrians). In the Netherlands they go to great extents to keep pedestrian clearance times as short as possible, since protected turning phases are a key part of the safety of their traffic signals.
On top of having a separate unsignalised crossing for pedestrians across the bicycle path, they also divide the signalised crossing itself up into multiple crossings, to help the signals be more flexible.
The order of right-turn and bicycle/pedestrian phases can be changed in real time to better acommodate the waiting peds/bikes/cars. Pedestrians get a
green wave across the intersection, not necessarily a simultaneous green. So after the pedestrians reach the median island, there could be a right turn phase while they cross the second half of the roadway.
Toronto is going to the opposite extreme, making signalised crossings as long as possible, and thereby making signals as inflexible as possible. This will make fully-protected signals extremely nonresponsive, and thereby fiercely hated by everyone at the intersection (since they make them sit at red lights for no visible reason). I don't need to explain why this will make it difficult to roll out fully-protected signals on a widespread basis.
Even within Ontario, Toronto is an outlier in this respect. Ottawa's brand new
protected intersection guidelines recommend keeping signalised pedestrian crossings as small as possible, just like the Netherlands.
The reason Toronto is implementing such a grossly inefficient design is that they received pressure from advocacy groups for blind and visually impaired pedestrians. They argue that it is difficult for blind people to cross bicycle paths - even when the pedestrians have the right of way (as in Ottawa) and thus technically don't need to look for bikes at all. This is of course a genuine design challenge, but I believe there are other less-intrusive options to mitigate this conflict, such as raising up the bicycle path to sidewalk level, which physically slows down cyclists at the conflict point, and using paving materials which subconsiously emphasize that crossing pedestrians have the right of way (e.g. not continuing the asphalt through the pedestrian crossing).
After all, blind and visually-impaired pedestrians benefit just as much as anyone else from more efficient intersection operations. And they probably benefit even more from fully-protected signals than the average pedestrian, since they are less able to respond to a turning driver failing to yield.
