King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[reaperexpress]

My suggestion is to replace the traffic lights' face of the green light. Instead of a plain green circle, have a green arrow pointing right

FYI, your suggestion prohibits pedestrians from walking along King, given the right arrow gives turning traffic priority over conflicting traffic.

 

[raptor]

FYI, your suggestion prohibits pedestrians from walking along King, given the right arrow gives turning traffic priority over conflicting traffic.

dammit! I give up. There is no hope to fix this.

 

[W. K. Lis]

FYI, your suggestion prohibits pedestrians from walking along King, given the right arrow gives turning traffic priority over conflicting traffic.

A flashing yellow arrow means motorists have to YIELD to pedestrians and bicyclists. See link. (Legal in Ontario in about 25 years... maybe.)

 

[Leo_Chan]

A flashing yellow arrow means motorists have to YIELD to pedestrians and bicyclists. See link. (Legal in Ontario in about 25 years... maybe.)

Too complicated, education required.

 

[steveintoronto]

Let the battle begin:

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...g-fords-slashing-of-toronto-city-council.html

Injunction hearing set for Aug 31

Holy Moly!

[...]
A Superior Court judge ordered that Achampong’s case be heard on Aug. 31 on the merits — meaning the step of arguing for an interim injunction will be skipped and a court will decide, after hearing legal arguments, whether the legislation can alter the number of wards for this election.

It’s expected a decision would be issued shortly after the hearing date.
[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...g-fords-slashing-of-toronto-city-council.html

OK, I haven't had time to research this, and I'm not a lawyer, just got forced to learn law ... and this is *profound!*.

I'm almost frozen from writing any more on this, the implications could be absolute dynamite. This has the potential to cause a Legislative crisis...I've got to find an expert legal opinion on this and post it.

To be continued...

Addendum: I'll add this, and I really don't want to misspeak on this, but: One wonders how the Injunction stage was skipped, whether that was through *exceptional* petitioning of the court, or the Court taking the initiative. I've got to be really careful here, because I've sensed that the Judiciary would be as offended on this as any other academics or informed people are. But what I just wrote must not be said overtly, as it would *appear* to be prejudicial.

I'll find someone qualified to state the case. I will say this, and again, I'm not a lawyer, but a lot of what's appeared in the Star has been hype, and the persons quoted should be ashamed. Not all, but the last few articles by "legal experts". They've just muddied the water.

Nuff said for now...

 

[pstogios]

Holy Moly!

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...g-fords-slashing-of-toronto-city-council.html

OK, I haven't had time to research this, and I'm not a lawyer, just got forced to learn law ... and this is *profound!*.

I'm almost frozen from writing any more on this, the implications could be absolute dynamite. This has the potential to cause a Legislative crisis...I've got to find an expert legal opinion on this and post it.

To be continued...

Addendum: I'll add this, and I really don't want to misspeak on this, but: One wonders how the Injunction stage was skipped, whether that was through *exceptional* petitioning of the court, or the Court taking the initiative. I've got to be really careful here, because I've sensed that the Judiciary would be as offended on this as any other academics or informed people are. But what I just wrote must not be said overtly, as it would *appear* to be prejudicial.

I'll find someone qualified to state the case. I will say this, and again, I'm not a lawyer, but a lot of what's appeared in the Star has been hype, and the persons quoted should be ashamed. Not all, but the last few articles by "legal experts". They've just muddied the water.

Nuff said for now...

This is totally off topic.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is totally off topic.

So is the legitimacy of the King Street Pilot as you will soon see.

I have every intention of moving this discussion, indeed it will move itself, to a more appropriate string. For now, I was answering a string already started here.

Now getting back to drivers ignoring the law on King Street. @reaperexpress ' post seemed brusque, but completely made the point that Council has hamstrung themselves by not applying for powers clearly available to them *under the present HTA* but that will soon be mangled by the sitting regime in QP.

Perhaps the City will also end up, especially if Keesmaat is elected Mayor, of having a court enforce the powers the City should be granted under the HTA to adopt the types of signals, signs, enforcement and controls that K/W has for their LRT.

@raptor and others can then post the kinds of ideas that could/should be implemented to make King work.

Something has to happen, because right now it's a massive show of miscreants.

 

[reaperexpress]

dammit! I give up. There is no hope to fix this.

Don't give up! This particular method is a non-starter, but there are other ways of accomplishing the same general premise.

Ideally we'd have a greater array of available signal displays supported in the Ontario HTA (such as the flashing yellow arrow or a greater array of white-bar transit signals), but even with current regulations we can set up the signals to make the intersections automatically self-enforcing. For example:

E-W Thru and EWR

E-W Thru

N-S phase(s)

Since the vehicle signal is always red, we can use red light cameras to automatically ticket any unauthorized vehicle which drives straight through. Note that red light cameras are the only type of automated enforcement currently legal in Ontario.

Obviously it's less than ideal, showing green and red side by side and including wordy signs. But it's what can be done without having to go through the lengthy process to update the Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Traffic Manual to legalize other more intuitive signal indications.

This option was presumably not used for the current pilot simply due to the cost associated with installing the additional signals and their associated hardware. If the pilot were to become permanent, a self-enforcing design would surely be installed given that it would pay for itself in fines anyway.

Personally I'd like to see this setup installed at at least one location during the pilot to measure its effectiveness in deterring illegal movements, thereby confirming to Council that the pilot would be reasonably enforced if it were permanently implemented.

Other note
- I used a unique "Transit & Bicycle Signal" sign to get around the HTA's requirement for duplicate signals. Otherwise we'd need 2 Transit Signal heads plus a separate Bicycle Signal head (note that bicycle signals are exempt from the duplication requirement as of 2016), which look more cluttered.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Excellent post! You'd think that City or TTC staff would already have informed the Mayor and Council on this. There are answers!

I'm now seeing Keesmaat being credited (blamed?) for the King St Pilot as Chief Planner. This might account for Tory's lukewarm support, and ostensibly, one more reason to vote for Keesmaat. Her strength is also her weakness, as in these "I drive a Ford" times, that means she's going to lose support in the burbs for the reason she gains it in the core.

There is no way to make King work on the present course. It's doomed. Sections of the HTA must be invoked, and that means a fight for Toronto with QP. Tory won't champion that fight. He'll wave a white flag to take time out to polish his shoes and check his schedule.

Keesmaat for King! The political voices that bled into this string a few posts back might bring a strength to Council hitherto unimagined. That would be what's necessary to demand the sections of the HTA pertaining before QP can gut the HTA sections necessary.

 

[reaperexpress]

Sections of the HTA must be invoked, and that means a fight for Toronto with QP. Tory won't champion that fight. He'll wave a white flag to take time out to polish his shoes and check his schedule.

But didn't I just demonstrate that it's possible to make King work without challenging the HTA? As you know, I totally agree that the HTA needs to be changed, but I feel it's probably best to wait till Ford gets the boot before picking that fight with the Province.

 

[steveintoronto]

I totally agree that the HTA needs to be changed

Except it doesn't have to be changed! The powers have been there for years, since the last major revision. QP will move to *take those powers away*, "line by line" but especially PART XVI PILOT PROJECTS.

That has more than enough power in itself to enact (IIRC) for ten (edit: 12) years any and all of what you've posted. It has *immense* powers.

[...]
Regulation to create own scheme of rules
(4) A regulation made under this section may regulate the doing of anything or the use of any thing or prohibit the doing of anything or the using of any thing. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33 (1).
[...]
Time limit
(6) A regulation made under this section must provide that it is revoked no later than the twelfth anniversary of the day the regulation is filed. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 33 (1).
[...]
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK382

I think twelve years should be suffice to prove the Pilot's worth...and then pertaining rules created can be enacted permanently.

 

[steveintoronto]

^Something not realized by many is that PART XVI PILOT PROJECTS is the basis for electric recharging stations for cars, driverless tech, and many more aspects necessary for the Waterfront Sidewalk project and more. It *enables* the future tech of road vehicles. And the Ford machine has already dismantled aspects of that program in the Energy portfolio. They're coming for the HTA to gut it too, it's a matter of time.

This is mundane, but it demonstrates how widely this section applies:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/council/cc060131/wks1rpt/cl003.pdf

Here's a section of how the City examined the use of *Segways* (fer Gawdsakes) under the then revision of the HTA (2009?) that was just coming into force:

The Works Committee recommends that: (1) the City of Toronto support the Segway only as a Mobility Assisted Device; (2) the Ministry of Transportation Ontario be requested to expedite the study of the proposed pilot project with respect to Segways;
[...]
(5) Other Developments which may affect the use or regulation of Segways: There is currently a Bill before the Legislative Assembly, namely Bill 169, the Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act, which would amend the HTA by inserting a new Part XVI (Pilot Projects). This new Part XVI would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation to authorize or establish a pilot project for research, testing or evaluation purposes. Pursuant to the proposed provisions, under a project authorized or established by the new Part, persons or classes of persons may be authorized to do or use a thing that is prohibited or regulated under the HTA, the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the Public Vehicles Act or the Truck Transportation Act or to not do or use a thing that is required or authorized by any of those Acts. Also, the proposed provisions provide that an authorization or requirement described in the proposed Part XVI “may be limited to any class of persons, class or type of vehicles, class of equipment, devices or highways, parts of Ontario, time of year or day, activities, matters or any other things” and that a regulation made under this new Part “may regulate the doing of anything or the use of anything or prohibit the doing of anything or the using of anything”. Pursuant to these proposed provisions, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could introduce a regulation to govern Segways and exempt them from the HTA provisions. It should also be noted that, pursuant to the proposed provisions, any regulation that authorizes or establishes a pilot project must provide that it is revoked within 12 years after it is made. Bill 169 has, however, only currently received second reading and has not yet been passed by the Legislative Assembly. [...]

And so on.

For Segways! So why in hell wasn't the King Street Pilot accorded the same opportunity? One can only guess at the myriad of wrongs streetcars commit...

And:
Three self-driving vehicles to take to Ontario streets under pilot project

Ford et al *hate* innovation of this sort. And Ford will do all he can to stop "LRTs" in their tracks.

 

[Catenary]

Other note
- I used a unique "Transit & Bicycle Signal" sign to get around the HTA's requirement for duplicate signals. Otherwise we'd need 2 Transit Signal heads plus a separate Bicycle Signal head (note that bicycle signals are exempt from the duplication requirement as of 2016), which look more cluttered.

Duplicate bicycle signal heads are not required by regulation, but are listed as a "should" in OTM book 12A.

Your design might work well with a white bar transit signal atop the regular yellow signal, and then the two bike signals.

 

[gweed123]

Duplicate bicycle signal heads are not required by regulation, but are listed as a "should" in OTM book 12A.

Your design might work well with a white bar transit signal atop the regular yellow signal, and then the two bike signals.

Agreed. Best to minimize confusion between the transit green and the vehicular traffic green. Mount the bicycle signals somewhere near the pedestrian signals. Otherwise, a great suggestion reaper!

 

[steveintoronto]

https://stevemunro.ca/2018/08/16/king-street-update-july-2018/#more-21043