News   Feb 22, 2024
 1K     2 
News   Feb 22, 2024
 435     1 
News   Feb 22, 2024
 444     0 

King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

Cus the city is trying to do it as cheap as possible.

Put some of those concrete "K rails" in the way. Then you will solve the issues.
Never heard the term "K rail" before. Apparently it is the California way of saying New Jersey Barrier.
 
That right turn arrow is for a protected right turn meaning pedestrians would not be allowed to cross the street. Also, bicycles would be forced to turn right with this signal.

I know what the protected right signal is for. It already exists in King. The protected right signal would only last a few seconds, then pedestrians would have their right-of-way.

As mentioned multiple times previously in this thread, you would need a separate bicycle signal that is green when the transit bar is white

Then install the bicycle signal. This is hardly a fatal flaw.

The top signal is gibberish

No its not: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/handbook/bus/section4-2-7.shtml

Motorist would also queue up in the left lane waiting for the left signal to turn green

Drivers aren't allowed to turn left from intersections in the King Street Pilot Area, and thus there would be no left signal to wait for.

or block the right turners waiting for the signal to show a normal green.

Then they can deal with the angry honking drivers behind them, read the signs, and realize that motorists are only allowed to make right turns through intersections. Or if they can't read, they could run the red light and get a hefty ticket. Either way, the drivers will learn very quickly what they can and can't do at intersections.
 
I know what the protected right signal is for. It already exists in King. The protected right signal would only last a few seconds, then pedestrians would have their right-of-way.

Then cars needing to turn right would backlog into the streetcar lane and the streetcar would have to wait for the next cycle. There are too many cars on king, even under the new rules, to have a right turn signal of "just a few seconds", especially since pedestrians jaywalk wantonly.

I suggest you go check out one of the intersections like King and Yonge, King and University, or King and Spadina to see whether just letting cars turn right for a few seconds would work. They need a full length cycle of at least an unprotected right, or a mid length protected right cycle with police enforcement to prevent jaywalking.
 
This begs the question, why didn't City Planning use this setup instead? They probably thought of it, so there's likely a legal issue at play.

According to the MTO, the white bar "allows transit vehicles to go through, turn right or left, while all conflicting traffic faces a red light." I guess that last part is an issue. Also, the green turn signal means cars have right of way, which means pedestrians can't cross. General green light means cars have to yield to people crossing the street, which is what the city presumably wants.

Reality is tough isn’t it? It’s clear the pilot has big successes. But it also faces big problems before it can meet its full potential.

A few people here were proclaiming that the project would be a complete and total failure. Yes, admittedly not every problem can be fixed in one week. But is it drastically better than it was two weeks ago? And is there any major street anywhere in the world that has no problems at all, not even minor ones?
 
And secondly, the installation of this would enable us to use electronic enforcement (red light camera).

This begs the question, why didn't City Planning use this setup instead? They probably thought of it, so there's likely a legal issue at play.
No legal issue that I can find. In fact, so far the opposite. I initially thought that there would be. The more I search, the more there's a massive wasted opportunity using extant legislation to do this, some of which, btw, not only covers the cost of policing it, but also allows for provincial grants.

RE: 'Incidence of red light running autos':
Not my experience in the city. I see it plenty of times. Both my mother and daughter were in significant crashes where they were hit by red-light runners.

MetroMan said:
Seriously, this is so disappointing. King Street has returned to its former self a week into the pilot.

Ah... There it is.
May I remind the string that Amnesia is on record here as finding no fault with cyclists running red lights.

Cus the city is trying to do it as cheap as possible.
They sure are. If it isn't something that will cost Billions, then they begrudge spending a Million to get this right, even as a pilot. And one that could have a *massive* impact on transit effectiveness in this city, and within a very short time-frame. Unfortunately, it's not in the realm of Munchausen, and therefore not the concern of Council's attention.

That right turn arrow is for a protected right turn meaning pedestrians would not be allowed to cross the street. Also, bicycles would be forced to turn right with this signal.

As mentioned multiple times previously in this thread, you would need a separate bicycle signal that is green when the transit bar is white and red otherwise, and there would need to be a separate streetcar/bicycle/pedestrian but no right turns phase, and a streetcar/bicycle/right turns but no pedestrians phase.
Feel absolutely free to quote clause and section of where this is prohibited. I've already searched the legislation. I can find nothing barring it, in fact, there's sections *encouraging* it. I may have missed a definition or clause. If so, quote it. I've linked profusely prior.
The top signal is gibberish and the middle 2 are burned out light bulbs.
Really? Not what the legislation that I've quoted states. Join the crowd in searching for more definitive clauses and sections of various Acts and quote them.

Then cars needing to turn right would backlog into the streetcar lane and the streetcar would have to wait for the next cycle.
You mean just as what happens now, as the whole point of this is about vehicles proceeding *against legally binding signs*. So what you infer, intentionally or otherwise, is that this was a piss-poor layout and design to begin with.

According to the MTO, the white bar "allows transit vehicles to go through, turn right or left, while all conflicting traffic faces a red light."
Legislation I quoted states posted exceptions allowed. Other legislation (Controlled Access) details how it doesn't have to be a highway for the Governor in Council (effectively Il Duce) to apply *upon request by the muni* to other areas with other conditions applying. I quoted that in this string prior.
Also, the green turn signal means cars have right of way, which means pedestrians can't cross. General green light means cars have to yield to people crossing the street, which is what the city presumably wants.
Already been addressed in detail, not to mention that that is the way it is presently set-up.
A few people here were proclaiming that the project would be a complete and total failure.
They're referring the lack of compliance to the legally binding HTA. It's that compliance or not which more than any other factor determines the success or failure of this pilot.

upload_2017-11-19_17-8-0.png

[...continues at length...]

http://www.directtraffic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Book-121.pdf
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-19_17-8-0.png
    upload_2017-11-19_17-8-0.png
    146.3 KB · Views: 316
Last edited:
According to the MTO, the white bar "allows transit vehicles to go through, turn right or left, while all conflicting traffic faces a red light." I guess that last part is an issue. Also, the green turn signal means cars have right of way, which means pedestrians can't cross. General green light means cars have to yield to people crossing the street, which is what the city presumably wants.

The issue with the current vertical white bar in the HTA is a combination of what's written and the setup that has been used on the existing transit bars in Toronto.

As you noted, the HTA definition gives the right of way to transit going left, right and straight. But in certain jurisdictions, a more-restrictive definition has been used by the transit agency itself, to allow more efficient signal operations. In Toronto, the white bar has been given the meaning of left or right only, to allow perpendicular or opposing turns to occur simultaneously. For example, at King & Sumach the transit phase looks like this:
Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.25.18.png


You can see that in order for the turns to happen simultaneously, streetcars cannot be permitted to go straight eastbound, because they would conflict with the northbound streetcars turning left. (In this case eastbound left turns are prohibited for all traffic). So in order for the Toronto meaning of the vertical transit bar to be changed to include (or only include?) straight through movements, the transit bars at intersections such as this would first need to be changed to something else. But the HTA currently only has the vertical transit signal, so there's no other transit-only signal to change it to.

An obvious expansion of the HTA transit signals would be to introduce angled bars to represent turning movements, as per international standard practice. That way the current vertical bars could be changed to angled bars, and only then could vertical bars be used as straight-through signals such as on St Clair, Spadina or King Street.
In this diagram I also removed the unused aspects on the transit signal*.
Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.30.13.png


Meanwhile in Waterloo, the definition of the vertical bar is tho go straight through only (or wherever the tracks go). That way all transit signals can use a white bar rather than a green ball/arrow, eliminating the chance of false obedience by motorists. It works in Waterloo because there's only the one light rail line and therefore no ambiguity for turning movements. It's just "go" or "stop", - there's no need for instructions like "go left but don't go straight".

*P.S.

HTA Reg. 626 s. 1 (1), states:
Every traffic control signal shall consist of one circular amber and one circular red indication in combination with
(a) a circular green indication;
(b) a circular green indication and one or more green arrow indications;
(c) a circular green indication, one or more green arrow indications and one or more amber arrow indications; or
(d) one or more green arrow indications.",

So legally, turnout-only signals on transit ROWs need to include the green and amber indications even though they are never used. I think this is silly and transit signals should be exempted.

The LRT signals in Waterloo are as per the North-American standard transit signal design, which violate this regulation in a couple ways:
- they don't have any green or amber lights
- the "red" light is actually a horizontal bar, not a circular red indication.
I'm assuming that the Region got some sort of exemption from the province to trial these non-compliant signals but I can't find any record of any. It's possible there is one but there's just no mention of it online.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.25.18.png
    Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.25.18.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 315
  • Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.30.13.png
    Screen Shot 2017-11-19 at 17.30.13.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 308
Last edited:
Motorist would also queue up in the left lane waiting for the left signal to turn green, or block the right turners waiting for the signal to show a normal green.

You mean they would cue up over the striped road markings where they’re not supposed to be? They would eventually clue in that the light is not turning green. If they decided to go ahead anyway, they’d be running a red light. $350 fine caught by the red light cameras being installed all over major intersections.
 
Cus the city is trying to do it as cheap as possible.

Put some of those concrete "K rails" in the way. Then you will solve the issues.
Yes, it is being done cheaply but it's a PILOT PROJECT. They have already added some (minor) greening and if it becomes permanent then the whole street will get a make-over.
If by "K rails" you mean Jersey barriers - they have put these out but (for obvious reasons) they cannot block the streetcars so cars can simply go round them and drive on the tracks..
 
I'm assuming that the Region got some sort of exemption from the province to trial these non-compliant signals but I can't find any record of any. It's possible there is one but there's just no mention of it online.
Excellent post!
It's tough Googling to find this info, as without the exact search tag, the hit results become ones you've already found.

I can't even find some of what I found a few days back searching, especially as that relates to the (effectively) 'Power of the Minister' (de facto Governor in Council) under many Acts to allow *custom regulations* to fit specific instances.

The Province allows a latitude I wouldn't have believed possible until reading a section I quoted in this string re: "Controlled Access Highways"...the section allowing far more than just "highways" to be covered under legislation. I've since un-installed my browser with the search history that found that hit, will find it again, but it offered *at the request of a municipality* not only "Controlled Access" and the provincial powers that come with that, but unique and specific interpretations/manifestations of the intent of the Act.

It could well be that Waterloo Region applied for and was granted special dispensation, and if so, why doesn't Toronto? It seems absurd that for whatever reason, Toronto Planning has cocooned themselves into thinking they have all the answers to a situation that *many* jurisdictions already have answers for, apparently one less than a hundred miles away and covered under the same legislation. In fact, (this is just a long shot) The City of Toronto Act may offer an already custom-made answer.

I'll continue digging with emphasis on K/W to see what shows with that tag in the search. Many thanks for that info.
 
They need to install flexiposts narrowing the centre lanes at intersections and use this sign to nudge drivers to the right turn lane.
images 2.jpeg
images.png


Streetcars always run in the exact centre of that lane making the placement of the posts a predictable narrow passageway only for streetcars. Drivers approaching the intersection would see the flexiposts and naturally choose the wider path — the one to the right.
 

Attachments

  • images 2.jpeg
    images 2.jpeg
    8 KB · Views: 334
  • images.png
    images.png
    3.1 KB · Views: 318
How about we just keep the existing signals(make them red light and advanced right turn only) and add a separate transit signal like the ones on Spadina and make it for TTC and bikes?
 
Meanwhile in Waterloo, the definition of the vertical bar is tho go straight through only (or wherever the tracks go). That way all transit signals can use a white bar rather than a green ball/arrow, eliminating the chance of false obedience by motorists. It works in Waterloo because there's only the one light rail line and therefore no ambiguity for turning movements. It's just "go" or "stop", - there's no need for instructions like "go left but don't go straight".

The difference a tag can make to Google results. This is just scratching the surface, but is already an excellent lead from Reaper:
New LRT road signs to be explained at April open house
Signs for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians popping up in advance of LRT testing
CBC News Posted: Mar 27, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 27, 2017 5:00 AM ET
[...]
The Region of Waterloo is posting new road signs around town in advance of Grandlinq's plans to test the first light rail transit vehicle on the rails in late spring.

"A lot of times, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists tend to, you know... you sometimes miss new signs," said Brendon Simon, project engineer with the Region of Waterloo's ION team. "It's important that we start taking a look at the new signage that's up there."

He said the most important signs for motorists are yellow diamond caution signs that warn of LRT tracks either running alongside or crossing a roadway.

waterloo-lrt-sign.jpg

Another important sign hangs above intersections and lights up when an LRT vehicle is passing through, warning motorists that they are not allowed to turn either left or right.

waterloo-lrt-sign.jpg

Finally, Simon said its important for drivers to pay heed to the new reserved lane signs, which show a picture of an ION train pictogram and a white diamond on a black background.

waterloo-lrt-sign.jpg

"We ask that all drivers do not drive or park on LRT tracks, because it is a safety concern once these trains are in service."

Two other signs to pay attention to in the coming months include one for cyclists, which warns of LRT tracks up ahead, and another for pedestrians, which instructs them to look both ways when crossing LRT tracks.

waterloo-lrt-signs.jpg



Simon says all these signs and more will be on display at an open house to be held at 518 Dutton Drive in Waterloo on April 8, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The region's first LRT vehicle will also be on display at that event for the public's perusal.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...to-be-explained-at-april-open-house-1.4040267

I think the answers are closer than many think...
 
Last edited:
How about we just keep the existing signals(make them red light and advanced right turn only) and add a separate transit signal like the ones on Spadina and make it for TTC and bikes?

Yes, until the existing vertical transit bars in Toronto are modified, adding separate Transit Signals and Bicycle Signals is the only solution that allows the vehicle signals to be always red. I think the main reason not to do it during the pilot is that it would more expensive due to the large number of signals required. But depending on the actual cost, it might not be a dealbreaker.
 

Bear in mind that the following applies to *any* turning lane, and here-in lies a solution, even if not the best, it will allow a continuous red light for through traffic on the through-lane with posted exceptions, thus allowing a red-light camera and the legal consequences of illegally entering:

Is it illegal to turn left if the left turn signal is red, but intersection light is green?

JASON TCHIR
Special to The Globe and Mail
March 24, 2017 June 14, 2016
When you come to an intersection with an advanced green light for left turns, are you allowed to turn left when that signal is red as long as the intersection is green? Of course you only proceed when it is safe to do so. I'm talking about the dedicated lanes with their own turn signal. I've been going through them for 25 years - but my friends and family think I'm nuts. - David, Toronto

If the turn lane has its own traffic light, Ontario's Driver's Handbook calls it a "fully protected left turn." But, if you go through it when it's red, you'll have no protection from a $260 fine and three demerit points, police say.

"If it's a regular intersection with oncoming traffic you must have a green… you cannot enter the intersection on a red," said Const. Clint Stibbe, with Toronto Police Traffic Services. "Except if you are a driving a road building or cleaning machine, then you are permitted - but only when safe to do so."


So, if you've got a red light in your lane, you can't turn, period. Well, sometimes you can, but we'll get to that in a second.

It gets a little confusing. That's because there are different types of advanced green lights for left turns in Ontario.


For a normal advanced turn, the intersection has one traffic light with a flashing green light or arrow.

The traffic coming toward you has a red, so, on your green, you can turn left, right or go straight. Once the green light stops flashing or the arrow switches off, you've got a solid green and you can still turn left - as long as it's clear - before the light turns amber.

Then, we've got the simultaneous left turn. Here, traffic in both directions has an advanced left signal. Again, it's one traffic light for the intersection. Traffic going straight has a red and traffic turning left gets a flashing arrow. When that arrow turns to amber and the solid light turns green, then you can turn left if it's clear.

But, sometimes, the intersection has one signal light for the left turning lane and another for the lanes that are going straight and turning right. Sometimes, that lane is separated from the others by a median.

"A dedicated left turn has a separate signal head and when it is red, you cannot make a left turn," said Brampton driving instructor Ian Law.


So, if you've got a light in your lane and it's red, it doesn't matter if all the other lanes have a solid green. They get to go and you don't. You've got to stop and wait for the next advanced green.

If you stop at the red and then turn anyway, you could be charged with proceeding before a green light. If you don't stop at all, you could be charged with failing to stop at a red light, Stibbe said. [...]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glo...-intersection-light-is-green/article30444971/
 
  • Like
Reactions: jys
I think the main reason not to do it during the pilot is that it would more expensive due to the large number of signals required. But depending on the actual cost, it might not be a dealbreaker.
The red light camera legislation allows the City to keep all of the fines.

Don't have the Act handy to quote right now, have done so prior, but here's the media on it:
Red light cameras in Peel a municipal moneymaker and reported traffic safety success
News Mar 11, 2016 by Roger Belgrave Brampton Guardian

Fluctuating statistical numbers make it difficult to pin down exactly how effective red light cameras have been in reducing T-bone motor vehicle collisions on Peel roads, but judging from the thousands of tickets issued each year it is clear the program has been a significant moneymaker for local municipalities.

Last year, there were 7,009 red light camera tickets issued in Mississauga and 6,996 in Brampton.

The set fine for a red light camera violation is $325.

In 2014, there were 6,072 tickets issued in Brampton and 7,494 in Mississauga.

Peel’s red light camera program was implemented to help reduce intersection crashes, in particular, the potentially fatal T-bone collisions caused by red light runners.

The Region’s traffic safety staff has presented statistical data they believe show those “right angle” collisions have decreased at intersections equipped with the cameras.

According to the most recent statistical data available, in 2014 there were 611 crashes at intersections equipped with red light cameras.

Just 29 of those collisions were T-bone accidents. Only nine of those collisions occurred in the traffic direction cameras are set up to monitor.

In 2013, there were approximately 757 accidents at red light camera intersections – 22 were right angle collisions and six of those occurred in the traffic lanes monitored by cameras.

Red light camera fines are administered by and paid to the local municipalities.
https://www.bramptonguardian.com/ne...neymaker-and-reported-traffic-safety-success/
 
Last edited:

Top