TransitBart
Senior Member
So why are these not a part of the trial?
|
|
|
TOareaFan
Superstar
I believe the use of cameras for toad safety has to be approved by the province. Red light cameras were first allowed in 2004.....I am not aware of any other uses for cameras in road enforcement currently approved.
TransitBart
Senior Member
I was unaware of the wildlife safety issues in this pilot. Toads you say...
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Speaking of blocking information, I clearly explained in this post why the vertical transit bar cannot be used during the King Street Pilot to represent through movements. Let me know which part you question.
And even if there weren't the issue of all the current vertical bars in Toronto, there's the fact that using the HTA definition of the vertical bar on King Street would massively increase signal delays for all road users, including streetcars.
The HTA definition is that transit has the right of way travelling left, right or straight. Therefore pedestrians cannot cross, and you need completely separate phases for eastbound and westbound streetcars. If we accepted that definition streetcars would need to wait till the end of whatever phase was happening before being allowed to travel through the intersection. And then no one would be able to move while the streetcar goes through. Keep in mind that you can't suddenly end a phase, due to the Flashing Don't Walk, Amber and All-Red required.
I agree that we should introduce separate transit signals to let the vehicle signals to always show red (and sometimes green right turn arrow), so that red light cameras can automatically enforce the through movement prohibition. But given the limitations with the vertical bar signal indication, we should focus on the way of actually doing that, which is to add separate green/yellow/red Transit Signal heads similar to those used on the existing streetcar ROWs.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Then explain to me why the City can't modify the restrictions placed on the TTC's operations (not Provincially imposed) instead of the City claiming, as per DSC's posted reply from the City as to the (gist) "necessary legislative changes" to allow newer interpretations or wordings of the Act. (It can be done by Order in Council, effectively, by the Minister).
The City has the answer, there's no need of "legislative changes" to make this work. Ditto Red Light Camera.
The Waterloo example is indicative of flexibility and accommodation by the Ministry. If your assertion is correct (detailed at the link above) then why wouldn't the City have weighed this option and acted *before the event* rather than after?
I don't see any reason that with turn conditions/restrictions stated, the Ministry's published allowable and published example can't be used.
As to "blocking" I was referring to DSC blocking my posts, and bragging as to how "there's only one person I've ever blocked". It was over the Lower Don Lands, and my very real questions as to whether what stands there now is any great improvement. (I stand behind that claim, and I'm far from alone. I leave it at that).
What I did note in today's press directly related to how this whole King affair will slide back into chaos is this:
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...obe-of-parking-officers-tweets-continues.html
I'm just so shocked...
steveintoronto
Superstar
I find the logic you present to be wanting. If there is a constant Red Light with a transit exception light indicating 'Go', it infers, with the streetcar operator following the rules of the road, to proceed in *any direction* deemed safe and with the right of way...save that if there's a pedestrian cross signal indicated in any direction, the operator must comply with that, either by visually ascertaining that, or by an added signal in that direction. This is no different than "right turn on red" for motorists.
Here's the example from the Ministry:
Transit priority signals
Traffic and pedestrians must yield to public transit vehicles at a transit priority signal. The round signal is on top of a regular traffic signal and shows a white vertical bar on a dark background. This allows transit vehicles to go through, turn right or left, while all conflicting traffic faces a red light.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/traffic-lights#section-6
You'll notice the term "traffic". That does not necessarily mean pedestrians if they are given a separate signal, or the white bar is flashing (something I'm trying to find in the various acts).
Just as separate lanes can have their own signals apart from the main head, so can pedestrians.
I'm searching the HTA right now, and so far, cannot find any exclusion of a pedestrian crossing signal separate from the vertical white bar transit priority over vehicular signals.
Would added white bars reduce the ambiguity and responsibility of the operator to use judgement already defined in the Act? Perhaps...But it would not make anything move any faster than just a simple vertical white bar priority as presented in the Ministry's literature.
I'm still searching for more definitions of "traffic" and "pedestrian right of way" (in case of conflict) in various Acts. As common understanding has it (with exceptions and caveats) all things being equal, pedestrians get right of way. The task is to meter that while still allowing transit priority through the intersection. "Priority" doesn't necessarily trump a pedestrian crossing phase, something that must be allowed in both directions across an intersection, *no matter how it's signalled!* It's rather meaningless therefore to claim that pedestrian crossing phases alone will slow down transit throughput from one model to another.
For the right angle pedestrian crossing of the intersection, one possibility is to not light the vertical white bar during that phase, or better yet, use intelligent sensing so that when a streetcar is approaching, the phase is delayed. But this is Toronto, and they've only just discovered what the Rest of World is doing...
http://civil.engineering.utoronto.ca/research/research-handbook/smart-traffic-lights/
Toronto's new 'smart' traffic lights will sense congestion and adjust themselves
2 kinds of responsive traffic lights to be piloted along Yonge Street and along Sheppard Avenue East
By Kate McGillivray , CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2017 9:42 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 24, 2017 9:42 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/smart-traffic-signals-1.4417573
So did the City have to approach the Province for "legislative changes" to do this?
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The Ministry definition can be used, or we can use a slightly restricted version as in Waterloo. But first we need to change all of the existing vertical bars to something else, because those currently mean that transit vehicles can turn left or right but not straight. Changing the definition without changing those existing signals would create dangerous conflicts at many of those intersections, as I showed in the King & Sumach example. It is also not safe to have a different meaning for the vertical bar depending on whether you're on King Street are not. That would be creating a significant risk of dangerous operator error. Especially since there are already vertical transit bars on King Street: King & Sumach (EB and NB) and King & Spadina (NB & SB).
Currently there's no other type of transit signal that we could change the existing locations to, so I suggest applying for an HTA amendment to introduce angled bars which represent turning movement. To be clear:
1. Get angled bar added to HTA, meaning transit turn only
2. Change all existing vertical transit bars in Toronto to angled bars as appropriate
3. Now there are no vertical bars, so the meaning can be changed to include straight through movements
4. Vertical bars can now be installed to represent straight-through transit movements (St Clair, Spadina, King Pilot etc).
Getting an HTA amendment to create a new type of transit bar (angled bar for turns) and changing every existing transit bar location would take years, which makes it irrelevant for this pilot project.
I absolutely support your suggestion that the City should adopt an interpretation of the transit bar which includes straight through movements, but the fact is that that cannot be done within the timeframe of the pilot project.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Excellent reply, as it narrows down the possible reasons the City could have to claim 'delay, obfuscation and bewilderment' at addressing the way the task demands.
I'll dig further on this later when I'm more focused, the HTA is as much about what it doesn't exclude as it is what it includes. And you have mentioned the "flashing white vertical bar" a year or so back in an excellent post in the ION string. By your statement, Houston uses that, and I can't help but wonder how the HTA (and associated Acts) define that. I suspect they don't, and I still don't accept that the TTC can't revise their rulebooks. The City is using that line as an excuse for inaction. The rulebook must change no matter what happens.
I encourage readers to access that link, and read intently. Even if Reaper and I are arguing what may seem to be minutia, I think an answer is already at hand. It won't be optimal, but it will be workable, and the City can change things for the better when more opportune.
Sure as hell the present situation is prone to fail at this rate.
I think a lot of the devil is in the details of "definitions" in the HTA and other Acts, not easy searches. So far, I can find no requirement for the vertical white bar to be continuous and not use a flashing phase, as per Reaper's Houston example: (gist) "akin to an amber light". (See Reaper's ION link posted above) That would immediately indicate priority over traffic, but not over pedestrian phase signals. It would also allow the TTC to keep the present protocol in place elsewhere, since a flashing vertical white bar phase as well as solid would be unique (at this time) to King Street. Ostensibly, a flashing vertical white bar would indicate priority straight ahead (through) the intersection. In effect, an 'advance white' in phase with pedestrian crossings at the same time in the same direction.
More on this later...
Edit to Add: From @reaperexpress ION thread post linked above. This is an excellent example of creative interpretation *within existing guidelines/legislation* that would allow a workable and good solution, even if not optimal, for King Street. I'm not sure as to what Act the K/W LRT was incorporated under (it may even have its own), but ostensibly this can be applied to Toronto...and one yet again wonders why the Burghers and Fries of this Fine City couldn't learn a few things from those backward hicks down the highway? As it is, the success of the King Project will be as dependent on pedestrian behaviour as it will vehicular. If barriers preventing crossing willy-nilly aren't erected, it means that the City trusts pedestrians to act responsibly. (no comment) And if so, that must also apply at interstions. I question that logic, but that's what TO is inferring.
King & Victoria westbound. Note that the LRT crossing is not included in the signalized pedestrian crossing, similar to how the bike path crossing is not included in the signalized pedestrian crossings on Queens Quay. The difference is that here there is a clear indication to pedestrians that they need to check before crossing to the pedestrian button.
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Instead of trying to get a provincial law changed, why not make bylaws?
steveintoronto
Superstar
For signalled intersections, it's the HTA, not Bylaw.
dowlingm
Senior Member
A #KingStreetPilot story in three acts
One
https://twitter.com/porterthereport/status/934419014780051456
Two
https://twitter.com/mark_dowling/status/934550124545503232
Three
https://twitter.com/citynewsbrandon/status/934551353950552064
One
https://twitter.com/porterthereport/status/934419014780051456
Two
https://twitter.com/mark_dowling/status/934550124545503232
Three
https://twitter.com/citynewsbrandon/status/934551353950552064
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Agreed, it will be interesting to see what the Waterloo transit signals do once LRVs start running, currently they're sitting in 'red' (horizontal white bar) 24/7. Will they have the 'flashing white' (=yellow) sequence like I was guessing? It's also possible they do what the TTC's white bar signals do, which is to go directly from solid white to solid 'red' (such the 'yellow' and 'red' are both displayed as 'red').
From what I've seen there, I think you're right and Waterloo is using a creative interpretation of the transit signal (within the legislation) that is less generous than the HTA definition, but they took a different creative interpretation than Toronto. It looks like some of the Waterloo signals will have a St. Clair-type operation where pedestrians and traffic are allowed to move in parallel with LRVs. So their definition must be like a green ball (i.e travel straight with the right of way, and turn left or right without the right of way).
I said the TTC can change its rulebooks and I even gave step-by-step instructions on how to do so. But those steps can't be completed by the end of 2018 so it doesn't really help us with the pilot.
Obviously active enforcement is critical and in the short term the City needs to get the Police to commit more ongoing resources in the short term (automated cameras are essential in the longer term).
But in addition there could be more passive enforcement (by design). One thing which could help is to block off any areas where cars are able to overtake a streetcar on the right. So there would be less incentive to disobey the through movement restrictions since you'd just get stuck behind a streetcar. I've noticed that cars are able to get by streetcars near Brant, Simcoe and York Streets. Blocking off the curb lanes in those spots might help cut down through-movement infractions a bit. Has anyone noticed any other locations where automobiles are passing streetcars?
steveintoronto
Superstar
I haven't had the time or necessary focus yet to delve into searching. I tried before on the K/W case, and came up relatively empty on the legal background that facilitates their model. The legislation allows for the "Lieutenant Governor in Council" (basically an Order in Council by the Minister) to tweak clauses and conditions purely by diktat. Whether that was done in the K/W situation is an interesting question. However it was done, the same must be available for Toronto.
It's synchronous that I was just studying the lights at St Clair and Vaughan, albeit there are separate traffic and transit signal heads. I was watching them closely for about ten cycles, and never once were the (ostensible) white bar lights lit (the ones above the red on the transit heads). In fact, from what I observed, unless there's an externally cued command to light the bar, the transit signals were in lock-step with the traffic ones. I'm just headed there again in a few minutes to see if anything has changed. What struck me at the time earlier was "what a waste"...since what we've been discussing is using the one traffic head to conduct all possible movements through King intersections. That would take a tweak of the present signals, a much cheaper (and ostensibly less confusing) option, especially with a proximity sense for approaching streetcars doing a simple interrupt/suspend of the light cycle.
I'd been promoting laying what would effectively could be described as 'flagstones' to extend the sidewalk out to streetcars to block not only errant motorists, but also cyclists from flying past open/opening streetcar doors. The layout at present is especially prone to doing that since no control or delineation of bike traffic is happening, a huge mistake as far as I'm concerned. It was pointed out to me a few days back that there's no plan for facilitating that 'platform'.
And then today I read that *there is one!* (gist) "Bump-outs like the ones on Roncesvalles but not planned to be installed until 2018." I have no reference for that, it may be misinformation, but if reliable, then it should be done now, not later.
CBC has a well researched story datelined yesterday http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/king-pilot-update-1.4418679 indicating that the project *is not* (and this is anecdotal) radically altering travel times for passengers. This is troubling, not the least as results must start showing now, not later, as improvement is to be had from what is presently possible. Unless *some* tangible results consistently show now, this project is in trouble. And results must continue to improve over the lifetime of the project.
City had best be planning some serious improvements and fast, as it will take months to implement, and during the worst time of the season to do it. The naysayers will have a field-day otherwise.
I'll try and do some further digging on the legislative background later. I'd love to know the basis of ION's latitude for signalling. Just did a quick search, can find no Ontario Act giving ION discrete and unique powers. This lends itself to indicating an interpretation of existing law for their signalling system, albeit King St is not an LRT, it remains a shared highway (for better or worse).
More later...
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Like all other vertical bars in Toronto, the St. Clair & Vaughan transit bar is used to let streetcars or buses turn, but not go straight. Namely the westbound 90 Vaughan bus turns right onto Vaughan Rd (but it can also use the right-turn arrow, depending on when it shows up during the cycle), or streetcars going out of service down to Bathurst. The signals do have transit priority, though the priority is not 100% given that the intersection is quite constrained for capacity. I recommend filming the signal and comparing what the green times are in the absence of approaching streetcars vs. when there's a streetcar approaching. I think you'll find it suspiciously common for the signal to change to yellow just after the streetcar goes through.
It would be possible to also add an inserted phase to let streetcars go straight before left turns proceed, but I don't think it would be appropriate here because there are so many phases already and the intersection is constrained for capacity. Such an inserted transit phase would however be a no-brainer at the minor intersections along St. Clair (as well as Spadina and the Queensway).
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Just posted this as an addendum to prior post, but will post it as a fresh supplement to this post:
Addendum: Just up at Vaughan and St Clair, admittedly a challenging intersection, and there's an anomaly in the streetcar signalling! Streetcars coming out of service (Edit: Eastbound) turn south on Vaughan...against the transit red light, but apparently allowed by the traffic red light sign stating "No Right Turn on Red (streetcars excepted)". Even though it was clear that the transit and traffic signals were red, it is possible, but not visible, that the vertical white bar signal was lit too. I'll double check at 9 PM again tonight.
I'll get a pic and post it tomorrow, not enough light tonight. I'm digesting the implications of this...
Later Addendum:
Just doing some searching now on the Vaughan/St Clair transit signals, and the following refers to Westbound traffic, the apparent anomaly I witnessed yesterday was Eastbound, but this info, along with what @reaperexpress has stated, is very relevant to understanding what may be possible on King with minimal outlay. (Cost is an important point for King, since it will be used as a political football since "this is only a pilot". In other words, they're not willing to pay for what it costs to get it right)
https://cptdb.ca/topic/30-st-clair-row/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-292500rollsign29
Posted June 10, 2009
- Will operate on 1435mm or 1495mm gauges
- CPTDB Wiki Editor
- 1,655 posts
- Location:Toronto, ON
63 Ossington said:
Please pardon my ignorance, but what is the NA system and how does it work? Thanks!
The simple answer to it is a series of radio frequencies emitted from a beacon on the underside of a transit vehicle. Buses have them in the front, streetcars in the front and back. For buses, it's predominantly for activating transit priority signals. For streetcars, it's for priority signals, as well as setting switches (the front beacon emits one of two signals, operator-controlled through a dash button) that will set a switch in the desired path (hence the 'NA' signs hung from overhead near switches). The rear beacon on a streetcar "unlocks" the switch per say, so that the following streetcar can set it without running the risk of throwing the switch while the streetcar in front is still on it.
Now, as for the transit signal at Vaughan & St Clair, I was up there today doing some observations. It seems that there are two distinct "priority" phases for westbound transit vehicles.
1. The White Bar (w/ Red Light). Exclusive phase for any transit vehicle heading east or westbound in the ROW. This one seems to be activated by a bus parked right over the loop sensor at the switch heading westbound, as I did not see it go on too often. Streetcars also activate this when they set the switch to divert, for cars heading south on Vaughan.
2. Right-turn Signal (Green Right Arrow w/ Red Light). This one only appears to be activated when there is a large cue of traffic southbound on Vaughan, which triggers the southbound advanced signal, the only time that the right-turn transit arrow comes on. This is only for movements by 90/90A Vaughan buses to get off the ROW. All other westbound movements are held at the red light.
And then of course is the standard green light (w/o a red light). I'm pretty sure the general rule for this one is that straight through and left-hand turns are all permitted, yielding the right-of-way, and that right-turns are not allowed unless controlled by a priority signal. Not 100% sure, but I do know there needs to be some re-education on what a white bar means ... of the 5 or so priority signals I watched, only once did a bus move on it, and it was a 7B Bathurst bus turning west-to-south.
That was ostensibly accurate eight years ago (my God how times flies) and if any posters have more up-to-date info, please post it, or contact TTC for comment on the accuracy, I'm not adept at dealing with municipal bureaucracy. *Apparently*, as that strikes this electronic tech/acting engineer, it isn't that difficult a job to interface the extant streetcar transponders with a traffic light signal head with a vertical white bar on top to satisfy the needs of the King Street Pilot as discussed prior. There may be jurisdictional and political issues however.
*IF* I can ascertain that 512 Eastbound cars going out of service are legally allowed to turn south onto Vaughan from St Clair on a transit and simultaneous traffic red without the vertical white bar lit, then that precedent alone makes a lot of other actions legally possible.
TorStar runs this article by Jamie Watt today, a sensible and informed powerful Con pollster/tactician/strategist. He makes a good point, but his position requires him to be overly generous to Tory (A mayor neither makes nor breaks these projects, it's Council. The Mayor gets one vote on Council, even though he has other powers). If Watt is correct in his assertion, however, then Tory had damn well best makes sure this project succeeds, and he'd best get on it yesterday.
Opinion:
King St. transit plan a kingmaker for Tory
Last edited: