King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[MetroMan]

The biggest failure of the pilot is timing. This should have been started in the spring. Then if new things needed to be built, then they could. Now, we are stuck with this till the construction season starts up.

Nothing permanent will be built until it has passed City Council, whether this started in the winter or the spring.

Timing did play a role in the bad PR it's getting from the business community. Had the pilot picked up right after TIFF, businesses East and West of the TIFF street festival would have welcomed extending the patios and pedestrian crowds to the front of their doors. This will happen in the Spring anyway but not before a wave of bad PR hits the King Street Pilot all winter.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city’s “solution” to drivers not following the signs is to put up even more signs.

View attachment 131012

Spoiler: it doesn’t work.

Drivers shouldn’t be expected to read a novel on a plaque up ahead to know what they should and shouldn’t do. An open road up ahead and a green light invite the drivers through. If this pilot has taught us anything (confirmed what many of us knew) is that drivers in Toronto don’t read the signs.

Toronto’s problem isn’t insufficient signage, it’s too much. Well designed streets are intuitive and enforce the intended traffic flow by their design. The chosen King Street Pilot design is not intuitive. It should have been a series of alternating one ways. Drivers would be met with a dead end and would never see any solid green lights, only right turn greens.

No capisch English. Nous sommes du Québec.

 

[TransitBart]

No capisch English. Nous sommes du Québec.

Walter, choose. Either French or Italian. But seriously. Not at Christmas.

 

[amnesiajune]

I'm not suggesting the city build permanent infrastructure. What I'm pointing out is that the city chose the wrong model. Alternating one way streets was the superior option. Drivers would reach an intersection and find a dead end. Without reading any signs, they'd have no option but to turn right and follow the intended traffic flow through street design, not written instructions. Barriers, traffic lights, road markings would accomplish this and are reversible.

Those are the benefits of that option, but there were a lot of drawbacks too. Most notably, the far-side stops wouldn't work like they do now because cars would be using the curb lane. There's a reason why the city's experts -- who, unlike us, are actually qualified to make these decisions -- chose the current option. You might disagree with them but you can't just declare that it's the superior option because you disagree.

And frankly, you're wrong. Even with the one-way option just as many people would end up driving through the intersections.

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm aware of the present status quo as we discussed a month or so ago. It is clearly not "priority" in terms of what could be achieved. For a start, as we and others have discussed, there's no signals or phase for streetcar only.

So I ask, if my critique is so off-base, where is the evidence to contradict it? Why is there no apparent *upgrade* of the transit priority signalling to a standard done in many other cities?

There may indeed be 'new sensors' installed in some locations along King. What is the system status and mode of operation? Holding green for a few seconds to allow one streetcar at a time to make it through the intersection? Is that logic fixed in terms of not having an algorithm fed by other factors?

Toronto's Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system is very aggressive compared to the ones in most other North American cities, though not quite as aggressive as some systems in Europe. Streetcars can extend the green by up to 30 seconds (which is almost half the cycle length!), and can immediately shorten other phases as much as possible with no restrictions other than maintaining the minimum safe pedestrian crossing time.

The reason it tends not to work that well is that there's usually a streetcar stop right before the intersection which makes it impossible to know when the streetcar will wish to proceed and therefore the actions the system takes often end up being unhelpful or even counter-productive. With the stops moved far-side with the King Pilot, the system will work far better than it did before.

If the system were on, there would be a massive reduction in delays for the streetcars which receive priority (late streetcars). Speeding up late streetcars reduces their headway, which reduces overcrowding, which in turn also reduces dwell times at stops.

Select readings:
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200106250200.shtml
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-72344.pdf

As I've pointed out before, the presence or absence of dedicated transit signals or transit phases has no correlation with the delay that streetcars experience. Dedicated transit signals would definitely cut down non-compliance of the through restriction by allowing the vehicle signals to display red all the time, but they wouldn't reduce the red lights that transit vehicles face. And I have clearly explained to you that the steps required to use the vertical bar are too long-term for it to be an option during the 1-year King Pilot. For the pilot the only option that's available is the separate Transit Signal heads like on Spadina and St Clair. I'm happy to discuss in the signals thread if there's some part of this fact that you question.

Clearly that indicates a system, transit corridor or not, that is operating far from optimally. And there appeared to be no assistance offered by priority in the intersection signals. I stood at the front of the streetcar...it was so jammed...a seat only became available much later. The car was stopped at many traffic lights.

Surely Toronto can do better than this?

Any clear and detailed reference on the TTC's having a distinct transit signal priority most appreciated. I don't see how this project can ever be declared representative of what can be achieved without them.

Already forces are marshalling to defeat this. And the City plods along like the $1M+ cost of this will buy them success.

Exactly. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are months into a transit priority project and Transportation Services is still refusing to enable the priority system that is already installed and adjusted at most of the signals in the pilot area. Based on this fact alone you may be right in that there are forces within the City trying to sabotage the pilot.

While we could argue indefinitely on this forum about how exactly a priority system should work, it wouldn't really accomplish anything. At the end of the day we want the same thing: for streetcars to receive priority at traffic signals, so they no longer spend so much time sitting at red lights. Our efforts would be better focused on convincing people who actually have the power to influence the decision to re-enable transit priority in the pilot area, such as the King Pilot team (notice the contact info on the right side of the website), and Transportation Services (via 311), the local councillors in the pilot area (Ward 20 Cllr Joe Cressy & interim Ward 28 cllr. Lucy Troisi) as well as other Councillors.

Like I said before, part of the reason transit gets such poor service at traffic signals is that pedestrians, cyclists and motorists constantly complain to the people operating the signals about sitting at red lights, while transit riders do not.

 

[steveintoronto]

Exactly. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are months into a transit priority project and Transportation Services is still refusing to enable the priority system that is already installed and adjusted at most of the signals in the pilot area. Based on this fact alone you may be right in that there are forces within the City trying to sabotage the pilot.

There's an irony in this, in that, to some extent and with provisos, if the signal priority system was in force, running optimally or tweaked to it, this whole exercise might be unnecessary in its present form.

Are we barking up the wrong treatise? We fully agree on how this is the Achilles heel of the project working to a point of undeniable success, and I'm going to repeat what the much maligned Fred Luk wrote (and make no mistake, I consider him a reactionary who has some excellent points besides):

Our proposal is quick, inexpensive and simple. We propose keeping the King St. traffic restrictions, but limiting them to rush hours. Cars could therefore return to King St. after 7 p.m. on weekdays, on weekends, and statutory holidays. Concerns expressed by city staffers that this would confuse drivers are spurious. It could be accomplished simply with lit street lights not unlike what currently exists on Jarvis, which allows traffic to flow into the core in the morning and out of the core in the afternoon rush hour.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...ing-st-pilot-project-is-killing-business.html

If the transit priority signal ability is already in place in some manifestation and could be further embellished with transit only phases and indicators, then Luk's idea is not that much different from what you or I propose.

The basis of a good 'test project' is to try a number of iterations to see what shakes out as the most effective and/or promising to further pursue and invest in. If Luk does represent the predominant view of the businesses affected in that area (and TorStar seems to indicate he does) then best we all work together to find out how much of potential success is down to the signals and banned turns at intersections, and more strategic parking policy, rather than the more wholesale approach being taken now, which contrary to the claims of many, is not a 'slam dunk'.

I favour the banning of cars and taxis altogether along King, and the banning of bikes like other successful transit malls do in their central sections, but all of what I or Luk wish for must be based on real results being displayed in various tested scenarios. None of those are valid, or ever could be, unless/until the signal priority is up and functioning.

While we could argue indefinitely on this forum about how exactly a priority system should work, it wouldn't really accomplish anything. At the end of the day we want the same thing: for streetcars to receive priority at traffic signals, so they no longer spend so much time sitting at red lights. Our efforts would be better focused on convincing people who actually have the power to influence the decision to re-enable transit priority in the pilot area, such as the King Pilot team (notice the contact info on the right side of the website), and Transportation Services (via 311), the local councillors in the pilot area (Ward 20 Cllr Joe Cressy & interim Ward 28 cllr. Lucy Troisi) as well as other Councillors.

I've become so cynical on councillors or city reps taking any kind of communication seriously that I defer comment on that.

You're absolutely right, but as you yourself agree, 'there are forces working against reason' on this.

Excellent post, btw.

Footnote: On TPS enforcing the "no left turns" at many intersections along the 504 route, and its proclivity to promote bunching:
Even though not part of the Pilot per-se, bunching due to rampant illegal left turns on Dundas both directions at Bloor was the focus of enforcement yesterday late afternoon. A number of different patrols with flashing lights and sirens were chasing miscreants who insist on denying everyone else, streetcars included, passage through the lights so they could turn illegally.

It's a constant cacophony at that corner of rightly irate drivers and streetcar operators honking and clanging at the many who ignore the signs.

Justice was served and it was sweet...

 

[micheal_can]

Toronto's Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system is very aggressive compared to the ones in most other North American cities, though not quite as aggressive as some systems in Europe. Streetcars can extend the green by up to 30 seconds (which is almost half the cycle length!), and can immediately shorten other phases as much as possible with no restrictions other than maintaining the minimum safe pedestrian crossing time.

The reason it tends not to work that well is that there's usually a streetcar stop right before the intersection which makes it impossible to know when the streetcar will wish to proceed and therefore the actions the system takes often end up being unhelpful or even counter-productive. With the stops moved far-side with the King Pilot, the system will work far better than it did before.

If the system were on, there would be a massive reduction in delays for the streetcars which receive priority (late streetcars). Speeding up late streetcars reduces their headway, which reduces overcrowding, which in turn also reduces dwell times at stops.

Select readings:
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200106250200.shtml
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-72344.pdf

As I've pointed out before, the presence or absence of dedicated transit signals or transit phases has no correlation with the delay that streetcars experience. Dedicated transit signals would definitely cut down non-compliance of the through restriction by allowing the vehicle signals to display red all the time, but they wouldn't reduce the red lights that transit vehicles face. And I have clearly explained to you that the steps required to use the vertical bar are too long-term for it to be an option during the 1-year King Pilot. For the pilot the only option that's available is the separate Transit Signal heads like on Spadina and St Clair. I'm happy to discuss in the signals thread if there's some part of this fact that you question.

Other places have the lights change when the streetcar/LRT stops. Then it stays green till the streetcar goes though the green light. Why doesn't the TTC do that?

 

[steveintoronto]

Other places have the lights change when the streetcar/LRT stops. Then it stays green till the streetcar goes though the green light. Why doesn't the TTC do that?

I was just reading up on Ottawa's priority system after reading a paper on the San Diego Trolley's long and developed approach to priority both with and w/o over-ride.

Just about to read this, but run out of time right now:

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/Transportation Services/TMC/Files/PDF/2015-11-13_TSOPoliciesAndStrategiesFinal.pdf

Note: "TSP shall not shorten the walk time to below the minimum pedestrian clearance time".

That could only be a consideration if the streetcar is turning at the intersection. For proceeding straight ahead, it's a moot point.

Something is not adding up with what other sources/posters state. Will continue to examine this and other docs later.

 

[micheal_can]

I was just reading up on Ottawa's priority system after reading a paper on the San Diego Trolley's long and developed approach to priority both with and w/o over-ride.

Just about to read this, but run out of time right now:
View attachment 131106

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/Transportation Services/TMC/Files/PDF/2015-11-13_TSOPoliciesAndStrategiesFinal.pdf

I visited San Diego a few times. That is one of the ones I was thinking of.

 

[steveintoronto]

I visited San Diego a few times. That is one of the ones I was thinking of.

I spent considerable time in SD, on a number of occasions, and marvelled at both the sensors in bike paths to change signals in your favour (SD was well ahead of the cycling infrastructure curve at that point, now lags) and the clear-running greens at intersections for the trolley system. This was back over a decade. They have since expanded the trolley system markedly, and are in their third stage of optimizing priority signals for them, the latest pique actually a simplification, because over-ride in one direction could block optimal sequence to clear intersections in the other! In simpler words, the gain was asymmetric.

I'll see if I can find the paper discussing this and link. SD's trolley was way ahead of many other systems in North Am save for perhaps Edmonton's, but Ed used a more crude form of interrupting traffic for priority. SD built flyovers where possible (with the freight tracks remaining at grade)(SD's system is temporally separated heavy rail in many sections, they own the freight operation too) to avoid any and all conflict at intersections.

SD was the first example of a 'streetcar' transit mall that I'd seen. That aspect remains controversial for a number of reasons, one of which Fred Luk is now raising in Toronto.

Addendum: Papers as per reference above:
Active Signal Priority for Light Rail Transit at Grade Crossings

[...]A case study, based on the San Diego Trolley system, in California, demonstrates enormous intersection delay savings of 89.5% and 25.3 s/train for late trains after application of the proposed Scheme I strategy. At the same time, the impact on other traffic in the priority cycle is only 4.1 s/veh. For Schemes II and III when no priority is needed, traffic delay savings are 32.5% and 52.0%, respectively. A simulation study confirms the system benefits and validates the practicality of the active priority system for future field testing. [...]

http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2035-16

TROLLEY PRIORITY ON SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS IN DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO

The San Diego trolley, an electrified light rail transit system, has changed its method of controlling trolley movement at signalized intersections on arterials in downtown San Diego. The previous method required a trolley to preempt, or alter, the normal operation of the traffic signals for the trolley to have uninterrupted movement at traffic signals as it traveled between stations. The new method, dubbed the trolley priority system, instead provides favorable timing to the trolley as a part of the normal operation of the traffic signals. The trolley priority system has proven to be more reliable than the preemption system and requires less maintenance. One notable drawback is that the new system sometimes requires the trolley to wait longer in the station before departing than did the previous system. However, since implementation of the trolley priority system, studies have shown that overall trip time has improved in the downtown area. Although at times a train may encounter delay beyond the normal station dwell time, by awaiting the appropriate entrance window on the next traffic signal cycle, the actual operating time between stations is enhanced. [...]

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LA0jeve0YXMJ:https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=370904+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

 

[reaperexpress]

Other places have the lights change when the streetcar/LRT stops. Then it stays green till the streetcar goes though the green light. Why doesn't the TTC do that?

That's exactly what most signals downtown do. Just watch them - they stay in Green/Walk until the streetcar enters the intersection, then immediately change to Flashing Don't Walk.

The problem is that the light can't just stay green forever because that would have an insanely large impact on other traffic, especially with streetcars operating every 2-3 minutes at rush hours. There is a fixed maximum on the duration a signal can be held, which in Toronto is 30 seconds at most intersections (the common maximum in other North American cities is 10 seconds). With a near-side stop, the variation in travel time approaching the intersection will vary significantly from one streetcar to the next due to passenger volumes, presence of strollers, wheelchairs, passengers trying to get directions from the operator, etc. So the margin of error needs to be massive to avoid having a counter-productive extension, which is when the signal extends to the maximum and still the streetcar hasn't left the stop. In that case, the extension has actually increased the delay to the streetcar, because now the light will change back to green up to 30 seconds later than it would have if the priority system hadn't done anything. That's why so many intersections have relatively high delays despite also having aggressive priority.

So let's say that an intersection with a near-side stop has +/- 15 seconds of variability in travel time for the 30 seconds prior to entering the intersection, but an intersection without a near-side stop has +/- 5 seconds. Given the fixed maximum of 30 seconds, the intersection with a near side stop would need to be designed based on a 15-second extension, while the intersection without a near-side stop could be designed for a 25-second extension. So transit would get more effective priority without even changing the algorithms or constraints of the system (other than re-timing them based on the changed travel times from the stop relocation).

There's an irony in this, in that, to some extent and with provisos, if the signal priority system was in force, running optimally or tweaked to it, this whole exercise might be unnecessary in its present form.

[...]

If the transit priority signal ability is already in place in some manifestation and could be further embellished with transit only phases and indicators, then Luk's idea is not that much different from what you or I propose.

The basis of a good 'test project' is to try a number of iterations to see what shakes out as the most effective and/or promising to further pursue and invest in. If Luk does represent the predominant view of the businesses affected in that area (and TorStar seems to indicate he does) then best we all work together to find out how much of potential success is down to the signals and banned turns at intersections, and more strategic parking policy, rather than the more wholesale approach being taken now, which contrary to the claims of many, is not a 'slam dunk'.

I favour the banning of cars and taxis altogether along King, and the banning of bikes like other successful transit malls do in their central sections, but all of what I or Luk wish for must be based on real results being displayed in various tested scenarios. None of those are valid, or ever could be, unless/until the signal priority is up and functioning.

But the pilot itself is the only reason the priority could be adjusted to work more effectively. Aggressive transit priority was in force before the pilot, and maybe that's why the travel time improvements from the Pilot have been surprisingly modest (some of the time saved in traffic was lost sitting more at red lights due to the priority being turned off). As I explained above, moving the stops to the far side was a key shift that would allow the priority to work far better than before, and it couldn't have been done without the pilot.

Moving the stop to the far side in the pre-pilot condition (i.e. with on-street boardings) would have increased the risk of passengers being struck by cars boarding/alighting because the yield point for drivers/cyclists would be right at the intersection where they are paying attention to other things. With a near-side stop, the streetcar stopping is the only thing going on at the point where drivers/cyclists need to stop. Far side stops in mixed traffic would also increase the likelihood of traffic backing up through the intersection, as you can constantly see at the pilot intersections when cars illegally go straight through. Although it's illegal to enter an intersection when there's no way to exit it, the pilot clearly demonstrates that people will not follow that law.

The pilot solves both problems by blocking off the curb lane to protect passengers as they board on the far-side, and to force all traffic to turn right at streetcar stops, avoiding the issue of intersection blockages.

Note: "TSP shall not shorten the walk time to below the minimum pedestrian clearance time".

That could only be a consideration if the streetcar is turning at the intersection. For proceeding straight ahead, it's a moot point.

For going straight ahead it means that when a streetcar is approaching a red light, that light can't just suddenly turn green because first you need to wait for the pedestrian countdown to be completed (which is typically about 12 seconds for north-south streets at King), followed by about 6 seconds of yellow+all-red.

 

[reaperexpress]

I spent considerable time in SD, on a number of occasions, and marvelled at both the sensors in bike paths to change signals in your favour (SD was well ahead of the cycling infrastructure curve at that point, now lags) and the clear-running greens at intersections for the trolley system. This was back over a decade. They have since expanded the trolley system markedly, and are in their third stage of optimizing priority signals for them, the latest pique actually a simplification, because over-ride in one direction could block optimal sequence to clear intersections in the other! In simpler words, the gain was asymmetric.

I'll see if I can find the paper discussing this and link. SD's trolley was way ahead of many other systems in North Am save for perhaps Edmonton's, but Ed used a more crude form of interrupting traffic for priority. SD built flyovers where possible (with the freight tracks remaining at grade)(SD's system is temporally separated heavy rail in many sections, they own the freight operation too) to avoid any and all conflict at intersections.

SD was the first example of a 'streetcar' transit mall that I'd seen. That aspect remains controversial for a number of reasons, one of which Fred Luk is now raising in Toronto.

Addendum: Papers as per reference above:
Active Signal Priority for Light Rail Transit at Grade Crossings

http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2035-16

TROLLEY PRIORITY ON SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS IN DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LA0jeve0YXMJ:https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=370904+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

We may be straying into the topic of the Roads: Traffic Signals thread, but anyway...

Yes, to sum up, San Diego has disabled its transit priority system and instead introduced a green wave in the normal signal timings that is optimized for the expected transit travel times. The advantages of that option are that, like you said, by avoiding abrupt actions by the priority system, you can also avoid impact on other road users such as streetcars going the opposite direction.

But the limitations of that option are that
1. Coordination only works between intersections where there is no streetcar stop in between, because otherwise there is too much variability to guess when the streetcar would need the next green - they allude to this in the second article mentioning that the time spent at (red lights at) stops has increased. In SD, that's okay because there are so many intersections without stops that you make up can that time elsewhere.
2. You can only create a green wave in one direction, unless the blocks are evenly spaced at half-signal-cycle travel time between blocks. Downtown SD has a perfectly regular grid, which might have the right dimensions to provide a green wave in both directions.
3. In order for signals to be coordinated, they need to be at the same cycle length. That's fine in SD because they're all at the same cycle length anyway.

Based on these constraints, the SD approach of a simple timed 'streetcar green wave' is a non-starter in the King Street pilot because
1. There is a stop at every signal except York St and Simcoe St.
2. The signals are not ideally spaced to make a green wave possible in both directions. With unevenly spaced signals and two-way service on the same street, you would need to compromise the green wave in one direction to avoid completely screwing over the green wave in the other.
3. The signal cycle lengths on King vary massively. In order to coordinate a minor intersection with a major intersection, we'd need to increase the cycle length at the minor intersection to match, which would considerably increase wait times for pedestrians at the minor intersection.

The best option would be to stick with active (i.e. detection-based) priority, and supplement it with a green wave at Simcoe and York to get even more benefits. The two strategies are not mutually exclusive, they can actually be combined.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Exactly. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are months into a transit priority project and Transportation Services is still refusing to enable the priority system that is already installed and adjusted at most of the signals in the pilot area. Based on this fact alone you may be right in that there are forces within the City trying to sabotage the pilot.

A few weeks back I recall someone at Traffiz Services say that they were waiting to collect more reference data until they enable TSP. Has there been more news since then?

 

[micheal_can]

We may be straying into the topic of the Roads: Traffic Signals thread, but anyway...

Yes, to sum up, San Diego has disabled its transit priority system and instead introduced a green wave in the normal signal timings that is optimized for the expected transit travel times. The advantages of that option are that, like you said, by avoiding abrupt actions by the priority system, you can also avoid impact on other road users such as streetcars going the opposite direction.

But the limitations of that option are that
1. Coordination only works between intersections where there is no streetcar stop in between, because otherwise there is too much variability to guess when the streetcar would need the next green - they allude to this in the second article mentioning that the time spent at (red lights at) stops has increased. In SD, that's okay because there are so many intersections without stops that you make up can that time elsewhere.
2. You can only create a green wave in one direction, unless the blocks are evenly spaced at half-signal-cycle travel time between blocks. Downtown SD has a perfectly regular grid, which might have the right dimensions to provide a green wave in both directions.

Based on these constraints, the SD approach of a simple timed 'streetcar green wave' is a non-starter in the King Street pilot because
1. There is a stop at every signal except York St and Simcoe St.
2. The signals are not ideally spaced to make a green wave possible in both directions. With unevenly spaced signals and two-way service on the same street, you would need to compromise the green wave in one direction to avoid completely screwing over the green wave in the other.

The best option would be to stick with active (i.e. detection-based) priority, and supplement it with a green wave at Simcoe and York to get even more benefits. The two strategies are not mutually exclusive, they can actually be combined.

Or, move every stop to the near side of the lights. When a streetcar stops, the opposing lights begin to change to red. By the time the streetcar is ready to go, the light turns green. This would actually have the streetcars stop at every stop.

 

[reaperexpress]

Or, move every stop to the near side of the lights. When a streetcar stops, the opposing lights begin to change to red. By the time the streetcar is ready to go, the light turns green. This would actually have the streetcars stop at every stop.

When you say 'opposing' do you mean the light for the streetcar? If so then you'd be requiring the streetcar to sit through whatever the minimum red duration is, which would far exceed the time spent at a typical stop.

According to the Toronto signal timing document @steveintoronto linked earlier, the minimum north-south phase along King Street would be roughly:
7s minimum walk
12s Flashing Don't Walk (14m @ 1.2m/s)
4s Amber
2s All-Red
__
= 25 seconds

Add in the 6 seconds of amber+all-red along King street and you're looking at a minimum of 31 seconds at a standstill before the light turns back to green. Based on my experience timing stops while riding the streetcar, a typical minor stop takes about 16 seconds, so this method would seriously increase the delays if applied there. However, at very major stops the dwell time can approach 30 seconds in which case it might be worth considering.

Also keep in mind that you can't just change the King Street light to red instantly, you need to wait for the Flashing Don't Walk first, which is pretty massive at some intersections. Depending on when the streetcar arrives during the cycle, there will be times when it is impossible to achieve your desired operation.

So while this strategy would probably be an improvement over the current setup at certain major near-side stops, it would still provide worse delays than priority optimized with a far-side stop.