Absolutely. And lane reduction is not something that is "likely to happen" it is something that has already been happening for several years. Just this year for example Scarlett Road was rearranged from 4 lanes to 2 lanes + bike lanes + left turn lanes + parking lanes, and this is an extremely common update which has happened to countless other streets already (Harbord, Wellesley, Dundas East, Gerrard, Shuter, River, Annette, Davenport, Rogers, Cosburn, etc).
Traffic already flows more smoothly regardless of removing signals because the notion of 2 lanes per direction was purely theoretical to begin with given how often one or the other would be obstructed by parked cars, turning cars, stopped buses, cyclists, streetcars, etc. Now there can at least be one efficient traffic lane per direction, with dedicated space elsewhere for people parking, cycling or turning.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any of these road diets being leveraged to eliminate traffic signals (or stop signs). The only win I've seen so far was that as part of the Shaw Street reconstruction this year (which included banning cars for one block in order to prevent cut-through traffic) they removed the all-way stop signs at Essex Street to give priority to Shaw. But the rest of the superfluous stop signs are still there, making Shaw an inefficient cycling route if you obey the law. Which undermines the route's potential to divert cyclists off of Ossington.
I suppose the upside though is that we don't need to focus on bringing about lane reductions, we can simply look at the lane reductions which are already occuring and see what opportunities there are to eliminate traffic signals and stop signs.
