News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 83     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
News Roundup for April 24, 2024
 258     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
That's Some Arm
 585     0 

Roads: Traffic Signals

Kitsune said:
... there's a lot of traffic light because council keeps over ruling the transporation divison. The transportation division will run report with a conclusion stating no traffic lights or crosswalk signal required .. only for council to over rule them. A good example is that shiney new Crosswalk signal @ Queen / Victoria Park. Traffic volume was deemed to low .. and also too close to another crosswalk.., yet Bradford had council overrule them.
Click to expand...
Wellington at Scott is another new one that makes no sense. Particularly if/when the St Lawrence Centre for the Arts plans see Scott closed from The Esplanade to Front.
 
After watching recent cab-view LA Metro videos (post-Regional Connector), I couldn’t help but think about Lines 5/6. LRTs that operate at consistent (even slow) speeds have an extra signal at intersections to indicate to operators from a distance that their train has been detected, and the signal is about to change to ”Green”, in addition to the ”Red/Yellow/Green” signals. Three examples:

1. Los Angeles has flashing orange ”TRAIN” lights to warn motorists, but also to indicate to operators that the signal is about to turn ”Green”;

2. Kitchener-Waterloo (and I believe Edmonton too) have the ”Red” signal flash indicating to the operator that the light is about to turn ”Green”;

3. The German four-aspect signals, with a light above the ”Red” signal to indicate to operators that they have been detected, and the light will turn ”Green”. I believe they use the letter ”A”, as in ”Abfahrt”.

This single aspect is missing from both Lines 5/6. Without advance warning, LRVs will slow down to unnecessarily low speeds, just to have to accelerate again.

Maybe this could be mitigated in Toronto by adopting the European practice of showing the ”Red” and ”Yellow” lights at the same time, before turning ”Green”.

(Edited to correct typo.)
 
Last edited:
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Towered said:
Why is a traffic light being installed literally 50 meters south of Spadina and Bloor?? *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...
Spadina needs more lights? Doesn’t the Spadina streetcar move slowly enough already?
Click to expand...
A traffic light 50-metres south of Bloor wouldn't effect the streetcars, as it's in the tunnel and portal all the way to Sussex Avenue, about 240 metres south of Bloor. And there's already lights at Sussex.

Looks more like 100 metres to me to where I'd think they'd put a pedestrian crossing. Which isn't particularly short downtown. Of all the spots on Spadina, I haven't really seen much traffic congestion between Bloor and Sussex. It gets far worse once you are south of College.
 
Amare said:
This is the city's vision for "Vision Zero": having every intersection in the city signalized no matter how little sense it makes.
Click to expand...
But it's not even an intersection where they're putting them. It's completely bizarre.
 
I don't know about this particular location but I am seeing a trend of replacing pedestrian crossovers with signalized crossings. I'm of the opinion that the new crossing configuration is not as safe as the old one, and it seems some road authorities agree. The replace a backlit overhead sign plus two flashing lights with curb mounted signs and lights that can get lost in the visual clutter.
 
lenaitch said:
I don't know about this particular location but I am seeing a trend of replacing pedestrian crossovers with signalized crossings. I'm of the opinion that the new crossing configuration is not as safe as the old one, and it seems some road authorities agree. The replace a backlit overhead sign plus two flashing lights with curb mounted signs and lights that can get lost in the visual clutter.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the second and third in this image?

1687885281339.png
 
Towered said:
But it's not even an intersection where they're putting them. It's completely bizarre.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure where it is - presumably just north of the portal - where you can see people crossing the street even on Google streetview.

The ideal place would be Washington Avenue, but the portal is in the way. Though you do have that odd piece of sidewalk along the Spadia median from Washington up to the U-turn location.

1687887114293.png
 
nfitz said:
I'm not quite sure where it is - presumably just north of the portal - where you can see people crossing the street even on Google streetview.

The ideal place would be Washington Avenue, but the portal is in the way. Though you do have that odd piece of sidewalk along the Spadia median from Washington up to the U-turn location.

View attachment 488240
Click to expand...
It's going where that driveway is just south of that green space over to the Sutherland-Chan clinic...
 
adys123 said:
Are you referring to the second and third in this image?

View attachment 488233
Click to expand...
Yes. I was surprised that the configuration in the first image is still described in O/Reg. 402/15; I thought it was grandfathered (can I still say that?) because I haven't seen a new one installed in a few years.

I can't say I've seen a crossover installation like the second image - just signs and road markings (no lights). Any installation I have noticed has flashing lights. The way I read the Regulation, lights and over-lane signs are optional. I've only seen over-lane signs on multi-lane roads.

Subjective observation only but I find the visibility of the lights can be impacted by roadside clutter, foliage, etc. and simply by the fact that they are at the side of the road vs. overhead like they used to be. If they had mandated over-lane signs + lights they would have been better.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two, maybe three installations around here that were initially 'new style' crossovers but have since been replaced by full signals.

Subjective view only, but I think they would have been improved if theover-lane signs were the flashing lights were repeated on the over-lan
 
lenaitch said:
Yes. I was surprised that the configuration in the first image is still described in O/Reg. 402/15; I thought it was grandfathered (can I still say that?) because I haven't seen a new one installed in a few years.

I can't say I've seen a crossover installation like the second image - just signs and road markings (no lights). Any installation I have noticed has flashing lights. The way I read the Regulation, lights and over-lane signs are optional. I've only seen over-lane signs on multi-lane roads.

Subjective observation only but I find the visibility of the lights can be impacted by roadside clutter, foliage, etc. and simply by the fact that they are at the side of the road vs. overhead like they used to be. If they had mandated over-lane signs + lights they would have been better.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two, maybe three installations around here that were initially 'new style' crossovers but have since been replaced by full signals.

Subjective view only, but I think they would have been improved if theover-lane signs were the flashing lights were repeated on the over-lan
Click to expand...
I live in York Region, a popular jaywalking spot near me had one of the new-style zebra crossings without lights installed as in that 2nd image, then presumably due to noncompliance by drivers (which I witnessed on multiple occasions) it was changed to a zebra crossing with push buttons and lights as in that 3rd image, then presumably due to continuing noncompliance they went straight to upgrading it to an actual traffic light (just for the crosswalk, there is no road intersection). The road is one lane each way, I'd probably call it a minor arterial, very wide lanes and 50 km/h (aka, textbook suburb).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top