Roads: Traffic Signals

[allengeorge]

Do you use crosswalks at traffic signals? Because at nearly all traffic signals cars are allowed to turn across the crosswalk while pedestrians have a walk light, and you need to make sure they actually stop, just like at a PXO.

Of course - but there is a completely different societal expectation around traffic signals. A crosswalk is not equivalent. A large number of drivers (anecdotally) simply ignore their existence and barrel through.

 

[reaperexpress]

Of course - but there is a completely different societal expectation around traffic signals. A crosswalk is not equivalent. A large number of drivers (anecdotally) simply ignore their existence and barrel through.

Yes, because:

The provincial pedestrian crossover standard is missing a crucial element - the crossing being raised, resulting in a speed hump for drivers. That's a standard part of the design in other jurisdictions. It forces drivers to slow down and makes it more likely that they pay attention to people trying to cross the street. It's no surprise that our watered down version results in non-compliance.

 

[TRONto]

I pulled the City traffic signal open data for something I was working on, and I figured I'd share here:

The City currently has 2486 traffic signals. This is absurd. The entire country of the Netherlands (which has 18 Million people) only has 5500.

View attachment 481014

I wish we'd have a moratorium on new signals - so for each new (warranted) signal installed, an existing unwarranted signal needs to be removed.

In general, traffic signals make the most sense where large volumes of motor traffic cross, or where pedestrians need to cross more than one lane at a time (i.e. 4+ lane roads). So many of our existing signals along streets with only 1 lane per direction would actually be safer if the signals were removed, a median added, a chicane around said median to slow speeds and a PXO (potentially raised to further reduce speeds). Pedestrians would no longer need to wait to cross the street in any direction, cyclists would hardly ever need to stop when travelling along the main street, and motor traffic would also stop less often.

Furthermore having so many traffic signals means that less attention is paid to each one. I've noticed recently that many intersections had Leading Pedestrian Intervals installed even in places where there was never any conflict between pedestrians and turning cars to begin with (e.g. because turns are prohibited or fully-protected). So transit riders, motorists and cyclists are held back for 4 seconds for no reason whatsoever. If Transportation Services can't even take the time to check whether a conflict even exists at a particular intersection, there is little hope of implementing intelligent signal control which reduces the amount of time we waste at signals.

What accounts for the difference? Do they have a lot of roundabouts?Is it our grid layout?

 

[innsertnamehere]

What accounts for the difference? Do they have a lot of roundabouts?Is it our grid layout?

1. more roundabouts
2. different way of designing arterials and street grids which reduces the need for signals (there are far less signals in europe in general compared to to north america)
3. Toronto is extremely trigger happy with signalized intersections even by North American standards.

 

[Northern Light]

What accounts for the difference? Do they have a lot of roundabouts?Is it our grid layout?

What @innsertnamehere said and I'm sure @reaperexpress will have more to add as well.

But I would note the following:

1) Wider roads demand more intervention; crossing a six-lane road or a 4-lane for that matter is a considerably more challenging than is crossing a 2-lane road.

2) Failure to use other 'tools', not just roundabouts, but yield signs, chicanes etc.

3) Lane widths that promote speed

4) lack of grid density.

5) Too many bus stops! ( a big thing now is the idea that every bus stop automatically requires a 'protected' crossing.

a) No it doesn't

b) We need fewer stops

6) Relative dearth of pedestrian refuge islands

7) Failure to restict problematic turn movements. (Toronto doesn't like to build physical barriers to prevent turns that cause issues)

 

[futurebound]

Exactly. Stop signs and traffic lights are among the only tools in the shed they are willing to use, along with speed humps that are not that effective against ever-growing lifted wankpanzer trucks and SUVs.

Bicycle routes should have as few stop signs as possible, with physical traffic calming built instead.

Alternatively, we could push to get the Idaho Stop legalized in Ontario.

 

[reaperexpress]

Alternatively, we could push to get the Idaho Stop legalized in Ontario.

Legalizing rolling through stop signs would just be giving road authorities a free pass on their overuse of stop signs, and the general meaning of a stop sign would be undermined.

Stop signs (are supposed to) exist for a reason, namely that the visibility is so poor that you can't see the conflicting street until you reach the stop line.

Example of correct use of stop sign: The main street is a one-way road coming from the right, but visibility is blocked by a building. The driveway is too close to the building to allow adequate visibility for approaching traffic so it has a stop sign. The bicycle path is further away from the building so there is sufficient visibility along the main road for cyclists to have a yield sign. If the order of the bike path and driveway were swapped, it would make sense for the bike path to have a stop sign.

If we legalized rolling through stop signs it would eliminate the interest in changing stupid traffic controls at places like this:

Stop sign at the intersection of two bike paths were the side street is uphill and all bikes need to slow anyway to turn.

There are a few locations along bike routes which genuinely do require a stop sign due to visibility restrictions, and eliminating the meaning of a stop sign would eliminate the most suitable form of traffic control for the situation. The only safe control then would be a traffic signal, which is even worse than a stop sign.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I am definitely not putting my and my family's lives in the hope that GTA drivers are actually paying attention to the road and will notice that I'm crossing.

If I want to cross a busy street I’m first going home to get my car.

 

[robmausser]

Im curious whatever happened to the results of the smart traffic lights pilot?

Toronto Launches Smart Traffic Signals Pilot | UrbanToronto

The City of Toronto launched a pilot project today of state-of-the-art smart signals at intersections along parts of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue East. Two technologies will be compared before expanding the system.

urbantoronto.ca

Its embarassing that in 2023 Toronto, the largest city in Canada doesn't have smart traffic lights. And this does not just benefit cars but transit buses/streetcars/LRT's as well.

 

[TRONto]

Im curious whatever happened to the results of the smart traffic lights pilot?

Toronto Launches Smart Traffic Signals Pilot | UrbanToronto

The City of Toronto launched a pilot project today of state-of-the-art smart signals at intersections along parts of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue East. Two technologies will be compared before expanding the system.

urbantoronto.ca

Its embarassing that in 2023 Toronto, the largest city in Canada doesn't have smart traffic lights. And this does not just benefit cars but transit buses/streetcars/LRT's as well.

Found this with Google 2022 July: https://www.wheels.ca/news/instead-of-timed-lights-this-company-is-using-ai-to-keep-traffic-moving

"Toronto’s Transportation Services division recently made the transition to the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), an AI-based solution developed by Australia’s New South Wales government. It was installed as part of the Smart Signals program identified in Toronto’s MoveTO action plan."

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-157804.pdf

2021 ""Smart" traffic signals: These automatically adjust signal timing based on actual traffic demand and respond to varying volumes and unpredictable traffic patterns. Staff propose Smart Traffic Signals be installed at 500 locations over the next five IE17.6 MoveTO 2021-25 Interim Action Plan Page 2 of 29 years, with a focus on major arterials parallel to expressways and other corridors with irregular traffic patterns."

 

[robmausser]

Found this with Google 2022 July: https://www.wheels.ca/news/instead-of-timed-lights-this-company-is-using-ai-to-keep-traffic-moving

"Toronto’s Transportation Services division recently made the transition to the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), an AI-based solution developed by Australia’s New South Wales government. It was installed as part of the Smart Signals program identified in Toronto’s MoveTO action plan."

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-157804.pdf

2021 ""Smart" traffic signals: These automatically adjust signal timing based on actual traffic demand and respond to varying volumes and unpredictable traffic patterns. Staff propose Smart Traffic Signals be installed at 500 locations over the next five IE17.6 MoveTO 2021-25 Interim Action Plan Page 2 of 29 years, with a focus on major arterials parallel to expressways and other corridors with irregular traffic patterns."

Hmm, i'm disappointed they went with SCATS. From what i've seen, InSync is way better. It does everything SCATS does and has cameras that monitor traffic flow and intelligently adjust the signals to it. I also believe InSync is cheaper. Weird.

 

[reaperexpress]

Its embarassing that in 2023 Toronto, the largest city in Canada doesn't have smart traffic lights. And this does not just benefit cars but transit buses/streetcars/LRT's as well.

Toronto has had adaptive signals ("smart signals") since the early 2000's, running with the SCOOT system. The current contract is simply to replace that equipment which has reached end of life, giving them an opportunity to consider suppliers other than Siemens.

 

[reaperexpress]

Hmm, i'm disappointed they went with SCATS. From what i've seen, InSync is way better. It does everything SCATS does and has cameras that monitor traffic flow and intelligently adjust the signals to it. I also believe InSync is cheaper. Weird.

Monitoring traffic flow and intelligently adjusting the signals is the entire purpose of an adaptive system. Every adaptive system does that, including SCATS and the previous SCOOT system.

 

[robmausser]

Monitoring traffic flow and intelligently adjusting the signals is the entire purpose of an adaptive system. Every adaptive system does that, including SCATS and the previous SCOOT system.

The InSync system does it better than SCOOT or SCATS from what i've seen. Neither SCOOT nor SCATS use cameras to accurately detect and account for traffic volumes.

You can throw around buzz words like adaptive system, but to me any system that is just taking button pressing from pedestrians and in floor sensors etc is an outdated system. The systems that use actual cameras to monitor traffic flow are lightyears better.

 

[reaperexpress]

The InSync system does it better than SCOOT or SCATS from what i've seen. Neither SCOOT nor SCATS use cameras to accurately detect and account for traffic volumes.

Cameras and inductive loop detectors are functionally identical. They provide exactly the same information to the system: the position, speed and direction of vehicles. Furthermore they are interchangeable. Any system can operate with either cameras or inductive loops. Even in Toronto we have intersections which use cameras and inductive loops for different directions at the same intersection.

In what way does InSync do a better job of detecting vehicles than the other systems?

You can throw around buzz words like adaptive system, but to me any system that is just taking button pressing from pedestrians and in floor sensors etc is an outdated system. The systems that use actual cameras to monitor traffic flow are lightyears better.

Adaptive Control is not a buzzword. It is the technical term which refers to a traffic signal control system which measures traffic flow over a period of time and determines a signal timing plan based on an optimization function in a model of tbe traffic system. In short it changes the maximum green durations based on the average traffic in the past 15 minutes or so.

Traffic Adaptation does not involve responding to individual road users, for example by holding the green for a group of approaching vehicles in real time. Real time adjustments occur via vehicle actuation. Adaptation and Actuation can be mixed and matched, because they operate on different timescales. A control system can be both adaptive and activated, or adaptive but not actuated, or actuated but not adaptive, etc.

An example of a buzzword is "smart traffic lights" which is a completely meaningless term which gets used for anything from basic vehicle actuation, traffic adaptation, any kind of communication, signal priority, etc.