Roads: Traffic Signals

[turbanplanner]

Also, why do small local streets like Harbord or Annette seem to have a dozen ******* lights bunched in close proximity along their short lengths??

My best guess there's enough volume to justify a 4 way stop but it would needlessly slow people down most of the day if a light wasn't implemented?

 

[lowtrain]

New traffic lights installed at Bloor and Perth are causing complete havoc to traffic in that area. Bloor and Symington is already bad enough with it's 3-phase setup and drivers getting confused and blocking the box all the time. Roughly 5 cars get through the Symington intersection going West. All this for what? So that pedestrians don't have to walk extra 50 meters to cross the street? I live in the area and mostly walk but this new intersection serves no purpose other than increase traffic and slow down the Symington bus. I will let this Waze estimate speak for itself, taken on a Sunday afternoon so not high traffic period.

 

[Admiral Beez]

New traffic lights installed at Bloor and Perth are causing complete havoc to traffic in that area.

I'd have to be mad to drive around there during weekdays. I basically stay away from the box of Parkside to Bloor to Jarvis to Lakeshore throughout the week. If I must enter the box in my car I'll go on early weekend mornings. Otherwise it's the subway, bicycle or walk. But mostly I stick to the east end in my car trips.

 

[reaperexpress]

My "favourite" new utterly useless traffic light is one recently installed at Islington and Ridgevalley Crescent, because you know, a dozen bungalows backing onto St. George's golf course in an area with zero pedestrian activity and no schools, shops or other businesses anywhere nearby was truly crying out for a ******* traffic light. I'd LOVE to see the report that justified such wasteful spending.

The report is here:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-234440.pdf

The main rationale is that there's otherwise no safe way to cross the street to access the bus stops (it was previously 825 metres between pedestrian crossings, which is extremely long).

New traffic lights installed at Bloor and Perth are causing complete havoc to traffic in that area. Bloor and Symington is already bad enough with it's 3-phase setup and drivers getting confused and blocking the box all the time. Roughly 5 cars get through the Symington intersection going West. All this for what? So that pedestrians don't have to walk extra 50 meters to cross the street? I live in the area and mostly walk but this new intersection serves no purpose other than increase traffic and slow down the Symington bus. I will let this Waze estimate speak for itself, taken on a Sunday afternoon so not high traffic period.

View attachment 563569

I can't find any kind of evaluation of this signal. All I can find is a motion from councillor / deputy mayor Ana Bailão asking for a signal, and unlike a typical motion for a signal there is a total lack of any comments from City & TTC staff. The motion was passed by a large majority of City council in July 2022.
https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2022.TE34.232

If there is a staff report somewhere that I haven't found, I'd be willing to bet that they recommended against installing signals and the Councillors decided to do it anyway.

 

[Amare]

The report is here:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-234440.pdf

The main rationale is that there's otherwise no safe way to cross the street to access the bus stops (it was previously 825 metres between pedestrian crossings, which is extremely long).

Thanks for digging up the report on this one.

Make no mistake the distance between pedestrian crossings is long here, but at the same time this is also a bus stop that's virtually never used. I mean frankly i'd even go as far as saying it's borderline useless due to the very light use and the city's own observations even alludes to it:

So if the city is going to use their rational here for installing a traffic signal, why dont they do it somewhere where there's a much higher number of crossings, where people are literally at risk of getting killed (ie: Birchmount and Rolark). I think this is the part that baffles many; there are legitimate spots where there's a higher need to traffic signals, but instead the city installs them in places where it's not really an urgent need.

Look at this nice beautiful 1.25km stretch of signalized crossing:

 

[lowtrain]

The report is here:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-234440.pdf

The main rationale is that there's otherwise no safe way to cross the street to access the bus stops (it was previously 825 metres between pedestrian crossings, which is extremely long).


I can't find any kind of evaluation of this signal. All I can find is a motion from councillor / deputy mayor Ana Bailão asking for a signal, and unlike a typical motion for a signal there is a total lack of any comments from City & TTC staff. The motion was passed by a large majority of City council in July 2022.
https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2022.TE34.232

If there is a staff report somewhere that I haven't found, I'd be willing to bet that they recommended against installing signals and the Councillors decided to do it anyway.

Thank you for looking into this! Where do you look for the city evaluation of signal additions like this? I will reach out to Bailao to understand what the reasoning was behind this traffic light.

 

[reaperexpress]

Thank you for looking into this! Where do you look for the city evaluation of signal additions like this? I will reach out to Bailao to understand what the reasoning was behind this traffic light.

I google "[intersection name] traffic signal site:toronto.ca"

 

[reaperexpress]

Thanks for digging up the report on this one.

Make no mistake the distance between pedestrian crossings is long here, but at the same time this is also a bus stop that's virtually never used. I mean frankly i'd even go as far as saying it's borderline useless due to the very light use and the city's own observations even alludes to it:

So you would rather the bus stop be removed? The current policy is to only have bus stops in places they can be safely accessed from both sides of the street, so either they make it safe for pedestrians to cross or they remove the bus stop and thereby prevent anyone in the neighbourhood from accessing the TTC.

View attachment 563611

So if the city is going to use their rational here for installing a traffic signal, why dont they do it somewhere where there's a much higher number of crossings, where people are literally at risk of getting killed (ie: Birchmount and Rolark). I think this is the part that baffles many; there are legitimate spots where there's a higher need to traffic signals, but instead the city installs them in places where it's not really an urgent need.

Look at this nice beautiful 1.25km stretch of signalized crossing:

View attachment 563612

I don't think anyone in this thread would ever suggest that logic plays a primary role in deciding where a new signal gets installed in Toronto.

 

[lowtrain]

I don't think anyone in this thread would ever suggest that logic plays a primary role in deciding where a new signal gets installed in Toronto.

How do we change that?

 

[Amare]

So you would rather the bus stop be removed? The current policy is to only have bus stops in places they can be safely accessed from both sides of the street, so either they make it safe for pedestrians to cross or they remove the bus stop and thereby prevent anyone in the neighbourhood from accessing the TTC.

Well i've seen the city and TTC go ahead and remove stops that are far more useful and used by far more patrons than the Ridgevalley Crescent stop. So in this particular case, sure they could go ahead. The ~30 people who use it daily would be upset but so be it.

And if it's the case where the policy is only to have bus stops where they can be safely accessed from both sides of the street, I cant wait to see the hundreds of unnecessary traffic signals the city will be adding throughout the city.

 

[reaperexpress]

How do we change that?

We discussed that at length earlier in this thread

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thanks for digging up the report on this one.

Make no mistake the distance between pedestrian crossings is long here, but at the same time this is also a bus stop that's virtually never used. I mean frankly i'd even go as far as saying it's borderline useless due to the very light use and the city's own observations even alludes to it:

View attachment 563611

So if the city is going to use their rational here for installing a traffic signal, why dont they do it somewhere where there's a much higher number of crossings, where people are literally at risk of getting killed (ie: Birchmount and Rolark). I think this is the part that baffles many; there are legitimate spots where there's a higher need to traffic signals, but instead the city installs them in places where it's not really an urgent need.

Look at this nice beautiful 1.25km stretch of signalized crossing:

View attachment 563612

Nice! This reminds me of my route from the Gardiner to home. The 2.1 km run on Parliament from Lakeshore to my turnoff at Winchester is a red light disaster. There are ten traffic lights from top to bottom and all seem designed to prevent any through traffic.

Mill St.
Front St.
King St.
Adelaide St.
Richmond St.
Queen St.
Shuter St.
Dundas St.
Gerrard St.
Carlton St.

It must be even more maddening to be on a bus stuck in these ten stages of hell. I avoid northbound Parliament almost entirely and instead go through Regent Park or up the DVP and around.

 

[Towered]

Well i've seen the city and TTC go ahead and remove stops that are far more useful and used by far more patrons than the Ridgevalley Crescent stop. So in this particular case, sure they could go ahead. The ~30 people who use it daily would be upset but so be it.

Those dwindling 30 people can use the stops at Princess Margaret or The Kingsway. This stop is an absolute joke, and it's borderline trolling that instead of logically removing the stop, the city only enabled its continued useless existence by incurring the expense of installing and operating the light. What a disgrace.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's not unusual to hear city councilors go on about this. My own was on the radio bellyaching about the lack of signals on a street that passes my place. In fact there are 7 signals in 800 meters, and no corner is more than a 1 minute walk from a light. And you can easily cross without one because the lights are heavily synchronized and there is a complete gap in traffic once per minute. In fact, what we have is a street that works really, really well for cars and is dead easy for pedestrians to cross. So she thinks she needs to fix it.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not unusual to hear city councilors go on about this. My own was on the radio bellyaching about the lack of signals on a street that passes my place. In fact there are 7 signals in 800 meters, and no corner is more than a 1 minute walk from a light. And you can easily cross without one because the lights are heavily synchronized and there is a complete gap in traffic once per minute. In fact, what we have is a street that works really, really well for cars and is dead easy for pedestrians to cross. So she thinks she needs to fix it.

It's also painful how councillors act as if a traffic signal is the only safe way for a pedestrian to cross the street. It's not, but the bureaucracy is not set up to actually redesign unsignalized intersections to make them safer, we just slap a signal on the same crappy intersection design there always was and pretend that we made things safer.