Roads: Traffic Signals

[trafficexplorerON]

I don't know the justification behind it but in OTM book 12 (the guiding book on traffic signals), that particular signal head (number 11) is only shown with the green arrow, there is no bimodal option. Hence to conform to industry best practice Mississauga changed all of the signals, all their signal drawings only have the OTM #11 signal head as well. Right turn arrows will also be close to non existent in Mississauga eventually as well so it will be a moot point eventually.

What? They're getting rid of right turn overlaps altogether? Is it because of U-turns or something?

As of July 2024, though, the (very brief) section of OTM book 12 now recommends that right turn overlaps have yellow arrows. And it seem that the one at EB Eastgate Pkwy at Dixie Rd has a yellow right arrow now.

 

[ZEBuilder]

What? They're getting rid of right turn overlaps altogether? Is it because of U-turns or something?

As of July 2024, though, the (very brief) section of OTM book 12 now recommends that right turn overlaps have yellow arrows. And it seem that the one at EB Eastgate Pkwy at Dixie Rd has a yellow right arrow now.

The reason Dixie is different is it's a road under the jurisdiction of Peel and not Mississauga hence Peel governs signal infrastructure, this is why you will see different set ups on roads such as Cawthra, Winston Churchill, and Derry just as some examples. Eventually when Mississauga takes over the infrastructure there will be a transition phase to bring everything to Mississauga standards in terms of road design and signal infrastructure.

The reason for removing right turn signals is related to Vision Zero principles/Future bus jump lanes.

 

[ack]

Wouldn't right turn arrows be a good thing for bus queue jumps, especially at cramped intersections? With a bus detected, a right turn arrow could clear the turn lane letting the bus reach the intersection while the circular red would keep through traffic stopped so the bus can merge back in.

 

[ZEBuilder]

Wouldn't right turn arrows be a good thing for bus queue jumps, especially at cramped intersections? With a bus detected, a right turn arrow could clear the turn lane letting the bus reach the intersection while the circular red would keep through traffic stopped so the bus can merge back in.

I can't say much more but think of the removal of dedicated right turn lanes for the implementation of queue jump lanes.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

Is there something like a report that is available online? I don't get why removing right turn overlaps would be a part of Vision Zero, as it doesn't really add any new conflicts.

According to Google Streetview, there was also a time where Dixie and Eastgate didn't have a yellow arrow, but it was since re-added: https://maps.app.goo.gl/D7woUx6toQVPvrqf7.
Also, aren't Winston Churchill, Derry and Cawthra all under Peel Region? This doesn't explain why right turn overlaps on those roads were changed as well.

 

[ack]

I can't say much more but think of the removal of dedicated right turn lanes for the implementation of queue jump lanes.

Interesting, didn't know that was being planned. Might turn out counterproductive in some places depending on queues and how long the current right turn lanes are.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

Even if buses are allowed to go straight from a lane where most traffic can only turn right, I don't think it's productive to remove right turn overlaps across the board like this.

• Even if there is a bus in front of the right turning vehicles, what are people really going to do?
• The point of right turn overlap phasing is that right turning vehicles are not just given a red ball when there's no traffic in the way. That's quite different from the purpose of advance left turn phasing, which will fail if left turns are blocked by through traffic.

IMO, the only valid reasons to remove existing right turn overlaps are if:

• There are too much conflicting U-turn traffic.
• The right turn lane is removed completely.
• They instead overlap the cross street left turn phase with a pedestrian phase that would conflict with the right turns (e.g. if a two-stage crossing is implemented).

 

[Amare]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

 

[bearcat]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

View attachment 655535

The traffic light at Scott might have something to do with the bike lanes on the Esplanade as I think they will end at Scott Street? I am not exactly sure what the final plan is for the bike infrastructure in that area. The Wellington some bike Lanes were also at some point supposed to be extended east.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Too many traffic signals?​

“Traffic signals are the most mindless and wasteful thing Americans routinely install to manage traffic. Removing nearly all of them within cities would improve our transportation systems and overall quality of life.”
Chuck Marohn, Confessions of a Recovering Engineer

Signals do not slow the speed that drivers drive. Drivers wait at the red light, and then accelerate on the green to make up for wasted time, always going over the posted speed limit. Of course these days many drivers don’t stop for red lights at all, they go through intersections on stale reds (meaning it was red before they even entered the intersection). This has become a very common behavior over the years, and is almost routine since the pandemic.

One of the things that signals seem to do is shift unsafe driving behavior from intersections to corridors, the street parts in between signals. Instead of misbehavior at intersections, causing lower speed crashes, we get misbehavior in between, with higher speed crashes.

• Use roundabouts rather than traditional intersections. Of course in place where the size of intersections is constrained by right-of-way and adjacent buildings, a real roundabout may not be possible, but traffic circles, of which the central city already has a number, can fit. Traffic circles are not as effective as roundabouts, but can replace signals.
• Slow traffic enough that people can cross streets without having to have signals to interrupt traffic.

See https://gettingaroundsac.blog/2022/03/16/too-many-traffic-signals/

 

[Dan416]

Why bother learning from best practices of how to reduce speeds through design when we can just put up some traffic lights?

 

[BrenWilson]

I'll present an opposing point of view on this: drivers in ontario suck at stoping for anything less than a full on traffic signal.

I think there are much better options when the entire street is being redone and you can change the complete fabric of the street, but with the handful of tools the MTO gives you without full on rehabing the street - a full traffic signal is the option with the most adherance by drivers.

Rectangular flashing beacons are worthless, IMO and roundabouts are not great for pedestrians.

 

[DSCToronto]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

View attachment 655535

My first reaction to the traffic lights the City installed last year at Front and Frederick was similar BUT having observed the situation they actually ARE useful. One problem in that location was that with the various one-way blocks on The Esplanade, the northbound traffic coming up Frederick was greatly increased and it really was hard to cross Front or turn west. The new lights there are generally synchronised with those nearby and really do not seem to cause problems. There were at least two 'accidents' there prior to the lights being installed, I have seen/heard of none since.

The lights at Scott and Front were a request from locals who wanted to cross Front to get to Berczy. Not sure that I 100% agree with the need but I do understand why they wanted them.

 

[Mihairokov]

As a pedestrian I really appreciate the lights and it makes crossing Front, especially between Jarvis and Parliament, a lot easier.

IMO Scott along Berczy, b/w Front and Wellington, should be pedestrianized, but that's a convo for a different thread...

 

[Northern Light]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

I agree.

Front is one-way here....... which means there is nearly a guaranteed stop in flow (vehicles turning off Yonge could still move along at a Red there.........) but really at 90% of the time, there are regular breaks in traffic here.

***

To the extent there is any problem here its that there are too many lanes of traffic, given that Front west of Yonge is functionally a single lane in front of Union, and is 2 lanes east of Church..........there is no reason it should be more than 2 lanes here.

Its actually 1 lanes + 2.5 kinda/sorta much of the day when parking is legal on both sides of Front, but I digress, that too is a poor use of space and creates sightline issues.

The correct choice here would to remove parking except for a single loading zone on the south side between Scott and Church.

Widen the sidewalk on the south side by at least 4M, maybe more.

Keep 2 otherwise clear vehicle lanes.

That would reduce volume and speed and improve predictable movements. It would also create room to have healthier trees on the south side and quality patios.