News   Dec 05, 2025
 1K     5 
News   Dec 05, 2025
 3.3K     7 
News   Dec 05, 2025
 633     0 

Roads: Traffic Signals

You know what the City doesn't need? (as per our discussion above........) more traffic signals!

What's it getting as part of the latest Vision Zero Report to next week's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte? You guessed it..........13 more sets of traffic lights.........including an absurd number in downtown.


From the above:

1749049709925.png
 
You know what the City doesn't need? (as per our discussion above........) more traffic signals!

What's it getting as part of the latest Vision Zero Report to next week's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte? You guessed it..........13 more sets of traffic lights.........including an absurd number in downtown.


From the above:

View attachment 656311
These are all 'upgrades' from the push-button pedestrian crossovers to 'real' traffic lights. I think this is a VERY good idea as the ped X-overs are really VERY dangerous as it is not clear to anyone I know exactly when one can cross. I do think the City has too many traffic lights but converting Ped X-overs to lights really does not add to the count.
 
These are all 'upgrades' from the push-button pedestrian crossovers to 'real' traffic lights. I think this is a VERY good idea as the ped X-overs are really VERY dangerous as it is not clear to anyone I know exactly when one can cross. I do think the City has too many traffic lights but converting Ped X-overs to lights really does not add to the count.

If the protected pedestrian crossing were otherwise necessary, then I would agree that its better to deliver it as a traffic light, than a PxO.

However, I think many of these simply aren't necessary and/or could be made unnecessary by narrowing traffic lanes, removing traffic lanes, removing parking/improving sightlines, re-timing existing signals (to create intentional gaps in traffic during which someone could cross) and by measures which curtail excess vehicle speed.

I'm not convinced (as a whole) that we need 13 more lights. Could we agree to remove 13 existing ones that should never have been put in and move some to preferable locations?
 
These are all 'upgrades' from the push-button pedestrian crossovers to 'real' traffic lights. I think this is a VERY good idea as the ped X-overs are really VERY dangerous as it is not clear to anyone I know exactly when one can cross. I do think the City has too many traffic lights but converting Ped X-overs to lights really does not add to the count.
Upgrades? Or downgrades?

The pedestrian crossovers are convenient and instant. At interesections - especially at a minor intersection over an artery like King, you seem to spend forever waiting at a traffic light; most of the time on King, I just walk further down King and cross mid-block if there is no pedestrian crossing.

So is making it more difficult for pedestrians to cross going to make it safer or more dangerous?

It's not like the traffic light is a guarantee that cars will stop - and if they move these crossing to right at the intersections, then pedestrians have to deal with all the right-on-red dangers, not just the crossing the road.

It will make it easier to drive down a lot of those side streets though ... more car-centrism.
 
The pedestrian crossovers are convenient and instant. At interesections - especially at a minor intersection over an artery like King, you seem to spend forever waiting at a traffic light; most of the time on King, I just walk further down King and cross mid-block if there is no pedestrian crossing.

So is making it more difficult for pedestrians to cross going to make it safer or more dangerous?

People don't reliably stop for PxOs in my opinion, so they might be instant but they certainly aren't what i would consider safe.


I would agree the ideal solution would be to narrow lanes and futhermore install raised crossings for PxOs that force a physical intervention. However these seem too foreign and anti-car for any municipality in the province so when the options are: 4 lane PxO or Traffic Signal, I'll take a traffic signal every time.
 
People don't reliably stop for PxOs in my opinion, so they might be instant but they certainly aren't what i would consider safe.
They don't reliably stop for stop signs or traffic lights either.

Personally I've been hit and nearly hit at traffic lights on multiple occasions, when I had the white crossing signal. At least at pedestrian crossing I can see the moron isn't going to stop, so I don't take the step into the lane they are in.

Still - if one wants to be really safe, cross mid-block when there are no cars around. Which is even an option on King Street now, without as much car traffic. And Danforth/Bloor with only 2-lanes to cross!
 
I just wish that instead of pedestrians having to press the request button that presence detectors be used instead. Similar to the presence detector that operate supermarket doors. The powers-that-be are converting automobile loop detectors in the pavement of traffic lanes to overhead presence detectors for traffic signals, so why not do the same for pedestrians and cyclists. Some cyclist presence detectors in Europe operate as the cyclists approach the intersections.

Of course, the powers-that-be will counter with that feral animals, such as coyotes or raccoons, may trigger the pedestrian signals. A problem I would tolerate.
 
They don't reliably stop for stop signs or traffic lights either.
The compliance for these is not comparable. The vast majority of people stop for traffic lights, I'd wager the compliance for a PxO with a RFB is no better than 50% and without one is basically a lost cause.
 
I just wish that instead of pedestrians having to press the request button that presence detectors be used instead. Similar to the presence detector that operate supermarket doors. The powers-that-be are converting automobile loop detectors in the pavement of traffic lanes to overhead presence detectors for traffic signals, so why not do the same for pedestrians and cyclists. Some cyclist presence detectors in Europe operate as the cyclists approach the intersections.

Of course, the powers-that-be will counter with that feral animals, such as coyotes or raccoons, may trigger the pedestrian signals. A problem I would tolerate.
A high proportion of pedestrian push button signals (at least downtown) are actually automatic and the button 'only' triggers the auditory signal. There are also some signals that use cameras to identify cyclists.
 
There's a couple PXOs near me on a minor arterial that I refuse to use if I can help it because I feel like my life's on the line just hoping drivers are going to stop, so I'd rather cross 4 lanes when I see no cars either way. Too often drivers blast through despite flashing lights, or start going again once the person crossing has passed their lane. The complete disregard too many drivers have for other people's safety frankly makes me fine with drivers having to sit at more traffic lights.

Personally I would like to see mid-block crossings with narrowed lanes and refuge islands. They don't always need to have flashing lights, and the islands could even be protected with bollards. Seems like there's (been?) an unwillingness for that, though.
1749055016741.png


I like Vancouver's traffic lights that flash green and change to amber->red when a pedestrian requests to cross and think those would be a good solution in parts of downtown, but I'm guessing that's not allowed by the MTO or something.


Related to this, I find it very irritating to get to a beg button seconds too late and have to wait an entire cycle for a chance to cross at intersections where the city refuses to change the type of button because the road is an arterial (two examples in mind: Danforth/Linnsmore at Greenwood Station, Bathurst/Barton near Bathurst Station), so I suspect the city wouldn't use that flashing green in many places even if they could. Edit: worse is that just about no one who isn't on this forum knows the difference between pedestrian crossing buttons, so it's equally as frustrating to get to an intersection with people already there, but no one's pressed the button, and now everyone waits an entire cycle for the light to change.
 
You know what the City doesn't need? (as per our discussion above........) more traffic signals!

What's it getting as part of the latest Vision Zero Report to next week's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte? You guessed it..........13 more sets of traffic lights.........including an absurd number in downtown.


From the above:

View attachment 656311
And then we wonder why travel times in the city continue to get worse and worse every year. Obviously congestion is the main culprit, but the installation of more (unnecessary in a lot of cases) traffic lights is just exasperating the issue even more for every one.
 
There's a couple PXOs near me on a minor arterial that I refuse to use if I can help it because I feel like my life's on the line just hoping drivers are going to stop, so I'd rather cross 4 lanes when I see no cars either way. Too often drivers blast through despite flashing lights, or start going again once the person crossing has passed their lane. The complete disregard too many drivers have for other people's safety frankly makes me fine with drivers having to sit at more traffic lights.

Personally I would like to see mid-block crossings with narrowed lanes and refuge islands. They don't always need to have flashing lights, and the islands could even be protected with bollards. Seems like there's (been?) an unwillingness for that, though.
View attachment 656371

I like Vancouver's traffic lights that flash green and change to amber->red when a pedestrian requests to cross and think those would be a good solution in parts of downtown, but I'm guessing that's not allowed by the MTO or something.


Related to this, I find it very irritating to get to a beg button seconds too late and have to wait an entire cycle for a chance to cross at intersections where the city refuses to change the type of button because the road is an arterial (two examples in mind: Danforth/Linnsmore at Greenwood Station, Bathurst/Barton near Bathurst Station), so I suspect the city wouldn't use that flashing green in many places even if they could. Edit: worse is that just about no one who isn't on this forum knows the difference between pedestrian crossing buttons, so it's equally as frustrating to get to an intersection with people already there, but no one's pressed the button, and now everyone waits an entire cycle for the light to change.
The only difference the BC ones have is the flashing green. We have the standard signal for midblock crossings here in Ontario.
 
In Europe, they use "pedestrian refugee islands" (with presence or beg buttons), instead of misnamed "safety islands" (don't even have "beg buttons" for pedestrians who get caught on them). The crosswalk at such intersections are not at the corner, but are set back away from the corner, about the length of an automobile. With the signal lights on the nearside, not the farside. (Been mentioned before, but the "search" in UT is not good.)
1749063394608.png
 
How would priority ideally be set up at major intersection given that they also have streetcars running perpendicular to Spadina that should not get delayed? I assume there is a solution but it's not immediately obvious.

The simplest method to introduce signal priority at major intersections along Spadina while minimizing impacts to east-west streetcars would be to introduce north-south green extensions and compensation-based offset correction.

Compensation-based Offset Correction
The signals along Spadina are coordinated, so they need to maintain a constant average cycle length to stay in sync with each other. So if you add 10 seconds to one cycle, you need to remove 10 seconds from the next cycle(s) to bring the signal back into sync (known as offset correction). To avoid reducing green time for east-west traffic (including mixed-traffic streetcars), the offset correction can be set up to compensate other movements for the timing change caused by the streetcar. For example, if the signal gave 10 seconds of extra green to a Spadina streetcar, the next cycle(s) it would reduce the green time for Spadina by 10 seconds to provide a higher percentage of green time for the east-west road and left turns. Compensation-based offset correction is already used at a couple intersections in Toronto.

The limitation to offset correction is that there's only so much time you can reduce from a given phase. Here's my guess at the signal timings based on the City's operational policies, assuming a cycle length of 90 seconds and a walking speed of 1.2 m/s.
Capture2.PNG

It is possible to reduce the North-South green by 14 seconds, so it's possible to recover 28 seconds over the course of two cycles after the streetcar leaves without taking any time from the phases that were delayed by the green extension. 29 or 30-second extensions would require 3 cycles to recover, but such long extensions would be rare given the detection zones I'll be proposing. Over the course of the TSP action and subsequent offset correction, all phases would have received the same total green time as they would have in the absence of a TSP call.

Type of Green Extension
The biggest challenge for signal priority at major intersections along Spadina is that they have track switches limiting streetcars to 10 km/h. The distance to clear is about 30 metres, and streetcars are 30 metres long. So at 10 km/h (2.8 m/s), it takes 21 seconds for the streetcar to clear the intersection. So streetcars need to enter the intersection before the start of FDW to have enough time to clear. Many operators already know this and don't enter the intersection after the FDW has begun.

Spadina & Dundas:
Capture.PNG


The green extension therefore needs to be provided as Green & Walk. Ideally the transit signal would be adjusted to change to red at the last moment streetcars can practically enter the intersection, to provide a more accurate indication to operators whether they still have enough time to cross the intersection. Since the start of FDW and the start of streetcar amber would be at about the same time, the maximum practical extension depends on how far in advance the streetcar's arrival can accurately be predicted.

Southbound towards Dundas, it's 163 metres from the previous signal at St Andrew St. That provides about 19 seconds of reliable advance notice, which is pretty much perfect for a 30-second extension: it provides a 11-second buffer in case the streetcar travels slower than expected.
Capture3.PNG


Northbound towards Dundas, it's 168 metres from the far-side stop at Sullivan St, which provides about 20 seconds of reliable advance notice, which is also pretty much ideal for a 30-second extension. Both of these detection zones consist of a dedicated streetcar lane without any intermediate stops or intersections so it is very unlikely that a streetcar would ever miss a green extension that it requested.
Capture4.PNG


Conclusion:
It appears possible to introduce up to 30 seconds of Green/Walk extension north-south at Dundas & Spadina, with relatively minor impacts on east-west streetcars. King & Spadina, Queen & Spadina and College & Spadina are similar and would also benefit from a similar setup.
 
Last edited:
The compliance for these is not comparable. The vast majority of people stop for traffic lights, I'd wager the compliance for a PxO with a RFB is no better than 50% and without one is basically a lost cause.
I use PxOs almost every time I leave the house (and the times I don't, I do pass by them). I car not stopping is rare. I'd say 95 to 99% stop.

Now some fail to stay stopped until the pedestrian gets off the road - but that's a different issue.

Meanwhile, I'd say at least 50% of cars fail to come to a full stop at stop sign. And a surprisingly high number of cars fail to come to a complete stop on a red light, when turning right!
 

Back
Top