|
|
|
Roads: Traffic Signals
- Thread starter reaperexpress
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
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.
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.
The City currently has 2486 traffic signals. This is absurd. The entire country of the Netherlands (which has 18 Million people) only has 5500.
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.
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Yep. Confirms what many of us already suspected. We have an insanely excessive number of signals.
Jonny5
Senior Member
They are very expensive too, aren't they? I heard once it's about $500,000 to install a new fully signalised intersection, and then annual maintenance expenses of ~$10,000 after that, though that might have actually been an accounting entry for depreciation of the equipment, I couldn't sort out that part.
Dan416
Senior Member
Anyone who has driven in Toronto recently can surely attest that 1. There’s a lot of traffic lights and 2. There’s constantly new ones being added at every little street
Kitsune
Senior Member
... 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.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
This is exactly it.
Council has the impression that Transportation Services is just some bunch of old fashioned car lovers that they need to overrule in order to support pedestrian safety and Vision Zero etc. But while Transportation Services is indeed a bit slow to adapt, and more car-oriented than Council itself, most of the issues they raise are legitimate concerns regardless of which mode you favour.
The fundamental problem is that Council just uses stop signs and signals as a knee-jerk "safety" improvement anytime there's some kind of incident. They get to claim that they solved the conditions which led to that collision. But since they're in no way qualified to be doing traffic engineering, they fail to realize that all they've done is introduce a new, different type of danger.
They're basically playing collision type whack-a-mole and then they act surprised when the statistics show that the rate of pedestrian fatalties has only increased since the start of their Vision Zero program.
It's honestly a disgrace to the name of Vision Zero, which is supposed to be a systematic analysis-based network redesign which studies the effects of network, street and intersection designs in order to minimize risk overall - taking into account human factors and all potential collision types. Quite often, the actions that City Council takes in the name of Vision Zero are exactly the opposite of the actions taken in places where Vision Zero has actually been successful (such as Sweden and the Netherlands). Both of those countries have actively been removing traffic signals and replacing them with safer intersection designs.
Last edited:
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,135
- Reaction score
- 11,429
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
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.
Bicycle routes should have as few stop signs as possible, with physical traffic calming built instead.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 35,205
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
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.
Mind_the_gap
Active Member
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.)
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:
Towered
Superstar
Why is a traffic light being installed literally 50 meters south of Spadina and Bloor?? *rolls eyes*
Amare
Senior Member
This is the city's vision for "Vision Zero": having every intersection in the city signalized no matter how little sense it makes.
Dan416
Senior Member
Spadina needs more lights? Doesn’t the Spadina streetcar move slowly enough already?
robmausser
Senior Member
The crazy part is there is little evidence that traffic lights lower accidents and fatalities. Our over reliance on them actually encourages people to be distracted drivers.
nfitz
Superstar
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.