Roads: Traffic Signals

[ndawgg]

Yes.

https://torontocentreprojects.ca/en/projects/traffic-control-signal-yonge-street-and-grenville-wood-street/2

From the above:

View attachment 609845

Thanks so much! This intersection is always a bit of a mess so hopefully this will help!

 

[Towered]

New lights installed at Lansdowne and Dundas to service the No Frills...

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks so much! This intersection is always a bit of a mess so hopefully this will help!

Tell the truth, I'm not a fan of more traffic lights in an area w/them so close together. but the current Premier wouldn't like my preferred solution which would be to cut Yonge to one lane each way with cycle tracks and wider sidewalks, making car movements far more predictable.

I would also narrow Wood Street which is a whopping 14M curb to curb at Yonge, that's wide enough for a 4-lane road........that's just silly. Slash it in 1/2 to 7M.

Finally, I would put in a pedestrian refuge island on Yonge designed to block any through movement by cars from Wood to Grenville and vice versa, and to make both streets right-in, right-out at Yonge.

There, much better, no new lights required.

 

[Mind_the_gap]

I'm curious... Since the HTA allows for left/right arrows with a red signal, would it allow for a straight/through arrow on a red as well? This accompanied by a "no right on red" sign would eliminate the necessity for that extra signal on the right in your video, while providing LPI and LTI.

---

Is this the only example of a red arrow in use in Canada?

Champlain Bridge, Ottawa (at Lucerne)

This signal is at the end of the bridge, so are these "Federal" signals? Like these are weird "Federal" speed limit signs:

I swear I've seen a red left arrow in Calgary, but accompanied by a red ball.

 

[bearcat]

I'm curious... Since the HTA allows for left/right arrows with a red signal, would it allow for a straight/through arrow on a red as well? This accompanied by a "no right on red" sign would eliminate the necessity for that extra signal on the right in your video, while providing LPI and LTI.

---

Is this the only example of a red arrow in use in Canada?
View attachment 622168
Champlain Bridge, Ottawa (at Lucerne)

This signal is at the end of the bridge, so are these "Federal" signals? Like these are weird "Federal" speed limit signs:
View attachment 622169

I swear I've seen a red left arrow in Calgary, but accompanied by a red ball.

yeah I don't understand the purpose of the light on the right...

rather, I understand what it's showing, but I don't understand why the red aspect can't just be on on the traffic light that has the staright green arrow

how's an intersection even allowed to have two different traffic lights showing different things, I've only ever seen them if one of the lights is marked with a sign like "left turn signal" or similar... wouldn't the right signal here need such a sign ("right turn signal") above or underneath it?

what @Mind_the_gap suggested makes total sense to me, and is much less confusing imo

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm curious... Since the HTA allows for left/right arrows with a red signal, would it allow for a straight/through arrow on a red as well? This accompanied by a "no right on red" sign would eliminate the necessity for that extra signal on the right in your video, while providing LPI and LTI.

The rule about simultaneous is from HTA regulation 626 is:
"(3) No traffic control signal system shall be operated so as to show more than one circular indication simultaneously on the same traffic control signal. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 626, s. 1 (3)"

So yes it does seem legally possible to show a red ball and green thru arrow at the same time. But personally I think that display would be very confusing to most drivers since we're mostly accustomed to the red ball controlling the thru movement. I prefer the display that's used in Ottawa, with a separate head that basically acts like a right turn lane signal. It's aligned with the right turn lane, so I think having a separate signal head is actually a feature, not a bug.

Is this the only example of a red arrow in use in Canada?

I swear I've seen a red left arrow in Calgary, but accompanied by a red ball.

Ontario is the only province that explicitly forbids red arrows. There are numerous red arrows in other provinces, mostly in Québec and Alberta.

Montréal QC has lots of red arrows. For example at Rue Notre Dame & Rue Frontenac

Canmore AB has at least one intersection with red arrows: Bow Valley Trail & Railway Ave / Benchlands Trail

Calgary AB does indeed use red arrows as well. Like you said, they use them in combination with a red ball to indicate "no turn on red". Here's an example at Richmond Road & 17th Ave. I couldn't find a Streetview image with the red arrow but you can see it on the sign.

Champlain Bridge, Ottawa (at Lucerne)

This signal is at the end of the bridge, so are these "Federal" signals? Like these are weird "Federal" speed limit signs:

That intersection is in Gatineau QC, not Ottawa ON. The intersection on the Ontario end of the bridge has red balls instead of red arrows.

The typical interpretation has been that the ON HTA doesn't apply on federal roadways, including all National Capital Commission roadways (including but not limited to interprovincial bridges). This is why the NCC installs federal black speed limit signs instead of Ontario / Québec standard signs.

I personally don't understand why federal ownership would exempt a roadway from the HTA but if that is in fact the case, then red arrows could be installed on any NCC roadway, not just those in Québec. The signals on the Ontario end of the bridge seem to be following the City of Ottawa's standards, which are based around the HTA, which is probably just for consistency with other signals in Ottawa.

 

[bearcat]

The rule about simultaneous is from HTA regulation 626 is:
"(3) No traffic control signal system shall be operated so as to show more than one circular indication simultaneously on the same traffic control signal. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 626, s. 1 (3)"

So yes it does seem legally possible to show a red ball and green thru arrow at the same time. But personally I think that display would be very confusing to most drivers since we're mostly accustomed to the red ball controlling the thru movement. I prefer the display that's used in Ottawa, with a separate head that basically acts like a right turn lane signal. It's aligned with the right turn lane, so I think having a separate signal head is actually a feature, not a bug.




Ontario is the only province that explicitly forbids red arrows. There are numerous red arrows in other provinces, mostly in Québec and Alberta.

Montréal QC has lots of red arrows. For example at Rue Notre Dame & Rue Frontenac
View attachment 622307

Canmore AB has at least one intersection with red arrows: Bow Valley Trail & Railway Ave / Benchlands Trail
View attachment 622306

Calgary AB does indeed use red arrows as well. Like you said, they use them in combination with a red ball to indicate "no turn on red". Here's an example at Richmond Road & 17th Ave. I couldn't find a Streetview image with the red arrow but you can see it on the sign.
View attachment 622305


That intersection is in Gatineau QC, not Ottawa ON. The intersection on the Ontario end of the bridge has red balls instead of red arrows.

The typical interpretation has been that the ON HTA doesn't apply on federal roadways, including all National Capital Commission roadways (including but not limited to interprovincial bridges). This is why the NCC installs federal black speed limit signs instead of Ontario / Québec standard signs.

I personally don't understand why federal ownership would exempt a roadway from the HTA but if that is in fact the case, then red arrows could be installed on any NCC roadway, not just those in Québec. The signals on the Ontario end of the bridge seem to be following the City of Ottawa's standards, which are based around the HTA, which is probably just for consistency with other signals in Ottawa.

With regard to the Ottawa intersection, I guess it's a matter of opinion but to me having two traffic lights facing me showing different things is more confusing and contradictory than a single light both showing a red and a green straight arrow at the same time, especially given that we already have lights analogous to that in meaning showing for example a red and a right turn green arrow at the same time and they work fine.

I guess at this particular intersection in Ottawa it kind of makes sense since the right lane is a right turn only lane, but if the rightmost lane allowed straight through movement like at most intersection, I think this setup is not ideal.

 

[reaperexpress]

With regard to the Ottawa intersection, I guess it's a matter of opinion but to me having two traffic lights facing me showing different things is more confusing and contradictory than a single light both showing a red and a green straight arrow at the same time, especially given that we already have lights analogous to that in meaning showing for example a red and a right turn green arrow at the same time and they work fine.

I guess at this particular intersection in Ottawa it kind of makes sense since the right lane is a right turn only lane, but if the rightmost lane allowed straight through movement like at most intersection, I think this setup is not ideal.

If the right lane were not a right turn lane, then yes that setup wouldn't work. It really depends on there being a right turn lane.

 

[bearcat]

If the right lane were not a right turn lane, then yes that setup wouldn't work. It really depends on there being a right turn lane.

This traffic lights set up still puzzles me. Do you know if the lowest aspect of the rightmost light ever shows anything? Is it ever on? Is there also sometimes a protected right phase at this intersection?

There are also two nearside I guess lights at the intersection. What do they show when the green straight arrow is on? Just a red light? Or are these for the fire station? Is the stop line so far back to let the fire trucks get out?

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[reaperexpress]

This traffic lights set up still puzzles me. Do you know if the lowest aspect of the rightmost light ever shows anything? Is it ever on? Is there also sometimes a protected right phase at this intersection?

There are also two nearside I guess lights at the intersection. What do they show when the green straight arrow is on? Just a red light? Or are these for the fire station? Is the stop line so far back to let the fire trucks get out?

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Yes, the lowest aspect is a right turn arrow that comes on with the perpendicular left turn arrow (during red for the thru signal).

The set of signals at the fire station are pre-signals intended to keep people from stopping in front of the driveway but they aren't timed effectively for that.

I've made a video to show you the current operation. You can also see the right turn green arrow at the main intersection come on at the end.

 

[Mind_the_gap]

With the bike lanes completed on Sheppard, I was shocked that the City went to the trouble of installing bike signals at Wilfred, just to provide bikes the LPI.

I love these lanes, but it seems silly to go out of the way to install separate bike signals over five seconds just to provide LP(/B)I.

It's kind of like a screw you to motorists, buses, and trucks since all the signals were replaced. Toronto allows for "Ottawa" LTIs:

Guess it's a question of desire...

Edit: I went to take a photo this morning:

 

[11th]

With the bike lanes completed on Sheppard, I was shocked that the City went to the trouble of installing bike signals at Wilfred, just to provide bikes the LPI.

I love these lanes, but it seems silly to go out of the way to install separate bike signals over five seconds just to provide LP(/B)I.

It's kind of like a screw you to motorists, buses, and trucks since all the signals were replaced. Toronto allows for "Ottawa" LTIs:
View attachment 623173
Guess it's a question of desire...

I am just glad that is now allowed. Any chance this was added after work was tendered?

 

[reaperexpress]

With the bike lanes completed on Sheppard, I was shocked that the City went to the trouble of installing bike signals at Wilfred, just to provide bikes the LPI.

I love these lanes, but it seems silly to go out of the way to install separate bike signals over five seconds just to provide LP(/B)I.

It's kind of like a screw you to motorists, buses, and trucks since all the signals were replaced. Toronto allows for "Ottawa" LTIs:
View attachment 623173
Guess it's a question of desire...

Adding bike signals at intersections with LPI is a good idea. It reduces the amount of unjustified red light time. Right-turning bikes do not pose a safety issue to pedestrians the same way right-turning motorists do, and adding an LBI reduces the risk of collision between right-turning motorists and cyclists travelling straight.

If you want to talk about completely pointless bike signals, take a look at any of the intersections where bikes have a dedicated signal even though they share a lane with motor traffic, and the bike signal must therefore always display the same indication as the main vehicle signals (i.e. no LBI).

For example at Argyle & Ossington:

I agree that the City installs an unreasonably large number of signal heads, but adding bike signals at LPI intersection is not an example of that phenomenon. That said, I would personally only install a single bike signal head rather than two, with the rationale that it acts effectively as an auxilliary head for an existing signal phase (not a separate phase). The 5 s earlier green on the bike signal does not necessitate redundant heads since if the bike head fails, worst case scenario is that the cyclist waits 5s until the vehicle heads turn green.

 

[bearcat]

Adding bike signals at intersections with LPI is a good idea. It reduces the amount of unjustified red light time. Right-turning bikes do not pose a safety issue to pedestrians the same way right-turning motorists do, and adding an LBI reduces the risk of collision between right-turning motorists and cyclists travelling straight.

If you want to talk about completely pointless bike signals, take a look at any of the intersections where bikes have a dedicated signal even though they share a lane with motor traffic, and the bike signal must therefore always display the same indication as the main vehicle signals (i.e. no LBI).

For example at Argyle & Ossington:
View attachment 623244

I agree that the City installs an unreasonably large number of signal heads, but adding bike signals at LPI intersection is not an example of that phenomenon. That said, I would personally only install a single bike signal head rather than two, with the rationale that it acts effectively as an auxilliary head for an existing signal phase (not a separate phase). The 5 s earlier green on the bike signal does not necessitate redundant heads since if the bike head fails, worst case scenario is that the cyclist waits 5s until the vehicle heads turn green.

I think the complaint was also that even though all car traffic signals were replaced with new ones at intersections where it was known there is LPI, traffic lights with a fourth aspect of a straight green arrow were not used. The cost rationale make sense not to replace every signal in the city at intersections with LPI with a four aspect one, but since the car traffic lights were replaced with new ones here anyway, is the cost really much higher to use the four aspect one?

 

[ShonTron]

The “Ottawa” LPI seems to be the same as Montreal’s implementation. I also never really understood the rush to add LPIs without also having a ban on turns on red. It works well in Montreal because RTORs are banned citywide.