Roads: Traffic Signals

[BrenWilson]

Definitely not my experience! I'd be curious to see studies on PxO compliance with and w/o RFB.

Stop signs are worthless I agree, NA's overuse of them has turned them into glorified yield signs.

 

[Mind_the_gap]

Is there any particular reason we can't have these compact pedestrian signals in Ontario?

Source

(Victoria, BC)

It just seems silly that these don't seem to exist in Ontario, while they're seemingly common throughout Canada.

 

[EnviroTO]

Is there any particular reason we can't have these compact pedestrian signals in Ontario?

Source

(Victoria, BC)

It just seems silly that these don't seem to exist in Ontario, while they're seemingly common throughout Canada.

Because we prefer upbeat / happy walking guy vs down / depressed walking guy.

 

[BrenWilson]

Because MTO has what they allow and are glacial to change.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

The Highway Traffic Act Regulation 626 says that the hand outline rather than the solid hand indication must be used for pedestrian signals, but I don't see anything in it that precludes side-by side signal indications. (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900626)
The OTM Book 12 also allows having those compact side-by-side pedestrian signals as an option (Chapter 2.7). But per TAC guidelines, they recommend having the countdown below the walk/hand icon. (Chapter 5.7). Why the TAC recommends that, I don't know, but it does say that having the countdown and the hand indications side by side is allowed in retrofit situations.

 

[nfitz]

Is there any particular reason we can't have these compact pedestrian signals in Ontario?

If I blur my eyes a bit, the solid hand look more like an amber circle. Which if it stays amber, means to stop, look around, and then go. Seems like an accident waiting to happen.

First time I saw the newish ones in Montreal, in the moment it took me to process it, I did the wrong thing. The countdown went to 0, and instead of just being a hand, it stayed at 0 ... so I started to cross. In retrospect, that doesn't make sense ... but that's what happened the first time I saw one.

I think the 0 should just vanish, instead of staying there the whole time.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

I have seen two intersections with these compact side-by-side pedestrian signals in Ontario.
Here's one of them in Milton: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bQ6gFFXG5oaSdy936
And the other one's in Stratford: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ewc282mDRKCno3YQ8

 

[BrenWilson]

Interesting that they're both from around 10 years ago and one replaced a single head setup and the other replaced a typical double light one. I'd have to look through those muni's standards to see if there is any mention.

 

[reaperexpress]

If we want to reduce visual clutter the more important change would be to use black signal housings for pedestrian signals rather than yellow ones. The yellow housings are not even visible from the front anyway, only the sides and rear of Toronto's pedestrian signals are high-visibility yellow.

Some Ontario municipalities do use black pedestrian signal heads, such as Hamilton. I think this reduces visual clutter and also makes them more visually consistent with bicycle signals, which are already black.

I also like Hamilton's use of black signal heads with yellow reflective strips on the backboard. The black provides better contrast against the lights (especially yellow and red), while the yellow border makes them just as conspicuous as Toronto's all-yellow signal casings.

I have seen two intersections with these compact side-by-side pedestrian signals in Ontario.
Here's one of them in Milton: https://maps.app.goo.gl/bQ6gFFXG5oaSdy936
And the other one's in Stratford: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ewc282mDRKCno3YQ8

Wow, nice catches! I had no idea we had heads like that in Ontario.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

On a similar topic, why does the OTM recommend that the backs of the signals be painted yellow? I don't really understand why it would be necessary to draw attention to the backs of the signal heads, and it looks unnecessarily cluttered when there are two signal heads placed back to back against each other.

And I still don't really get what the TAC has against the compact pedestrian signal heads. AFAIK Edmonton uses them a lot anyway.

 

[lenaitch]

If we want to reduce visual clutter the more important change would be to use black signal housings for pedestrian signals rather than yellow ones. The yellow housings are not even visible from the front anyway, only the sides and rear of Toronto's pedestrian signals are high-visibility yellow.

If we wanted to reduce visual clutter we could eliminate bike signals where pedestrian signals. I've never understood the point.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

If we wanted to reduce visual clutter we could eliminate bike signals where pedestrian signals. I've never understood the point.

That wouldn't currently be possible under the Highway Traffic Act. In Ontario, the pedestrian signal does not apply to bicycles under any circumstances, so municipalities should not expect cyclists to follow pedestrian signals. As someone who bikes, I think having a signal over the bike lane quite convenient because the motor vehicle signals are often not in an ideal angle for bikes to follow.
In addition to that, there are frequent situations (especially in suburban areas) where the pedestrian signal shows "don't walk" while the parallel motor vehicle signals (and bike signals) show green. It would be completely unreasable for a cyclist to wait as well. And I definitely don't think any cyclist is seriously going to wait during the flashing hand.

 

[lenaitch]

That wouldn't currently be possible under the Highway Traffic Act. In Ontario, the pedestrian signal never applies to bicycles under any circumstances, so municiapities should not expect cyclists to follow pedestrian signals. As someone who bikes, I think having a signal over the bike lane quite convenient because the motor vehicle signals are often not in an ideal angle for bikes to follow.
In addition to that, there are frequent situations (especially in suburban areas) where the pedestrian signal shows "don't walk" while the parallel motor vehicle signals (and bike signals) show green. It would be completely unreasable for a cyclist to wait as well. And I definitely don't think any cyclist is seriously going to wait during the flashing hand.

Fair enough for where there is a bike lane as part of the roadway, but if it is an adjacent sidewalk/multi-use path, I see little functional difference between the two signals. I understand that there are regulatory issues.

 

[reaperexpress]

Fair enough for where there is a bike lane as part of the roadway, but if it is an adjacent sidewalk/multi-use path, I see little functional difference between the two signals. I understand that there are regulatory issues.

Bicycles travel several times faster than pedestrians. We typically design clearance times for 1.0-1.2 m/s for pedestrians and 4.0-5.0 m/s for cyclists. That can be a massive difference, especially at long crossings. In addition to providing a relevant moment for the start of yellow, providing separate bike signals avoids the need to provide a 40 s pedestrian phase when a cyclist only needs a 7 seconds to cross.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

Here's what we could be doing in terms of bicycle signals:

• Stop going so overkill on the "bicycle signal" signs. If the bike signals are not placed in a way such that motorists could get them confused for their own signals, the signs are unnecessary. Same thing if the bicycle signal and the vehicle signal are always timed together and there's no dedicated left/right turn signals across the bike path. This mostly seems to be a Toronto and Ottawa issue.
• Not every intersection needs two bicycle signal heads for every approach. If there's no difference between the bike signal phasing and the general vehicle signal phasing, it's certainly not necessary to have two bicycle heads when you can just look at the general vehicle signals as backup.
• And in situations where you really do need two bike signals as backup, mount one of them on the near side. Interestingly, Chapter 6.2 of the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 claims that near-side bicycle signals are allowed to be placed at less than 2.5 metres above the ground, as well as have lenses smaller than 200 mm, because they are auxiliary signals. (Although I don't actually see how that would exempt it from the HTA).
• Having tunnel visors on the bike signals instead of cowl visors can also help reduce the chance that motorists will see them.