afransen
Senior Member
I think LPIs were turned on city-wide in one fell swoop last year sometime. I didn't get the impression that they were the result of careful analysis of each interection.
|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
Dan416
Senior Member
I believe that is correct. I am no traffic engineer, but every intersection where the equipment had that option, they turned it on. Personally, I think they should only be turned on when someone has pressed the walk button, particularly in car-oriented Mississauga, because so much of the time there are literally no pedestrians even using them, so they're just delaying cars for no reason. I just hate how dumb and illogical our traffic signals are.
trafficexplorerON
New Member
I feel like the real issue is the large amounts of permissive left turns that are allowed across three lanes of high speed traffic and two-way MUPs. But Mississauga is quite hesitant to make left turns fully protected because they believe that it will delay drivers.
This may also be a by-product of the terrible signal flexibility we have here. By any chance, are signals phases for straight-thru traffic ever allowed to be skipped in Mississauga under any circumstances (excluding split phasing and bicycle signals)?
This may also be a by-product of the terrible signal flexibility we have here. By any chance, are signals phases for straight-thru traffic ever allowed to be skipped in Mississauga under any circumstances (excluding split phasing and bicycle signals)?
txlseries4
Active Member
A report has been released from a study CAA funded using "video analytics to gather Canada’s largest database of pedestrian and cyclist near-misses". 20 intersections in 20 cities were observed, some over a 7 month period, and 6 cities over a 3 day period -- Toronto was one of the 3 day period cities.
Final Report - 20 Road Safety Innovation Labs Deployed Coast to Coast
The interventions they discuss at the end are ones often brought up here, but I haven't seen a "near miss" study done before. There's lots in the report but here are some parts that seemed worth sharing:
"A CAA-funded study by Miovision at 20 intersections across Canada used video analytics to gather Canada’s largest database of pedestrian and cyclist near-misses. The study showed that about 1 serious near-miss occurs for every 770 times a pedestrian crosses an intersection - a daily occurrence at most busy intersections. The study has revealed a number of design practices for cities to consider which are associated with fewer near-misses and increased road safety"
"By observing millions of pedestrians and cyclists, we found that 1 in every 770 pedestrians and 1 in every 500 cyclists was involved in a high risk or critical risk near-miss. The majority of these near-misses involve right turning vehicles (55% for pedestrians and 50% for cyclists), followed by left turning vehicles (34% for pedestrians and 36% for cyclists), and lastly through vehicles (11% for pedestrians and 14% for cyclists)."
"More than 7 million pedestrian and cyclist crossings were observed and a total of 616,854 conflicts were collected across the 72 approaches between August 2024 and February 2025. This resulted in an average of 4300.09 conflicts per day. Not all of these were high and critical risk events, and the breakdown by severity is included below."
Final Report - 20 Road Safety Innovation Labs Deployed Coast to Coast
The interventions they discuss at the end are ones often brought up here, but I haven't seen a "near miss" study done before. There's lots in the report but here are some parts that seemed worth sharing:
"A CAA-funded study by Miovision at 20 intersections across Canada used video analytics to gather Canada’s largest database of pedestrian and cyclist near-misses. The study showed that about 1 serious near-miss occurs for every 770 times a pedestrian crosses an intersection - a daily occurrence at most busy intersections. The study has revealed a number of design practices for cities to consider which are associated with fewer near-misses and increased road safety"
"By observing millions of pedestrians and cyclists, we found that 1 in every 770 pedestrians and 1 in every 500 cyclists was involved in a high risk or critical risk near-miss. The majority of these near-misses involve right turning vehicles (55% for pedestrians and 50% for cyclists), followed by left turning vehicles (34% for pedestrians and 36% for cyclists), and lastly through vehicles (11% for pedestrians and 14% for cyclists)."
"More than 7 million pedestrian and cyclist crossings were observed and a total of 616,854 conflicts were collected across the 72 approaches between August 2024 and February 2025. This resulted in an average of 4300.09 conflicts per day. Not all of these were high and critical risk events, and the breakdown by severity is included below."
nfitz
Superstar
Interesting to see they are supporting advance pedestrian lights. The obvious way to quickly impact conflicts (and injuries/deaths) would be to ban turns on red lights (right on red). But perhaps a step too far for CAA.
gabe
Senior Member
What a crazy work i day i had! I was working on Yonge st the other day. There was not one but two accidents involving e-bike and e-scooters on Yonge st between Dundas and King within a four hour period I was working there.
I saw e-biker was hit by a garbage truck, he seem to be okay, EMS took him away with what seem to be minor injuries. Then again a few hours later, this guy was hit by car, i didn't see it, but i did see there was a large pool of blood on the road. Lots of police and EMS on that crash site.
www.cp24.com
I saw e-biker was hit by a garbage truck, he seem to be okay, EMS took him away with what seem to be minor injuries. Then again a few hours later, this guy was hit by car, i didn't see it, but i did see there was a large pool of blood on the road. Lots of police and EMS on that crash site.
E-scooter rider seriously injured after being struck by vehicle in downtown Toronto
A man in his 30s has been seriously injured after being struck by a vehicle while riding his e-scooter in downtown Toronto Tuesday afternoon.
www.cp24.com
Northern Light
Superstar
At Council next week, Councillor Nunziata will seek to deal another blow to Vision Zero, seeking to rescind plans for new sidewalks in her ward:
From the above:
From the above:
evandyk
Senior Member
The 71 probably stared defiantly at the 1 as they left the meeting in their wheelchair.
txlseries4
Active Member
I’m betting there’s going to be hell to pay the coming years as baby boomers age to points where they can’t drive or need mobility devices and they’ll be clambering for sidewalks to begin with or complaining nonstop about existing ones being too narrow and how unacceptable it is to obstruct the sidewalks with garbage bins. But it’s not an issue for them now so who cares!
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
If no sidewalks on either side, then make the roadway a "woonerf" with a 15 km/h speed limit on a road, since it would be a "shared space" prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists. These zones should. be designed to be safer and more communal, with motor vehicles treated as guests.
The motto of the former Town of Weston, now a neighbourhood in Toronto, is "Home of the Bicycle". Seems that the councillors want to turn it into the "Home of the Automobile" instead.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Here's a case study that may bear on the Nunziata/Weston motion. My thesis remains - it's not the sidewalks that are wrong, it's the approach being used to launch them.
The case study - Residents in the Sunnylea/Park Lawn area recently succeeded in getting a pedestrian crosswalk installed at Prince Edward and Bernice Ave.
The business case for this crosswalk has been solid for years, but never made it through the City processes until now, the result of a lot of local lobbying and advocacy. (The learning point being - taking something sensible to City Hall and expecting it to just happen is not a good approach, unless you add pressure and advocacy and pure noise)
The biggest argument for this crosswalk is that Bernice Ave is the most direct, and logical, street for area residents to access the Park Lawn recreational area which includes a large public school, an outdoor swimming pool, winter bubble rink and summer tennis courts, and large playgrounds. Prince Edward (no s, please note) is a very busy street especially with the density added at Humber Bay. The next nearest crosswalk is 600m to the north at Sunnylea Dr.
In my humble opinion, the 300 meters of Bernice between Park Lawn and Ballacaine Road are the most pressing, and the most easily defended, need for sidewalks in this part of Etobicoke. The south side of Bernice has a minimum of mature trees or other obstacles, and little prized investment by residents in terraced gardens or other landscaping that would be sacrificed for a sidewalk. Maybe a couple hydro poles would need to be solved somehow.
But, as no road reconstruction is in sight, this may not happen for decades.
if someone savvy were wanting to plant the thin edge of the wedge in Sunnylea/Park Lawn towards Vision Zero sidewalks, they would insist on installing the sidewalk as quid pro quo for the residents' demands for the crosswalk. Not only do the two complement each other,.... it presents a no-brainer best case for sidewalks that few would oppose, given that 90% of the predictable use would be school aged children and their families accessing the neighbourhood's school and recreation destination.
It would be an opportunity for city staff or VZ proponents to conduct an especially intensive consultation that would not lead to a 75-1 outcome. One might (worst case) expect all 16 homeowners along the south side of Bernice to turn up and vote in opposition..... but one could easily also attract twice that many local parents who are concerned about the safety of their children, and who would vote in support.
And 300m of sidewalk is certainly within the city's budget, without considering road reconstruction needs. And that single project would be manageable as a super high quality consultation... as opposed to the more minimalist dialogues that sometimes are all residents get around roads and such. That might actually deflect or mitigate the intense opposition that these proposals inevitably trigger. And give the Councillor an opportunity to position as a supporter of safety and listener to the larger community.
(The only recourse for Bernice opponents might be arguing that local streets are inherently safe enough, and the data does not support these as areas of high risk requiring sidewalks.... I won't go there, but if that argument actually holds, maybe that element of VZ needs a rethink altogether).
I will add a cheap shot, namely that whoever installed the new signage got the name of the street wrong - just a typo, perhaps, but a good example of how, while I respect City Staff for the many good things they do.... they don't always get the details right, and maybe need to up their game a little).
My point being, the griping about these failed sidewalk proposals mostly comes from those with an ideological slant, or from a technocratic slant of city staffers who have a program approved in print and do not appreciate the reality of needing to manage change, using a more insightful view of how to move residents. Promoting installation of sidewalks needs to have strategy, opportunity, and reading the room. Creating situations where Councillors meet a room of angry united voters is counter productive. Build WIIFM and find groups that have people who will speak in favour.
Lastly, the original VZ program approved by Council does lay out a set of criteria which in theory determine the priority of specific projects. Interestingly, when sidewalk projects are placed before Council, staff do not include an assessment of that specific project against those mandated criteria. The assumption I make is, those projects actually score poorly on the criteria, and staff do not see the data as supporting their case. If the Weston projects are high priority, then let's see that assessment.
There needs to be an added component to the City program which looks for these thin-edge-of-wedge opportunities and push these to the front. Build the first km of sidewalks where the need is irrefutable.... the rest will follow with time.
Can't blame the nimby's if staff are pushing forward weak cases that are easier to oppose. If you are in a hole, a good strategy is to stop digging.
- Paul
- Paul
The case study - Residents in the Sunnylea/Park Lawn area recently succeeded in getting a pedestrian crosswalk installed at Prince Edward and Bernice Ave.
The business case for this crosswalk has been solid for years, but never made it through the City processes until now, the result of a lot of local lobbying and advocacy. (The learning point being - taking something sensible to City Hall and expecting it to just happen is not a good approach, unless you add pressure and advocacy and pure noise)
The biggest argument for this crosswalk is that Bernice Ave is the most direct, and logical, street for area residents to access the Park Lawn recreational area which includes a large public school, an outdoor swimming pool, winter bubble rink and summer tennis courts, and large playgrounds. Prince Edward (no s, please note) is a very busy street especially with the density added at Humber Bay. The next nearest crosswalk is 600m to the north at Sunnylea Dr.
In my humble opinion, the 300 meters of Bernice between Park Lawn and Ballacaine Road are the most pressing, and the most easily defended, need for sidewalks in this part of Etobicoke. The south side of Bernice has a minimum of mature trees or other obstacles, and little prized investment by residents in terraced gardens or other landscaping that would be sacrificed for a sidewalk. Maybe a couple hydro poles would need to be solved somehow.
But, as no road reconstruction is in sight, this may not happen for decades.
if someone savvy were wanting to plant the thin edge of the wedge in Sunnylea/Park Lawn towards Vision Zero sidewalks, they would insist on installing the sidewalk as quid pro quo for the residents' demands for the crosswalk. Not only do the two complement each other,.... it presents a no-brainer best case for sidewalks that few would oppose, given that 90% of the predictable use would be school aged children and their families accessing the neighbourhood's school and recreation destination.
It would be an opportunity for city staff or VZ proponents to conduct an especially intensive consultation that would not lead to a 75-1 outcome. One might (worst case) expect all 16 homeowners along the south side of Bernice to turn up and vote in opposition..... but one could easily also attract twice that many local parents who are concerned about the safety of their children, and who would vote in support.
And 300m of sidewalk is certainly within the city's budget, without considering road reconstruction needs. And that single project would be manageable as a super high quality consultation... as opposed to the more minimalist dialogues that sometimes are all residents get around roads and such. That might actually deflect or mitigate the intense opposition that these proposals inevitably trigger. And give the Councillor an opportunity to position as a supporter of safety and listener to the larger community.
(The only recourse for Bernice opponents might be arguing that local streets are inherently safe enough, and the data does not support these as areas of high risk requiring sidewalks.... I won't go there, but if that argument actually holds, maybe that element of VZ needs a rethink altogether).
I will add a cheap shot, namely that whoever installed the new signage got the name of the street wrong - just a typo, perhaps, but a good example of how, while I respect City Staff for the many good things they do.... they don't always get the details right, and maybe need to up their game a little).
My point being, the griping about these failed sidewalk proposals mostly comes from those with an ideological slant, or from a technocratic slant of city staffers who have a program approved in print and do not appreciate the reality of needing to manage change, using a more insightful view of how to move residents. Promoting installation of sidewalks needs to have strategy, opportunity, and reading the room. Creating situations where Councillors meet a room of angry united voters is counter productive. Build WIIFM and find groups that have people who will speak in favour.
Lastly, the original VZ program approved by Council does lay out a set of criteria which in theory determine the priority of specific projects. Interestingly, when sidewalk projects are placed before Council, staff do not include an assessment of that specific project against those mandated criteria. The assumption I make is, those projects actually score poorly on the criteria, and staff do not see the data as supporting their case. If the Weston projects are high priority, then let's see that assessment.
There needs to be an added component to the City program which looks for these thin-edge-of-wedge opportunities and push these to the front. Build the first km of sidewalks where the need is irrefutable.... the rest will follow with time.
Can't blame the nimby's if staff are pushing forward weak cases that are easier to oppose. If you are in a hole, a good strategy is to stop digging.
- Paul
- Paul
Last edited:
H4F33Z
Active Member
God this is so depressing, first Pasternak with his sidewalk removal from a plan, then Colle with his removal of the planned Marlee Bike Lanes, now Nunziata with her cancellation of all these planned sidewalks which would have genuinely created a sidewalk network in this neighbourhood.
Why didn’t the kids have a say? Why didn’t the people who visit the neighbourhood and transit users have a say? This is deeply unfair for councillors to treat vital infrastructure as a vote and just cancel staff’s work through member motions what feels like every month.
We should’ve got her out honestly, but is there anything we can do? It just feels hopeless when member motions are put in, and no councillors bat an eye and passes them.
Why didn’t the kids have a say? Why didn’t the people who visit the neighbourhood and transit users have a say? This is deeply unfair for councillors to treat vital infrastructure as a vote and just cancel staff’s work through member motions what feels like every month.
We should’ve got her out honestly, but is there anything we can do? It just feels hopeless when member motions are put in, and no councillors bat an eye and passes them.
Northern Light
Superstar
I think if I were suggesting a course of action, I might suggest talking to/emailing one of the more irritating people in our province, LOL, David Lepofsky.
He's the chair, here:
He relishes a good fight (and often a bad one) fighting for the rights of the disabled.
I think a strong legal case could be made that when a road comes up for major resurfacing or reconstruction, in an urban area, that there is an affirmative obligation to accommodate the physically challenged; and that that
means providing them a safe space to walk, which is not the middle of the road, unless and except, the City can demonstrate that the the average vehicle speed on said road is at or under 15km/ph.
He might be able to make a case loud enough that the City pays attention.
You might want to suggest to the City that continued abrogation of their responsibility could lead to significant litigation and associated costs.
txlseries4
Active Member
Per Shawn Micallef on Bluesky
I don’t see the motion on the agenda atm but maybe it hasn’t been prepared yet or clerks haven’t had a chance. Maybe he’ll move an amendment as part of the vision zero item on the agenda (converting some crossings to full traffic signals)? Guess we’ll see
I don’t see the motion on the agenda atm but maybe it hasn’t been prepared yet or clerks haven’t had a chance. Maybe he’ll move an amendment as part of the vision zero item on the agenda (converting some crossings to full traffic signals)? Guess we’ll see
txlseries4
Active Member
Much of the debate on the vision zero item was deranged. Nunziata and a couple other councillors complained multiple times about the debate being a waste of time.
Perruzza didn't introduce a motion to pause the speed cameras, but he went on and on about how awful and unfair it is for people who miss the warning sign to get a ticket, right after telling a story about getting a phone call about a young student who got struck and killed on the first day of school, and then 2 years later the Vision Zero program started.
"I fundamentally, absolutely, one-hundred-percent believe in the program."
"Sometimes you're not paying attention [...] you got waze, you got this you got that [...] and you got your kids in the back seat" Uh-huh...
Laughably shameless
Regardless, Perruzza's motion failed 4-16. Members that voted Yes are Olivia Chow, Stephen Holyday, Nick Mantas, Anthony Perruzza. I'm assuming Chow is playing political chess
Holyday had a motion that failed which asked "to consider painting or vinyl wrapping automated speed enforcement cameras in a brighter contrasting colour which is more obviously seen by motorists"
Not pleased to see this amendment from Chow which passed:
1. City Council request the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to prioritize projects that improve safety, particularly in school zones and community safety zones, when allocating funds generated by Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras.
2. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services to update the City of Toronto's Automated Speed Enforcement Program to:
a. install larger, more visible, and clearer signage where Automated Speed Enforcement cameras are deployed; and
b. limit the number of Automated Speed Enforcement infractions an individual vehicle owner can receive from a single camera location prior to receiving their first infraction in the mail.
Some comments from staff and a couple councillors raise the question whether the city is even able to make the signs bigger because they're regulated by the province, and if b. is even possible because that may be directing police operations which Council isn't able to do.
Perruzza didn't introduce a motion to pause the speed cameras, but he went on and on about how awful and unfair it is for people who miss the warning sign to get a ticket, right after telling a story about getting a phone call about a young student who got struck and killed on the first day of school, and then 2 years later the Vision Zero program started.
"I fundamentally, absolutely, one-hundred-percent believe in the program."
"Sometimes you're not paying attention [...] you got waze, you got this you got that [...] and you got your kids in the back seat" Uh-huh...
Laughably shameless
Regardless, Perruzza's motion failed 4-16. Members that voted Yes are Olivia Chow, Stephen Holyday, Nick Mantas, Anthony Perruzza. I'm assuming Chow is playing political chess
Holyday had a motion that failed which asked "to consider painting or vinyl wrapping automated speed enforcement cameras in a brighter contrasting colour which is more obviously seen by motorists"
Not pleased to see this amendment from Chow which passed:
1. City Council request the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to prioritize projects that improve safety, particularly in school zones and community safety zones, when allocating funds generated by Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras.
2. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services to update the City of Toronto's Automated Speed Enforcement Program to:
a. install larger, more visible, and clearer signage where Automated Speed Enforcement cameras are deployed; and
b. limit the number of Automated Speed Enforcement infractions an individual vehicle owner can receive from a single camera location prior to receiving their first infraction in the mail.
Some comments from staff and a couple councillors raise the question whether the city is even able to make the signs bigger because they're regulated by the province, and if b. is even possible because that may be directing police operations which Council isn't able to do.