[DSCToronto]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

View attachment 655535

My first reaction to the traffic lights the City installed last year at Front and Frederick was similar BUT having observed the situation they actually ARE useful. One problem in that location was that with the various one-way blocks on The Esplanade, the northbound traffic coming up Frederick was greatly increased and it really was hard to cross Front or turn west. The new lights there are generally synchronised with those nearby and really do not seem to cause problems. There were at least two 'accidents' there prior to the lights being installed, I have seen/heard of none since.

The lights at Scott and Front were a request from locals who wanted to cross Front to get to Berczy. Not sure that I 100% agree with the need but I do understand why they wanted them.

 

[Mihairokov]

As a pedestrian I really appreciate the lights and it makes crossing Front, especially between Jarvis and Parliament, a lot easier.

IMO Scott along Berczy, b/w Front and Wellington, should be pedestrianized, but that's a convo for a different thread...

 

[Northern Light]

I was out on a walk the other night and noticed that the city has installed some traffic lights (not yet activated) at Front and Scott.

I was convinced before seeing this that the city has gone completely nuts installing traffic lights virtually every where in the name of "Vision Zero", and this installatiion here is another example that shows that the city is completely deluded in actually implementing that practice. Vision Zero doesnt mean installing traffic lights in every damn intersection of the city, but yet here we are witnessing the implementation of an idiotic practice.

Why in the planet are they installing traffic lights in places that absolutely do not warrant it, or need it? The way the city is going, we're probably going to see traffic lights at every single intersection in the downtown core.

Let's take a look at how the city has now installed controlled intersections in virtually every road intersecting Front St E (X marks the spot of traffic lights):

I agree.

Front is one-way here....... which means there is nearly a guaranteed stop in flow (vehicles turning off Yonge could still move along at a Red there.........) but really at 90% of the time, there are regular breaks in traffic here.

***

To the extent there is any problem here its that there are too many lanes of traffic, given that Front west of Yonge is functionally a single lane in front of Union, and is 2 lanes east of Church..........there is no reason it should be more than 2 lanes here.

Its actually 1 lanes + 2.5 kinda/sorta much of the day when parking is legal on both sides of Front, but I digress, that too is a poor use of space and creates sightline issues.

The correct choice here would to remove parking except for a single loading zone on the south side between Scott and Church.

Widen the sidewalk on the south side by at least 4M, maybe more.

Keep 2 otherwise clear vehicle lanes.

That would reduce volume and speed and improve predictable movements. It would also create room to have healthier trees on the south side and quality patios.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

secure.toronto.ca

From the above:

 

[DSCToronto]

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.

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

secure.toronto.ca

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.

 

[Northern Light]

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?

 

[nfitz]

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.

 

[BrenWilson]

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.

 

[nfitz]

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!

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

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.

 

[BrenWilson]

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.

 

[DSCToronto]

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.

 

[txlseries4]

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.

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.

 

[Amare]

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.

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

Agenda Item History 2025.IE22.4

secure.toronto.ca

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.

 

[11th]

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.