afransen
Senior Member
If we look at countries that have strong cycling rates, like the Netherlands, they still have dedicated pedestrian and cycling signals.
That said, requiring redundant signals is probably overkill.
|
|
|
- Thread starter reaperexpress
- Start date
That said, requiring redundant signals is probably overkill.
trafficexplorerON
New Member
Yeah, it's infuriating how many municipialities still seem to think that having two bicycle signals on the far side is still mandatory, despite the fact that the HTA already has an exception for bike signals (O. Reg. 408/15, s. 1 (2).). The wording of OTM Book 12 also only recommends having two bicycle signals, and that is if bicycles are on a separate phase. And even then, it still says that the second signal head can be placed on the nearside. I think that in Peel Region and in Guelph, part of the problem is that they insist on having the bike signals turning yellow before the signals for general traffic due to extra clearance times. And at other places, it may be due to the two-way bike lanes having different phasing from the parallel roadway due to the left turn phasing.
I would love it if we were able to mount tiny bike signals near the stop line rather than having two signals on the far-side.
junctionist
Senior Member
On a different note, the traffic signal on the left for cars is a good-looking traffic signal. Ontario is far too inflexible in its standards for traffic light designs.
Some standardization is undoubtedly good, but cities should be allowed to use this style of traffic light on lower-speed roads in historic urban areas. It looks like a more natural fit in the streetscape than the big yellow traffic signals hung over the intersection that we have. It's more aesthetically pleasing to put the traffic light on the corner, mounted lower to the ground, and with a smaller black frame versus a large yellow frame.
One sees this style in historic areas where urban design is paramount in Montreal, Washington DC, and London. It looks very sharp compared to what we have. I'd love to see this style at Front and Church to enhance the flatiron vista, in the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, and in the Financial District.
trafficexplorerON
New Member
Per Chapter 5.5 of the OTM Book 12 (Table 25), municipilities are actually allowed to mount the "secondary" (left-side) signal head at a height of just 2.75 metres, without backplates, if the speed limit is less than 60 km/h . Here's the link as proof.
That same chapter does say that backplates must be yellow "under most conditions", but there are places in Ontario that use dark green or black instead, particularly in downtown areas. It also suggests that the rear side is also painted yellow for some reason, but it still allows other colours such as black or grey as long as it's consistent across the intersection. It doesn't say anything about the casings of the lights, or pedestrian signals.
One possible downside of not having backplates (with reflective tape, that is) is that when it's dark out, it might be difficult to tell the position of the bulb that is lit, which would be a problem for people with color vision deficiency. But at lower-speed roads where signal visibility is less of a challenge, I don't think we should force the reflective tape to be yellow (like the OTM currently does). I think having white strips on a black or dark green backplate should be fine.
That same chapter does say that backplates must be yellow "under most conditions", but there are places in Ontario that use dark green or black instead, particularly in downtown areas. It also suggests that the rear side is also painted yellow for some reason, but it still allows other colours such as black or grey as long as it's consistent across the intersection. It doesn't say anything about the casings of the lights, or pedestrian signals.
One possible downside of not having backplates (with reflective tape, that is) is that when it's dark out, it might be difficult to tell the position of the bulb that is lit, which would be a problem for people with color vision deficiency. But at lower-speed roads where signal visibility is less of a challenge, I don't think we should force the reflective tape to be yellow (like the OTM currently does). I think having white strips on a black or dark green backplate should be fine.
Dan416
Senior Member
Mississauga has recently (in the past few years) started using this style. I'm not sure if Hamilton was the first, as I am pretty sure I have seen it in some other places in Ontario. I didn't like it at first, but I've gotten used to it. I don't think Mississauga is doing a large-scale replacement of its current signals, but all new traffic lights are now in this style, and some existing intersections have been updated with this style without any other major changes to them, so not sure why.
ShonTron
Moderator
Waterloo Region, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie use this too now; Hamilton has always had black casings. Burlington used to until the early 1990s. Brantford has a weird style with black casings with yellow visors that I don’t really like.
Mississauga will switch when signals are up for replacement, which is every 20-25 years or so, either as part of road works or electrical upgrades. There are still lots of signals in Waterloo Region of the older all yellow types too.
Notably, signals installed as part of provincial construction projects (near the Dixie-QEW interchange or the Hurontario LRT) are still all-yellow.
Dan416
Senior Member
Collingwood either had or has a similar style (but without the reflective yellow strips, which Mississauga also had decades ago). Here is an example:
trafficexplorerON
New Member
Ottawa does this at some intersections along the Rideau Canal (but the visors are still yellow):
I also found these signals that do the opposite: black backboards and yellow casings:
I also found these signals that do the opposite: black backboards and yellow casings:
ZEBuilder
Active Member
Mississauga will be doing a large scale replacement, they are planning on doing it over 10 years. They have a couple of ways they're doing this.
New/rebuild signals are being built with the black face with the yellow reflective backboard as anyone can see when they drive through intersections, for example Confederation and Paisley (turned on in February/March), Creditview and Financial (turned on in the spring), Aerowood and Ambler (turned on in February/March) all have the new heads. There's obviously a bunch more with black faces but those are some of the more recent ones that have new heads.
Then old signals not part of the new/rebuild program are being modernized as part of a 10 year program. There's two ways this is occuring. Signals that require significant work (concrete, tactile plates, multiple arms) are part of the new/rebuild contract, you will generally find this on roads that have a MUT.
The second way is with the maintenance contractor, which further has two ways, the first being when a situation occurs where a pole gets hit and a signal head needs replacement they will install the new black faced head, then come back a couple days later and update the rest of the signals. The second is just general upgrades, the city says here's the 10 intersections we want to have new heads and the contractor does it.
Internally the city has a dedicated staff member for the signal modernization program, originally it was a joint effort between the maintenance and capital teams but with how big the project became they decided it was best to have one person dedicated to it.
Dan416
Senior Member
Thank you for the detailed information. I remember when I had asked a city councillor about this, years ago, they said it would only be done with new signals being installed. Interesting they decided to go with making a large scale replacement, though over 10 years is reasonable I think.
ZEBuilder
Active Member
Yeah, its a combination, originally it was only new signals/rebuilds, however last year they got approval from council for the enhancement program (the large scale replacement/modernization). There's over 700 signals in Mississauga so its not going to be a quick project.
This year as part of the 2025 capital program (went to tender in late April) there are 2 significant intersection rebuilds along with 2 smaller ones. Then there's 3 new signals. There was 5 intersections undergoing the enhancement project. The contract was designed with an empty signal slot or two should the city find the need for additional signals or rebuilds as part of the 2025 contract.
Then from the maintenance side there was dozens planned, however I don't have an exact count on the number completed. Signals staff were avoiding doing signals that had planned capital works within the next 5 or so years to prevent duplication of work as part of planned integrated road projects. So if you see large stretches without any updates chances are there's a larger project coming which will replace signals.
trafficexplorerON
New Member
On the subject of Mississauga, does anyone else think that their clearance times for bike signals are quite overprotective? For example, at Mavis and Eglinton, the bike signal turns yellow when the pedestrian signal reaches 17 seconds.
For record, I know what they are doing. They're using the formula in the OTM to calculate the yellow+all red clearance (probably assuming a speed of 4.0 m/s), then timing the bike signals with the ped signals so that the bike signals clear when the ped signals reach that number. But the problem is that they're forgetting that the yellow/red clearance for general traffic already provides some of the extra clearance time. So at the very least they should be subtracting 3-4 seconds from the early clearance time for bikes depending on how long the general yellow light is. (subtract the all-red clearance as well if there's no permissive left turns at the intersection). Right now, I really don't see these early clearance times doing much other than further encouraging people to disregard the signals.
I'm also think that Mississauga getting rid of right turn overlaps is a mistake. WB Argentia and Winston Churchill especially seems like a poor decision because IIRC there was still a right turn lane, as well as a no right on red sign. So the lack of a right turn overlap means that right turning vehicles cannot proceed during the SB left turn phase, even though there's no conflicting traffic. I thought they were fine having right turn overlaps for a shared bus+right turn lane.
For record, I know what they are doing. They're using the formula in the OTM to calculate the yellow+all red clearance (probably assuming a speed of 4.0 m/s), then timing the bike signals with the ped signals so that the bike signals clear when the ped signals reach that number. But the problem is that they're forgetting that the yellow/red clearance for general traffic already provides some of the extra clearance time. So at the very least they should be subtracting 3-4 seconds from the early clearance time for bikes depending on how long the general yellow light is. (subtract the all-red clearance as well if there's no permissive left turns at the intersection). Right now, I really don't see these early clearance times doing much other than further encouraging people to disregard the signals.
I'm also think that Mississauga getting rid of right turn overlaps is a mistake. WB Argentia and Winston Churchill especially seems like a poor decision because IIRC there was still a right turn lane, as well as a no right on red sign. So the lack of a right turn overlap means that right turning vehicles cannot proceed during the SB left turn phase, even though there's no conflicting traffic. I thought they were fine having right turn overlaps for a shared bus+right turn lane.
ZEBuilder
Active Member
This may be changing.
There has been internal discussions about adding overlaps back in after they've been removed. There's been complaints to councillors to the extent that it's being considered again.