The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-11-95 THE CORDO ION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON XXx3A REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File #I (ten Res. # 2-0)'� Date: APRIL 3, 1995 Ry-Law# Report#: r..1_._D-14—Q File#: Subject: NINETY—SEVEN (97) REQUESTS FOR ALL—WAY STOPS Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD-11-95 be received; 2 . THAT Council strike a committee, to be called "The Clarington Traffic Committee" , to examine and make recommendations to Council on traffic concerns on Nash Road and at the S. T. Worden Public School on Nash Road; 3. THAT the Committee consist of a representative(s) from: S. T. Worden Public School P.T.A. , Clarington Public Works Department, Durham Regional Police Service, Better Transportation Coalition, Chairman of the Public Works Department, and Local Councillor for Ward 1; and 4 . THAT Mr. Andrew J. Wright, Inspector Jim Adams and Mr. Tom Samuels be advised of Council's decision. 1 �!RECYCLED 1AP CYCLE I LR-1,11- _REMPAPER i REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 2 I I REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. 1: Key Map Showing Locations of Requested All-Way Stops No. 2: All-Way Stop Guidelines from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Ontario) No. 3: . Tech Topics, All-Way Stops No. 4 : All-Way Stops, The Ontario Experience No. 5: Environmental Doublethink and the Illegitimate Use of All-Way Stop-Control by K. Alan Fenton No. 6: Controlling Speeds on Residential Streets by R. F. Beaubien No. 7 : Neighbourhood Speed Watch by J. E. Womble No. 8: Traffic Calming No. 9: Photo Radar Pamphlet No. 10: Warrants for Flashing Light for School Zone No. 11: Listing of All-Way Stops, Existing and Requested No. 12: Safe Route to Schools Program No. 13: Correspondence dated February 17, 1995, from Inspector Jim Adams, Durham Regional Police Service 2.0 BACKGROUND 2 . 1 Purpose of Report This report has been prepared by staff to assist Council in establishing a policy regarding future requests for all-way stops. The Public Works Department receives approximately twenty (20) verbal requests for all-way stops each year. 2 .2 Requests for All-Way Stops Received by Staff Residents are informed by telephone of Provincial Warrants and told that all-way stops are not intended as speed control devices and then advised to contact Durham Regional Police for radar enforcement. The vast majority of the residents do not i REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 3 pursue the request and the matter is never presented to Council. The Key Map (Attachment No. 1) shows ninety-seven (97 ) locations where residents have requested all-way stops over the past few years. 2 .3 All-Way Stops Approved by Council During late 1994 Council approved eight (8) all-way stops within a short period of time. Those approvals have encouraged other residents to renew their requests for all-way stops. 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3. 1 Provincial Policy on All-Way Stops The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Ontario is similar to other government publications across Canada and the United States which provide uniformity for all road users and road authorities. The petitions from Clarington residents are no different from those .received anywhere in Canada or the U.S.A. Municipal authorities throughout North America have an obligation to provide drivers with consistent uniform information and traffic control devices so that their expectations will not be violated. All-way stomas are designed as a right-of-way control device to precede the introduction of traffic signals (Attachment No. 2) . They can also be used to reduce the severity of accidents at high collision locations of four (4) or more per year, or to compensate for visibility problems. When warranted, all-way stops can improve safety and traffic flow as large volumes of vehicles enter an intersection making movements for pedestrians or vehicles hazardous. To maintain proper use of the device, and knowing the misconception by the public, the traffic manuals across North America list various specific places not to put the device including: �; ( 0 I REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 4 1. Not as a speed control device; and 2. Not as a means of deterring through traffic. Road authorities are advised not to install signs in these situations because they do not resolve the problem and, in many situations, create other problems. 3.2 Negative Aspects of Unwarranted-All-Way Stops • increased disregard for the device; • increased disregard of government bodies and law; • i n c r e a s e d a i r / n o i s e p o l l u t i o n (deceleration/acceleration) ; • increased occurrences of rolling stops or failing to stop; enforcement required to prevent rolling stops; • fosters more requests for additional all-way stop locations; • increased expenses to motorist, gas consumption and brakes; • only decreases speeds over a short distance; • increased speeds between all-way stops; and • delayed response times by emergency vehicles. 3. 3 Effect on Emergency Response Times Emergency vehicles such as fire, police and ambulance are not exempt from the Highway Traffic Act which requires them to stop at stop signs and red traffic signals. To ensure the public's safety and their own, they must legally come to a complete stop. In actual practice, emergency vehicles usually slow to a crawl at each stop street and make sure the way is clear before they proceed. The danger of not stopping was illustrated on February 3, 1995, in Bradford, Ontario, when a Fire Rescue Vehicle drove into a signalized intersection lU 10 i, REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 5 I striking two (2 ) cars and flipping the emergency vehicle onto its side causing multiple injuries. 3.4 Effect on Safety Motor vehicle accident records show that, yes, motorists do hit pedestrians and cyclists in Clarington: Year Pedestrians Cyclists Total 1991 4 7 11 1992 7 10 17 1993 8 6 14 1994 6 11 17 The majority of these accidents were minor in nature occurring at mid-block locations outside of school hours with drivers seldom, if ever, being charged. One fatality has occurred over this four (4 ) year period. The police usually determine that accidents happen because of poor judgement or inexperience by the pedestrian or cyclist. An all-way stop does not ensure safety, as shown in 1992 by the fatality of a young child on Nash Road west of the existing all-way stop at Centerfield Drive. All-way stops can reduce the severity of right angle accidents but the number of low speed rear end collisions often increases. An accident can occur at any time, at any location, and for many reasons. Many accidents caused by impaired or careless drivers cannot be corrected with all-way stops. The Provincial Warrants do not consider an intersection to have a high accident frequency unless three (3) to four _(4) right angle collisions have occurred each year for the previous three (3) years. REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 6 Motor vehicle accidents on Clarington roadways have averaged 341 per year over the past five (5) years as shown on the table below: Year Motor Vehicle Accidents 1990 411 1991 354 1992 319 1993 299 1994 321 Total 1,704 3.5 The Snowball Effect Since late 1994 when eight (8) all-way stops were approved in a short period of time, more all-way stop requests have been received. Residents of Nash and Prestonvale Roads, Courtice, and Edward Street, Newcastle, have again asked for equal consideration. It is imperative that Council be aware that there is not just one ( 1) or two (2) requests to consider on their future agenda, but at least ninety-seven (97 ) . If Council is too lenient and begins approving all-way stops at intersections which do not meet the Provincial Warrants, Council will have a difficult time in dealing with the numerous requests which will result. 3.6 Do All-Way Stops Resolve Problems? Example 1 - Nash Road To satisfy parents' concerns, two (2) all-way stops were introduced during 1989 near the S. T. Worden Public School on Nash Road, Courtice. When initially installed, the parents stopped complaining and the all-way stops were considered, by some, to be a quick cheap way to fix a problem. The contention that all-way stops always work and resolve problems REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 7 is inaccurate. During 1990, the residents near S. T. Worden Public School requested that the all-way stops be replaced with traffic signals because the cars were not coming to a complete stop. The residents felt the vehicles rolling through the intersection were making it confusing and dangerous for the students. During 1991, parents requested adult guards at the two (2) all-way stops to assist students. In 1995, the parents are still concerned with the volume and speed of traffic between the two (2) all-way stops and have requested a central all-way stop at a "T" intersection near the existing adult crossing guard to further reduce speeds and volumes. This matter will be dealt with in conjunction with a report on the entire length of Nash Road. Example 2 - Glenabbey Drive In a continuing campaign to divert through traffic from their residential collector roadway, some of the residents of Glenabbey Drive who have been provided with four (4 ) all-way stops have stated they will be requesting further restrictions after the one ( 1) year trial period. The residents are aware that all-way stops often increase vehicle speeds between the stops and may use that information to propose a 40 km/hr zone for the entire length of Glenabbey Drive. The one ( 1) year trial period on Glenabbey Drive will be reported back to Council during December 1995. 3 .7 Reasons Behind All-Way Stop Requests SPEED, SPEED AND SPEED, then volume and children. Residents petition for all-way stops to eliminate actual or perceived speeding problems. The majority of residents also believe that the speeding traffic is "through traffic" from outside their neighbourhood which will use alternate routes when the stop signs are introduced. Residents always express the r REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 8 emotional concern that a child will be killed and that only an all-way stop will save his/her life. Both Councillors and staff are sympathetic to the safety of children, but it does not mean that an all-way stop is the solution. Unfortunately, when petitioners are refused their request they see both Councillors and staff as heartless and uncaring. 3.8 A Reversal of the NIMBY Syndrome The reaction of many residents when hearing of a change to their neighbourhood, such as proposed low income housing or a business, is the "not in my backyard syndrome" . All-way stops are the opposite, where people want one near their home so other people will slow down, but not in other neighbourhoods because it will inconvenience them going to the store or work. Another example is wanting radar enforcement on their street, but if they see a radar unit set up in another area they may flash their lights to warn other motorists. to slow down and avoid getting a speeding ticket. 3.9 Quality of Life Residents often believe that an all-way stop will create a peaceful low traffic volume environment in which their children can safely play in the street. Unfortunately, all- way stops create noise and air pollution by forcing all motorists to stop then accelerate to their previous speed. Page 32 of "All-Way Stops The Ontario Experience" (Attachment No. 4 ) shows how speeds only drop for a short distance of 30 to 60 metres either side of the all-way stop and increase at the mid block location. The City of Toronto, which has over 800 all-way stops, is attempting to eliminate some of its unwarranted locations to improve the air quality. In the city an estimated 32 million litres of fuel is burned and released into the air at unwarranted stops annually. Traffic volumes REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 9 are seldom affected by the introduction of an all-way stop because the majority of motorists are local traffic and the others will continue to use the shortest route to their destinations. The article by K. Alan Fenton, "Environmental Doublethink" (Attachment No.. 5) goes into great detail revealing costs to the environment of the wasted fuel which is burned needlessly. 3. 10 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Alternatives to All-Way Stops a) Traffic Calming Devices The City of Toronto and many other municipalities in Ontario are experimenting with "Traffic Calming Devices" (see Attachment No. 8) . Traffic calming devices alter the roadway by narrowing or diversions to force traffic to slow down. The Traffic Calming Project on Balliol Street in Toronto is costing Metro taxpayers an additional $300,000 (70%) above the $430,000 reconstruction project. Staff believes that, although the devices may work at reducing vehicle speeds, it is too expensive to retrofit all existing streets where residents perceive speeding problems. There are also some outstanding legalconcerns regarding liability if accidents should result from the use of these devices prior to Provincial approval. If the traffic calming devices have a positive effect in other test locations in Ontario, they could become Provincial Standards required by the Planning Department for all new developments. b) Neighbourhood Speed Watch Programs These programs rely on public participation with the police and road authority and have been successful in several states and provinces (see Attachment Nos. 6 and REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 10 7) . The program which involves public participation and education was discussed with both residents of Glenabbey Drive and Martin Road with little or no positive feedback. Staff considers this a viable option in some locations but, due to poor public response, it cannot be pursued unless the residents are in favour of it. C) Speed Enforcement It has always been the contention of road authorities that speeding problems could not be solved with all-way stops but that strict police enforcement with a low tolerance level was required. Recent police funding and prioritization has' not allowed sufficient enforcement. The introduction of Photo Radar on the Provincial highways is seen by many municipal road authorities as the solution to speeding on local streets. If the Provincial Photo Radar Program is deemed effective after the test program concludes in June 1995, it could progress onto municipal streets as time and money permit. One suggestion is that Durham Regional Police Service acquire photo a radar unit( s) and move the unit(s) to the streets from which we are receiving complaints. d) Special Considerations in School Zones Many requests for all-way stops relate to school children crossing streets. Some of these problems may be resolved in cooperation with the school boards by: using staggered hours, earlier dismissal of younger children who are often picked up by parents; 4 being sure high schools or factories do not dismiss at the same time as junior schools in the area; � �1 � 6 REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 11 4 promoting education of parents to walk a block and not park or stop in restricted areas; • promoting school bus pick-up and drop-off on school property instead of on-street; • providing "kiss and go" drop-off points for parents; • relocating bus pick-up or drop-off areas and routes; • encouraging well trained student patrollers when adult guards are not warranted; • providing ample on-site parking for teachers and staff; and • increasing safety education. Another alternative in school zones would be to implement a policy of establishing 40 km school zones with flashing lights only to be activated one hour before school begins, the noon hour, if required, and one hour after ( see Attachment No. 10) . This option would cost $5,000 for each of approximately 25 school zones, amounting to $125,000. This program could be phased in over several years to reduce the tax burden. The reduced speed zones during limited hours may prove to be effective in assisting children to and from school, but may not address all of the residents' concerns if they want motorists to slow down 365 days per year and 24 hours per day. Motorists will likely disobey a posted 40 km/hr REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 12 school zone if it is in place 365 days a year and enforcement is not visible. e) Maintain Status Ouo Residents ' requests cannot always be fulfilled. Building codes, zoning by-laws and official plans are put in place to control the actions of a few for the greater benefit of the entire community. Although residents perceive a problem and suggest an all-way stop, is the exposure to danger at their intersection greater or less than at the next intersection? Residents respond on an emotional level focused exclusively on their street. Provincial Warrants attempt to put the location into perspective based on actual vehicle and pedestrian volumes and accident history which could then be compared to other locations. With this information, consistent decisions could be taken based on fact, not just emotion and fear of what may or may not happen in the future. 3. 11 POLITICAL CHOICES AND DECISIONS Future All-Way Stop Policies It is Council's responsibility to make these difficult decisions based on various options which may include one or more of the following: a) basing decisions on Provincial Volume Warrants with no exceptions; b) basing decisions on meeting either 50% or 70% of Provincial Volume Warrants similar to the adult school crossing guard policy; � Cll �� REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 13 c) basing decision on petition by 51% of residents on street; d) approving all requests even if by one individual; e) approving all requests within one ( 1) block of a school regardless of volumes; f) disregarding Provincial Warrants and openly using stop signs as speed control devices and approving all locations which have an 85th percentile speed of 8 to 10 km/hr above the posted limit even if volumes are low; and g) having staff review all ninety-seven (97 ) locations listed on Attachment No. 11 and prioritizing them based on the percentage of the Provincial Warrant which is met. It is important for Council to consider the options, choose a path for the Municipality and be consistent. Inconsistency With The Second Request The residents of Glenabbey Drive requested four (4) all-way stops during January of 1992 and were refused. They i approached Council again in January 1994 and received one. They approached Council in November of 1994 and received three (3) more. The intersection of Nash and Hancock Roads was refused in 1990 and then approved in 1994 . The intersection . of Rundle and Nash Roads was refused in 1989 but approved in 1994. The residents of Edward Street in Newcastle were refused in 1991 and have made the request again in 1995. i i REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 14 3. 12 Better Transportation Coalition I have recently discovered an organization called "The Better Transportation Coalition" which is funded by the Ministry of Transportation. One of the programs which the Coalition has is called "Safe Routes to School Program" which is described in Attachment No. 12. 3. 13 Traffic Management Unit I have also been advised recently by Inspector Jim Adams, Durham Regional Police Service, that the Police Service has a unit called "Traffic Management Unit" which will do traffic studies when warranted and when the unit is available (See Attachment No. 13) . 3. 14 Nash Road Traffic Study The Public Works Department has been directed by Council to prepare a report regarding the several complaints which have been received from residents from Nash Road. Among other requests, Council has recently had delegations from parents who have children attending the S. T. Worden Public School, (which is located on the northeast corner of Nash Road and Varcoe Road) , voicing their concern about the safety of the children going and coming to school. A meeting was held at the S. T. Worden Public School on the evening of Monday, February 6, 1995, to discuss their concerns which can be summarized as follows: 1. Speed and volume of traffic on Nash Road; and 2 . Parents parking on both sides of Nash Road while taking their children to and from school. REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 15 Their suggested solutions are to reduce the speed limit on Nash Road to 40 km/hr and to place an all-way stop on Nash Road at Cherry Blossom Crescent, which is located about 220 m (721.78 feet) east of Varcoe Road. One solution to the parents parking in front of the school is to issue tickets to the parents who park there (there is no parking permitted on the north side of Nash Road) . The parents were advised that we will consider their suggestions and get back to them. 3. 15 Proposed Committee The number of requests which have been received for all-way stops is indicative of the number of residents we have who are concerned about the speed and volume of traffic on many of our residential streets. In most cases, the requests for all-way stops do not meet the warrants from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Durham Regional Police Service do not have sufficient staff to enforce the speed limit on roads as often as the residents would like. Over the years. I have been frustrated that we do not have any real solutions to the residents ' concerns. I therefore recommend that a committee be established to review and make recommendations about traffic concerns referred to it by Council and that Nash Road be used as a pilot project for the committee to examine. The proposed committee would consist of a representative(s) from: S. T. Worden Public School P.T.A. , Clarington Public Works Department, REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 16 Durham Regional Police Service, Better Transportation Coalition, Chairman of the Public Works Department, and Local Councillor from Ward 1. The make-up of the committee would change from time to time, depending on the location and nature of the traffic problem. This idea has been discussed with Inspector Jim Adams, Durham Regional Police Service, Tom Samuels, The Better Transportation Coalition, and Andrew Wright, S. T. Worden Public School P.T.A. , who have all endorsed the idea of the committee. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, `Walter Evans, P.Eng. W. H. Stockwell Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer RDB*ph March 14 , 1995 Attachments REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 17 Mr. Andrew J. Wright Executive Member S. T. Worden Public School P.T.A. c/o S. T. Worden Public School 1462 Nash Road Courtice, Ontario LlE 1S7 Inspector Jim Adams 16th Division Durham Regional Police 77 Centre Street North Oshawa, Ontario L1G 4B7 Mr. Tom Samuels The Better Transportation Coalition 517 College Street, Suite #325 Toronto, Ontario M6G 4A2 I I ( i I REPORT NO. : WD-11-95 PAGE 18 ATTACHMENTS 2 TO 13 ( 100 PAGES) ARE UNDER SEPARATE COVER. REPORT WD-11-95 IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. I Farouk g A i F gC end k vo Frodand Ave. w o v Bates U nd•Ils P m dean Rd C e0.ZI ¢' ewson Rtl n J Ee Isley R Cl en Cros. Z o Sherovlew iJbadovK s7efypr Jut Aran Cr. p Court R m Shoreview Dr. R b<�b CL eld //ffff��--iii� St e �b Cecil Fouts Gr. 1. Dr R m IN Du � nWn Autlrey CL ts Fou 0.4.1d Gate �a _ 3 �, etlla 5 a4 Qe�e Devondei s l Found GIs. Rd. edG. Ird Irobne 5t Q e LongrroodCt L. ° roa• emkercG ossgrove R 1e d erAeld McLellan m $ Ab ootl tall A.. mine 52m derAve a j w L. m Nesh Rtl. 13 c_' Saunders EI.I nvllbr c ; Dc m AldeNrook �` d.l yY D IIJaI BridleR `mYm m Dr. a B , �pysoc U a Cencesslon e. Done...Ion SL u u naf Bleck Geek Troll •vent Gate o a Hendry Gab Inion CL FOz Hill m M•rch nail O e : Lo z Una SLwnha oueh CG Q• f�� U i1 fDn W b i w sway>° Q�rr sunm `s a� •Falrcomb Cres. G sl❑ Pea<htr M Butson Cr.a 'a en ° R e3o 6 gr � �'Wnllm 0 ¢ ole courtstnbOa Illhum[ yoriMlleR 3 J Kin SGE Edl eb ra h 1y, D e H Len o ug Lane "bre a p c y o p$ a £ Inglis Ave. a(Cnx a 11 o fPri C s �i 5 Dr. �� dai•Croz. < RQ i'.U ndb � aat`� ep nt v. Jan•SL Sym 1Court Mflld,d•Count •rWN' x N _ d Se pr a Crox en S A P Pa SummedeaR mDriv Ave umbo Gas. c L emb•DI > a Q. BloofS[ � John ScoCAv. .�! Pln MUCO G Em Chantel CG c E B..Ilne RQ x Baseline Rd. a. Fairbalm CL e F LScott CLLe,~Gab 3yy 6 m J hn ya n � COURTICE BOWMANVILLE legend REPORT NO.: WD- 1 1 -95 ALL WAY STOPS-EXISTING LOCATIONS V DATE:MARCH 08/95 -REQUESTED LOCATIONS ♦ ATTACHMENT NO. 1a DWG.:MAPINFOWLLSTOPS.WOR Boundary Rd. 0 Rd Et�otSt- Cartwright SL Sumac Rd. - Monck St 3 °° S x h Tanglewood pa�� -� `� � �• Ct 'moo U ��Oc m yo OF° o Mrn st Gone Rd-10 . a Waters cv, BURKETON N of U ir o KENDAL a av�ds no ambl es . HAMPTON F - ° o s m Andrew low r J mi Andrew St / i Mnr�on s All Ge a St E. Lane m S m m d 0 Sylvia O tery Rd Gitien > Rd- Z d Oakley Ct King St m `�Qrui N n D r.7 i ian res. er b Coulsenree r- or n a line Chall oncast s 3 Sgt cent - Snowden Edward St � 0 and m Foster Creek � m Ct > Hart Blvd- Hart Blvd- - Princess St. ob Sunset L'on Y oria t Co i ick St.. La e :Its m HIGHW ORONO NEWCASTLE legend REPORT NO.: WD- 11 -95 ALL WAY STOPS-EXISTING LOCATIONS V ATTACHMENT NO.1 b DATE MARCH 08/95 -REQUESTED LOCATIONS * DWG.:MAPINFO�ALLSTOPS.WOR KE e In A� 0 Q co o Bee c�ENNISKIL EN a D g Ra. e c 7L � a�s m & m o Nero Fad a — wule on E RD Ra. IN 0 0 J KENDAL s Rd.HA TO ley A- OR .4 ct 1 Bw eM Glenel \ ' A. n I9 Gary Sydel Q v Ta—n Q N � Anae aaln —.1a CL of 15 a0ao LR 9.Rd.1B C O T CE an Rd "Ile �{ BOW A qVILLI A qq QD Marne d 5 NE C STLE Damn oNl9 RoiDamn n " Park Rtl. d FMY.No.2 a No.2 IWnCt w o:p NE VTONVIUE S,Fco Butler oDWedIlk Sown snore SO=samcetta. d MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON legend REPORT NO.: WD- 11 -95 ALL WAY STOPS-EXISTING LOCATIONS DATE:MARCH 08/95 -REQUESTED LOCATIONS ♦ ATTACHMENT NO1c C DWG.:MAPINFOWLLSTOPS,WOR s Part A Division 2 - Regulatory Section MED Ra-1101 (120 x 120)cm a UC�l�� Ra-101 (75 x 75)cm Ra-1 (60 x 60)cm 41.25 25 20 37.5 25 20 41.25 25 20 Blank No. 1 & M.T.C. B-16 Support-Steel Blank No.2& M.T.C. B-23 Support-Wood(10 x 10)cm Blank No. M.T.C. B-61 Support-Wood(10 x 10)cm A 2.11 "STOP"SIGN (Ra-1, Ra-1t) Guidelines and Warrants for STOP Signs Stop sign control results in delay to motorists and may 4. At intersections where the application of the normal increase the collision experience. Stop signs should, right hand rule would be unduly;hazardous. therefore, not be used indiscriminately. Stop signs are 5. Where three or more right angle'collisions per year not intended as speed control devices. Their usage is have occurred and methods of reducing the collision therefore limited to the control of right-of-way conflicts, experience such as improving sight lines, street light- Stop signs shall not be used on the same approach to in- ing, parking prohibitions, enforcement and geometric tersections where traffic control signals are operating. revisions, or a Yield sign have been tried and found Portable or part-time Stop signs shall not be used except lacking. j I in emergency or temporary situations, such as in con- A 2.11.01 One and Two-Way STOP Sign Controls junction with flagmen or at intersections where traffic signals are no longer working. When two major streets or highways intersect, and there is no priority to determine which direction should be As a general rule, Stop signs should only be used where stopped, a traffic study should be conducted. traffic engineering studies considering such aspects as traffic speeds, traffic volumes, restricted sight lines and A 2.11.02 All-Way STOP Sign Controls collision experience, indicate that the usage of Stop The following guidelines and warrants for All-Way Stop signs is warranted. sign controls are recommended for use at rural or urban The following guidelines and warrants for Stop Sign Con- intersections.All-Way Stop sign controls may be used: trol are recommended for use at rural or urban intersec- 1.a) At two like roadways. Each;approach should con- tions: tain the same number of lanes and have preferably 1. Intersection of a county road, city street, township four non-skewed approaches. road with a King's Highway. b) As an interim measure where traffic control signals 2. On a minor street or road entering a through street or are warranted but cannot be. implemented im- highway. mediately. 3. At unsignalized intersections in a signalized area ex- ATTACHMENT N 0 . 2 cept where they would interfere with traffic signal W D- 11 -95 progression. Part A Division 2 - Regulatory Section c)At locations having a high accident frequency where ped vehicle on the right will obscure the Stop sign. less restrictive measures have been tried and found g. Where traffic would be required to stop on grades. Inadequate. For the purpose of this warrant, a high 10. As a means of deterring the movement of through accident frequency is an average of four accidents traffic in a residential area. per year for a three year period and only those ac- cidents susceptible to relief through multi-way stop 11• Where visibility of the sign is hampered by curves or control will be considered (i.e. right angle and turn- grades and a safe stopping distance of less than ing .type collisions). Included in this warrant are 100 m exists. those locations where visibility problems exist which 12. Where any other traffic device controlling right-of- limit the safe approach speed to less than 15 kilo- way is permanently in place within 250 m with the metres per hour, thereby creating an unreasonable exception of a Yield sign. accident potential. Special Advance warning or A 2.11.03 Location of Stop Signs overhead flashing lights may be necessary to aug- ment the control if vertical or horizontal alignment is Where one road intersects another road at an acute a factor. angle, the Stop sign on the intersecting road should be d) As a means of providing an introductory period to turned or shielded so that it cannot be read by motorists accustom drivers to a reversal of intersection con- travelling on the priority road. trol. Installation under this warrant will, be for a A Stop sign should be erected at the point where the period not to exceed three months. vehicle is to stop, or as near thereto as possible. It may 2. On arterial roads and major collector streets the fol- be supplemented with a stop line if it controls.traffic, ap- lowing volume warrant may be used: proaching a major intersection. A Stop sign should be a) a total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches, placed as close to the near edge of the intersecting roadway as possible, and this distance should not exceed exceeding 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours 15 m unless it is clearly not practicable to locate the of the day and, Stop sign closer to the intersection. b) a combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor street exceeding 200 units per hour for the For legal reference and requirements of Stop signs see same eight hours with an average delay to traffic on Section 117(a)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act and also the minor street of greater than thirty seconds and, Regulation 486, Sections 7 and 8. c) a volume split does not exceed 70/30. The minimum size Stop sign (Ra-1) shall be erected on 3. On roads and streets not considered to be either ar- municipal streets and/or minor low speed gravel roads in- terial or major collector streets, tersecting designated local through roads in urban or a) a total vehicle volume on all intersection ap- rural areas. proaches exceeding 350 for the highest hour recorded and, b) a volume split does not exceed 75/25 for three-way control or 65/35 for a four-way control. All-Way Stop sign controls should not be used under the following conditions: 1. Where pedestrian protection, in particular school children, is a prime concern as the concern can usually be addressed by other means. 2. As a speed control device. 3. On roadways on which progressive signal timing ex- ists. 4. On roadways within urban areas having a posted speed limit in excess of 60 km/h. 5. At intersections having less than three or more than four approaches. 6. At offset or poorly defined intersections. 7. Ori truck or bus routes unless in an industrial area or v.,hero two such routes cross. 8. "Di, inulti-laned approaches where a parked or stop- \Q `Qi7 <i ct®ber .1987 CW The most common way a new stop 1. Where pedestrian protection, in sign comes into being is by the ap- particular school children,is a prime pearance.of a local ratepayers group or concern as the concern can usually 3 individual before.a municipal council or be addressed by other means. committee of council with a request or 2. As a speed control device. ® petition for an All-Way Stop intersection 3. On roadways on which progres- in their area. They perceive this type of sive signal timing exists. control as the best way to quickly solve 4. On roadways within urban areas the problems caused by speeding cars having a posted speed limit in excess and trucks endangering pedestrians — of 60 kWh. yyy usually children—near a school or play- S. At intersections having less than Al ground. three or more than four approaches. 6. At offset or poorly defined inter- Rather than wait for a traffic study by sections. their Public Works or Traffic Depart- 7 On truck or bus routes unless in an ment,many councils or committees rou- industrial area or where two such tinely approve the request on the spot routes cross. WHEki rather than risk exposure to an "I-told- g. On multi-laved approaches where you-so" slap should an accident occur a parked or stopped vehicle on the AND while the matter is studied. As a case in right will obscure the Stop signs. point,in one large urban municipality in 9. Where traffic would be required to UNUNKE Ontario 15 of 39 requests for stop sign stop on grades. control were approved by council with- 10. Asa means of deterring the move out being referred to their Public Works ment of through traffic in a residen- Department for study and recommenda- tial area. tion. 11. Where visibility of the sign is ham- Part— TWopered by curves or grades and a safe All-Way stops do have their place,but stopping distance of less than 100 m. The first article of this two-part their use in many instances is counter- exists. series {TECH TOPICS —July productive. In the fust article I referred 12. Where any other traffic device series (TECH with O routine two- to a manual that is the accepted standard controlling right-of-way is perma- way stop intersection where - of traffic engineers throughout North nently in place within 254 m.with the # lower volume side strwhere a America — The Manual of Uniform exception of a Yield sign. Traffic Control Devices This publica- intersects a busier through �. i street/road. We dealt with the tion clearly sets out the warrants, size, criteria, rules and warrants for shape,colour and location of most traffic such control and the size, control signs so that a motorist driving shape, colour and location of anywhere in North America (and many r ' the required signs. other countries around the world) will q. recogqjze the hazard or condition that is The second part looks at the present when he sees any of the dozens of All-Way Stop Signs...1 much more controversial, and, types of traffic signs as he travels. in my opinion,often abused and Tech Bits... 2 overused, three-way and four- WHERE NOT TO USE way stops which are referred to STOP SIGNS New Truck Snow Wing... 3 by traffic engineers as All-Way The manual section dealing with All- Stops." Way Stop intersections lists the follow- — New in Snow Fences... 4 Technical Editor ing conditions when All-Way Stop signs control should NOT be used: ATTACHMENT N0 . 3 WD- 11 -95 WHERE THEY MAY BE USED • Consurrzesa phenomenal amount of convincing Metro municipalities to use The manual goes on to say that All-Way fuel as we shall see later. restraint in approving All-Way Stop in- Stop control may be used: tersections prompted the Board to m- The proliferation of unwarranted,and in quest that the Minister of Transportation 1. Only at the intersection of two like their opinion, unnecessary All-Way and Communications reassume authority roadways. Each approach should Stops in the Metro Toronto area he had in the past that required the contain the same number oflanes and prompted the Metropolitan Toronto Minister's approval of municipal traffic intersect at approximately 90 degrees Board of Trade to prepare and circulate a by-laws and that the Minister withhold 2. At intersections where visibility report on their position to all Metro approval on those by-laws that do not problems exist municipalities. The lack of success in meet the warrants. 3. At locations with high accident frequency where less restrictive measures have been tried and found inadequate. The manual defines ' "high accident frequency" as four accidents per year for a three year period resulting from right angle or New Regulations for ranted installations will be subsidized. turn type collisions Air Brake Licensing There must be a "sufficient number" 4. As an interim measure when traf- Followingu on nation-wide concerns of cross-overs(three is suggested) fic control signals are warranted but p ggested) in about the truck air brake defects,MTC a municipality to create awareness. cannot be installed immediately plans to announce new regulations Only small municipalities would have S. As a means of providing an intro- shortly.The new licensing program,as any flexibility with this rule. O ductoryperiod to accustom drivers to it is now planned,will have a one year a reversal of stop signs from one road phasing-in period. During this time to the other at the intersection. new applicants for truck licenses will Dust Control CONS:7QUENCES OF be required to pass a test for air brake MISPLACED STOP SIGNS knowledge. MTC advises that seven municipali- The All-Way Stop should not be to slow Also during the one year phase-in pe- ties are testing the use of liquid asphalt traffic to protect pedestrians(vigilant law n (emulsion or petroleum solvent cut- nod all holders of a Class A license will beck) for dust suppression on gravel enforcement should look after this)or to have to pass the test(Class D license holders are ) mads. The purpose is to evaluate the encourage vehicles W use another route pt during this period). because of the inconvenience; in most After the one year phase-in period all effectiveness and cost against calcium instances All-Way Stops do just the truck drivers(including Class D) will chloride over a three-year period. opposite. Studies conducted in many be required to pass a written and prac- TECH TOPICS will advise its readers municipalities in Ontario indicate that tical air brake test every three years, of results of the test when the informa- All-Way Stop Control has the following when licenses are renewed. tion is available. O effect. MTC will set up and conduct a ten hour • Slows traj-ic down only within afew air brake course in various locations 1986 Ontario accident toll hundred feet or so on each side of the throughout Ontario for operators' air rake equipped trucks. O lowest In 30 years b intersection. Most drivers accelerate � Ppm back to their original speed(orfaster The lowest fatality total since 1954 was to make up for lost time)just past the recorded on Ontario roads in 1986. intersection Pedestrian Cross-Overs Motor vehicle accidents claimed IJ02 • Tends tocausemotoriststonot obey (formerly called "crosswalks") lives last year, down 7.5% over 1985. stop signs when they consider them to The M.T.C. has expressed concern The 1986 total represents the fewest. be unnecessary. One study showed with possible driver confusion caused number of deaths in the province since that 78%oofallvehicles donot come toby a lack of uniformity with various 1954 when 1,045 people were killed. a full legal stop at stop signs ' muni_ipal installations. The Ministry The total number of accidents de- has settled on a modified Toronto ver- creased by 1.3% over 1985 with fatal •Leadspedestriansloafalsesenseof security since they feel sure they are sion i.e.over-head lights with a pedes- accidents dropping by an impressive8 2% protected by the signs trian activated flashing amber. They will develop a warrant based on pedes- The most significant decline was in • Increases the noise level and air Irian delay and a pedestrian volume motorcycle passenger deaths which accelerate te away neartheintersectionascars versus vehicle volume. Only war- dropped 37.5%. O 2 i STOP SIGNS WASTE FUEL A Metro Toronto Transportation Energy Study estimated that 50% to 75%of the existing 800 All-Way Stop intersectionsin the Metro area did not meet the war- rants and were unnecessary. The study estimated that if the unnecessary stop signs were removed an astounding 21 to <r_- 32 million litres of fuel would be saved annually resulting in a cost saving of more than$10 million per year. A study _ • :..t .: . _ _ by the City of Brantford concluded that each All-Way Stop intersection in theirJo .' city consumed 90,000 litres of fuel per year. Another study in the Region of Durham estimated that unwarranted All- Way Stop intersections in the Region consumed more than three million litres The Gardham wing(left)reduces the problem of blocked visibility on the of fuel per year, passenger's side of the truck compared to the conventional wing/n the ra/sed position. The studies referred to above represent only three of more than 800 municipals- A new TC U e k Snow Win g ties in Ontario but should give the reader an indication of the enormous cost in When MTC management trainee To enable the new wing to operate dollars in fuel wasted at unwarranted All- Doug Gardham first began working properly, Gardham also redesigned Way Stop intersections. This cost could for the equipment engineering office the truck's inside controls. One lever perhaps bejustified if there were any real in July 1985, he never dreamed he now lifts the front and back of the benefits to motorists or pedestrians. But would be asked to solve an important wing, another tucks it in beside the traffic engineers tell us that just the oppo operational problem: design an im- truck. A valve was installed so the site is true. proved wing arm on snow plows. switch from one function to another could be possible. Pedestrians are particularly at risk at All- The problem was that the old arm was Way Stops since many motorists, in at- considered unsafe while in travelling The new arm,appropriately called the tempting to make eye contact with other position,because it blocked visibility "Gardham wing",is now being used in drivers in the intersection to determine on the passenger's side of the truck. Toronto, Stratford, Kingston and Ot- "who goes next,"fail to notice the pedes- Gardham's system uses a hydraulic tawa. It will also soon be in place in trian at the curb who may not be sure who cylinder to bring the arm closer to the Sault Ste.Marie,Huntsville and Owen has the right of way. In some cases the truck and retract it to the side. Sound. timid driver at the All-Way Stop intersec- Gardham said, "We're evaluating tion could sit forever" while the more MTC's machine shop worked fast and operation of each one in the field and aggressive drivers barge in out of turn. had built the modified wing by the end we'll,know whether the arm can go of August '85 for use by District 6 province-wide." O As I said earlier,there is a place for All- during winter 1985-86. Way Stop intersections, but I urge mu- nicipal councils and traffic enginelars to consider very carefully the warrants and the possible negative results of adding ` • U 17A i just one more such control in their mu- nicipality. They may even want to re- view their existing All-Way stops to in- Monday, February 22 to Wednesday 24 sure they are performing the function Conference theme: Meeting the Transportation Challenge they were intended to do. I suggest that many are not. Chances are that you have Venue: The Royal York Hotel, Toronto. more All-Way Stops than you think you have. O OGRA is gearing up for the 1988 Conference. i The January 1988 issue will carry See Page 4 report in ROAD RUNNER. an article on YIELD signs. r ALL-WAY STOPS THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE PREPARED BY THE .TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO TRAFFIC CONFERENCE ATTACHMENT N0 . 4 MAY 1983 WD- 11 -95 PETERBOROUGH , ONTARIO 83-16 ALL-STAY STCPS Technical Committee WHEREAS there is a proliferation of unwarranted all-gray stops in the Province of Ontario; and WHEREAS these installations are resulting in unnecessary energy costs and are contributing to motorist disrespect for other regulatory contiols; and WHEREAS there is an inconsistancy in those warrants presently being used by municipalities in Ontario; WHEREAS the Ontario Traffic Conference having reviewed and updated the minimum warrant for all-way stop controls originally developed in 1979; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ministry .of Transportation and-Communications be requested to consider the inclusion of warrant :riteria for all-way stop controls in. the Manual of uniform Traffic Control Devices for Ontario; and THAT a copy of the O.T.C. All-Way Stop Report, dated May 1983, be forwarded to the Roads and Transportation Association.. of Canada (RTAC) Traffic Operations Committee for review and further sz udf with the intent that criteria for all-way stop controls be considered for inclusion in the Manual of Uniform Traffic . Control Devices for Canada. CONFERENCE ACTION: Recommend approval. CARRIED i I i ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE The Ontario Traffic Conference Technical Committee 1983 INDEX SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 MUNICIPALITIES WHO PARTICIPATED 1 3.0 WARRANTS FOR ALL-WAY STOPS 4 • O.T.C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE WARRANT 6 • METROPOLITAN TORONTO TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE WARRANT 7 • MUNICIPALITIES WARRANTS 9 4.0 THE VIEWS OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER - THE POLITICIAN - THE POLICE OFFICER 17 4.1 VIEWS OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER 17 4.2 VIEWS OF THE POLITICIAN 23 4.3 VIEWS OF THE POLICE OFFICER 27 5,0 THE MUNICIPALITY EXPERIENCE 30 5.1 COLLISION STUDIES 30 5.2 SPEED STUDIES 31 5:3 ADHERENCE STUDIES 33 5.4 UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS 34 5.5 FUEL CONSUMPTION AT UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS 35, 6.0 SUMMARY 36 i 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ontario Traffic Conference Technical Committee selected, as one of their presentations at the 1983 Annual Conference in Peterborough, the subject of "All -Way Stops - The Ontario Experience". It was felt that the "All-Way Stop - The Ontario Experience" presenta- tion would be of great interest not only to the Technical personnel attending the Annual Conference but also to the Politicians and the Police Officer. From the response to our questionnaire, sent out to Ontario Municipalities with a. population of 10,000 or more, it became very apparent that: a) the All-Way Stop is a very controversial and timely topic b) the time has come to re-evaluate the use of the All-Way Stop in Ontario and to establish more consistency, including the standardi- zation of warrants, throughout the Province -in the implementation of the All-Way Stop. Results of the questionnaire were varied and in some cases very detailed. The data received was researched, summarized and is des- cribed in Sections 1 through 5 with Section 6 providing a summary and suggestions for further study. 2.0 MUNICIPALITIES WHO PARTICIPATED A questionnaire-type letter was sent to sixty (60) municipalities in Ontario with forty-four (44) or seventy-three (73) percent of the municipalities responding. Table 2.1 lists the municipalities, who participated, in order of highest population to lowest population (Metropolitan Toronto and Regions excepted, shown at bottom of table) and details the number of All-Way Stops (if any) in each municipality. - 1 - TABLE 2.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE MUNICIPALITIES PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY POPULATION ALL - WAYS NUMBER OF ALL-WAYS NO YES TOTAL 2-WAY 3-WAY 4-WAY 5-WAY OVER 150,000 POPULATION nn TORONTO 630,000 X 504 X1.57 109 238 NORTH YORK 560,000 X 333 152 1.81 SCARBOROUGH 428,000 X 107 37 70 HAMILTON 306,000 X 58 OTTAWA 302,000 X 175 MISSISSAUGA 298,000 X 179 114 65 LONDON 262,000 X 65 15 50 WINDSOR 197,000 X 100 21 79 100,000 TO 150,000 POPULATION BRAMPTON 140,000 X 52 KITCHENER 139,000 X 2 2 YORK 133,000 X 88 42 46 OSHAWA 116,000 X 3 BURLINGTON 113,000 X 39 19 19 1 THUNDER BAY 112,000 X 12 4 8 50,000 TO 100,000 POPULATION SUDBURY 92,000 X 23 7 16 NEPEAN 84,000 X 22 8 14 SAULT STE MARIE « 82,000 X 4 4 BRANTFORD 73,000 X 43 4 39 GUELPH 73,000 X 3 1 2 PETERBOROUGH 62,000 X ° 4 4 NORTH BAY 51,000 X 2 1 1 - 2 - I TABLE 2.1 (cont`d) ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE MUNICIPALITIES PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY POPULATION ALL - WAYS NUMBER OF ALL-WAYS NO YES TOTAL 2-WAY 3-WAY 4-WAY 5-MAY UNDER 50,000 POPULATION CORNWALL 47,000 X 24 ©I.2 4 8 SARNIA 47,000 X WELLAND 46,000 X 27 9' 18 CHATHAM 41,000 X 4 1 3 BARRIE 38,000 X ORILLIA 38,000 X 1 1 BELLEVILLE 35,000 X 8 8 ST. THOMAS 28,000 X STRATFORD 26,000 X 4 2 2 WOODSTOCK 26,000 X BROCKVIL.LE 20,000 X 1 1 OWEN SOUND 20,000 X 10 4 6 LINDSAY 14,000 X 3 3 KIRKLAND LAKE 12,000 X LEAMINGTON 12,000 X 1 1 METRO TORONTO 2,100,000 X 2 2 REGIONS OTTAWA CARLETON 549,000 X 22 PEEL 464,000 X 2 1 1. NIAGARA 3x7,000 X 22 22 WATERLOO 307,000 X 2 DURHAM 277,00.0 X 5 5 'DBURY 160,000 X INCLUDED IN CITY OF SUDBURY. INTERSECTING ONE-WAY STREETS. - 3 - j 3.0 WARRANTS FOR ALL-WAY STOPS From reviewing the warrants sent by the various municipalities there appears to be some consistency in the warrants presently used, but more is required. Back in 1979 The Ontario Traffic Conference Technical Committee prepared a warrant and guideline for the imple- mentation of All-Way Stops in Ontario which is shown as Figure 3:1 on page 6. The O.T.C. warrant was established because of the proliferation of 3 and 4 way stops in many Ontario municipalities which were, in many cases, being used to modify deficiencies in the road system, such as: • overly long residential through streets • poor sight lines • inadequate arterial roads, and to modify driver behaviour such as: • speeding • short cutting between arterial roads protecting school children. On Page 7 , Figure 3.2, is the warrant established by the Metropolitan Toronto Technical Traffic Committee (MTTTC) for the implementation of All-Way Stops. In comparing this warrant with the O.T.C. Warrant, we find very little difference. But when you compare the O.T.C. and the MTTTC Warrants with warrants used by Ontario municipalities, you find a varying degree of differences. Table 3.1, which starts on Page 9 summarizes the warrants used by the various municipalities in Ontario. The major differences are as follows: Collision - Varies from 5 or more per year over three years which are susc�ep Title to correction by an All -Way Stop to 3 or more collisions per year which are susceptible to correction by an All-Way Stop. Some municipalities include in this warrant a trial of less restrictive measures. , Traffic Volumes - Total traffic on all approaches . The most common value used in this warrant is an average of 500 vehicles per hour for an eight hour period' on an average day, but the range varies from 5,000 vehicles per day to an average of 180 vehicles per hour. A number of municipalities have two warrants for "Total Traffic All Approaches" , one for arterials and collectors, the other for local or residential streets. As a qualifier to this warrant, a number. of municipalities require, a directional split ranging between 75/25 and 50/50. i i - 4 - i Combined Vehicles and Pedestrians on Minor Streets - Most municipali- ties use an average of 200 units per hour for an eight hour period with an average delay to traffic on the minor street of 30 seconds during maximum hour. Again the values used for this warrant vary from 1,500 vehicles per day on minor streets to an average 100 units per hour with an average delay to minor street traffic of at least 15 seconds during maximum hour'. Other - The most 'consistent factor from all municipalities was the warrant to use All-Way Stops as an interim measure where traffic control sicnals were warranted or as an interim measure (3 months maximum) where regulatory controls are being reversed. Figure 3.3 on page 8 is a copy of the warrant used by the City of London. Many of t)e warrants provided by the municipalities had a set of criteria where All-Way Stops SHOULD NOT be used. A compressed listing of these criteria are es-criU d in Figure 3.4 on page 16. i - 5 - FIGURE 3.1 WARRANTS FOR ALL-WAY STOPS ONTARIO TRAFFIC CONFERENCE WARRANT la) TWO LIKE ROADWAYS - EACH APPROACH CONTAINING THE SAME NUMBER OF LANES WITH NON-SKEWED APPROACHES. b) AS AN INTERIM MEASURE WHERE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS ARE WARRANTED BUT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY. c) AT HIGH COLLISION LOCATIONS AVERAGING FOUR OR MORE COLLISIONS/YEAR OVER A 3 YEAR PERIOD, THOSE COLLISIONS SUSCEPTIBLE TO RELIEF BY AN ALL-WAY STOP INSTALLATION (RIGHT ANGLE AND TURNING TYPE) AND FOLLOW- ING A TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE MEASURES. AT LOCATIONS WHERE VISI- BILITY IS LIMITED TO A SAFE APPROACH SPEED OF LESS THAN 13 KM/H. d) PROVIDES AN INTRODUCTORY PERIOD (3 MONTH) IN THE REVERSAL OF INTERSEC- TION CONTROL. 2. ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADS a) , TOTAL VEHICLE VOLUME ON ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES, EXCEEDING 500 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR ANY EIGHT HOURS OF THE DAY AND, b) COMBINED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUME ON THE MINOR STREET EXCEEDING 200 UNITS PER HOUR FOR THE SAME EIGHT HOURS WITH AN AVERAGE DELAY TO TRAFFIC ON THE MINOR STREET OF GREATER THAN THIRTY SECONDS AND, c) VOLUME SPLIT DOES NOT EXCEED 70/30 3. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS a) OBSERVANCE OF THE SIGN IS NOT HAMPERED BY CURVES OR GRADES AND A SAFE STOPPING DISTANCE OF 100 M IS EXISTING AND, b) DISTANCE OF 250 M IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND, c) TOTAL VEHICLE VOLUME ON ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES EXCEEDS 350 FOR THE HIGHEST HOUR RECORDED AND, d) VOLUME SPLIT NOT EXCEEDING 75/25 FOR THREE WAY CONTROL OR 65/35 FOR A FOUR WAY CONTROL. I - 6 - i I FIGURE 3.2 WARRANTS FOR ALL-WAY STOPS METROPOLITAN TORONTO TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE 1. TRAFFIC VOLUMES (a) ARTERIAL ROADS AND COLLECTOR STREETS (i ) A TOTAL VEHICLE VOLUME ON ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES EXCEED- ING 500 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR ANY EIGHT HOURS OF THE DAY. (ii ) A COMBINED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUME ON THE MINOR STREET EXCEEDING 200 UNITS PER HOUR'FOR THE SAME EIGHT HOURS WITH AN AVERAGE DELAY TO TRAFFIC ON THE MINOR STREET OF GREATER THAN THIRTY SECONDS. (iii ) A VOLUME SPLIT DOES NOT EXCEED 70/30. (b) LOCAL STREETS (i ) WHERE VISIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED STOP SIGN AT EACH APPROACH TO THE INTERSECTION IS AT LEAST 60 M. (ii) A DISTANCE OF 250 M IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, SIGNALS, OTHER STOPS OR PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVERS. (iii ) A TOTAL VEHICLE VOLUME ON ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES EXCEEDING 350 FOR THE HIGHEST HOUR RECORDED. (iv) A VOLUME SPLIT DOES NOT EXCEED 75/25 FOR THREE-WAY CONTROL OR 65/35 FOR A FOUR-WAY CONTROL. 2. ACCIDENTS (a) AT LOCATIONS HAVING A HIGH ACCIDENT FREQUENCY WHERE LESS RESTRICTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TRIED AND FOUND INADEQUATE. (b) AN AVERAGE OF FOUR OR MORE ACCIDENTS PER YEAR FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD OF TYPES SUSCEPTIBLE TO PREVENTION BY A MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL. THIS WILL INCLUDE LOCATIONS WHERE SIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS LIMIT THE SAFE APPROACH SPEED TO LESS THAN THIRTEEN KILOMETRES PER HOUR. 3. INTERIM MEASURE PRIOR TO INSTALLING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS EXISTING CONDITIONS JUSTIFY THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY. i _ 7 - i FIGURE 3.3 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANT (ADOPTED BY COUNCIL. OCT/80 ' CITY OF LONDON- TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION LOCATION: DATE OF STUDY: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLS WILL BE CONSIDERED WARRANT a WILL PROVE BENEFICIAL WHEN ANY ONE OF FULFILLMENT THE FOLLOWING WARRANTS IS COMPLETELY SATISFIED. YES NO WARRANT -1 AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE TRAFFIC SIGNALS ARE PLANNED AND WHERE MINIMUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ARE SATISFIED BUT INSTALLATION IS DELAYED FOR ENGINEERING REASONS. WARRANT-2 A) WHERE STREETS ARE OF SIMILAR VEHICLES ENTERING CHARACTERISTICS AND WHERE ANY PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTERING THE INTERSECTION ON ALL APPROACHES EXCEEDS 500 VEHICLES,AND ; B) WHERE THE BALANCE OF TRAFFIC RATIO FLOW DURING THE SAME PEAK HOUR IS IN THE RATIO OF 65/35. WARRANT -3 WHERE 3 OR MORE ACCIDENTS OF NO. OF COLLISION - THE TYPE NORMALLY CORRECTABLE I BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT-OF- WAY HAVE OCCURRED IN A ONE YEAR PERIOD FOLLOWING A TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE MEASURES. WARRANT-4 AS AN INTERIM MEASURE AT INTER- SECTIONS WHERE REGULATORY CON- TROLS ARE-BEING REVERSED,AND THEN FOR A MAXIMUM OF 3 MONTH 7, THEN WAY STOP" CONTROLS WILL NOT BE UTILIZED. A) AS A SPEED CONTROL DEVICE. B) WHERE ANY INTERSECTION APPROACH VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN 300 FE E T (90 M. ±). f C) WHERE ANY OTHER TRAFFIC DEVICE,CONTROLLING RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PERMANENTLY IN PLACE. WITHIN 500 FEET (152M. ±). q. D) WHERE THE 85 PERCENTILE SPEED AS DETERMINED BY SPEED STUDIES, IS GREATER THAN 80 KM/H. E) WHERE AN INTERCONNECTED,PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYS- TEM IS CONTROLLING ROUTE TRAFFIC. F) WHERE THE VERTICAL GRADE ON ANY INTERSECTION APPROACH EXCEEDS 7%±. i G) ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES WHERE HEAVY TRAFFIC VOLUME I AND/OR NUMBER OF LANES WOULD CREATE A DIFFICULT TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT. TABLE 3,1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON' COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET TORONTO USES.METROPOLITAN TORONTO TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE WARRANT NORTH YORK 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR DURING AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR DURING INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR - SUSCEPTIBLE TO HRS 7:00-9:00 AM AND 3:30 HRS 7:00-9:00 AM AND 3:30 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS CORRECTION BY ALL- -5:30 PM (COLLECTORS) -5:30 PM (COLLECTORS) ARE WARRANTED WAY STOP AVERAGE 250 VEH/HR DURING AVERAGE 100 UNITS/HR DURING HRS ABOVE (RESIDENTIAL- ABOVE HRS (RESIDENTIAL- LOCAL) LOCAL) NOTE: IF SCHOOL WITHIN 100 M ADD PEDS. CROSSING MAJOR STREET SCARBOROUGH USES ONTARIO TRAFFIC CONFERENCE WARRANT HAMILTON 3 COLLISIONS/YR FOR MINIMUM OF 5,000 VEH/DAY. 1,500 VEH/DAY ON MINOR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE 3 YRS (LOCAL STREETS) ON BOTH STREETS COMBINED STREETS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS ARE WARRANTED LOCATIONS WITH SEVERE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTIONS TWO RESIDENTIAL STREETS NEAR THE DOOR OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL INTERSECTING TWO NEIGH- BOURHOOD COLLECTOR STREETS - 9 - TABLE 3,1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET OTTAWA 3 OR MORE COLLISIONS/YR AVERAGE OF 200 VEH/HR AVERAGE OF �J UNITS/HR *FOR SPEED CONTROL - SUSC6PTIBLE TO RELIEF OVER 8 HRS (LOCAL OVER 8 HRS (LOCAL DISCOURAGEMENT OF BY ALL-WAY STOP (LOCAL STREET) STREET) TRAFFIC AVERAGE OF STREET) * 200 VEH/HR FOR PEAK 4 HRS WITH MAX. SPLIT 75/25 MISSISSAUGA 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE OF 300 VEH/HR 4 WAY INTERSECTION STRAIGHT LINE SIGHT YR - SUSCEPTIBLE TO OVER 8 HRS DISTANCE OF MAJOR CORRECTION BY STOP (ARTERIAL-COLLECTOR) HOURLY VEH. VOL. MINOR STREET FOR VEHICLES SIGNS STREETS OR PEDESTRIANS IS AVERAGE OF 150 VEH/HR OBSERVANCE AND OVER 8 HRS 1/3 OF HOURLY VEH. VOL. LESS THAN 60 M ENFORCEMENT OF LESS (RESIDENTIAL) ALL APPROACHES RESTRICTIVE CONTROL 3 WAY INTERSECTION HOURLY VEH. VOL. MINOR STREETS 1/4 OF HOURLY VEH. VOL. ALL APPROACHES RESIDENTIAL CRITERIA -RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE WITH SPPED LIMITS 50 KM/H OR LESS -NEITHER STREET DESIGNATED ARTERIAL-MAJOR COLLECTOR -NEITHER STREET EXCEEDS 12 M OF ROADWAY -NO EXISTING STOP SIGN OR SIGNAL ON HEAVIER TRAVELLED STREET WITHIN 250 METRES -ROADWAYS EXTEND 250 METRES OR MORE FROM THE INTERSEC- TION ON AT LEAST THREE SIDES -INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP COMPATIBLE WITH OVERALL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION NEEDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TABLE 3.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS i MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET LONDON 3 OR, MORE COLLISIONS/ EXCEEDS 500 VEH DURING INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR CORRECTIBLE BY THE PEAK HR WITH A TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS ASSIGNMENT OF THE SPLIT OF 65/35 WARRANTED RIGHT OF WAY AND INTERIM MEASURE WHERE FOLLOWING A TRIAL OF REGULATORY CONTROLS ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE BEING REVERSED MEASURES WINDSOR 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE OF 250 VEH/HR AVERAGE OF 150 UNITS/HR ;:INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR - SUSCEPTIBLE TO OVER 8 HRS OVER 8 HRS OR AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS CORRECTION BY ALL- OF 200 PEDS* CROSSING WARRANTED WAY STOP STREET 85TH PERCENTILE EXCEEDS 55 KM/H BRAMPTON 5 REPORTED COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR OVER AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR - SUSCEPTIBLE TO 8 HRS (RESTRICTED FLOW) OVER 8 HRS AND AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS CORRECTION BY ALL- AVERAGE 350 VEH/HR OVER DELAY/VEHICLE DURING WARRANTED WAY STOP 8 HRS (FREE FLOW) MAX. HR OF 30 SECS. INSUFFICIENT SAFE (RESTRICTED FLOW) CROSSING SIGHT DISTANCE AVERAGE 140 UNITS/HR FOR MINOR STREET . OVER 8 NRS AND AVERAGE DELAY DURING MAX. HR. OF 20 SEC. (FREE FLOW) - 11 - TABLE 3.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITYCOLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET OSHAWA AVERAGE 4 COLLISIONS/ EXCEEDS 500 VEH/HR OVER EXCEEDING 200 UNITS/HR OVER INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR OVER 3 YRS SUSCEPTI- 8 HRS VOLUME SPLIT NOT 8 HRS WITH AVERAGE DELAY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS BLE TO RELIEF THROUGH EXCEEDING 70/30 (ARTERIAL TO TRAFFIC ON MINOR WARRANTED ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL COLLECTORS) STREET OF 30 SECS. INTERIM MEASURE WHERE VISIBILITY PROBLEMS EXCEEDS 350 VEH/HIGHEST REGULATORY CONTROLS LIMIT SAFE APPROACH HR. VOLUME SPLIT NOT ARE BEING REVERSED SPEED TO 13 KM/HR EXCEEDING 75/25 FOR SAFE STOPPING DISTANCE THREE WAY CONTROL, 65/35 OF 100 M (LOCAL) FOR FOUR WAY CONTROL (RESIDENTIAL-LOCAL) BURLINGTON 3 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 300 VEH/HR OVER AVERAGE 1/3 OF TOTAL VEHS. INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR OVER 3 YRS PREVEN- 8 HRS (ARTERIAL COLLECTOR) ENTERING INTERSECTION - TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS TABLE BY STOP SIGNS FOUR WAY STOP WARRANTED OR 5 OR MORE COLLISION/ AVERAGE 180 VEH/HR OVER CURRENT YR PREVENTABLE 8 HRS (RESIDENTIAL) AVERAGE 1/4 OF TOTAL VEHS. STRAIGHT LINE SIGHT ENTERING INTERSECTION - DISTANCE FOR VEH/PEDS BY STOP SIGNS THREE WAY STOP CROSSING INTERSECTION WITH SATISFACTORY IS LESS THAN 84 METRES OBSERVANCE AND RESIDENTIAL CRITERIA - ALL CONDITIONS MET ENFORCEMENT OF LESS RESTRICTIVE -BOTH STREETS HAVE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE- SPEED LIMITS 50 KM/H OR LESS CONTROL -BOTH STREETS COLLECTORS OR FUNCTION AS COLLECTORS -NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE ON HEAVIER TRAVELLED STREET WITHIN 250 M -ROADWAYS EXTEND 250 M AWAY FR19M THE INTERSECTION ON AT LEAST THREE SIDES -ALL WAY STOP IS COMPATIBLE WITH OVERALL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION NEEDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THUNDER BAY USES ITE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HANDBOOK WARRANT. TABLE 3.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET SUDBURY 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR OVER AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR -* SUSCEPTIBLE TO 8 HRS OVER 8 HRS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS CORRECTION BY ALL- IF 85TH PERCENTILE ON WARRANTED WAY STOP MAJOR ROADWAY IS 60 KM/H OR MORE THEN AVERAGE _ 350 VEH/HR SAULT STE 15 OR MORE COLLISION IN AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR OVER AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE MARIE A 3 YR PERIOD SUSCEPTI- 8 NRS OVER 8 HRS AND AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS BLE TO CORRECTION BY DELAY OF AT LEAST 30 WARRANTED ALL-WAY STOP SEC/VEH ON MINOR STREET DURING MAX. HR. WHEN THE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED OF THE MAJOR STREET EXCEEDS 64 KM/HR THE MINIMUM VEHICLE WARRANT IS 70 PERCENT BRANTFORD 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 300 VEH/HR OVER AVERAGE 150 UNITS/HR OVER INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR SUSCEPTIBLE TO 8 HRS 8 HRS WITH AVERAGE DELAY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS CORRECTION BY ALL- ON MINOR STREET OF AT WARRANTED WAY STOP LEAST 20 SEC/VEH DURING MAX. HR. WHEN THE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED OF THE MAJOR STREET EXCEEDS 64 KM/HR THE MINIMUM VEHICLE WARRANT IS 70 PERCENT - 13 - TABLE 3.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET GUELPH 4 OR OGRE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE OF 300 VEH/HR. AVERAGE OF 100 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR CORRECTED BY ALL- OVER 8 HRS OVER 8 HRS WITH AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS WAY STOP VOLUME SPLIT NOT EXCE- DELAY ON MINOR STREET WARRANTED SIGHT LINE PROHIBITS EDING 70/30 FOR THREE OF AT LEAST 15 SEC/VEH OR THE OBSERVANCE OF A WAY CONTROL - 65/35 DURING PK HR ARE PROPOSED BUT MEET MIN. LENGTH OF 84 M FOR FOUR WAY CONTROL 75% OF THE WARRANT WHEN 85TH PERCENTILE INTERIM MEASURE WHERE APPROACH SPEED IS REGULATORY CONTROLS GREATER THAN 60 KM/HR ARE BEING REVERSED THEN 75% MEETS WARRANT DISTANCE OF 250 M BETWEEN CONTROL DEVICES CORNWALL USES ONTARIO TRAFFIC CONFERENCE WARRANT WELLAND AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR OVER 8 HRS CHATHAM 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/ AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE YR TYPE SUSCEPTIBLE OVER 8 HRS OVER 8 HRS WITH AN TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS TO CORRECTION BY ALL- AVERAGE DELAY TO WARRANTED WAY STOP MINOR STREET OF 30 A LESS RESTRICTIVE SEC/VEH DURING MAX. HR. DEVICE TRIED FIRST 14 - TABLE 3.1 ALL-WAY STOPS - THE ONTARIO EXPERIENCE WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY COLLISIONS TOTAL VEHICLES ON COMBINED VEHICLES AND OTHER ALL APPROACHES PEDESTRIAN ON MINOR STREET OTTAWA/CARLETON 4 OR MORE COLLISIONS/YR AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR INTERIM MEASURE WHERE IN 3• YRS SUSCEPTIBLE TO OVER 8 HRS OVER 8 HRS WITH AVERAGE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS RELIEF BY ALL-WAY STOP (REGIONAL ROADS) DELAY TO MINOR STREET WARRANTED AND WHERE LESS RESTRIC- TRAFFIC OF 30 SECS. INTERIM MEASURE WHERE TIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN (REGIONAL ROADS) REGULATORY CONTROLS ARE TRIED (REGIONAL ROADS) BEING REVERSED PEEL REGION USES ITE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HANDBOOK WARRANTS NIAGARA REGION 4 OR MORE COLLISIONS/YR AVERAGE 500 VEH/HR. OVER (RIGHT ANGLE AND LEFT 8 HRS WITH A VEHICLE SPLIT TURNING) 55/45 AND DELAY TO MINOR STREET EXTENSIVE DURHAM REGION 5 OR MORE COLLISIONS/YR AVERAGE OF 500 VEH/HR AVERAGE 200 UNITS/HR OVER INTERIM MEASURE WHERE - SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORREC- OVER 8 HRS 8 HRS WITH AVERAGE DELAY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS TION BY ALL-WAY STOP TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC WARRANTED A LESS RESTRICTIVE OF 20 SEC/VEH DURING MAX. DEVICE USED FIRST HR. - 15 - FIGURE 3.4 WARRANTS - ALL-WAY STOPS CRITERIA-WH-ERE ALL-WAY STOPS SHOULD NOT BE USED: WHEN PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION IS A PRIME CONCERN IN PARTICULAR SCHOOL CHILDREN ' AS SPEED CONTROL DEVICE (WHERE SPEEDING IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN) ON ROAD-WAYS WHERE PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL TIMING EXISTS ON ROAD-WAYS WITHIN URBAN AREAS HAVING A POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN EXCESS OF 50 KM/H, RURAL AREAS OF 80 KM/H AT INTERSECTION HAVING LESS THAN THREE OR MORE THAN FOUR APPROACHES AT OFFSET OR POORLY DEFINED INTERSECTIONS ON .TRUCK OR BUS ROUTES UNLESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA OR WHERE TWO SUCH ROUTES CROSS WHERE TRAFFIC WOULD BE REQUIRED TO STOP ON A GRADE AND STOPPING OR STARTING WILL CREATE A HAZARD WHEN INTERSECTION APPROACHES HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF LANES OR DO NOT INTERSECT AT RIGHT ANGLES AS A MEANS OF DETERRING THE MOVEMENT OF THROUGH TRAFFIC IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE AN INTERSECTION APPROACH VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN 90 m WHERE ANY,OTHER TRAFFIC DEVICE, CONTROLLING RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PERMANENTLY IN PLACE WITHIN 150 m IF BOTH ROADS ARE ARTERIALS. - 16 - i 4.0 VIEWS OF THE ENGINEER, THE POLITICIAN AND THE POLICE OFFICER The questionnaire sent to the Ontario municipalities asked the Traffic Engineers to comment on their experience with All-Way Stops and to also obtain the Politician's and Police Officer's point of view. In order to provide these views for your purusal the information was reviewed, edited, compressed and categorized' into- the views of each; the Traffic Engineer, the Politician and the Police Officer. It must be noted that in most cases the views of the Politician and the Police Officer are those provided by the Traffic Engineer either after discussion with the aforementioned or by the Traffic Engineer's interpretation of how All-Way Stops are preceived by the Politician and the Police Officer. There were however direct replies by both Politicians and Police Officers from the Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa areas. These views are shown separately. 4. 1 VIEWS OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER TORONTO All-Way Stops are not recommended as a means of restricting the speed of traffic. All-Way Stops are useful in reducing right angle collisions and facilitating the safe and effluent movement of traffic at intersections athat meet the warrants. The majority of the existing All-Way Stop intersections in the City of Toronto are not warranted and were not recommended by the Public Works Department. Before and after studies, carried out at intersections where warranted All-Way Stop controls have been installed, indicate a significant reduction in accidents. However, at other locations ,the number of accidents before and after the installation of All- Way Stops is minimal and no conclusion can be drawn with respect to possible improvements to safety at these locations. Studies indicate that speed of traffic is only reduced for a distance of 30-40 metres at the approach and exit to an All -Way Stop intersection. The effectiveness of All-Way Stops where installed for the pur- pose of reducing speed and volume of traffic depends on several factors such as: the number and spacing of the Stop signs and the availability of alternative traffic routes. - 17 - NORTH YORK All-Way Stop controls are essentially used from a traffic engineer- ing standpoint to assign right-of-way, and where the volumes of both roadways are sufficiently high, the All-Way Stop control is introduced. Given the proclivity of the political representatives towards approving stop signs for purposes of speed control or discouraging through traffic, there has resulted in recent years a proliferation of unwarranted All-Way Stop signs in many neighbourhoods in North York. An obvious negative effect has been the tendency of the motoring public to perceive such controls as unwarranted and .ignore same, whether intentionally or not. Alternatively, they reduce their speed to a rate which they consider safe to cross the other approaches. Specifically, the disregard for established warrants and safe spacing appears to invite abuse by the general public. SCARBOROUGH All-Way Stops are an effective safety measure under the following conditions: As an interim measure until signalization is warranted, under certain conditions. At intersections of residential roadways, where sightlines are poor and volumes are near equal on all approaches. At intersections of major collector roadways where volumes are near equal on all approaches. In studies carried out, busy intersections (warranted) have high observance of the stop controls and the low volume locations (unwarranted) have a high rate of disobedience. HAMILTON There is adequate documentation that All-Way Stops are not effective as speed control devices and they are not used in Hamilton for that purpose. Collision studies carried out at arterial/arterial locations found that the four way stop control , as compared to the two way stop control , reduced collisions by approximately 50 percent. 18 - I OTTAWA-OTTAWA CARLETON All-Way Stop control is often approved by Council to reduce , vehicular speeds or discourage vehicular flow through a neigh- bourhood. However this department always recommends against this use. All-Way Stop control is an excellent device to reduce reported angle and turning vehicular collisions under certain conditions. A11-Way Stop control does not decrease vehicular speeds except in very close proximity to the stop sign and may actually increase the speeds further away from the signs. It is questionable that All-Way Stops improve safety in view of the number of "rolling" stops which occur, We will continue to recommend installation of Multi-Way Stop control at locations where they are warranted. MISSISSAUGA All-Way Stops are not placed for speed control ; however, there is a perception on the part of the public and politicians that All- Way Stops are an effective means of speed control . LONDON When installations based upon the warrant criteria are installed, there appears to be a general acceptance of the operation by the public, and in most cases the general enhancement of the traffic operations and safety at the intersection. The All -Way Stop control can play an effective role in traffic mangement and safety when appropriate criteria are utilized to establish the requirements for the installation. Proliferation of the device, based purely on public pressure or -political direction without technical support can lead to the erosion of the effectiveness of a proven traffic control device. , 19 - WINDSOR All-Way Stops tend to provide a false sense of security for pedes- trians, and leads to disrespect of stop signs in general . In Windsor it has been clearly demonstrated that isolated All -Way Stop installations can simply relocate problems from one street to another. Not. totally against. All-Way Stops that do not meet the warrants if they achieve a useful operational function and, in particular, if they assist in reducing short cutting through traffic in residential areas. BRAMPTON Overwhelming majority of All-Way Stop sign requests originate from residents concerned with vehicle speeds which they perceive to be excessive. Often the request is accompanied by a petition. Understandably, politicians, when confronted with a number of con- cerned taxpayers, have great difficulty in refusing these requests despite predictions from the Engineering Staff of increased fuel useage, noise pollution, disrespect for stop signs in general , vehicle delay, increased speed, etc. In the past five years the Engineering Staff has prevented at least 40-50% of unwarranted All-Way Stops from being installed. The motoring public seem to accept the imposition of unwarranted All-Way Stops, or if they oppose them, they do not make their views known to the Traffic office or their political representative. KITCHENER We have been able to convince the politicians that All-Way Stops are not the solution to speeding and excessive traffic volumes. OSHAWA In view of the small number of All-Way Stops we have, it is safe to say the majority of politicians support our view that these devices should not be used indiscriminately. Needless-to-say a good many citizens and even a few police officers, promote All- Way Stops as tieing a useful speed control device even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It is our intention to continue to use this form of control only at locations of high Collision experience and where other less restrictive improvements fail to work. - 20 - THUNDER BAY The City objects to the use of All-Way Stops as a speed deterent. In order for the public to accept the All-Way Stop controls they :should be well signed during initial implementation and implemented on streets with reasonable distribution. SUDBURY We continue to be satisfied that the proper application of All -Way Stop control at warranted locations is a useful traffic management tool . We are concerned, as are many other jurisdictions, with the continued use of this device at those locations where little or no justification exists for that level of control . CORNWALL Most of the Four-Way Stops were used to deter through traffic move- ment on what were considered to be local streets in a strictly residential area, physically separated from the rest of the com- munity by an indistrial area. The next most common Four-Way Stop installations .were to reduce speeds near playgrounds and schools. The majority of Three-Way and Two-Way (one way streets) Stops were installed at intersections with limited sight distance on both (or all ) approaches. In part this was due to the narrow right-of-way of 33 feet. SARNIA Prefer not to install All-Way Stops because they tend to increase intersection delays and motorist fuel consumption. WELLAND All our Four-Way Stops were installed to reduce speed. Not in agreement in using All-Way Stops to reduce speeds or discourage traffic from certain streets. BARRIE Not in favour'of All-Way Stops as they do not reduce speed between intersections, are an energy waste and an aggravation to motorists. - 21 - .BELLEVILLE In our experience, All-Way Stops move traffic in a very efficient manner. There have been no complaints by the users, and the drivers tend to be courteous and enter the intersection with caution. The Municipality will continue to utilize the All-Way Stop program in the future as it has proven to bea very useful tool in the Traffic Engineering Department. ST. THOMAS Approach taken if an intersection cannot be satisfactorily controlled by a Two-Way Stop because of traffic volumes, the installation of traffic control signals is warranted. If there are other reasons such as geometry of the intersection, sight line problems, etc. , then steps are recommended to overcome those problems rather than institute All-Way Stops. STRATFORD We will continue with All-Way Stops because they cost -less than traffic signals and' tend to reduce the severity, if the number, of collisions. Up to now we have been able to avoid any pressure to use All-Way Stops to slow down traffic or discourage the use of a given road. OWEN SOUND Have had good experience with the use of All-Way Stops. They are an effective safe means to control and move traffic. PEEL REGION In the past we have utilized the All-Way Stops at intersections where traffic signals are warranted but not yet installed and only at those intersections where the volumes on both roadways were equal and where the political sensitivity was such that an interim measure was required immediately. NIAGARA REGION We appreciate that All-Way Stop in an inefficient control device due to the disadvantages of increasing overall intersection delay and fuel consumption. The All-Way Stop is not perceived as a means of speed control in this Region. However, we also feel that an All-Way Stop can be an acceptable device provided its .application is justified. It can be an economical solution to some intersection problems if the cost of delay created can be balanced off by the reduction of accidents. - 22 - I. I 4.2 VIEWS OF THE POLITICIAN * The politicians are receptive to proposals for installing All-Way Stops whether technically justified or not. The majority of All- Way Stop intersections have been approved by Council on the assump- tion that they will either reduce the overall speed of traffic on the street or deter the movement of through traffic. *As local elected representatives have agreed with reports prepared by the Traffic Engineering Department, listing the criteria to which All-Way Stops are warranted, it is apparent that the local elected representatives support the Traffic Engineering Staff in their recommendations for or against an All-Way Stop installation. °All-Way Stops are based on, in many instances, the vocal minorities' preceived needs that the installation of and the frequency of stop signs will inconvenience vehicular traffic movement to such a degree that motorists will ultimately use another route. 'Politicians appear to support the warrant but under pressure con- ditions an occasional unwarranted All-Way Stop is installed by resolution of Council . 'The politicians appear to be disenchanted with All-Way Stops in that they have been demonstrated to shift problems of through traffic from one street to a neighbouring street, if their imple- mentation is not properly co-ordinated. As an example, the last group of twelve request for All-Way Stops - none of which met the warrants, eleven were denied by Council , only one was implemented. 'Council usually acknowledges the Engineering Staff's recommendation as being technically correct; however, they, at the same time, want to satisfy the residents' concerns and take action to remedy the so-called problem by recommending the implementation of All -Way Stops. They feel the placement of one or two stop signs, particu- larly on a low volume local or minor collector street, is seen as a relatively harmless and inexpensive measure, and yet will provide peace of mind for the residents. 'Members of City Council are in favour of the All-Way Stop control and feel they are useful in controlling speed. 'All -Way Stops slow down traffic and make the streets safer for children who do not have the benefit of sidewalks. i - 23 - i ' Two view points held by the politician in this community. Some are in favour of All-Way Stops, mainly to reduce speeds and accidents . Others have been .well informed of the fuel which is wasted by the introduction of needless stops and are therefore against All-Way Stops. ' The All-Way Stop as a control device reduces serious collision impact types and provides gaps in traffic during peak periods. SPECIFIC COMMENTS RECEIVED All-Way Stops are wasteful in terms of energy, time, vehicle noise and good temper, and are probably counter-productive in terms of safety. In short, they have nothing to commend them. . On the other hand, as a politician I have to recognize that multi- ways are popular with members of the public: - sometimes on the assumption that they contribute to safety, which is almost always wrong; - sometimes in the expectation that they will discourage through traffic, which may often be right,'but there are better ways to do it. As a practical matter, I usually avoid arguments and let the petitioners think they have "won" . All-Way Stops are no benefit to assist traffic flow, but they do make the motorist aware that they are in an area where caution is necessary and until the Traffic Conference can come up with *a better method to meet the need, we would have to continue with the All-Way Stop control method. This Municipality supports the installation of multi-way controls based on accepted engineering warrants. There are, however, instances .where such stop contro.ls are justifiable based on what may be consid- ered non-technical warrants, because a given location presents its own unique problems and must be analyzed accordingly. It is recognized that the installation of unwarranted stops can lead to driver frustration and, in fact, may condition the: .motorist to disobey not only what he perceives to be an unwarranted stop sign but also other stop controls which are justified. Obviously, this is an unacceptable and hazardous situation. - 24 - In my two years on Council I have found only two reasons for any type of stop control ; 1) the traffic situation warrants it or, 2) politicians demand it for political reasons. Four-Way Stops, more so than Two Way ones, seem to be a synonym for speed control . As such, they are probably reasonably effec- tive, especially if enough of them are installed along any given. strip. However, for the problem cured, there are at least three created; 1) more gas is consumed at the stop and accelerating away from it, 2) the area of the stop can be noisy as cars and trucks gear down and accelerate and, 3) a new winter hazard is created. Despite these facts, it is still very easy for the municipal councillor to resort to Multi-Way Stop control installations when faced with a citizen delegation bent on preserving their neigh- bourhood and its quality of life. So I feel the political stop control is going to be with us for a longtime to come. My perspective as a politician is without doubt different from a technical perspective, at least in part. In looking at a given request for Multi-Way Stop control , I first determine in my own mind who I expect to be negatively affected. If•traffic using the intersection is either strictly local (i .e. both streets are local municipal , residential roads) , I do not expect the technical warrants to be met. In these instances, I look at whether there is a problem of either speeding on a long section of uncontrolled road, or inappropriated through traffic that might be cured by the stop control proposed. Should all the above be true, I am then interested in whether: a) the proposal might reasonably be expected to achieve the objec- tive (and is the best way to do so) ; and b) whether it might have any undesirable side-effects (diverting traffic to other residential streets) . All these points being satisfied, I will approve the installation regardless of the technical warrants. A proliferation of unwarranted stop controls can place an unnecessary enforcement burden on our Police Force and increase noise intrusion in residential areas due to motorists approaching and leaving the intersection at excessive speeds. Additionally, gas consumption is also increased with each additional stop required of the motorist. In a time of energy conservation this represents a serious consid- eration with regard to the installation of Multi-Way Stop controls . There should not be an i'ndescriminate use of the stop signs to remedy community traffic problems. - 25 - i • Many times a politician is faced with such a control : we know i.t should not be approved and yet the strength of the community lobbyists forces one into the position of approving it. My leanings are against Multi-Way Stops , especially in residential communities. My reasons against the full stop are: - most cases are not necessary and increase noise in the community - cars very rarely come to a full stop - increases gas consumption and polution. And yet,---when faced with a "mob of residents", I would, probably, succumb to public pressure! While I acknowledge that our City may suffer from an over-abundance of Multi-Way Stop controls, and support the efforts of the Transpor- tation Department to evaluate the efficiency of these controls and to remove those that are not efficient, I also believe that Multi- Way controls are a useful mechanism to protect residential communities from excessive vehicular traffic. I believe that as our monitoring techniques are developed, and quantitative standards have been established, the evaluation of the effectiveness of, this mechanism is easier. As communities become involved in the planning process, and can come to understand these standards, I believe that a useful balance between too many stop controls and too few will evolve. When warranted due to volume and other traffic considerations, they are less effective than traffic signals for both vehicle and pedes- trian safety. They are useful for slowing traffic on fairly long straight-run residential streets. They are useful for diverting traffic from residential streets to arterial streets when the residential street is being used as a bypass or shorter route. They are useful in providing traffic breaks to allow pedestrians to cross on long stretches of street. They offer improved likelihood that a driver will pause long enough to see pedestrians on a street without sidewalks. M They can create confusion about who moves first. - 26 - When widely used they can create a perception with the driver that every stop street is a 4-way stop and reduce attention to traffic on the crossing street. They can create annoyance to adjacent residences with perceived noise and fumes of stops and they waste fuel . 4.3 VIEWS OF THE POLICE OFFICER • All-Way Stops are an effective and efficient method of controlling the flow of traffic and reducing the number of collisions occurr- ing at troublesome intersections where traffic control signals are not warranted. ' Would recommend the installation of warranted All-Way Stops but would not recommend their installation if they were soley based on community pressure. • The use of All-Way Stops in the vicinity of a school is a valuable safety measure even though crossing guards are supplied. Rolling stops are a problem at All-Way Stops in areas where there is not a lot of pedestrian activity. The Police do not feel that All -Way Stops are being used as a method of speed control . • From strictly an enforcement point of view, All-Way Stops breed disobedience for stop signs since drivers feel the hazard of a right angle collision is reduced and tend to coast through with- out coming to a full stop. On the other hand, more often than not, a reduction in accidents accompanies the installation of an All -Way Stop which, from the point of view of the officer on patrol , means fewer accident reports to fill out. SPECIFIC COMMENTS RECEIVED There is no doubt several All-Way Stops are unnecessary and have been positioned at locations in an attempt to discourage motor vehicles from driving in the area. Because of this situation, some people have advocated that All-Way Stops should not be rigidly enforced and that so-called moving stops would bg sufficient. We cannot agree with this concept as we feel that this would only encourage motorists to ignore neces- sary traffic controls. and render them useless. i - 27 - The safety requirements could be met. at some intersections by using 4-Way Caution signs. Under these circumstances no stop would be necessary and the police would not have to overlook violations. The right-of-way rule as set out in Section 115 of the Highway Act would, of course, apply under such conditions. We would like to recommend that traffic controls not be abused by using them as a means of discouraging traffic from using certain roads and that STOP signs be erected only where they are justified by conforming to proper warrants. They delay and slow down the flow of traffic. Traffic contributes to more noise level by each vehicle stopping and accelerating. More fuel is expended and the area polluted to a greater degree by carbon monoxide. Drivers become more frustrated and are more likely to attempt to run the intersection, feeling other drivers will stop. The latter could contribute to more accidents. Multi-Way Stop control intersections are an .inexpensive and success- ful alternative to other solutions in reducing the speed of vehicles. From a "Police" point of view, All-Way Stop control intersections are an effective and safe control mechanism and they have proven to be successful in reducing the speed of vehicles and making specific roads and intersections much safer. In recent years the area Municipalities were erecting stop signs, to control speeding, and also an effort to redirect the flow of traffic, this was mainly to satisfy some constant complainers, who felt these changes were necessary. It is my personal feeling, that these stop signs are being misused by the Municipalities and abused by the motoring public who feel the stop sign is unwarranted, due to the location and traffic volume. It is unfortunate that the stop sign is being erected without warrant in many cases. When this happens it breeds contempt for other signs, where there actually is a need for strict traffic control . On occasion when these signs are erected, shortly after the police forces receive complaints that the motorists are disobeying the signs. It makes enforcement difficult, when the officer realizes the stop sign is more of a hindrance, than a safety factor. This, of course, then creates a. greater problem than the original one. - 28 - We have a number of these intersections in one area. It is apparent to us that they are installed in an attempt to control speeding traffic. We find that the Multi-Way Stops are not effective overall speed reducers. We also find that these intersections produce a large number of "fail to stop" infractions. From an enforcement point of view, these intersections are of ques- tionable value and in fact are probably a liability. '-Properly warranted Multi-Way Stops in some urban areas are a proven method of control . The use of such devices however, is often abused and are generally unpopular from the police viewpoint for the following reasons: - used as a speed control device - often erected by petition against the advice of traffic planners - contributes to an increase in rear end collisions - contributes to a general disregard for such signs my motorists with corresponding complaints about lack of enforcement - reluctance by some police officers to enforce violations when it ----is obvious the signs were erected to serve political and not traffic needs. • I would tend to agree with comments made by various Police Traffic Departments emphasizing the fact that many All-Way Stop-type of control are installed for purposes other than for which they are actually meant, such as speed control and a deterrent for motorists to use certain streets or roads, especially when such routes become short-cuts. I would also agree that too many of the controls become an added energy and maintenance expense, added noise and polution problem. • An unwarranted Multi-Way Stop causes undue fuel consumption, the development of poor driving habits and creates an unjustified sehse of security for pedestrians crossing at these intersections. If there is a speeding problem in a certain area, then this problem should be controlled by radar surveillance rather than trying to control the problem by erecting stop signs, in actual fact, you now have created a second problem. - 29 - i i I 5.0 THE MUNICIPALITY EXPERIENCE The questionnaire sent out to the municipalities, requested data or reports prepared on Before and After studies carried out at All-Way Stops. This section provides a summary of the data received on: Collisions • Speed Studies • Adherence Studies • Unwarranted All-Way Stops Fuel Consumption at Unwarranted All-Way Stops. General comments on each of the above five categories have been included in Section 4 "Views of The Traffic Engineer, The Politician and The Police Officer" . 5.1 COLLISIONS The majority of the information received indicated that All-Way Stops greatly reduced the number of right angle and left turning collisions and also reduced the property damage. Table 5.1 "Collision Comparison" provides the information of seven municipalities who carried out Before and After studies of collisions. TABLE 5.1 COLLISION COMPARISON - ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY ALL-WAYS BEFORE AFTER STUDIED OTTAWA . AVERAGE 12/YEAR 5 SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRECTION BY ALL- WAY STOP. (PROPERTY AVERAGE $22,000/ LESS THAN $5,000/ DAMAGE) YEAR YEAR MISSISSAUGA 17 INSIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN NUMBER OF COLLISIONS - RIGHT ANGLE TYPE REDUCED - REAR END TYPE INCREASED LONDON 1 AVERAGE 10/YEAR AVERAGE 1.3/YEAR (PROPERTY AVERAGE $16,000/ AVERAGE $400/YEAR DAMAGE) YEAR - 30 - i TABLE.5.1 (cont'd) MUNICIPALITY ALL-WAYS BEFORE AFTER STUDIED OSHAWA 1 AVERAGE 15/YEAR AVERAGE 1.6/YEAR 1 AVERAGE 7/YEAR AVERAGE 2/YEAR ORILLIA 1 TOTAL OF 5 IN ONE TOTAL OF 2 IN THE YEAR NEXT 4 YEARS NIAGARA REGION• 2 RIGHT ANGLE AND LEFT TURNING COLLISIONS COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FOR TWELVE MONTH PERIOD FOLLOWING INSTALLATION DURHAM REGION 1 18 RIGHT ANGLES IN 4 RIGHT ANGLES IN THREE YEARS TWO YEARS 5.2 SPEED STUDIES From information received, very little data is available on speed Before and After the implementation of All-Way Stops. In most cases comments were made regarding speed but actual data was minimal . From information obtained from the municipalities it appears that the speed studies carried out show that the sphere of influence of a stop sign is limited to , at the most, 60 metres before and after the stop sign and that higher than normal speeds will occur in the remainder of the street. Table 5.2 "Speed Studies" shows the speed studies carried out by two municipalities while Figure 5.1 shows, in graphical form, a Before and After study of a speed study. TABLE 5.2 SPEED STUDIES - ALL-WAY STOPS BASED ON 85TH PERCENTILE BEFORE AFTER ALL-WAY STOP ALL-WAY STOP LONDON 40.9 km/h 42.0 km/h 43.1 km/h 42.6 km/h SUDBURY 49.9 km/h 53.1 km/h - 31 - FIGURE 5.1 ALL-WAY STOP COMPARISON - BEFORE , THE INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-WAY STOP STOP CONTROLS APPk�ACI-a 1NC� LEAS/KM/H 54 la0 49 52 54 59 dol METRIG� iso 30 30 -75 150 AFTER THE INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-WAY STOP sToP AecN Its t.�Av�1�JG KM/H l02 510 50 42 54 4c1 METS 15! -75 30 GRAPH SHOWING SPEED COMPARISON 7o x _ xAFTT � x / X-_" i �a x� 1 � ZO 10- C) 0 O l5U 75 30 O 30 . 75 150 CXSTAKC�_= METS - 32 - 5.3 ADHERENCE STUDIES Municipalities found that adherence of the stop sign at All-Way Stops varied depending on many factors such as the enforcement provided in -the' municipality; if the All-Way Stop was a warranted or unwarranted installation; a four-way or three-way installation; etc. , etc. Table 5.3 "Adherence Studies" shows the results of studies carried out by nine, municipalities. TABLE 5.3 ADHERENCE STUDIES - ALL-WAY STOPS PROCEEDING THRU MUNICIPALITY TYPE OF PERCENT NOT INTERSECTION AT INSTALLATION MAKING FULL SPEED GREATER STOP THAN 8 KM/HR TORONTO 40-45% 23% SCARBOROUGH 63 INTERSECTIONS 14% NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE VEHICLES 52,500 VEHICLES "SLOWLY ROLLING" OBSERVED LONDON 30% MISSISSAUGA 70% 20% _ GREATER THAN 5 KM BRAMPTON THREE UNWARRANTED 65% 23% INSTALLATIONS SUDBURY T INTERSECTION 42% 10% 76% 30% 3-8 KM/HR ON ONE STREET 2% TOTALLY IGNORED FAILED TO STOP CONTROL GUELPH FOUR WAY 54% FOUR WAY 45% T INTERSECTION 60% NORTH BAY T INTERSECTION 88% 75% TRAFFIC ON MAJOR STREET CHATHAM 10% DISREGARD CONTROL - 33 - I 5.4 UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS A number of municipalities have over the last few years carried out studies to determine the number of All-Way Stop installations that were warranted or unwarranted. Recommendations have been made by a number of municipalities to . their Councils recommending the removal of unwarranted All-Way Stop installations. In most cases, very few unwarranted All-Ways have been removed. Table 5.4 "Unwarranted All-Way Stops" shows the number of unwarranted All-Way Stops in 18 municipalities. It is very evident from the' data provided that d high percentage of existing All-Way Stops are unwarranted based on existing warrants. TABLE 5.4 UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY ALL-WAYS UNWARRANTED NUMBER EXISTING NUMBER TORONTO 504 MAJORITY UNWARRANTED NORTH YORK 333 DISCUSSION STAGE ONLY SCARBOROUGH 107 PRESENTLY UNDER STUDY OTTAWA 197 PRESENTLY UNDER STUDY MISSISSAUGA 179 143 80 (SAMPLE STUDY AREA) 17 16 94 LONDON 65 20 31 BRAMPTON INSTALLED SINCE 1975 21 15 71 YORK 88 85 97 SUDBURY 23 13 57 BRANTFORD 43 APPROXIMATELY 50% UNWARRANTED. GUELPH 3 3 100 CHATHAM 4 2 50 PETERBOROUGH 4 4 100 NORTH BAY 2 1 50 LINDSAY 3 3 100 NIAGARA REGION INSTALLED LAST 4 YEARS 8 4 50 WATERLOO REGION 2 1 50 DURHAM REGION 5 2 40 i - 34 - .5 FUEL CONSUMPTION AT UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS A number of municipalities provided information of fuel consumption (or wastage) at unwarranted All-Way Stops. Table 5.5 "Fuel Consump- tion - At Unwarranted All-Way. Stops" shows the number of litres wasted per year at selected intersections. TABLE 5.5 FUEL CONSUMPTION - AT UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS MUNICIPALITY UNWARRANTED ALL-WAYS FUEL WASTED - METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA *IF 50% OF THE 800 PLUS ALL-WAY STOPS WERE CONVERTED TO TWO-WAY OPERATION 32,000,000 LITRES/YEAR OTTAWA **2 LOCATIONS 400,000 LITRES/YEAR LONDON IF ALL 20 UNWARRANTED ALL-WAY STOPS REVERTED BACK TO TWO-WAY STOPS 700,000 LITRES/YEAR BRANTFORD ***IF 50% OF THE 43 ALL- WAY STOPS WERE CONVERTED TO TWO-WAY OPERATION 820,000 LITRES/YEAR GUELPH 3 LOCATIONS 71,000 LITRES/YEAR 27,000 20,000 24,000 NORTH BAY 1 LOCATION 9,000 LITRES/YEAR DURHAM 1 LOCATION 12,300 LITRES/YEAR NOTE: * ONLY A GENERAL STATEMENT - NOT STATING THAT 50% OF THE 800 AIS,.-WAY STOPS ARE UNWARRANTED ** NOT NECESSARILY UNWARRANTED *** ONLY A GENERAL STATEMENT - NOT STATING THAT 50% OF THE 43 ALL-WAY STOPS ARE UNWARRANTED. I - 35 - 6.0 SUMMARY This report has attempted to provide an overview of the application of the All-Way Stop .control device in use in Ontario. From the responses received, there are nearly 2,000 installations throughout Ontario at the present time. There is widespread and varying opinion relating to the need to install the device, as well as the impact of the installation on speed, safety, traffic operations and energy. It was apparent from the responses received that a majority of installations currently in operation throughout the Province were not justified from a traffic operations and safety standpoint and were resulting in extreme energy costs. There were indications also that where the device had been installed for specific sets of conditions significant improvements in traffic operations, safety and collision experience had been achieved. It was also noted that removal of the device, once installed, was a difficult if not impossible task. RECOMMENDATIONS In---view of the findings of this review, the following general recommendations have been formulated. It is recommended that: the Ontario Traffic Conference be requested to review and update the minimum warrant for All-Way Stop controls originally developed in 1979. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications be requested to consider the inclusion of warrant criteria for All-Way Stop con- trols in the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual for Ontario (UTCOM) . a copy of this report be forwarded to the Roads and Transporta- tion Association of Canada (RTAC) Traffic Operations Committee for review and further study with the intent that criteria for All-Way Stop controls be considered for inclusion in the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual for Canada. Additional copies of this report are available from: Ontario Traffic Conference 20 Carlton Street, Suite 121 Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2H5 - 36 - Environmental Doublethink and the Illegitimate Use of All-Way Stop-Control by K. Alan Fenton ATTACHMENT N0 . 5 WD- 11 -95 It never ceases to amaze me how a minor incident can expand into something of such importance that the original event is all but forgotten in light of the information it produces. An example of this is what happened when I noticed a stop sign that appeared to serve no useful purpose. The constant activity it generated seemed so superfluous, I could not shake a nagging feeling that something was wrong. Being aware of at least the rudiments of energy conservation, I made what I thought would be a routine call to the Public Works Department. Something was wrong. And that call revealed a large gap in the public knowledge about traffic control. No doubt you have seen these things yourself, popping up in places they had never been before - like at every second intersection on a through street. In the not too distant past it was possible to drive with little energy waste; now it's "stop-all way" - "stop-all way" - "stop-all way", block after block after block. No doubt you have also wondered why this is happening. Evidence indicates that in most cases there is no reason for it to be happening at all. Though no one at Public Works will confirm it without retrograde studies, perhaps 80% of all stop signs erected in the City of Toronto over the past five years meet no installation requirement whatever. From an environmental standpoint this is staggering: One official at the Ministry of Energy told me it could be the largest easily preventable source of energy waste in the city. There is no doubt that this gap in public knowledge must be addressed - and not just the point of energy waste either. There is another aspect to this activity that has been glossed over so smoothly by those responsible for it that it practically constitutes fraud. So little hits the public attention in this matter that virtually no one I talked to in various provincial ministries, as well as at least two privately funded environmental groups, was even aware that there was a problem, much less how extensive it is. The only people consistently aware of the damage being done by unnecessary stop signs are the engineers at the Public Works Department. As one of them said, "We've been trying to tell people this for years, but nobody's listening." It's high time we started: stop signs that do not meet installation warrants are making absolute nonsense of this so-called "environmental awareness". • 2 • The conversation I had was with a man named Ron Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton is a traffic investigator with the City of Toronto. During this conversation I found out that: (1)It is extremely easy for a residents' group to petition city council to install stop signs at practically any intersection where they happen to want them. (2)This is occurring on a continual basis without the slightest regard for road safety, environmental impact, or its effect on public health. Mr. Hamilton also told me about the "energy wastage formula": that traffic engineers have a means by which they can measure the amount of fuel used at any given traffic control device. The most important thing about this is that the actual volumes are likely far higher than you ever imagined. When they get requests for installation, they include these figures in their reports. In almost all, cases they are disregarded. So it is not like we are dealing with ignorance. There has to be another reason. There are two actually - and neither is valid. A telephone call to the Ministry of Transportation brought a swift reply to a question about the function of a stop sign. A provincial highway engineer told me that they are to be used only to establish right-of-way at an intersection. Period. There isn't any other legitimate reason to install a stop sign, anywhere. Even safety originates in the establishment of right-of-way. Peter Howes, Supervisor of Highway Traffic Operations . for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, was able to provide even more specific information. He referred me to a publication called the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the provincial standards guide for municipalities. It is clear to the letter on the installation of stop signs : stop sign control results in delay to the motorist and may increase the collision experience; stop signs should therefore not be used indiscriminately; stop signs are not intended as speed control devices; their usage is therefore limited to the control of right-of-way conflicts. (Part A, Section 2:11) i i . 3 . Pay particular attention to the first line. What we have here is a manual from the Ministry of Transportation stating that stop signs may cause accidents. Not exactly sure of why this was so, I asked Steve Jacobs, a Project Manager with the Ministry's Central Region, to explain. His reply indicated that the process of stoping a car be equated with the process of landing an airplane: It is that phase of operation which offers the greatest risk of accident. In the case of automobiles this comes about because the action of braking brings into play laws of motion and inertia that may, depending on road conditions or other external influences, result in the temporary loss of safe operation of the vehicle: putting up stop signs on through streets increases the accident potential because more drivers are forced to operate more often in that phase of operation which offers the greatest potential risk. I then informed the provincial engineer about the conversation with Mr. Hamilton which revealed that a large number of stop signs were being put up in the city of Toronto without warrants. "It's quite obvious," he said, "that people at the neighbourhood level are using stop signs for purposes for which they were never designed." And what would that be, I asked? "Usually," he said, "it involves two things: either trying to slow down traffic or attempting to discourage drivers from using certain routes." There are your two reasons and each of them is in direct contravention of section 2:11:02 of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. When I asked him what he thought of this practice, he pointed out that using stop signs as a speed control device is neither efficient, nor sensible, since they create so much pollution. As far as altering traffic patterns were concerned, they don't work. And, as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, even the slowing down of traffic as illusory because it is based only on the fact that stop signs increase the amount • of time vehicles will spend on any particular street. Maximum speeds are actually increased by the installation of unwarranted stop signs as drivers accelerate faster to make up for lost time. This is one reason why residents living on some streets where all-ways stops have been introduced find themselves listening to � 4 � screeching tires all night. This is a quote from a 1983 study prepared by the technical committee of the Ontario Traffic Conference (O.T.C.): From information obtained from the municipalities it appears that speed studies carried out show that the sphere of influence of a stop sign is limited to, at the most, 60 meters before and after the stop sign and that higher than normal speeds will occur in the remainder of the street. This is Table 5.2 from the same study: Before After All-Way.Stop All-Way Stop London 40.9 k/h 42.0 k/h Sudbury 49.9 k/h 53.1 k/h On a level such as this, unwarranted delays are a sop to the selfishness of certain groups who want nothing more than to annoy drivers so much they won't use "their" streets. As you will see shortly, this beggar-thy-neighbour attitude is extracting a considerable environmental price. But the most frequent answer I got when questioning people about the practice of using stop signs for purposes for which they were never designed, is safety. There appear to be a good number of people who actually believe that the exercise of putting up stop signs where they are not needed is somehow making our streets safer. There is no truth to this rumour. First of all, as the provincial manual states, all-way stop signs are more likely to cause accidents than they are to prevent them, so the reasoning behind this line of thinking is simply backward. To give you an example, I called Kay Gardner, City Councillor, Ward 15, to see if I could find out why stop signs were installed on Chaplin Cres. I was told by an assistant to Ms. Gardner that safety was the reason for the installation. During a call to the office of Anne Johnston, previous councillor for the same ward, I was also informed that the signs were installed for safety reasons. Those calls were for the record only; I had already checked with the Public Works Department and found out there had never been • S • a problem at any of the intersections. In reality, the signs on Chaplin Cres. do not even meet provincial safety guidelines. Police officers making submissions to the 1983 O.T.C. also notice a negative relationship between this type of all-way stop control and safety: Froman enforcement point of view, these intersections are of questionable value and in fact are probably a liability... The use of such devices is...often abused and are generally unpopular from the police viewpoint for the following reasons: • used as speed control device • often erected by petition against the advice of planners • contribute to an increase in rear-end collisions • contribute to a general disregard for such signs by motorists with corresponding complaints about the lack of enforcement • reluctance by some police officers to enforce violations when it is obvious the signs were installed for political and not traffic needs That this would turn out to be the case should surprise no one because traffic engineers at the Public Works Department have access to all Metropolitan Toronto Police accident records. If there was a problem at a certain location they would know about it in very short order. And this is the way it should be because this is precisely why we pay them. In the event of a problem they would also be the first to recommend the installation of any device which might alleviate it. Without exception, safety is their number one priority. As Wayne Jackson, Co-ordinator of Traffic Engineering for the City of Toronto pointed out, there is a body of documentation which demonstrates that all-way stop signs can, in certain cases, reduce accidents. The locations in question, however, must meet specific pre-determined engineering criteria before the installation could be demonstrated to be. of any use or effect; that is what is meant by "installation warrant". The indiscriminate usage we«are currently witnessing is a different matter altogether. As Mr. Jackson said, most of the-intersections where they are being installed do not-even have an accident profile. i.e., the intersections are so innocuous, there are no accidents to prevent. As noted earlier, putting up a traffic control device of any kind is a very I serious matter because an element of risk is introduced which was not previously present. . 6 . This is the reason why allowing the decision-making process associated with traffic control to be taken out of the hands of professionals and given to amateurs with no knowledge of the subject is incredibly foolish. To illustrate how this is happening, I have obtained a document called, City Services Committee Report No. 3, Item 43. This report covers a Committee recommendation that stop signs be installed on Pape Avenue between Queen St. East and Gerrard St. East. I quote from the reply of the acting Commissioner of Public Works: Four streets intersect Pape Ave. between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East. They are Louvain Ave., Blong Ave., Brighton Ave., and Audley Ave. Each Street is a cul-de-sac, carries a very low volume of traffic and has a west-bound "stop" sign posted at Pape Ave. No preventable accidents have been reported at any of these intersections since Jan. 1986. And the acting Commissioner goes on to say that: My examination revealed that all the above-noted .intersections operate safely_and efficiently and the installation of stop signs to control traffic at these intersections is not required. The P :_ig Commissioner's recommendation was ignored and three of those locations now have stop signs. All three are in violation of section 2:11:02 of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is not an isolated case. This is the Commissioner's reply to City Services Committee report No. 2, Item 39, regarding.the installation of stop signs at Gilbert and Innis Avenues: On the basis of the findings of the investigation carried out by my department it is my opinion that the existing traffic regulations at the intersection of Gilbert and Innis Ave. are sufficient for conditions and the posting of additional stop-signs is unwarranted. And the Commissioner's reply to Item 41 of the same report, regarding the installation of stop signs at Barrington Ave. and Balfour Ave. An examination of the traffic record indicates that only one accident has been reported at this intersection since 1985. This accident involved a parked car and a moving vehicle... i . 7 . Based on my findings there is no justification for posting a southbound stop sign on Barrington Ave. And the Commissioner continues regarding a complaint about speeding on Barrington Ave. (Paragraph 3 from his reply to Councillor Tom Jakobek): A twenty-four hour speed and volume survey was conducted on Barrington Ave. between Balfour Ave. and Coleman Ave. Over 900 vehicles were recorded of which approximately twenty-five percent exceeded the forty kilometre per hour maximum speed limit. Approximately five percent of the total vehicles recorded exceeded the maximum speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or greater. An examination of the traffic accident record for this intersection reflects no problems which require further investigation. And paragraph 4 of the same document indicates that the Commissioner is fully aware of, and trying to follow, the regulations expressed in section 2:11:02: The function of a stop sign is not to control or deter speeding. Experience indicates that strict and frequent enforcement by the police force to be the best means of resolving this problem. Since the intersection of Barrington Ave. and Balfour Ave. operates satisfactorily the introduction of an additional southbound "stop" sign is unnecessary. I could continue with this indefinitely but you would have to be brain dead not to get the message: none of those signs were needed for any reason. In all cases, the Commissioner's recommendations were ignored and the signs installed. In all cases, they do not conform with provincial safety regulations. With such a clear indication that they were not needed, I thought I should attempt to find out why they were installed. Marylin Churly was City Councillor for Ward 8 when the signs referred to in Report No. 3 went up on Pape Ave. On a call to her office (Ms. Churly is now a provincial cabinet minister) her secretary told me that safety was the reason for the installation. When I informed her that I had a copy of the report from the acting Commissioner of Public Works stating that there were no problems at any of the intersections, I was referred to Ms. Churly. When asked to explain the discrepancy, she told me that "the problem is with that (engineer's) report" in that there were accidents g . taking place that the investigators were not aware of. That sounded like a serious allegation so I asked Wayne Jackson to comment on it. He said that since all their information comes directly from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department, if accidents were occurring with any frequency, anywhere, they would know about it. When I pointed out that a group of residents claimed the problem was with "unreportable" accidents, he said that unreportable accidents do not occur at any particular place at any higher a rate than do reportable accidents. I.e., how could something inanimate like an intersection possibly be capable of separating accidents according to arbitrary damage values. The answer of course is that they can't and the whole idea is nonsense. I interviewed five residents, one of whom had been living on Pape Ave. for close to three years prior to the installation, and not one of them had ever seen or heard of an accident of any kind. Subsequent calls to Ms. Churiy's office and the office of the new Ward 8 Councillor, Peter Tabuns, also revealed that no evidence actually exists to support these claims. An Assistant to Ms. Churly, as a former employee at City Hall, also said something about there being a problem with what she called "near misses" on the street. Anyone who does any amount of driving at all realizes that "near misses" are the result of driver error (following too closely, failing to adjust speed to weather conditions, failing to signal) and have nothing to do with traffic engineering. (To give you an idea of how preposterous this whole safety issue really is regarding unwarranted stop signs, in nearly one hundred and forty years of continuous traffic operation for the intersections investigated in this article, I was unable to find evidence of even a single accident.) What should be obvious by now is that there is only one reason why these signs are being installed and that is to annoy drivers. That is also the reason why the engineering reports are ignored by City Council: Certified transportation engineers cannot recommend the installation of any device they know to be unsafe. Hence, their professional recommendations have to be buried before the whining residents can get their illegitimate stop signs and the local Councillor can have the implied threat of vote withdrawal removed. What seems to escape in the confusion is that deliberately installing unsafe traffic control just to annoy someone is about as reprehensible, I i . 9 . obnoxious, irresponsible, and selfish as it is possible to get. It is hard*to imagine which is worse: actually doing something like this or using "safety" in a half-baked attempt to cover it up. But not only are recommendations from the Commissioner of Public Works ignored. In many cases, the signs themselves constitute a significant traffic hazard because of the fact that they far exceed installation limits. I was informed by Mr. Hamilton that these limits exist to insure uniform placement of all public road signs. Once again, safety is the primary factor. Take gradient requirements. While not "carved in stone", as Wayne Jackson put it, it is generally preferred that stop signs not be installedon grades exceeding 5%. The reasons for this are obvious. Examination of two intersections in east Toronto shows that this requirement is also ignored. At Cavendish and Southwood Rd., the northbound gradient is 10%. A little further east, the intersection of Willow and Cedar shows a southbound gradient of 12.8%. The gradient in the first case exceeds the guideline by 100%. At Willow and Cedar it is nearly 3 times the level at which the stop sign can be considered a danger to the public. The case of Southwood Rd. is doubly absurd because not only does it exceed gradient limits, it is also on a municipal bus route, something else which directly contravenes section 2:11:02. Since neither of these intersections comes even close to meeting any kind of engineering requirement which would necessitate this type of installation in the first place, one would have though safety would take precedence. It obviously does not. If safety is not a factor in the installation of these signs (and indeed it can't be, otherwise they would not be put up in locations that so clearly contravene safety guidelines), then why dq so many people keep saying it. The answer to that question is not a clear one because it requires at least an elementary knowledge of psychology.' A variation on this theme is what George Orwell called "doublethink" in his brilliant i political satire 1984: "The ability to simultaneously maintain two obviously contradictory thoughts and believe them both to be true". This myth about "safety" is being • 10 .• perpetuated in conjunction with unnecessary stop signs by residents' groups who demand their installation for no more reason than to keep traffic off of "their" streets, as well as by city councillors who are willing to bend over backwards trying to accommodate them even though not a shred of evidence can be found to back up the claims of either. i.e., "If you take down those signs, you're killing our children." In some cases, where no accident record exists, they will go so far as to actually fabricate them out of thin air in order to shore up a requirement for "their" signs. So long as they can maintain this collective fiction about safety, no one will have the audacity to even question their existence, much less do anything about it. It also happens to provide them with a rather convenient screen behind which they can avoid ever having to answer for the incredible amount of energy waste associated with this practice. Far better it would be for the rest of us,and the environment,if such groups could be persuaded to leave traffic engineering with the professionals where it belongs. After a few more calls I was able to obtain a workable variant of the energy wastage formula used by city engineers. It comes from the Transportation Energy Analysis Manual (TEAM), released from the Transportation Energy Management Program, a joint study done by the provincial ministries of Transportation and Energy, in August of 1982. While not as accurate as that used by the Department of Public Works and Environment, I was assured by City engineers that it would convey the magnitude of energy waste associated with stopping large numbers of vehicles at a point location. The formula, stated numerically is thus: 1,000 veh/d -► 50 k/h -+ 0 -► SO k/hr = 13,396 1/year It is as simple as it looks. If you drive 1,000 vehicles per day travelling 50 k/hr up to a sign, brake them to a«full stop, then re-accelerate them to 50 k/hr, then those 1,000 vehicles will burn 13,396 litres more gasoline in one year than they would if the sign was not there. • 11 Watch what happens when that formula is applied to actual streets with real traffic volumes. Take Chaplin Cres. in mid-town Toronto. As noted earlier, the Public Works Department revealed that they opposed the installation of a number of stop signs on Chaplin Cres. For reasons we have just been through: they are known to be unsafe; they detract from the legitimate application'of the device; they are not required for traffic management; they impact negatively on the environment. In 1986, a section of Chaplin Cres. from Duplex Ave. to Eglinton Ave. West, had a daily traffic volume of 6,000 vehicles. It also has' 6 unnecessary stop sign installations directly affecting the amount of fuel consumed. Thus: 13,396 x 6 x 6 = 482,000 1/yr. When I first saw that number I thought it must have been a percentage of the total gasoline used on the street. It was just an isolated value with no connection to anything in the real world - what mathematicians call a scalar. I was wrong. That number is nearly twice as much gasoline as would be used if the signs weren't there. The same number of vehicles travelling the same distance without stopping will use approximately 263,000 1/yr. When you add that number and the waste together you will find that the fuel consumption on Chaplin Cres. has been effectively tripled by the installation of unwarranted stop signs. Less than two miles away is Duplex Ave. where at least ten more installations are doing exactly the same thing. None of these. has a warrant either. As a matter of fact, northbound Duplex at Orchardview Blvd. is another example of multiple violation of section 2:11:02: • all-way stop sign used to deter movement of through traffic • all-way stop sign used at intersection that does not have lane conformity on all approaches • all-way stop sign on multi-lane approach where stopped vehicle in right lane may obscure sign • all-way stop sign erected within 250 meters of existing right-of-way control • 12 - Duplex Ave. in 1987 had a daily volume of 10,000. Thus: 13,396 x 10 x 10 = 1,340,000 1/yr. A few blocks east is Davisville Ave. Between Mt. Pleasant Rd. and Bayview Ave. are two more unwarranted installations. In 1987, Davisville Ave. had a daily volume of 8,000 vehicles per day. Thus: 13,396 x 8 x 2 = 214,000 1/yr. So what does all this mean in terms of relative energy values that do not require comparison to a stack of something as high as the CN Tower? How about this: Ten intersections on Duplex Ave. alone are wasting 1/100 of 1% of all the gasoline used annually in the province of Ontario. You now have some idea of the environmental impact associated with this practice. I next located a man named Ivan Roehac. Mr. Roehac is a chemical engineer conducting investigations into motor vehicle emissions. He works for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Air Resources Branch. He was able to provide a detailed breakdown of the combustion products of gasoline. But first, some elementary chemistry to see what leads to these combustion products. Gasoline is a mixture of hundreds of compounds of two elements, carbon and hydrogen. (It also contains sulphur as an impurity and traces of various metals added to enhance performance characteristics.) The hydrocarbons which comprise gasoline are mostly large molecules known as paraffins, aromatics and napthenes. Many of these can be dangerous when present in air, even in minute quantities. They have a molecular size ranging from C4 to C12. Generally speaking, the larger the molecule, the more biochemical trouble it causes. To give you an idea of the number of individual chemicals we are dealing with, i not all of the hydrocarbons in gasoline have even been identified. In a perfect world I • 13 • with perfect combustion, there would be only two products resulting from the burning of these hydrocarbons: carbon and water. The world, as we know, is not perfect - neither is combustion. This is where Mr. Roehac comes in. He told me that the average car in Ontario goes through 1,454 litres of gasoline in a year. The amount of by-product resulting directly from the combustion of that much gasoline is: 322 kg. carbon monoxide (CO) 43 kg. hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel) 50 kg. oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 7 kg. pariculates (soot; metallic additives) 3.5 kg. sulphur oxide (SO2) 3,800 kg. carbon dioxide (CO2) As Mr. Roehac indicated, those are typical emissions from average automobiles operating under average conditions. There are too many variables to measure values like these with precision. They will, however, serve as an adequate base for a pollution problem on this scale. By adding the fuel wastage on Duplex and Davisville using the TEAM formula, we get: 1,340,000 + 214,000 = 1,554,000 1/yr. If 1,454 is multiplied by 1,000, it is on the same order of magnitude as that number. As Mr. Roehac suggested, the two are now statistically close enough to convert his list of typical emissions to approximate values in metric tons simply by multiplying by 1,000. Thus, those twelve unwarranted installations on Duplex and Davisville Avenues, are generating, on an annual basis: 330 tons of carbon monoxide 43 tons of hydrocarbons 50 tons of oxides cf nitrogen 7 tons of pariculates 3.5 tons of sulphur oxide 3,800 tons of carbon dioxide Unlike the perfect world with perfect combustion, every item on that list, with the exception of carbon dioxide, is a potential poison. CO2i while not killing anyone directly, is significant in that it is the most prominent of what are known as "greenhouse" gases. Until this phenomenon became a concern, it wasn't even considered a pollutant, which, i • 14 • technically, it isn't. While I'll have more to say about carbon dioxide a little later, the fact that twelve unwarranted traffic installations can generate 3,800 tons of it on an annual basis should be cause for concern. Of the other combustion products, perhaps the most serious, as far as individuals are concerned, is the unburnt fuel. While most of this will be emitted in the form of simple hydrocarbons like methane, traces of heavier aromatic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons like benzene, toluene, benzo-a-pyrene, benzo-(g,h,i)-perylene, naphthalene, etc., will be found either as individual molecules or clinging to the particulates. Many are confirmed carcinogens; many others suspected. In the world of imperfect combustion, theses are molecules that may have been present in the original gasoline or may have been formed by heat and pressure in the engine. In all cases, they are un-oxidized by-products. Under normal driving, the amount of. hydrocarbons emitted remains constant because combustion is operating at maximum efficiency. Not so with acceleration. As Steve Pathak, a fuels expert with Imperial Oil explained, pressing down on the. accelerator produces what is known as a fuel-rich mixture: the amount of fuel released into the combustion chamber exceeds the amount of oxygen available to burn it. The result: a distinct increase in exhaust hydrocarbons. You can see this happen when you watch a diesel bus pull away from a stop sign: that cloud of black smoke is a result of the same process. What this means for people living close to stop signs is that while hydrocarbons will always be present in automobile exhaust because of imperfect combustion, acceleration actually increases the production of these chemicals because fuel efficiency is at its lowest. Thus, putting up stop signs indiscriminately can not only triple fuel consumption, it also enriches the exhaust with its most dangerous component. In short, i if you sat down and tried to think of a way to maximize the destructive effects of automobile exhaust on human issue, the indiscriminate use of stop signs would be the way to go about it. When you further consider that this usage flies not only in the face of common sense, but of provincial safety guidelines as well, the installation of unwarranted stop signs is almost a criminal act. If anyone else was responsible for a i • 15 • similar increase .in emissions they could face charges under environmental protection laws. This is not an exaggeration either: Section (8), Subsection (1)(B), of the Environmental Protection Act of the Province of Ontario, states that: No person shall, alter a process or rate of production with the result that a contaminant may be emitted or discharged into any part of the natural environment other than water or the rate or manner of emission or discharge of a contaminant into any part of the natural environment other than water may be altered, unless he has first obtained a certificate issued by the director... If the people responsible for having needless stop signs installed actually had to have approval from the Ministry of the Environment, it is very likely that in the total absence of a valid engineering warrant (as would be the case in the great majority of them), this approval would not be granted. And while we are on the subject of legality, perhaps it is time someone in the city legal department took a long, hard look at the inescapable fact that as many as 80% of all stop signs erected in this city over the past five years do not have installation warrants for the simple reason that they do not meet Ministry of Transportation safety guidelines. In a relatively short time I was able to find dozens of intersections in direct contravention of two or more specific items in section 2:11:02. I had no trouble at all finding several others so far out of line with engineering standards that they are downright dangerous. What happens when one of these unwarranted signs is implicated in a serious personal injury accident and it is revealed in court that not only was there no reason for the sign to be there, but that it was installed by city council-against written recommendations from professional transportation engineers in full knowledge that such installations fail to meet safety standards? With respect to one of the locations referred to in the city hall reports, the acting Commissioner writes: I also point out that introduction of unwarranted stop signs on Pape Ave. will negatively impact on the environment by increasing noise levels, I • 16 • increasing pollution levels andresulting in the annual wastage of approximately 37,500 litres of fuel at each intersection where "stop" signs are introduced. That means..an extra 112,500 litres of gasoline is being wasted on a tree block stretch of Pape Ave. The annual pollutants introduced to the street because of this fuel waste will be: 22 tons of carbon monoxide 3 tons of hydrocarbons 3 tons of oxides o;,r nitrogen .5 tons of pariculates .2 tons of sulphur oxide 200 tons of carbon dioxide (Figures are unmeasured estimates derived from Mr. Roehac's list of typical emissions.) Notice the hydrocarbon number. That amounts to one additional ton at each intersection. There was a study released in 1987 by the Department of Public Health called, The Environmental Health Effects of Waste Incineration in the City of Toronto. In a section on_polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), it states that, The quantity of PAH's inhaled from ambient air is difficult to determine because of the number of different sources (e.g. gasoline and fossil fuel combustion, industries) and individual habits (e.g smoking). I asked a toxicologist with the Air Resource Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to comment on the situation on Pape Ave. He said (echoing the Health Department study) that the direct result of such an atmospheric loading would not be calculable, or even estimable, without doing what is known as "dispersion modelling". He also said that one should not make any assumptions about potential risk because in terms of background levels from other sources, the amount of increase caused by the signs could be statistically�significant. One thing he did indicate, however, was that any adverse effects would depend on time spent close to the source, a point about three meters directly in front of the sign. I.e., "If your house was on the corner and you were home all day (elderly, perhaps ill, or a small child) as opposed to someone who was away at work during maximum, exposure hours," then your cumulative risk could, i depending upon other variables, increase accordingly. But the important thing here is • 17 • not so much which way a particular PAH or benzene molecule happens to be travelling, or how long it takes until someone inhales it, but the fact that their numbers have been needlessly increased in a residential area. Exactly how great this increase is, as the toxicologist pointed out, is not something that can be calculated without doing the requisite dispersion modelling. It is possible, however, to give you an idea of what could be happening by following through on a simple exercise in logic. Let's examine the situation on Chaplin Cres. a little more closely: The fuel wastage on Chaplin Cres. calculated using the TEAM formula is 482,000 1/yr. based on a 1986 daily volume of 6,000 vehicles. The approximate amount of fuel consumed by the same number of vehicles travelling the same distance without stopping is (as previously noted) 263,000 1/yr. Since 482,000 litres is approximately 1/3 of the noted Duplex and Davisville wastage from the.same source, then the comparable carbon monoxide production from the stop signs on Chaplin Cres. will be, by deduction, 1/3 of 330 tons, or 110 tons annually. Since normal usage on Chaplin Cres. is approximately 1/2 the wastage value, the amount of CO produced from normal driving over that distance will be 1/2 of 110 tons, or 55 tons. But, since there are no stops involved, that amount will be emitted at an even distribution rate of approximately one ton every twenty meters. To that amount must now be added the CO produced directly from the fuel wasted at the stop signs which will be 110 tons divided by six installations, or 18 tons per intersection. Thus, the annual production of chemical emissions on Chaplin Cres. could be on the order of eighteen times higher at the intersections. One of the people I interviewed about accidents on Pape Ave. was a man named Stephen Milic. Mr. Milk is not,happy about having a stop sign in front of his house that he knows should not be there. The noise caused by stopping and starting 2,600 vehicles a day only a few meters from his front door has affected his sleep. Mr. Milic no longer sits on his front porch: the exhaust fumes make it too uncomfortable most of the time. Mr. Milic also says that the noise and pollution have somehow "thrown my equilibrium 18 off'. Mr. Milic is not imagining it. The carbon monoxide generated in front of his house has gone from almost nothing to somewhere around seven tons annually since the introduction of the stop signs. Mr. Milia will also be breathing increased amounts of sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, benzene, toluene, carbon dioxide and soot. And try to remember that all of this has been caused by a stop sign that does not even meet provincial Ministry of Transportation safety guidelines. Do any of the people responsible for this care about the inconvenience it is causing? Why should they? Unwarranted stop signs are supposed to inconvenience people. . That's the whole idea. It sure worked in this case. . Mr. Milic is so upset at having this ludicrous sign posted in front of his house he is ready to go to court to have it removed. I don't blame him. If it's causing him to lose sleep, it's already affecting his health. Mr. Milic doesn't need a toxicologist to tell him that. Carbon monoxide is also a combustion product increased by the fact that fuel enrichment caused by the near constant acceleradon*now required on the street changes the ratio of oxygen to gasoline in the combustion chamber. Higher percentages can thus be expected-to occur in the vicinity of a stop sign. As.just demonstrated with Chaplin Cres., those increased percentages may be associated with ground level pollution.many times higher than it should be. The study referred to earlier had this to say on carbon monoxide: The primary effect of CO toxicity is to reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. The symptoms of CO toxicity include recurring headaches, dizziness, exertional shortness of breath, nausea, diarrhea, urinary frequency, sweating, thirst, weight loss, loss of libido, irritability and insomnia. There is also some evidence that CO is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. No wonder Mr. Milic feels his equilibrium has been thrown off. There is only one thing that strikes me as odd about that passage: Why would anyone go so far out of their way to do something which could otherwise easily be avoided when the only result might be a list of medical symptoms of that length and seriousness. It does not make sense. i • 19 • To shed some light on this puzzling question, I interviewed a resident of east Toronto who had.purposely initiated a petition which resulted in the installation of all-way stop signs at the "T" type intersection in front of her house. When asked about the reason for the petition, the resident replied that it was "safety". There were, "at least twenty-five children," she explained, "under the age of five on the half-block stretch below the intersection." Parents were worried out speeding drivers heading for the nearest arterial, Queen Street East. While no one can deny the concern, further questions revealed that the reason for the petition was not safety at all, but speed control: in nine years at the same location the resident reported that she was not aware of any traffic accidents. There were none before the signs were installed, and there have been none since. An interview with a second resident produced the same answers: no accidents, no fatalities, no motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions. What happened? The answer is that a group of people made a statistical connection between the percentage of drivers exceeding the posted maximum speed limit and motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions, even though no such connection exists. If it did, we could be losing dozens of people every day. This is obviously not what is. happening. As one traffic researcher told me, "statistically, accidents are extremely rare events." The fact that none have occurred at this location in nine years lends support to this observation. As long as one does not cross in a middle of a block, obeys all traffic signals and exercises good judgement by looking both ways before proceeding, the chances of being.struck by a car are exceedingly low. There is a very good reason why the connection does not exist and it has to do with a concept in traffic engineering called the "eighty-fifth percentile". When I began questioning engineers about all-way stop control, one thing I was curious about was whether or not there was any sort of constant regarding the number of drivers speeding at any given time. As John Crass, Supervisor of Traffic Services for the City of Burlington, explained, there is indeed a constant but it does not involve speeding. The eighty-fifth percentile is a parameter used by traffic engineers doing speed and volume � 20 � surveys. As traffic professionals built up a data base, what they found was that with virtually every survey done for any location at any given time, eighty-five percent of all vehicles tested will fall within a very narrow band on either side of a distinct value. The most important thing about this value is that it is not directly related to the speed limit. This is where those making the assumption about a relationship between drivers exceeding posted maximums and traffic accidents involving pedestrians are in error: just because a certain number of drivers are exceeding maximums at any given time, does not necessarily mean that they are driving dangerously. What the eight-fifth percentile is related to, John Crass pointed out, are the speeds most drivers feel comfortable with under different sets of driving circumstances. Ron Hamilton, the city of Toronto investigator, feels, for instance, that "the eight-fifth percentile is related to the geometry of the street." I.e., it can vary on two streets with the same maximums if things like lane width, or distance of buildings from curbs, etc.,also vary. For example, if you had a wide street with unobstructed sight lines and a posted maximum of only forty kilometres an hour, the-eighty-fifth percentile could well be over the limit because drivers feel it is too low for the situation. Police radar at this location would yield a higher number of violations. In spite of this, the safety of the street has not been compromised because even if drivers are exceeding the maximum in relatively large numbers, they are still not jumping curbs, smashing parked cars, or taking out pedestrians on the way through. If the maximum was raised to fifty kilometres an hour, the eighty-fifth percentile may go up, but the number of violations would go down. The reverse of this is what happens when a neighbourhood group campaigns to have a speed limit reduced to forty from fifty kilometres per hour. All they get is a lot more speeders to complain about.because since nothing has happened to alter the geometry of the street, the eighty-fifth perceritile won't shift enough to change anyone's driving habits. In both instances, the overall safety level does not change either because eighty-fifth percentile drivers will not drive above speeds at which they feel safe. This is one of the reasons why accidents remain "statistically rare events". Take the example of Barrington Ave. quoted earlier from City Services' Committee Report No. 2. That street has a posted maximum of forty kilometres per 21 hour. There was a complaint about speeding and a survey was done. Twenty-five percent of the drivers were over the limit. In spite of this, the Commissioner of Public Works could not connect it with the accident record because there isn't one. But the residents seized the opportunity with their "safety" scenario as an excuse-to get an all- way stop sign installed even though it was'neither needed nor justified. The result is that the*street probably is less safe than it was because unwarranted traffic control has been linked to an increase in accidents. And if what was revealed in municipal submissions to the 1983 O.T.C. study holds in this case, then maximum speeds on Barrington Ave. at distances greater than sixty meters from the stop sign will have increased as well. But, as with the case of Chaplin Cres., the most serious result of this misconception linking pedestrian safety and average vehicle speeds stems not from any road conditions that may be created, but from an increase in toxic emissions to levels far higher than most people would even care to think about. Because of this, someone living on Barrington Ave. now has an additional 10,000 litres of gasoline burned needlessly in-front of their house every year. And that amount of gasoline could easily be twice as much as was previously consumed on the entire street. I'll give you another example of what this can mean to an individual resident very shortly. Of the fifteen percent of drivers not related to the eighty-fifth percentile, one portion of these, the overly cautious, will drive consistently below, while the other group, the recurring speeders, will drive consistently above. On Barrington Ave., the latter group will include the five percent of drivers noted to be exceeding the speed limit by ten kilometres per . hour or greater. Both of these groups are capable of posing a hazard to themselves and others. It is in no way demonstrated, however, that unwarranted stop sign installation will have any effect on the driving habits of either. I looked into another situation that started out in the same manner. This one, however, had a vastly different ending. The corner of Glenmount Rd. and Burgess Ave. is a 'T' type intersection of the same design. 'For whatever reason, a group of residents decided there was a "safety' problem with this intersection. Thus, the inevitable "petition". And I • 22 • no doubt they would have gotten away with it if they hadn't ran into Ingrid Shiner. Her reaction was, "not in front of my house you're not - at least not without very good reason". Ms. Shiner knew immediately that any potential risk from the proposed installation would likely be greatest for her family since their house is closest to the comer. When she and her husband looked into the matter, they found out (as is usually the case) that there was no safety problem at all - other than that dreamed up by, in Mrs. Shiner's words, "a bunch of hysterical parents". Mr. Shiner put together a counter- proposal and succeeded in having the installation stopped. To give you an idea of how absurd the whole episode was, the Shiners told me that in the ten years they have been living there they can recall only one accident. This involved a car making a legal left turn and an improperly parked vehicle. The people who began the petition could have got the same information from city traffic investigators and saved everyone a lot of trouble. But the Shiners were diligent and they got it stopped before any damage was done. Most residents facing these "concerned" citizen do not fare nearly so well. Take Lytton Blvd. for instance. This is a residential street running west from Yonge to Avenue Rd. Virtually all area intersections have been targeted successfully by local residents for all-way stop control, virtually all of it unnecessary. The intersection of Lytton Blvd. and Heather St. is one of the few that had so far managed to escape. Thus, the "petition". An installation warrant was granted by the Commissioner of Public Works, not because it would have made sense under normal conditions, but because the intersection was one of the few remaining without all-way stops. Uniformity counts for a lot in traffic control, as the title of the provincial manual indicates. Shirley Dennis is a resident of Lytton Blvd. Her house, in relation to Heather St.,is in approximately the same location as the Shiner residence is with respect to Burgess Ave. This is Ms. Dennis' submission on the matter as noted in the City Services Committee report No. 17, Item 29: I • 23 • I am opposed to a stop sign at the corner of Lytton Blvd. and Heather St. I have...lived next to a stop sign that only served to slow cars to a roll and increase noise and pollution. My'children (four) all cross Lytton Blvd. regularly and safety with no stop. They have learned to stop, look both ways, look again, and then go. The traffic is heavy during "peak" times as it is on all east-west streets but even then I have no difficulty crossing, nor do any drivers experience problems making turns at the corner. The only problem is that a few cars "race" the section of road between Duplex and Roswell. This can better be served by radar than a stop sign. Now there's a novel idea: Parents teaching their children to use a street safely. I think Ms. Dennis might be onto something. Note that Ms. Dennis also observed some drivers above the eighty-fifth percentile. She is also right in suggesting that they are a matter for the police department and not traffic engineers because on Lytton Blvd. as well there is no evidence linking them to motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions. The result is yet another ill-placed traffic control device that at this level of usage is nothing more than a road hazard. The other thing Ms. Dennis noted concerns the process of slowing cars to a roll. This is likely one of the reasons why at the very top of the list found in section 2:11:02 of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices outlining specifically where all-way stop control should not be used, is: Where pedestrians protection, particularly school children, is a prime concern... Police submissions to the O.T.C. study explain this in considerable detail: It is my feeling that these stop signs are being misused by the municipalities and abused by the motoring public who feel the stop sign is unwarranted, due to location and traffic volume. It is unfortunate that the stop sign is being erected without warrant in many cases. When this happens it breeds contempt for other signs where there actually is a need for strict traffic control. On occasion, when these signs are erected, shortly after police forces receive complaints that the motorists are disobeying the signs. It makes enforcement difficult when the officer realizes the stop sign is more of a hinderance than a safety factor. and, Unwarranted multi-way stop causes undue fuel consumption, the development of poor driving habits and creates an unjustified sense of • 24 • security for persons crossing at these intersections. Studies show that between 40 and 45% of all vehicles in Toronto do not come to a full stop at all-way control. In a nutshell, what theses unwarranted signs are really doing is so far removed from what some people would have us believe they are doing that those responsible for drawing up provincial safety guidelines find it necessary to state categorically that they should not be used near schools. Make no mistake about it, the illegitimate use of traffic control is endangering lives - and not only because it is a senseless impediment to safe- driving either. In all the cases just described, the residents involved were in good health. The effects of polyaromatic hydrocarbons are cumulative and if someone winds up with cancer ten years down the road because of levels of toxicity increased by a stop sign which should not have been installed, the connection could__.not__be made without, controlled epidemiological studies. But with the carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen found in automobile exhaust, the effects can be noticed almost immediately. Just ask Stephen Milk with sulphur dioxide, for instance, the effects are both acute and long-term. The Health Department study quoted earlier outlined these effects of SO2: Inhaled SO2 is absorbed mainly in the upper respiratory tract and can cause acute bronco-constriction...repeated exposure can result in chronic lung disease, particularly in sensitive sub-populations, including smokers, asthmatics, children and the elderly. Exposure to SO2 may also aggravate or cause respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema and there is some evidence of an association between SO2 and lung cancer. A second study by the City of Toronto Department of Public Health (May, 1988), entitled, Toronto: State of the Environment, reveals that the effect of certain oxides of nitrogen (NO2) produced as a result of photochemical reactions between the hydrocarbons and nitric oxide in automobile exhaust, are also both acute and long- . � • 25 • term: Long-term exposure to low NO2 concentrations has been associated with increased rates of infections deep in the respiratory tract. Such infections may develop because inhaled NO2 inhibits the ability of lung tissues to cleanse themselves. Exposure to 0.25 parts per million for one hour is sufficient for sensitive individuals, such as asthmatics to experience bronchial symptoms... So what happens when someone not in good health is exposed to increased emissions because of an unwarranted stop sign? In a case like this, the matter ceases to be academic very quickly. I interviewed a fourth resident who lives on the corner of an intersection of the same basic design as the other three: a stop sign was installed without warrant and then had to be removed. According to city traffic engineers, there were no problems here either but for some reason or other, a group of residents abruptly perceived a "safety" problem at a series of five local intersections. Do you not find it odd that five intersections in the same area would all develop a "safety' problem at the same time, particularly since all five had been operating safely for as long as anyone can remember? Nevertheless, all-way stop control was introduced. Living in a corner house made the situation that much more acute, as does the fact that this person meets three of the earlier discussed criteria for increased exposure: they are elderly, ill, and because of this, required to be home all day. The medical problems stem from emphysema and asthma, two conditions connected in the Health Department studies to increased exposure .to oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, both of which are produced in large amounts in automobile exhaust. It does not take the credentials of a thoracic surgeon to figure out that stopping thousands cars a day practically right under their window is'going to make life 'a great deal more difficult for someone in this situation: because of a quirk in biochemistry, carbon monoxide bonds irreversibly to hemoglobin hundreds of times faster than will oxygen. That is why people exposed to massive amounts of it die so fast. • 26 • I read the contents of a letter written by the residents physician imploring city council to remove the sign if there was no safety requirement. He had noticed a prognostic deterioration, and, in the absence of other factors, felt they might be responsible. With an unwarranted stop sign capable of raising emissions to what would appear to be significant levels, this is a conclusion that should surprise no one. I am not quoting directly because the letter was not entered into the public record. From a single reading, however, it becomes obvious that there is an aspect to its tone that is worth noting. First of all, the physician questions whether or not there is a safety requirement. That he would even ask this question indicates he suspects there is not. Twenty years ago it would never have occurred to anyone to question the need for a stop sign because twenty years ago they were only used where they were needed. Not so today.' Now, they are introduced on a regular basis without the slightest regard for safety. That is why these were so easily removed once it became obvious their existence was a threat. to someone's health: because they were not needed in the fust place. Twenty years ago the. problem with emissions wouldn't have come up either because twenty years ago stop signs were only used to establish right-of-way on approaches to through streets. I.e., exactly where provincial safety manuals say they are supposed to be used. The number of vehicles stopping on a regular basis was quite low. Now, the placing of these signs on through streets results in the continuous stopping of many thousands of vehicles a day in exactly the same place - like right in front of someone's house. The result in this case is that it took less than six months to do so much damage direct medical intervention was required to stop it. Comments from the Commissioner of Public Works in city hall documentation dealing with this matter indicate that: 1. None of these signs were needed for any reason 2. When the first five went in, the Commissioner of Public Works was not even given a chance to comment on their complete lack of warrant. I . 27 . 3. Additional unwarranted installations in the area will push fuel waste to well over 100,00b litres annually. The reason given in the original submission to the City Services Committee to have those signs installed was "to slow down rush hour/commuter traffic on their streets". First of all, rush hour traffic never moves very fast in this city anyway, so why anyone would feel the need to slow it down even further is beyond me. Second of all, the use of stop signs as a speed control device is something which directly contravenes section 2:11:02 of the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the grounds that it is unsafe. But if you've got people who are willing to sacrifice 100,000 litres of gasoline a year just to keep traffic off of "thea" streets, you can't seriously expect them to consider safety as a matter of any importance. I would be willing to bet that Orwell's inspiration for "doublethink" came from the left- wing intelligentsia, one of the few groups he despised more than fascists. Orwell had nothing but contempt for this group because even though they frequently supported the same causes, the intelligentsia would always find novel ways of defending the most incredible political brutality perpetrated in the name of socialism just so they could remain on whichever side was fashionable and avoid having to rethink the implications of their positions. Transferred to the imaginative framework of his fiction, "doublethink" enabled the proles in 1984 to escape annihilation by the state by believing that truth and lies were the same thing. Whatever its source, "doublethink" is but one aspect of Orwell's work which makes it possible to mention his name in the same sentence as swift and not have to apologize for it. The people responsible for unnecessary stop signs probably think they are conscientious types who support environmental causes so they bundle up their newspapers, recycle empty containers and all the rest"of it. Meanwhile, the unwarranted stop sign in front of their house wasting 40,000 litres of gasoline a year is making a joke of all of it and • 28 • nobody even notices. "Doublethink" enables people to sleep at night. Pm not sure of where it started, but this business of attaching "safety" to unwarranted stop signs was unquestionably the key which has allowed them to get away with it for so long. Were it not for the phoney safety issue, this whole disgusting sham could have been exposed years ago. But "doublethink" allows people to participate in a level of energy waste they would not themselves tolerate had they not begun to believe their own deception. The 1983 O.T.C. study gives a figure of an energy saving of 32,000,000 litres of gasoline annually if half the 800 all-way stop signs existing in the greater Toronto area at that time were converted back to standard configuration . Given the number of installations over that past five years, as may as 80% of which could be unnecessary, and fuel wastage being chalked up at the rate of the million plus litres on Duplex Ave., the total energy waste in the greater Toronto area from unwarranted stop signs is likely now to be in excess of 100 million litres annually. As Barry Bower at the Ministry of Energy put it, "Find 100 more Duplex Avenues and you've got 1% of the provincial consumption." Anyone who drives a car in this city knows that would. not be hard to do. To put this in perspective it means that somewhere around the equivalent of three fully loaded Exxon Valdez tankers of gasoline are being needlessly burned at unnecessary stop signs in greater Toronto every year. That anyone could be allowed to get away with this is ridiculous beyond belief. Carbon monoxide has gone form a harmless component of automobile exhaust to a major environmental problem in less than ten years. The situation with greenhouse cases is so serious that the word most frequently used by scientists to describe it is "crisis". A quote from U.N. Environmental Program Executive Director, Mustafa Tolba, which appeared in a local newspaper under the heading: "Catastrophe Feared Without Warming Pact," urges people to "act and 'act fast." Here is a sample of the estimated annual carbon dioxide production caused by unwarranted stop signs on various Toronto streets: Chaplin Cres. 1,200 tons Westlake Avenue 65 tons Duplex Avenue 3,400 tons f a290 Gilbert Avenue 20 tons Pape Avenue 200 tons Davisville Avenue 400 tons Chisolm Avenue 65 tons Oak Park Avenue 45 tons Those figures are derived from Mr. Roehac's list of "typical" emissions. They are based on measured traffic flow volumes provided by the City of Toronto Department of Public Works and Environment. And remember that all of it represents amounts that have probably doubled, or even tripled, from the amounts that were produced prior to the installation of all-way stop signs. I could continue with that list for twenty pages. Here is a quote from former Toronto Alderman William Kilbourne which appeared in Colin Vaughn's City column in Toronto Magazine, December 1990: Everyone in the city should plant one tree. If each one of us undertook one small positive conscious, creative act, the world would change. That's nice sentiment Mr. Kilbourne and I have no doubt whatever that you are absolutely right, but my question is, with this scale of politically sanctioned waste happening virtually all over the city, why should anyone ever bother? Environmentalism is a fashionable cause these days, but don't touch "my" sign or I'll hound you out of office. Rest assured that unwarranted stop signs are generating carbon dioxide that will be measured in hundreds of thousands .of tons annually. There has even been a committee formed at city hall under,the auspices of councillor Tony O'Donahue to study ways of reducing the production of greenhouse gases. Their goal: a 20% reduction over 15 years. I am informed by one well-placed source at city hall that a good portion of the time that committee is going to spend studying the matter will be wasted because well over half their goal could easily be met just by removing unwarranted stop signs. I called one of the co-chairs of the committee with this information and was rebuffed without the slightest interest because yet another person has been completely taken in by a safety issue that does not exist. This is a shame, not only because of the damage being done to the environment and public health by these thoughtlessly placed installations, but also because they have been steadily making driving more dangerous i i • 30 • at the very time most people have been conditioned, through constant misinformation, to believe the opposite. Next time you're stuck in a blazing heat wave and someone asks you to turn down your air conditioner because you're "wasting" energy, think about the hundred million odd litres of gasoline being burned every year by nothing more than a lot of obnoxious stop signs put up for no better reason than to annoy people. To paraphrase Bruce Cockburn: They call it hypocrisy. i 1. Wayne Jackson 9. Ray Bremmer Co-Ordinator, Traffic Engineering Signs Installation City of Toronto Ontario Ministry of Transportation 392-7771 235-5396 2. Ron':Hamilton 10. Linda Clifford Traffic Investigator Researcher City of Toronto Ontario Ministry of Transportation 392-7771 235-4442 3. John Crass 11. Ivan Roehac Supervisor, Traffic Services Chemical Engineer City of Burlington Ontario Ministry of Environment 1 (416) 335-7691 Air Resources Branch Dept. of Motor Vehicle Emissions 4. Peter Peebles 326-1613 Engineering Assistant City of Burlington 12. Terry Stops 1 (416) 335-7847 Toxicologist Ontario Ministry of Environment 5. Steve Jacobs Air Resources Branch Project Manager, Central Region 326-1613 Ontario Ministry of Transportation 235-5521 13. John Hutchinson Program Supervisor 6. Peter Howes Transportation Unit Supervisor, Highway Traffic Ontario Ministry of Energy Operations 327-1489 Ontario Ministry of Transportation 14. Barry Bower 235-5584 Senior Policy Advisor 7. Curt Maynard Energy Management Head, Central Region Traffic Section Ontario Ministry of Energy Ontario Ministry of Transportation 327-1468 235-5582 15. Barry Beale 8. Dean Kemper Manager, Energy Efficiency Engineer Ontario Ministry of Energy Ontario Ministry yof Transportation 327-1493 235-5661 I 16. Steve Pathak 24. Dianna Mencies Fuels Expert Resident Imperial Oil Ltd. Leuty Avenue 498-2189 Toronto, Ontario 17. Chuck Pilger 25. Stephen Milic Chemical Engineer Resident University of Toronto Pape Avenue 978-5292 Toronto, Ontario 18. Henry Hengeveld 26. Barb Shepard Canadian Climate Program Resident Advisor, Global Climate Warming Pape Avenue 739-4323 Toronto, Ontario 19. Dr. Monica Campbell 27. Ingrid Shiner, Jerry Shiner Toxicologist Residents Supervisor, Environmental Health and Glenmount Park Road Research Toronto, Ontario City of Toronto Dept. of Public Health 28. Mr. & Mrs. D. Shinkaruk 392-7401 Residents -- Oak Park Avenue 20. Dr. R. Houston Toronto, Ontario Physician Toronto, Ontario 29. Shirley Dennis 463-1666 Resident Lytton Blvd. 21. Dr. John Taylor Toronto, Ontario Physician Toronto, Ontario 30. Kay Gardner 690-0960 Councillor, Ward 8 City of Toronto 22. Dr. Jerry Canny 392-7017 Pediatrician Peterborough, Ontario 31. Anne Johnston Councillor 23. M. Mulqueen Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Resident Former Councillor, Ward 15 Leuty Avenue City of Toronto Toronto, Ontario 392-4090 i i ,1 32. Tom Jacobek Councillor, Ward 10 City of Toronto 392-7915 33. Marylin Churly M.P.P. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations Former Councillor, Ward 8. City of Toronto 35. Peter Tabuns Councillor, Ward 8 City of Toronto 392-7914 Controlling Speeds on Residential Streets BY RICHARD F. BEAUBIEN omplaints of speeding on residential should be spending more than 90%of their The speeding problem on residential streets are a continuing problem for time dealing with the problems of accidents streets tends to become associated with the local traffic engineers and police depart- on arterial streets. However, because the problem of through traffic in residential ments. The observations in this article speeding problem in residential areas is areas. The through traffic is, in part, a describe the experiences of Troy,Michigan, "close to home,"traffic engineers and police symptom of inadequate capacity on major in dealing with this problem over the past departments spend a disproportionate arterial streets. If adequate capacity were decade. Comparisons of 1975 speed study amount of their time addressing problems on available on the arterial streets,"outsiders" and observance study results with 1985 and local streets, which are not connected to would stay on arterial streets rather than seek 1986 results at the same locations are accident experience. alternate paths through residential areas. included. Speeding on residential streets is a season- al problem.In northern climates,such as in Stop Signs Not Effective The Nature of the Problem Michigan, the complaints of speeding on residential streets virtually disappear during Many citizens,particularly those concerned Because the complaints of speeding in the months of November through Manch; about the safety of their children,suggest that residential auras are often emotional, it is when residents spend less time out doors, "maybe a stop sign will slow traffic on our important to put the problem into the problem or perceived problem seems to street." perspective.By understanding the nature of disappear. Before-and-after speed studies conducted the problem, we may be able to arrive at A 25-mph speed limit may be unreason- in the City of Troy indicate that stop signs better solutions for our citizens. ably low in new subdivision areas with are not effective in controlling speeds. The problem is partly social and partly adequate street design standards. The Compliance with these stop signs is very political. Elected officials confronted with national basic speed limit recommended in poor, and over a period of years the a citizen request for a stop sign might find the Uniform Vehicle Code is 30 mph. In compliance degrades to a point where it easy and inexpensive to grant the request, Michigan,the lowest speed limit permitted motorists behave as if the sign were not thus demonstrating their"compassion"and under state law(except in park arras) is 25 present at all.This degradation is shown in "concern for local needs'" Although this mph. Naturally, residents insist that the Table 1, which compares the compliance demonstration of compassion is inexpensive speed limit be as low as possible in their rates for stop signs installed to control speeds in terms of immediate capital costs,iip long- neighborhood,although the design speed on on residential streets in Troy.The locations term impact can be detrimental to public their street may exceed 25 mph. Motorists of these stop signs in relation to the health, safety, and welfare. Studies have who travel local streets every day tend to surrounding street system are shown in shown that unwarranted stop signs are travel closer to the design speed than the Figures 1 and 2. ineffective in controlling speeds;such signs speed limit,and this creates observed speeds 'fables 2,3,and 4 compare the results of arc often disregarded, leading to a lack of in excess of the posted speed limit. This 1975 speed studies oq streets with respect for traffic control devices! condition is viewed with alarm by unwarranted stop signs to 1986 study results In 1987,90%of all accidents and'96%of neighborhood residents, but it may not on the same streets.Sample sizes for these the injury accidents in Troy occurred on actually be a traffic safety problem because speed studies were limited becauso of the arterial,rather than residential,streets.This the design speed may be greater than 25 relatively low volumes present on these suggests that transportation professionals mph. residential streets.Observdrs were instructed ITE JOURNAL•APRIL .1989• 37 ATTACHMENT N0 . 6 WD- 11 -95 to collect as much data as possible in a 30- The signs were installed pursuant to an vehicles found to be speeding has been to 60-minute time period. As a result, ordinance adopted by the Troy City Council, somewhat successful in controlling speeds. samples were generally in the size range of the local legislative body.There is no known In that program, neighborhood residents 40 to 100. In all cases the sample size was case law in Michigan that would force the report license plate numbers of speeding greater than 40. removal of unwarranted stop sign Two-way daily traffic volume is approxi- installations. mately 1500 on Anvil Drive, 2700 on Niagara Drive, and 1100 on Robinwood The Solution...in Parts Table 1.Stop Sign Observance on Street.Peak hour volumes are approximately Selected Residential Streets In Troy 170 on Anvil Drive,300 on Niagara Drive, There is no one, simple answer to the 1975 1985 and 120 on Robinwood Street. problem of speeding in residential areas.The Location N N All of the intersection study sites were traffic engineering department in the City of relatively flat in terrain, so there were no Troy has suggested to residents that the Anvil Drive sight distance restrictions resulting from neighborhood itself must take some respon- Full stop 25 13 vertical curves. Horizontal alignment of sibility for the solution. A majority of the Roil stop 64 60 these streets has a minimal impact on speeding violations issued in residential-, NO stop 11 27 available sight distance. On Anvil Drive, amts go to residents of that street or to streets Niagara Drive horizontal alignment is relatively straight for in the immediately surrounding area. Full stop 51 21 a distance of 500 feet to the north and south Residents of the immediate area can thus Roll stop 34 74 of Forge Drive. It is,also straight for a address the problem by increasing the No stop 15 5 distance of 900 feet north and 700 feet south awareness of the problem in the of Kettle Drive. On Niagara Drive, neighborhood and by assisting the police Robinwood Street horizontal alignment is straight for a distance department. Full stop 26 16 of 600 feet to the west and 300 feet to the A program in which license plate number Roll stop 48 65 east of Eagle Drive.On Robinwood Street, reports are used to identify the owners of No stop 26 19 horizontal alilgnment is straight for a distance of 300 feet to the west and 1000 feet to the east of Van Courtland Street. Intersection sight distance at all locations is limited by houses at the corners. Houses at K the Anvil/Forge intersection are 40 feet from the edge of the pavement,and houses at the Niagara/Eagle intersection are 40-50 feet n from the edge of the pavement. Houses at the Robinwood/Van Courtland intersection are 30 feet from Van Courtland Street and N 50 feet from Robinwood Street. Unwarranted stop signs were placed on Anvil and Niagara in 1975. In 1979 the (. Anvil/Forge intersection was converted to a four-way stop,despite the fact that warrants for a multi-way stop were not met. Unwar- ranted stop signs were placed on Robinwood in 1964;they were removed for a brief trial ` period in 1975. In each case, the average speed in 1986 was higher than in.1975 at the same location.Although the differences may not be statistically significant, it seems apparent that the passage of time does not / make stop signs effective in controlling speeds. mi RTT Speed studies were made using a radar unit on an unmarked city car. The highest speed observed for each vehicle, for a distance of approximately 500 feet either side of the intersection was the speed recorded. FT I I Ill 1111 g Stop signs installed in the City of Troy that do not meet the warrants established in the 4 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are considered to be legal and enforceable. Figure 1. Street plan showing Anvil and Niagara study sites. 38 • ITE JOURNAL•APRIL 1989 I vehicles to the police department and the Table 2. Speed Studies,Anvil Drive police department locates the vehicle owner Speed Without Stop With Stop With Stop through the secretary of state's records;the (mph) Signs, 1975 Signs, 1975 Signs, 1986 police department then writes to the vehicle Low 15 15 18 owner,requesting safe driving practices and Average 24.1 24.6 26 compliance with local traffic ordinances. 85th Percentile 28 28 30 One of the positive effects of this program High 38 35 34 has been to convert many of Troy's younger . drivers into pedestrians: These younger drivers found that a vehicle was no longer Table 3. Speed Studies, Niagara Drive available to them after the vehicle owner(a Speed Without Stop With Stop With Stop parent) learned how it was being used. (mph) Signs, 1975 Signs, 1975 Signs, 1986 The City of Troy has a committee of Low 15 15 20 citizens appointed to advise the City Council Average 23.8 25.2 26 on proposed traffic regulations.This Traffic 85th Percentile 26 29 29 Committee gives a "first hearing" to High 34 34 33 neighborhood traffic problems and recom- mends new traffic regulations for City Table 4.Speed Studies, Robinwood Street Council approval. Traffic Committee involvement is important because it allows Speed Without Stop With Stop With Stop the light of objectivity to shine on the (mph) Signs, 1975 Signs, 1975 Signs, 1986 problem before the political decision is Low 10 13 21 made? Discussions between committee Average 23.4 24.4 30 members and citizens concerned about 85th Percentile 30 30 34 speeding on their neighborhood streets are High 38 38 42 helpful in achieving an understanding that stop signs are not a panacea and that there is no one easy solution.This discussion itself is part of the solution to the social and political aspects of the problem. i References 1. Beaubien, Richard F. "Stop Signs for Speed ® 8 Control?"TrifficEngineering 46(Nwember 1976): 2.Beaubien,Richard R"Citizen Participation in i w P Traffic Safety." ITE Journal 52(March 1982):29-31. Richard F. Beau- bien is the transpor- tation director for Hubbell, Roth and Clark,Inc.,consult- AK ing engineers, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Before entering this position in 1989, he served 14 years as transportation director for the City of Troy, Michigan. Beaubien received his M.S.C.E., B.S.CE., and A.F degrees from the University of Michigan. Beaubien is a registered pro- fessional engineer in Michigan,Illinois,and California. He is a Fellow Member'of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and currently serves as the Institute's Inter- national rice-President. Figure 2. Street plan showing Robinwood study site. I ITE JOURNAL•APRIL 1989• 39 NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED WATCH : ANOTHER WEAPON IN THE RESIDENTIAL SPEED CONTROL ARSENAL BY JOSEPH E . WOMBLE This program •is • specifically designed to address the speeding problem in self - contained subdivisions that experience little or no through traffic . One of * the most residential . speeding residential streets by persistent a n d complaint has been an selectively closing. frustrating complaints explanation as to why streets. A classic case that traffic engineers the various specific of 'cut-through" traffic in the public sector remedies requested is illustrated in Figure have to deal with is the (generally, multi-way issue of speeding on stops) are not good r residential streets. ideas (an explanation In dealing with new that generally falls on residential subdivisions deaf ears), followed by in Gwinnett County, a referral of the Georgia, the Gwinnett complaint to the Police County Department of Department . f o r Transportation, Traffic enforcement measures. and Operations Division, The Police Department, [ + seeks to solve the busy with higher problem of residential priorityproblems, will speeding in advance by respond with a token e n s u r i n g t h a t effort at enforcement residential streets are that has little impact. laid out so as to The situation then minimize opportunities returns to normal, for through movement and leaving both citizens to avoid long, straight and traffic engineers stretches of streets, with a sense of } . which tend to encourage frustration over a higher speeds: Although complaint not adequately these actions may prove addressed. at least partially Faced with the successful in preventing necessity of dealing '' 44 problems z n n e w with residential speed subdivisions, there are complaints in a more nearly 1800 miles of positive manner, the Figure 1 . Typical local streets in the county has adopted a residential street county that don't have two-pronged - program. closure: Through s u c h enlightened The first element of traffic pattern before standards of design. this program seeks to street closure (top) and The • department ' s eliminate through through traffic pattern typical response to a traffic on local after closure (bottom) . ATTACHMENT N0 . 7 ITE JOURNAL, — FEBRUARY 1990 WD- 11 -95 2 In this - case, two local complainant (and in some is sent to each streets were being cases the complainants area resident heavily used by through themselves) who are the informing them of traffic as a shortcut residential speed the program goals and to avoid a offenders. The program and objectives; at signalized intersection. attempts to make the same time, A simple closure of motorists feel that Neighborhood Speed these streets solved speeding in their Watch signs are this problem relatively neighborhood is socially posted. easily, although the unacceptable behaviour Concurrently , level of congestion at and that they would be committee members the signalized inter- incurring the dis- undertake to call section understandably approval and censure of u p o n e a c h increased. their friends and neigh- household in the Other closures proved bors by exceeding the subject area and t o b e n o t s o speed limit in their make a personal straightforward, and subdivisions. a p p e a l f o r some involved a In addition to cooperation. considerable element of carrying little. or no Radar observations controversy. In order through traffic,. a a r e made a to deal with these street must meet the p e r i o d i c a 1 . situations in an even- following other criteria intervals b y handed manner, a in order to be included transportation formalized procedure to in the Neighborhood d e p a r t m e n t evaluate street closure Speed Watch program: personnel, and, proposals was developed, using merge/sort which included a rating - Classification of functions of the system based on traffic p a r t i c u l a r word processor, volume, speed, and street (s) i n personal letters accident experience. question as local from the Chief of The other major residential P o l i c e t o element in the Gwinnett street(s) on the offending drivers County approach is a new county's official are generated. program known as road classifi- The letters point Neighborhood Speed cation map; out that the Watch. This program is - 85th percentile drivers have been specifically designed to speed in excess of operating their address the speeding 10 miles per hour vehicles in a problem in self- (mph) greater than manner inconsis- contained subdivisions the posted limit; tent with the that experience little and standards adopted or no through traffic. - Support of local by their friends The program relies on residents in the and neighbors and community spirit and form of a Neigh- goes on to mention peer pressure to borhood Speed the dollar fines increase awareness and Watch organization and license points foster a sense of representing at that would be responsibility among least 50 percent assessed should motorists and thus of the households t h e motorist a c h i e v e better in the neighbor- receive a citation compliance w i t h hood. for this offense. residential speed - Periodic speed limits. The program Once a neighborhood has studies are made recognizes that in a been included in the to monitor the relatively self - Neighborhood Speed Watch effectiveness of contained subdivision it program; the actions the program. When is usually the friends taken are as follows: indicated, police and neighbors of the - A personal letter support in issuing ITE JOURNAL — FEBRUARY 1990 I 3 citations is evaluating the program, previous positions r e q u e s t e d . i n c l u d i n g a include city traffic Generally, by this determination as to the engineer and director of time, the problem frequency at which an utilities for the City has been well area must be "blitzed" of New Orleans and many enough defined to in order to maintain the years of consulting focus the police speed reduction. Over experience. Womble support effort and above the program's received his B.S.C.E. with maximum m e a s u r a b l e degree from the effectiveness. effectiveness , the University of Illinois Neighborhood introduction of and is a registered groups join in the Neighborhood Speed Watch Professional Engineer censure effort in is perceived to be a and a Fellow of the various ways, as very positive program, Institute. d e e m e d even in those areas appropriate . where the- actual Responses have reduction in speeds is i n c l u d e d not that great. publication of Neighborhood Speed names of offenders Watch is a relatively i n t h e new approach to the neighborhood problem of residential newsletter and speed control in one suspension from specific situation - the the subdivision relatively s elf - swim/tennis club. contained subdivision or neighborhood with little The Neighborhood Speed or no through traffic. Watch program was The'program borrows some initiated in 1988. of the concepts of Currently, there are 13 Neighborhood Crime Watch subdivisions active in and involves active the program, with an community participation. a d d i t i o n a l 1 8 The results in some subdivisions under subdivisions have been consideration. significant; however, The results to date even in those areas have been quite where they were not, encouraging. In two residential speed subdivisions , 85th complaints virtually percentile speeds were ceased wit h t h e reduced from 45 mph to introduction of the 35 mph, and the total program, proving once number of vehicles in again that perception is these two subdivisions often as important as exceeding speeds of 50 reality. It is, after mph has been reduced all, not enough to be from 56 vehicles daily doing good; you must to 13 vehicles daily. also be perceived as to The program is be doing good. currently being managed by a single technician, thus freeing the rest of the staff to concentrate on arterial traffic Joseph E. Womble is the problems. director of Traffic and We are now in the Operations for Gwinnett process of further County, Georgia. His ITE JOURNAL — FEBRUARY 1990 ,.o Tfaf l::1 . . o • almir�g dao firdnsp ... ortattion Services Marshall Macklin - Monaghan A ! "TRAFFIC CALMING" AN INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM rr II Public environmental awareness and the sophistication of resident's associations has increased dramatically in recent years. In many circumstances, there is a growing dissatisfaction with traffic speeds and volumes on residential streets.As a result, traffic calming has developed into a new specialization and a powerful } r; traffic management tool. The objectives of Traffic Calming are to reduce both the speed and volume of ♦ Incorporation of bicycle lanes as a traffic through traffic on residential streets and hence create safer roads. These calming measure. ETP(U.K.) objectives were achieved in the past mainly by the restrictive techniques of turn r prohibitions, reduced speed limits or the installation of all-way stops. This latter •' technique has not only proven ineffective as a traffic calming tool,but is associated with significant negative impacts from an environmental perspective by generating additional noise & pollution. I P Today's planners agree that the well being of people is not only influenced by housing, but should also extend to the surrounding streets. Planning and transportation issues must combine to make the streets more congenial places in order to improve living conditions. ♦ More landscaping and parking- Consequently,traffic calming objectives have evolved to include more open space a better environment.ETP(U.K.) and the provision of pleasant landscaping. In addition, more parking spaces can 114 1. i y. VSD .. � ' ;, x•#:. ��4�� :7 �(1- ♦ Previous implementation of the cotuept in the ♦ A potential traffic calming treasure at a four way stop. Neighbourhood Trak Management Moore Park area of the City of Toronto. Study-City of York. MMM 1991 ATTACHMENT N O. H WD- 11 -95 be made available and a better , ♦ The use of a'constrictor'atanintersection to environment forthe pedestrian,motorist > induce drivers to reduce speed. and cyclist can thus be created. Traffic calming techniques have also evolved to include the incorporation of medians and bike lanes, the narrowing of travelled lanes and the use of different roadway surface textures and construction materials. As a result, drivers reduce speed without police enforcement. +, A unique traffic calming technique that I t is gradually being accepted in the North } American environment is the traffic circle -I or roundabout. Roundabouts are more permanent and properly engineered traffic circles. y l v` ~' ♦ The use of different construction materials for Roundabouts are being tested by many various uses on the roadway as a tragic North American Authorities in a variety , ; calming measure. of experimental applications. They are : ; , L frequently more efficient than eitherstop ,.�. signs ortrafficsignals.•Their advantages +� I 1 8 511,ph have been characterized by lower emissions, noise levels and fuel consumption and as being safer intersection arrangements. Not only do they sometimes have fewer reported `Y collissions, but the severity of these Wiz {`== ^" — Environmental Transport Planning(U.K.) collissions is reduced substantially. A few of the projects that Marshall Macklin Monaghan has undertaken as well as some of the techniques used in traffic calming are illustrated in this =`'r brochure. Marshall Macklin Monaghan also uses fi R Rt L a number of computer programs to aid N t 1� with the design oftrafficcalming projects. These include Vehicle Off Tracking (VOT) programs for the design of chicanes and constrictors for emergency vehicle access, and ARCADY for the design of roundabouts (Assessment of Roundabout-Q&acity and DelaY). ♦ A potential solution for the'Urbanization of Centre Street Environmental Assessment.' City of Vaughan ♦ Incorporation of medians,bicycle lanes and landscaping make the streets more congenial places, MMM 1993 I CONSULTING EXAMPLES SERVICES TRAFFIC • Public education .:t, Entrance/ CALMING Gateway • Community participation Treatment SERVICES"�"�-- • Neighbourhood traffic FOR RESIDENTIAL AND calming plans Raised . BUSINESS STREETS Pedestrian • Implementation strategies Crossing with Narrowing - • Traffic cal ming policies • Advice to government "' ® t transportation departments2 sub .�,,.�:J and decision makers — '` Speed ® Hump � hL - - - Chicane _: u ® J.P. Braaksma A Associates Ltd Transportation Planners&Engineers a, 1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 285 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2C 3W7- Ian A Lockwood,P.Eng. TTel: (613) 723-1264 Traffic Calming Planner Fax: (613)723-2653 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRAFFIC STREETS STREETS CALMING • Increase pedestrian activity During the past 40 years, urban streets Maximize access have been incrementally transformed to • cater to automobiles. Businesses, residents,pedestrians, and the urban ;� ` • Enhance aesthetics of street environment have suffered as a result. Downtowns and neighbourhoods are • Reduce crime increasingly perceived as dangerous. People seek safety inside their cars and cocoon themselves in their houses. • Promote a friendly and Traffic calming reclaims streets for the • Reduce speeding and careless welcoming environment people. It restores the liveliness, driving security, and dignity of urban streets • Increase safety and comfort of that have been lost over the years. • Improve quality of life potential customers Traffic calming physically transforms the street so that all the users of the • Incorporate community~ amp �` street are treated equitably and in preferences for change 1 q ' y accordance with the democratic wishes of the people along the streets. Traffic • Provide more greenery L- calming is a proven method of improving the street for residents and • Promote walking and cycling -.z businesses alike. • Increase safety of children _ • Reduce noise and pollution '"i Toward 's a safdr Ontario . ........................ s t Ail �Y i s� z a0 s O Ontarioat a Road Safety Slow down. Stay in control. Right now, our roads need to be safer. Speeding is one of the major contributing Highway collisions in Ontario exact factors in road collisions, injuries, and a high price in personal trauma, fatalities. Conventional family pain and suffering. More than radar enforcement is costly 1,100 people are killed and has had little effect on H and over 90,000 are reducing excessive speeding . injured each year in road on the highways. Multi-lane collisions in Ontario. highways prevent effective IY PHOTO! Highway collisions have use of radar and stopping . , , . very real economic and speeders on highways social costs too. sometimes places police ' Health care, property officers and the public at a safety risk. ' damage and lost wages Photo radar encourages motorists to cost an estimated $9.1 drive within the.speed limits. This will billion every year. For help to make our roads safer, as it has instance, in 1993, road in many other places. As the certainty collisions accounted for of detection increases, speeding will 146,000 hospital days, decrease. 38,000 ambulance calls, Photo radar is a proven law enforcement 74,000 visits to hospital emergency tool used successfully in over 40 towns rooms and 800,000 hours of police time. and cities worldwide, including Calgary Eighty-five percent of collisions are caused (1988) and Edmonton (1993). by driver error: drinking and driving, careless driving and driving too fast. How does Photo Radar work? That's why RIDE campaigns are Photo radar technology consists of a �. important; why wearing seat ��" computer-operated, vehicle-mounted belts is important and ' =" , x industrial camera with a special lens why graduated licensing for new , connected to a radar unit. The g � camera uses standard photo- drivers has beent: ^ f' introduced. y graphic film. A computer ��;::�� ::;:1 `��-� ,� program allows the camera Enforcing to detect and identify speed- speed laws ing vehicles as quickly as two using photo per second in the defined radar will also highway area. increase road safety. The computer-operated photo radar will be able to discuss the charge with a system measures the speed of a motor prosecutor who can determine how to vehicle travelling in excess of the posted deal with the charge. speed limit by a predetermined amount. The photo radar enforcement locations The camera takes a picture of the speed- will be determined through an analysis ing vehicle and plate and automatically of road collision history and driver imprints data such as speed, date and behaviour. time of offence on the film negative. Photo radar is one of eight initiatives of PHOTO RADAR UNIT the Integrated Safety Project enhancing road and public safety throughout the Ontario transportation and justice systems. Integrated Safety Project The other Integrated Safety initiatives /04 TRAFFIC FLOW include: the new Ontario drivers licence , The plate holder will receive a provincial mobile shared data workstations for offence notice by mail within 30 days Ontario police vehicles and provincial after the alleged speeding offence took Ministry of Transportation vehicles, place. A photographic equivalent of the collision data enhancements, central fines licence plate will be enclosed along with collection, an improved integrated court an explanation of the photo offences network, a new central offence radar system. Road safety database and an initiative to streamline information and a �` court processes. toll-free phone number will be provided to Road Safety answer questions. _ Those who receive , an offence notice will, as always, have It Ontario the right to a trial, or to plead guilty dna= M13❑fit For more information please contact: with or without an r oA < explanation. The Integrated Safety Project defendant will be 90 Harbour Street required to go to a court office either in Toronto, Ontario person, or by agent, to request a trial. WA 2S1 At this time, the defendant or agent ® Printed in Ontario on recycled paper ISBN 0-7778-2820-0 1994-02 Figure B WwrE FK3URCs e •oRocR BLUE 30 BACKG t0LP440 BLACK LEGENO B BOROCR ON W"TC 4ACKGAOUNO 30 20 cm AA.WF%LEkS u AX SPEED J 140 !$0 12.3 40 to zo WHTE LEGENO B BOROER �. R 0 WHEN • 30 BLACK LEGENO e LASHING • BOROER ON WWTE BACKGROO40 BO I (2) Where a sign referred to in clause ( 1) (a ) is erected, it shall be illuminated or actuated and legible during the hours prescribed by by-law under subsec- tion 109 (4) of the Act on days during which school is regularly held. (3) Where a sign referred to in clause ( 1) (b ) is erected, the flashing amber signals on the sign shall be actuated during the hours prescribed by by-law under subsection 109 (4) of the Act on days during which school Is regularly held. ATTACHMENT N0 . 10 WD- 11 -95 i LOCATIONS OF APPROVED ALL-WAY STOPS Location Major Street Minor Street Bowmanville Church Street George Street Bowmanville Church Street Temperance Street Bowmanville High Street Fourth Street Bowmanville Prospect Street Second Street Bowmanville Concession Street Elgin Street Bowmanville Queen Street Ontario Street Bowmanville Queen Street Lambert Street Clarke Leskard Road Concession Road 7 Clarke Concession Road 7 Best Road Courtice Glenabbey Drive Robert Adams Drive Courtice Glenabbey Drive Auburn Lane Courtice Glenabbey Drive Bruntsfield Street Courtice Glenabbey Drive Pinedale Crescent Courtice Nash Road Centerfield Drive Courtice Nash Road Hancock Road Courtice Nash Road Trulls Road Courtice Nash Road Varcoe Road Darlington Concession Road 7 Solina Road Darlington Nash Road Rundle Road Hampton Mill Street King Street Newcastle Edward Street Church Street 21 locations approved as all-way stops ATTACHMENT N0. 11 WD- 11 -95 i i LOCATIONS OF REQUESTED ALL-WAY STOPS Location Major Street Minor Street Burketon Concession Road 10 Darlington Street Burketon Old Scugog Road Elliot Street Burketon Old Scugog Road Boundary Road Courtice Auburn Lane Pebblebeach Drive Courtice Birchfield Drive Oakfield Gate Courtice Centerfield Drive Valleycrest Drive Courtice Firwood Avenue Devondale Street Courtice George Reynolds Drive Devondale Street Courtice Kingswood Drive Kingswood Drive (loop) Courtice Nash Road Cherry Blossom Drive Courtice Nash Road Fourth Street Courtice Nash Road George Reynolds Drive Courtice Nash Road Valleycrest Drive Courtice Nash Road Goldpine Avenue Courtice Prestonvale Road Claret Road Courtice Prestonvale Road Glenabbey Drive Courtice Robert Adams Drive Hampstead Gate Courtice Robert Adams Drive Mulholland Court Courtice Robert Adams Drive Sagewood Avenue Courtice Robert Adams Drive Thornbury Street Courtice Sandringham Drive Claret Road Courtice Sandringham Drive Beechnut Cres. E. Jct. Courtice Sandringham Drive Glenabbey Drive Courtice Sandringham Drive Lynwood Cres. N. Jct. Courtice Sandringham Drive Lynwood Cres. S. Jct. Courtice Strathallan Drive Stuart Road Courtice Yorkville Drive Granville Drive Courtice Yorkville Drive Inglis Avenue Courtice Valleycrest Drive Belleview Court Darlington Concession Road 7 Langmaid Road Darlington Concession Road 8 Middle Road Darlington Middle Road Concession Road 4 Darlington Nash Road Holt Road Darlington Nash Road Solina Road Darlington Old Scugog Road Concession Road 6 Darlington Pebblestone Road Trulls Road Enfield Concession Road 9 Enfield Road Hampton Old Scugog Road Ormiston Street Mitchell Corners Trulls Road Bradley Boulevard Solina Concession Road 6 Solina Road 40 on this page I LOCATIONS OF REQUESTED ALL-WAY STOPS Location Major Street Minor Street Bowmanville Cedarcrest Beach Watson Drive Bowmanville Church Street Division Street Bowmanville Concession Street West Centre Street Bowmanville Concession Street East Mearns Avenue Bowmanville Duke Street Park Street Bowmanville Duke Street Nelson Street Bowmanville Fourth Street Elgin Street Bowmanville Freeland Avenue Jollow Drive Bowmanville Kershaw Street Chance Court Bowmanville Kershaw Street Flaxman Avenue Bowmanville Lawrence Crescent Cole Avenue Bowmanville Lawrence Crescent Quinn Drive Bowmanville Martin Road Penfound Drive Bowmanville Martin Road Squires Gate Bowmanville Mann Street Herriman Street Bowmanville Mann Street Tucker Road Bowmanville Mearns Avenue Soper Creek Drive Bowmanville Orchard Park Drive Peachtree Court Bowmanville Prince Street Frank Street Bowmanville Prout Drive Prout Drive (loop) Bowmanville Queen Street Brown Street E. Jct. Bowmanville Queen Street Brown Street W. Jct. Bowmanville Rhonda Blvd. Lawrence Gate Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Hobbs Drive N. Jct. Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Hobbs Dr. S. Jct. Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Jane Street Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Prince Street Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Soper Court Bowmanville Simpson Avenue Southway Drive Bowmanville Soper Creek Drive Downham Drive Bowmanville Spry Avenue Lawrence Crescent Bowmanville Scugog Street Concession Road 3 Bowmanville Temperance Street Lowe Street Bowmanville Waverly Road Roenigk Drive Bowmanville Wellington Street Division Street Bowmanville Wellington Street Temperance Street 36 on this page LOCATIONS OF REQUESTED ALL-WAY STOPS Location Major Street Minor Street Clarke Best Road Skelding Road Clarke Concession Road 5 Gamsby Clarke Concession Road 8 Carscadden Road Clarke Concession Road 8 White Road Clarke Ochonski Road Station Street Kendal Mill Street Dickey Street Kendal Mill Street King Street Leskard Concession Road 8 Leskard Road W. Jct. Leskard Concession Road 8 Leskard Road E. Jct. Newcastle Arthur Street Andrew Street Newcastle Beaver Street Robert Street Newcastle Beaver Street Edward Street Newcastle Edward Street Baldwin Street Newcastle Edward Street Foster Creek Drive Newcastle Edward Street Standford Crescent Newcastle Foster Creek Drive Massey Drive Newcastle Rudell Road Edward Street Newcastle Rudell Road Hart Boulevard Newcastle Sunset Boulevard Lakeview Road E. Jct. Newcastle Sunset Boulevard Lakeview Road W. Jct. Orono Mill Street Millsonhill Drive 21 this page 40 + 36 + 21 = 97 i LOCATIONS OF REQUESTED ALL-WAY STOPS LOCATIONS NOT UNDER MUNICIPAL CONTROL Location Major Street Minor Street Jur;sdiation Bowmanville Baseline Road Duke Street Province Bowmanville Liberty Street Queen Street Region Courtice Courtice Road Nash Road Region Newtonville King Street Newtonville Road Region Orono Main Street Centre Street Region 5 in which staff have been involved but Region has received other requests directly I SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROGRAM (SRS) - BACKGROUNDER - The Problem Cars are the single largest killers of Canadian school children (cancer is second). Before the age of 14, 1 child in 10 will be involved in a traffic collision. 1 out of 6 pedestrian traffic fatalities is a child. 74% of child pedestrian traffic collisions happen within less than half-a-kilometre of the child's own home. In response to this, our society has created a world for our children in which traffic safety is promoted through fear, and where parents have assumed the role of chauffeurs for their children. According to a British study, in 1990, there were proportionately 3.5 times more British children taken to and from school by car than in 1971. Fear of traffic dangers was the number one reason given by parents, twice as high as fear of molestation. Traffic speed is the decisive factor in determining the safety of a street for children. For example, if a child is hit by a car travelling at 50 km/h, there is less than a 10% survival rate. At 40 km/h, the survival rate jumps to 55%. And at 30 km/h the survival rate is 95%. The SRS Solution The Safe Routes to Schools (SRS) program is a proven approach for correcting this situation. Based on a Danish model, SRS involves the redesigning of streets surrounding school zones to ensure that traffic speeds cannot exceed 30 km/h. Key to a successful SRS program is the pro- active and extensive participation of the community. The benefits from SRS include: ❑ Up to an 85% reduction in traffic collisions; ❑ Significant reductions in noise and air pollution; ❑ Increase community and neighbourhood identity; ❑ Discouraging of non-local, commuter traffic from speeding through residential areas. For more information, please contact: The Better Transportation Coalition 517 College St., Suite #325 Toronto, Ontario M6G 4A2 phone: 961-5767 fax: 961-5850 Prepared by Tom Samuels for The Better Transportation Coalition. Produced with assistance from the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. Please reproduce and distribute! ATTACHMENT N0 . 12 WD- 11 -95 i Durham Regional Police Service T. McCa her Chief of Police • •� ��,,// g tY" A. McMurray-Deputy Chief Policing Operations R.Jarvest- Deputy Chief Administration February 17, 1995 Mr. Walter Evans Director Public Works Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 i Re: School Speed Zones Walter; Copies of reports received from Regional Traffic Operations are attached. i The report on the test project is interesting but I think it should be held until we have an opportunity to assess i the Parents on Patrol project at S.T. Worden School on Nash Road. Further to Nash Road, our Traffic Management Unit can not get to a survey until later this year due to commitments in other areas . i I have an officer attending a Traffic Operation Course at j the Ontario Police College through March. He is taking the Martin Road traffic complaint as a working project. I It will be interesting to see the result of forty traffic specialists studying the problem from a police perspective. i i `GGuy Insector J. Adams Officer in Charge 16 Division i JA: sk ATTACHMENT N0 . 13 WD- 11 -95 i i 77 Centre St. North,Oshawa,Ont. LIG 4137 Oshawa(905) 579-1520 Toronto(416) 683-9100 Fax(905)433-5053 DRP 32B REV 09193