Proposed Harmonized s for Installation of 40 km/h Speed Limits and All-Way Stop Sign Control The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 6, 2001) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the understanding that the interim warrants serve as guidelines for the evaluation of requests and that ultimate authority remains with Council: Purpose: To propose a set of criteria and principles which can be applied uniformly across the City of Toronto when streets are being considered for a 40 km/h speed limit or intersections are being considered for All-Way Stop Sign Control. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the interim warrants for establishing a 40 km/h speed limit and for installing All-Way Stop Sign Control, as described in and attached to this report, be adopted for uniform use within the City of Toronto for a trial period; (2) after staff have used the interim warrants for the installation of 40 km/h speed limits and All-Way Stop Sign Control, staff report on their experience with and the effectiveness of these criteria to their respective Community Councils during the month of November 2001; (3) staff report on the Community Council consultation to the Works Committee at the first meeting of 2002 for the purpose of recommending adoption of permanent warrants to City Council; and (4) City Council rescind the existing policies of the former municipalities of the amalgamated City of Toronto which relate to the justification of 40 km/h speed limits and All-way Stop Sign Control so there is no contradiction in the use of the interim warrants detailed in this report. Financial Impact: The adoption of the recommendations within this report would not significantly impact upon the existing expenditures for the installation of 40 km/h signs or stop signs, the costs of which are borne by the Transportation Services Division s Current Budget.
Discussion: Since the formation of the amalgamated City of Toronto, work has been ongoing to synthesize the variety of policies and practices of the former municipalities. At the same time, in keeping with the policy directions included in Council s Strategic Plan, and likely to be included in the new Official Plan, Transportation Services Division staff have continued to increase our focus towards better accommodating the needs of the more vulnerable users of our road system, namely pedestrians and cyclists. While developing harmonised policies for 40 km/h speed limits and All-Way Stop Sign Control (AWSSC), the primary emphasis has been the consideration of the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, as discussed in more detail later within this report, the first priority within the 40 km/h speed limit warrant is the assessment of the impact upon pedestrians, and consideration of areas where pedestrian issues are particularly sensitive. However, care must be taken when applying traffic control measures and devices because they will not always have the desired positive impact in all possible scenarios. As discussed later in this report, if the issue at hand is a desire to reduce vehicle operating speeds on a local or collector residential road, both a 40 km/h speed limit and AWSSC may not significantly affect operating speeds under certain circumstances. Other measures, such as traffic calming, may be more appropriate. At the present time, Transportation Services Division staff apply the policies and practices of the six former municipalities when evaluating permanent 40 km/h speed limit issues and All-Way Stop Sign Control requests, and when reporting to Community Councils. It is now more important than ever for the City of Toronto to adopt a uniform set of criteria and principles for addressing these issues because of recent changes to Community Council boundaries. Within the Road Classification System report, which was adopted by City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, basic policies were established for the application of permanent speed limits and stop signs: (i) The minimum speed limit on major arterials is 50 km/h, so the 40 km/h speed limit warrant applies to minor arterial roads, collector streets and local roads only. (School area speed limits, which are in effect during daytime periods when schools are in session, and which are located at school frontages, are the exception and are not included within the scope of the policies, this report, or the proposed warrants.) (ii) Stop signs are not used to stop traffic travelling on major arterial roads. Therefore the AWSSC criteria applies to minor arterial, collector and local roads only. A. 40 km/h Speed Limit s: There are some significant differences between the former municipalities in the City of Toronto in the establishment of 40 km/h speed limits. For instance, the former City of Scarborough had a technical warrant which had been adopted as policy by former Scarborough Council. On the other hand, the former City of Toronto, which generally
has narrower streets and a tighter street network compared to its suburban neighbours, applied 40 km/h speed limits to the majority of its local streets. Other former municipalities had limited use of 40 km/h speed limits; they were primarily reserved for streets with elementary or junior high school frontage. The former City of York had a formal policy which went beyond school frontages to include park frontages and roads with sharp curves and/or steep grades. A prime influence on the safety of road users, considering the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike, is street design. For instance, in the older downtown parts of the City, the effective operating width of streets is narrower and 40 km/h is an appropriate speed limit. In suburban environments, where typically the effective operating width of streets is wider and the streetscape is open, 50 km/h is generally a safe operating speed under normal conditions. However, in some suburban locations a 40 km/h speed limit is appropriate to help alert motorists to special conditions, such as near schools, where there is a concentration of young children, or on streets without sidewalks. Experience has shown that, broadly speaking, effective operating width of streets is a primary influence on driver behaviour and speed on residential local and collector streets. The introduction of 40 km/h speed limits in suburban areas, which generally have wider road widths, and minimal on-street parking, has had a negligible impact on driver speeds, even with frequent 40 km/h speed limit signs. If 40 km/h speed limits are placed on wider roads, constant police enforcement is required to effectively reduce the operating speeds. The Toronto Police Service does not have the resources to provide this level of enforcement throughout the City of Toronto. In situations like the one described in the previous paragraph, the net result of installing 40 km/h speed limits alone is a potential increase in public disregard for the measure, cynicism with regard to any enforcement which may occur, and possibly broader public disrespect for traffic regulations in general. Control of inappropriate speeds on local and collector streets in these situations will require more active intervention by the City than just lowering the legal speed limit. Traffic calming, the subject of a separate report, should be seriously considered in those situations where the physical environment should be modified to change driver behaviour. The proposed uniform 40 km/h speed limit warrant has been developed based on the past practices of the local communities as well as the different road and streetscape characteristics across the City of Toronto. As a first priority, the proposed warrant addresses areas of the highest pedestrian sensitivity, such as proximity to elementary and junior high schools, streets with no sidewalks, and narrow streets where the narrow sidewalks are immediately adjacent to the edge of the travelled portion of the road. The warrant also addresses road environments where there is a history of speed-related collisions, or where there are
numerous design features (such as curves and slopes) which require slower safe operating speeds. The proposed warrant is attached to this report as Appendix 1. It is intended to capture the vast majority of traffic scenarios. However, in unique cases staff will have to exercise engineering judgement before making a recommendation to their respective Community Council. There are thousands of local streets in the suburban areas of the City of Toronto which currently operate with a 50 km/h speed limit. According to the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, streets with 50 km/h speed limits do not need speed limit signs. However, those with 40 km/h speed limits need speed limit signs at regular intervals of approximately 200 metres. It is cost prohibitive to introduce a blanket policy of 40 km/h speed limits on all local roads under the current requirements of the HTA. As a conservative estimate, the cost to manufacture and install 40 km/h signs for all local streets in the City which do not already have such signs would be well in excess of two million dollars. A blanket policy of 40 km/h speed limits is only financially feasible if the Province of Ontario amends the current speed limit legislation so that signing is not needed. B. All-Way Stop Sign Control (AWSSC): The primary purpose of AWSSC is to control traffic at an intersection by alternating the right-of-way. AWSSC works well where both intersecting streets have fairly high traffic volumes (known as the volume split or ratio). AWSSC provides opportunities for minor street traffic to cross or gain access to the intersecting major streets. The policies of the former local municipalities were similar because they were based upon the principles and warrants originally established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO). Some adaptations had occurred over time which resulted in some differences in the warrant values. The practices of the former City of Toronto were unique, which resulted in the widespread use of AWSSC to the point where it is common at the intersections of local roads. The application of technical warrants by former neighbouring suburban councils has resulted in a more targetted and selective application of AWSSC. The proposed uniform AWSSC warrant has been developed based on past practices, and it represents a refinement of the MTO warrant. The warrant responds to a historical collision problem which is correctable with AWSSC; and also uses different ranges of reasonable pedestrian and vehicular volumes for the variety of road classifications. As discussed earlier, the key component of a balanced split between major and minor street activity is also maintained. The proposed AWSSC warrant is intended to capture the vast majority of traffic scenarios. However, in unique cases staff will have to exercise engineering judgement before making a recommendation to their respective Community Council.
For instance, respecting the abundance of AWSSC in the former City of Toronto, there may be cases where AWSSC is recommended at intersections where the vast majority of neighbouring intersections are already AWSSC, for the sake of area uniformity. The proposed AWSSC warrant is attached as Appendix 2. Tables summarizing the comparison between the previous policies of the six former municipalities and the proposed AWSSC warrant are attached as Appendix 3. It is important to apply technical warrants to the placement of AWSSC so the device is used for its intended purpose: to alternate rights-of-way where there are fairly high traffic volumes on intersecting streets. Drivers on major streets respect AWSSC in situations like this because they observe conflicting traffic flow on the minor street from time-to-time. However, sometimes AWSSC is inappropriately considered to be a speed control device. AWSSC was not intended for that purpose. As noted above, other active interventions by the City should be used to control inappropriate speeds on local and collector streets, rather than the introduction of unwarranted AWSSC. With respect to speed control, experience has shown that motorists will frequently accelerate to speeds higher than they would have travelled otherwise after passing AWSSC in order to make up lost time. Furthermore, if there are low side street traffic volumes, motorists on the main street will seldom see conflicting traffic flow, resulting in driver disregard for the stop sign and failure to stop. Similar to the previous discussion about inappropriate placement of 40 km/h speed limits, the poor placement of AWSSC results in disobeyance, disrespect for stop signs, and a potential erosion of respect for traffic regulations in general. For this reason, poorly placed AWSSC can jeopardize public safety. In these cases, motorists may not be conditioned to stop resulting in potential conflict with crossing pedestrians or other road users. There are also issues affecting the natural environment associated with the selective use of AWSSC. When considering the flow of vehicles powered by gasoline, the overall consumption of fuel will increase after the installation of stop signs, assuming there is not a significant decrease in the volume of traffic. The burning of additional gasoline will increase emissions of carbon dioxide, suspended particulates and other noxious air pollutants. Furthermore, increased wear on brake linings, engine oil, transmission fluid and tires will also combine to add to the air pollution level, especially in proximity to the intersection.
Conclusions: The 40 km/h speed limit warrant and All-Way Stop Sign Control warrant proposed within this report have been developed by staff to harmonize the previous practices of the former municipalities. The adoption and application of these warrants is recommended in order to treat these issues in a uniform way across the City of Toronto. This is more critical now in view of the recent changes to the Community Council boundaries. Staff propose that the warrants be adopted on an interim, six-month trial basis, to allow Community Councils to become familiar with them and to provide a formal mechanism for the Works Committee to receive feedback on the effectiveness of the warrants. After the trial period, the Works Committee could recommend a more permanent adoption of the warrants to City Council as proposed or amended, or could refer the matter back to staff for more review and analysis. Contact: Peter K. Hillier, Manager Operational Planning and Policy Transportation Services Division Tel: 416-397-5778; Fax: 416-392-4426 E-mail: phillier@city.toronto.on.ca List of Attachments: Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Proposed 40 km/h Speed Limit Proposed All-Way Stop Sign Control Tables Summarizing Comparisons Between AWSSC Policies and the Proposed February 2001 APPENDIX 1 CITY OF TORONTO WARRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTING A PERMANENT 40 KM/H MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT On February 29, 2000, Toronto City Council adopted a Road Classification System and determined that the minimum permanent speed limit on major arterial roads would be 50 km/h. Therefore, this warrant applies to local, collector and minor arterial roads.
A permanent 40 km/h maximum speed limit may be implemented on a street where one or more of the following s A, B, C or D is met. A. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 1. (i) Pavement width less than 10.5 metres AND ONE OF THE FOLLOWING 2. (i) Elementary or junior high school abuts the road * OR (ii) (iii) Parkland abuts the road which is contiguous to and used to gain access to an elementary or junior high school* OR Absence of sidewalk on both sides of the road or a major portion of the road OR B. 3. The sidewalk is immediately adjacent to and not separated from the flow of motor vehicles by long-term parking (>3H) or bike lanes, where the travelled portion of the road width is less than 5.7 metres for two-way operation, or less than 4.0 metres for one-way operation. WARRANT A OR B MET? OR
C. ROAD AND TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING 1. (i) Two or more locations of concern where: (ii) (iii) Grades are greater than 5%; and/or Safe speed on curves is less than 50 km/h OR Lack of sufficient distance to stop safely at two or more locations when travelling at 50 km/h OR Pattern of collisions where vehicle speed was identified as a factor Local streets Other streets 3 or more over 3 years 5 or more over 3 years AND THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION 2. 40 km/h speed limits are not effective on roads which are 10.5 metres or more in width, or where the operating speed 85 th %ile is greater than 50 km/h. In these cases, other measures should be considered to influence driver behaviour to reduce speed, such as geometric changes to the road itself. D. OR 3. Where long-term parking (>3H) is permitted on one or both sides, and the remaining travelled portion of the road is less than 5.7 metres for two-way operation, or 4.0 metres for one-way operation WARRANT C OR D MET?
NOTE:* in the case of A2(i) or (ii), the 40 km/h maximum speed limit must extend no less than 150m beyond the boundary of school property and/or contiguous parkland. APPENDIX 2 February 2001 CITY OF TORONTO WARRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTING ALL-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROL All-way Stop sign controls may be considered at intersections where at least one of the following of s A or B is met, or other conditions identified in s C or D, is met: A. COLLISIONS There are an average of (see number below) collisions per year over three years of the type susceptible to correction by the use of all-way Stop sign controls and where less restrictive measures* have been tried and found inadequate, with the major road classified as: - minor arterial or collector (greater than 6000 AADT)-- 4 collisions per year. - collector (AADT less than or equal to 6000)-- 3 collisions per year. - local -- 2 collisions per year. WARRANT A MET?
B. VOLUMES Roadway approaches have similar operating characteristics and the following conditions have been met: 1. a) The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches, with the major road classified as: - minor arterial or collector (AADT greater than 6000), exceeds 500 vehicles per hour for the average of the eight peak hours of the day. - collector (AADT less than or equal to 6000), exceeds 375 vehicles for the average of the four peak hours of the day. - local, exceeds 250 vehicles for the average of the four peak hours of the day. OR b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor approach (i.e. crossing the major road) exceeds (see number below), with the major road classified as: - minor arterial or collector (AADT greater than 6000), 200 units for the average of the same eight hours used in (a) above. - collector (AADT less than or equal to 6000), 150 units for the average of the same four peak hours used in (a) above. - local, 100 units for the average of the same four peak hours used in (a) above. AND 2. The volume split does not exceed 70/30, based on the same counts used above. Volume on the major approaches is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor approaches includes all vehicles entering the intersection plus any pedestrians crossing the major road. C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS WARRANT B MET? As an interim measure where traffic control signals are technically warranted but cannot be implemented immediately. WARRANT C MET? D. REVERSAL OF INTERSECTION CONTROL
As a means of providing an introductory period to accustom drivers to a reversal of intersection control. Installation under this warrant shall be in conformance with Ontario MUTCD (1995), Section A2.11.04. WARRANT D MET? All-way Stop sign controls should not be used under the following conditions: (1) As a speed control device; (2) On roadways where progressive signal timing exists; (3) On roadways within urban areas having a posted speed limit in excess of 50 km/h; (4) At intersections that are offset, poorly defined or geometrically substandard; (5) On truck or bus routes, except in an industrial area or where two such routes cross; (6) As a means of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area; (7) Where visibility of the sign is hampered by curves or grades, parked vehicles, and insufficient safe stopping distance exists. Special consideration should be given prior to the use of all-way Stop sign control under the following conditions: (1) As the primary form of control to facilitate a request based solely on pedestrian crossing protection. This concern can usually be addressed by other means such as a school crossing, pedestrian crossover, or traffic control signal; (2) At intersections that are not roundabouts having less than three, or more than four, approaches; (3) At intersections with multi-lane approaches; (4) Where traffic would be required to stop on grades; (5) At intersections in close proximity to other traffic control devices controlling right-of way. Note: * In the case of A, less restrictive measures could include the removal of an obstruction or the prohibition of parking to improve sight lines; and/or the installation of warning signs, pavement markings and/or flashing beacons. APPENDIX 3
IMPACT OF PROPOSED AWSSC WARRANT ON CURRENT PRACTICE ETOBICOKE A. Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. C. Awaiting TCS Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice - No. of collisions = proposed warrant directly relates with the major road classification, i.e. the lower the classification, the lower the no. of collisions required to warrant AWSSC s. Local warrant has one accident rate regardless of classification. - Length of period (3 years) = no difference. - Road classification = 3 (proposed) vs 2 ( local ). - All vehicle approach volumes = proposed warrant has a lower all vehicle approach volume for local roads, average volume (proposed) vs peak hour volume ( local ) for local roads, average volume (proposed) of 500 vehicles vs all eight hours having to meet 500 vehicles ( local ) for minor arterial or primary collector type roads. - Combined vehicle volume = local warrant has no combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes for local roads. - Volume split = proposed warrant has one volume split 70/30 for all road classifications, local warrant has two volume splits (65/35 = four way, 75/25 = three way) for local type roads. - Length of period = no difference. - No difference Commentary - Proposed warrant is less restrictive for local and secondary collector roads. - Proposed warrant is less restrictive overall. Taking pedestrian volumes into consideration on local type roads is a major difference between the proposed warrant and the local warrant. Pedestrian movements in an intersection should be accounted for and used in any all-way stop warrant. - Using an average of 500 vehicles per hour of the eight peak hours of the day vs all eight hours having to meet 500 vehicles is much more attainable warrant. D. Intersection Reversal - No difference
NORTH YORK A. Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. C. Awaiting TCS Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice Currently the former City of North York for the installation of All Way Stop Controls based on Collision history required that 5 or more collisions within a 12 month period susceptible to correction must occur before the installation of an all way stop control. Regardless of the Road Classification. The established warrant is generally the same as the existing warrant being used by the former City of North York. With the exception(s) that the former City of North York did not have three different categories for road classification and only four hours were being studied not eight. The warrant volume for all approaches, collector roadways indicated that vehicles entering the intersection must average not less than 500 vehicle per hour, and 250 vehicles per hour for a local roadway. The warrant volume for minor road approaches, collector roadways indicated that total combined vehicular and pedestrian entering the major street must average not less than 200 units per hour, and 100 units per hour for a local roadway. No Difference Commentary It is my opinion that the proposed warrant of the AWSCWG better serves the communities as it reflects the anticipated traffic volumes on the different road classification. As such the proposed warrant is a more balanced approach. While conducting the comparison analysis of the former North York and the AWSCWG warrant, it was observed that this section of the warrant does not result in any negative impacts on the roadway network within the former North York. The classification split at 6000 works well given the existing usage and road classifications of some roadways. The vehicle split is beneficial as it will reduce the possibility of all way stop control installations based on only vehicle volumes on the major roadway. No Comments D. Intersection Reversal North York followed the MUTCD requirements. No Comments
TORONTO A. Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice Much less and over shorter time period. Commentary Usually use the previous year accident experience but generally except one accident, particularly a pedestrian accident or the intersection geometrics are not good B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. Volumes not generally used. Prevalence of other all-ways used extensively. Consideration given at intersection with higher pedestrian volumes, particularly young or old pedestrians. Volumes not used except that very high splits are generally used as a reason for not installing. Mostly this occurs for collector/arterial streets with local streets C. Awaiting TCS No difference D. Intersection Reversal No difference
SCARBOROUGH A. Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. C. Awaiting TCS Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice Local 4 collisions per year over three years. WG - MA & Collector > 6,000 4 per year over three years. - Collector < 6,000 3 collisions per year over three years. - Local 2 collisions per year over three years. Local Vehicle Volume Side street Vehicle volume Volume Including Split pedestrian Local Road 350 (peak hr) NA 75/25 or 65/35 Major Collector/ 500 per hour 200 70/30 Arterial for 8 hours including peds. Xing major WG - See criteria Same as MUTCD and our previous warrant Commentary - Essentially adjusts the collision requirement in accordance with the vehicle volume. Realizes that even, for example, three collisions per year at a low volume intersection would be considered very significant, while not as significant at high volume locations. - Recognizes pedestrians in all warrant calculations. - Requires an average of study hours, so it is now easier to satisfy the warrant on roads > 6,000 vpd. - With an average it eliminates the possibility of achieving the old local/collector warrant in only one nontypical peak hour. - 6,000 cut-off works well with the warrant. - 3 different warrants work well. - More all-way stops will be installed in District 4 at locations where they make sense and we anticipate good compliance. D. Intersection Reversal Same as MUTCD and our previous warrant.
YORK A. Collision Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice Frequency by road classification introduced. Quantifiable average developed for a Provincial standard wide application. Commentary Prioritization by road classification addresses exposure. Recognition of roadway classification where all road users and speed is a critical component in establishing prudent control. C. Awaiting TCS No Change D. Intersection Reversal No Change
EAST YORK A. Collision Consider no. of collisions, length of classification, 6000 AADT volume split and other. B. Volume Consider all vehicle approaches volume, combined vehicle and pedestrian volumes, length of classification, and 6000 AADT volume split, intersection approach volume split and other. Differences with Current Local AWSSC Practice Currently the former Borough of East York for the installation of All Way Stop control based on collision history required that five or more collisions within a 12-month period susceptible to correction must occur before the installation of an all way stop control would be considered. Road Classification did not impact warrant. Former Borough of East York warrant criteria for local roadways represents 75% of proposed warrant criteria. This is due to an East York Council decision that reduced the local warrant criteria by 25% at the time that Council adopted AWSC policy. New warrant also includes criteria for higher volume roadways (>6000 AADT) with 500 vehicles or more for peak 8 hours. Intersection approach volume split is the same as before. Commentary New warrant recognizes the relationship between higher volume roads and the collision rate. An application on select test intersections in former East York indicates that new warrant returns similar results. New warrant criteria takes new road classification into account. C. Awaiting TCS No difference No comment D. Intersection Reversal No difference No comment The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (March 20, 2001) from the City Clerk a copy of which has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of March 28, 2001, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, advising that the Toronto Cycling Committee at its meeting on March 19, 2001: (1) received the report dated March 6, 2001, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting proposed harmonized warrants for installation of 40 km/h speed limits and All-Way Stop Sign Control; and (2) expressed its appreciation to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for being forwarded the aforementioned report, and advised that the Toronto Cycling Committee would look forward to receiving further information on this matter.