TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

POLICY

TRAFFIC SYSTEMS OPERATIONS

Spacing of Traffic Signals

October 21, 2020

Transportation
Services Division Traffic Systems Operations
DOCUMENT CONTROL

Contact Information
Manager, Traffic Systems Operations
Traffic Management Section
Transportation Services Division
703 Don Mills Road, 5th Floor
Toronto, M3C 3N3
Phone: 416-392-8826

Original Version
Revision Date
Version Details
(YYYY/MM/DD)
Original draft prepared by Nazli Dehghani, Engineer-in-
Draft 1.0 2018/09/04
Training - ITS Operations.

Draft 1.1 2018/09/18 Reviewed by Hao Le, Senior Engineer – ITS Operations

Draft 1.2 2020/07/10 Revised to address consultant's (peer review) comments.

Reviewed by Rajnath Bissessar, Manager – Traffic

Draft 1.3 2020/07/17
Systems Operations

Revised to address City’s Transportation Engineering

Draft 1.4 2020/07/24
Subcommittee (TES)’s comments.

Final Approved by the Safety & Mobility Committee of

2020/11/19
(Version 1) Transportation Services.

Amendment History
Revision Date
Version Details
(YYYY/MM/DD)
Click here to enter a
date.

Click here to enter a

date.

Click here to enter a

date.

Click here to enter a

date.
APPROVAL

The version of this document (Final – Version 1) dated October 21, 2020 was approved by the
Safety & Mobility Committee of the Transportation Services Division.
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 1
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Traffic Signal Spacing Policy ........................................................................................... 4
1.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Available Information........................................................................................................ 5
2.1. CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS SPACING ........................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Safety Considerations of Signal Spacing for Pedestrians .................................................... 6
2.1.2. Operational Considerations ................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3. Human Factors ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.2. JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY ................................................................................................................. 8
3. Policy for Minimum Spacing of Traffic Signals............................................................... 9
3.1. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN SIGNALS .................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Stopping Sight Distance ...................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2. Signal Visibility Distance ..................................................................................................... 13
3.1.3. Geometric Considerations ................................................................................................... 15
3.2. RECOMMENDED SIGNAL SPACING POLICY ...................................................................................... 17
4. Mitigating Measures for Closely Spaced Traffic Signals...............................................17

Transportation 1
Services Division
 Abbreviations
LOS Level of Service

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

MMU Malfunction Management Unit

MOC Mode of Control

MTQ Ministry of Transportation Quebec

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (for USA)

MUTCDC Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada

OTM Ontario Traffic Manual

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SSD Stopping Sight Distance

TAC Transportation Association of Canada

TTC Toronto Transit Commission

TSP Transit Signal Priority

Transportation 2
Services Division
 Glossary
Cone of Vision The Cone of Vision is the area of sight – or the angle of sight

Controller (Timer) A device that controls traffic at an intersection by alternating the right-
of-way between conflicting streams of vehicular traffic, or vehicular
traffic and pedestrians crossing a roadway. The device monitors and
physically alters the operating conditions of a traffic signal.

Dedicated Interconnection between two controllers that is provided by multiple

Interconnection electrical wires (or potentially a dedicated wireless connection) so that a
steady voltage can be applied or removed to indicate which pattern or
plan is to be used.

Lead-Lag Left In a lead-lag left-turn phase sequence, an advanced left turn and
Turn through movement in one direction is followed by the through
movements in both directions which in turn is followed by a left turn and
through movement in the opposite direction.

Mode of Control A type of traffic signal operation at signalised intersections that is

(MOC) determined based on current off-peak pedestrian and vehicle volumes.
Toronto uses the following MOCs: fully-actuated (FA), fixed-time (FT),
semi-actuated (SA), semi-actuated pedestrian (SAP), semi-actuated
vehicle (SAV), and pedestrian-actuated (PA).

Peer-to-Peer Interconnection between two modern controllers from the same

(P2P) manufacturer with capability for built-in logic and P2P communications.
When the logic processor is enabled and communication is on, the
master controller can apply 'call', 'omit', 'hold' and 'force-off' to control
phases in the slave controller.

Signal The ability to coordinate multiple intersections to enhance the operation

Coordination of one or more directional movements in a system.

Streetcar CLRV A streetcar used by the TTC since the 1970's. Generally speaking, a
"streetcar" is a type of LRV which runs on tracks in mixed traffic.
Specifications: Length: 15.3m, Max speed: 80km/h, Seating: 42,
Capacity: 102, Braking rate: 1.6 m/s/s.

Streetcar ALRV A longer articulated double model of the CLRV. Specifications: Length:
23.2m, Max speed: 80km/h, Seating: 61, Capacity: 155, Braking rate:
1.6 m/s/s.

Streetcar Flexity The Flexity Outlook is the first modern low-floor and wheelchair
Outlook accessible streetcar used in the city of Toronto by TTC. Specifications:
Length: 30.2m, Max speed: 70km/h, Seating: 70, Service Load: 132,
Crush Load: 251.

Transportation 3
Services Division
 Transit Signal TSP detects the arrival of a transit vehicle and modifies the phase times
Priority (TSP) (in the form of transit green extension, non-transit phase truncation
and/or transit only phase) within the cycle to better service the transit
vehicle.

Uninterruptable A device that provides backup power when regular power source fails,
Power Supply or voltage drops to an unacceptable level.
(UPS)

Visibly Limited These devices limit the distance at which approaching drivers can see
Signal Indications the signal indication. They may be louvred indications, or optically
programmable signal indications.

1. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SPACING POLICY

1.1. Introduction

The City design, construct, and operate a safe and efficient road network that services all road
users. Within this road network, traffic signals are often cited as a means of addressing safety
issues, however, improperly installed signals can have an adverse effect on safety and efficiency,
particularly when the new signals are too close to other existing signalized intersections.

This policy paper examines the minimum spacing thresholds for traffic signals. It considers
spacing thresholds for both standard signals and pedestrian signals. However, it does not include
the warrant and justification process for traffic signals; that process is documented elsewhere.

The City of Toronto is a unique environment in terms of urban density, and it places a high priority
on the safety of all road users including cyclists, pedestrians, transit users and motorists.
Consequently, traffic signals within the City must address the needs of all road users. However,
with the exception of motorists, the safety of most road users is unaffected by the spacing between
signals. For motorists, the challenges of closely spaced signals require additional consideration
to avoid the following:
- drivers confusing the signals;
- difficulty optimizing signal progression, especially at signalised intersections with TSP.
- limited queue storage for vehicles between intersections.

There is very limited guidance available in industry standards and guidelines. The Ontario Traffic
Manual (OTM), Book 12 – Traffic Signals recommends a minimum 215 m spacing at a posted
speed of 60 km/h and a minimum 350 m spacing for a posted speed of 80 km/h. However, it
provides insufficient information for other posted speeds and is largely based on the spacing
required to accommodate turning lanes between the two signalised intersections.

This policy was developed to guide City staff on the spacing between traffic signals such that the
safety and operational efficiencies are addressed while recognizing and balancing the needs of
traffic and other road users with a responsible approach to general growth and new development.

Transportation 4
Services Division
The following goals were recognized to guide the development of this policy:
 Consider the needs of both safety and mobility
 Adopt defensible and realistic thresholds by:
- Acknowledging the unique environment that is the City of Toronto.
- Address the challenges associated with closely spaced signals.
 Acknowledge policies from other jurisdictions.
 Adopt industry standards, where available and where applicable.

Within the City of Toronto, roads with traffic signals range in purpose and character:
 Local roads in dense urban areas which mainly provide access to properties.
 Collector roads which gather traffic from multiple local roads and serve for traffic movement
and property access.
 Minor arterials which primarily move traffic to community destinations and to major arterials.
 Major arterials which move traffic across the City and to expressways.
 Expressway ramps.

The City’s traffic signal spacing policy recognizes and accommodates this broad range of road
functions and characteristics.

The policy consists of two components:

1) A process to identify the minimum spacing, below which fundamental engineering
principles become violated.
2) It also consists of several mitigating measures which can help to address the safety and
efficiency issues that inevitably result from closely spaced signalized intersections.

The City’s traffic signal spacing policy should leverage relevant and useful information as
available. This information may originate from applicable research, and the best practices and
policies of other agencies. A summary of this information is provided in Section 2.

The process developed to identify the minimum spacing between traffic signals is documented in
Section 3. Section 4 then lists the mitigating measures to be considered.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION
2.1. Considerations

Traffic signals are commonly requested in response to safety issues or to reduce delays. These
requests often cite safety issues such as providing protection to pedestrians to cross the road,
lowering (calming) the speeds of traffic on a roadway or reducing the potential for right-angle
collisions. Traffic signals are also requested to reduce the delays to side street traffic attempting
to cross the main street or turn left onto the main street. Traffic signals generally enhance safety
and reduce delays only if they are warranted; if unwarranted, they can introduce unintended
consequences. For example, while traffic signals tend to reduce angle collisions, they are known
to increase rear-end collisions. The following sections provide a more detailed review of factors

Transportation 5
Services Division
related to safety and operations of signalized intersections and justify the need to develop a policy
for the City of Toronto.

2.1.1. Safety Considerations - Pedestrians

The number of traffic signals along a stretch of road can determine the number of crossing
opportunities for pedestrians. Existing literature contains limited information detailing where
crossing points should be. According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD1),
the Pedestrian Volume Signal Warrant should not be applied at locations where the distance to
the next protected crossing is less than 90 meters, unless the proposed traffic control signal will
not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. The 90-meter distance (300 ft.) referred to in the
MUTCD is believed to be based on the distance a pedestrian will walk in order to cross the major
street2. The study does not provide any clarification about the reference point for this
measurement.

A study published by ITE3 conducted an exhaustive review and found very little original, or even
substantiated recommendations with regards to the spacing of pedestrian crossings. According
to this study, many guidelines seem to coalesce around 90 meters (300 ft.) but it appears that
they are merely repeating each other. The same study also suggests applying a time-based
spacing metric for pedestrian crossings (instead of distance-based). This approach would
consider several parameters in addition to walking distance - walking speed, time to wait for a
gap in traffic and width of the roadway. As an example, during the preparation of the Abu Dhabi
Urban Street Design Manual4, researchers were presented with the opportunity to document
pedestrian crossing behaviour by applying this approach. The average crossing spacing in Abu
Dhabi is 108 meters. Using the time-based approach, the total time to walk to a crossing location,
wait for a gap in traffic, and cross the street would then be equal to 3 min and 19 sec for a walking
speed of 0.9m/s. The study suggests that further research would be required to determine the
universal applicability of the time-based metric.

Shorter signal spacing reduces vehicle speed and shortens walking distances to the nearest
signalized intersection and decreases unprotected midblock crossings5. However, traffic signals
every 180 meters (i.e. with 90 meters distance to each from the midpoint) would require the
installation of many more traffic signals throughout the City and, even if coordinated, would create
a great deal of congestion, and driver frustration, all of which could have detrimental effects on
pedestrians. Furthermore, traffic may divert to other sensitive areas to by-pass sections of road
with many signals, creating additional, unintended safety issues. Therefore, pedestrian safety
considerations must be balanced with the other safety considerations and should not be the sole
determining factor for signal spacing.

1 Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009, Section 4C-05,
paragraph 4.
2 Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, et al. “Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.” Transit

Cooperative Research Program Report 112, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 562
3 To Cross or Not to Cross, Examining the Practice of Determining Crosswalks, Michael R. King, RA, ITE,

2014
5 Guide for the Analysis of Multimodal Corridor Access Management: Chapter 6 Traffic Signal Spacing 2018

Transportation 6
Services Division
2.1.2. Operational Considerations

Progression
The efficient progression of vehicular traffic along arterial streets is dependant on the provision of
optimal and uniform traffic signal spacing since signal progression is directly dependant on traffic
speeds and intersection spacing. OTM Book 12 states that intersection spacing that is less than
415 m or greater than 625 m may affect progression efficiency at a posted speed of 50 km/h.
OTM Book 12 indicates the minimum distance between signalized intersections is 215 m for roads
with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h or less and up to 350 m for roads with a posted speed limit
of 80 km/h. The above required minimum distances in OTM Book 12 are designed to allow “back-
to-back” left-turn lanes and proper tapers and do not consider optimal signal progression. OTM
Book 12 also indicates that signal spacing should include a progression analysis to ensure that
proper coordination of the signals is possible for a range of traffic demands.

Traffic signals operate continuously and cannot be turned off. So, while they may provide right-
of-way to side street traffic when gaps are lacking during peak periods, they will also add delays
for side street traffic at all other times (compared to stop sign control) which can result in poor
LOS operations. The delays introduced for the many hours outside of peak periods often exceed
the savings realized during the peaks. As a result, an overall balance in delays should be
considered when traffic signals are requested (as reflected in the warrant procedures for traffic
signals).

One frequent issue occurs with the installation of new pedestrian signals (mid-block and
intersection pedestrian signals). In accordance with the procedures listed in the City’s “Traffic
Signal Operations Policies and Strategies” document, the City coordinates these pedestrian
signals with the operations of the other signals on the roadway. This helps to reduce congestion
and lower the number stops. However, it requires pedestrians to wait for a break in the
progression of traffic before crossing the road which may add to pedestrian delay. (Note, during
late evening and over-night, pedestrian signals are sometimes not coordinated with other signals
so that pedestrian delays are reduced.)

Closely spaced signals can result in delays which negatively impact transit delays and reliability,
which increases transit customer wait and travel times.

Additional signal timing strategies designed to address the operational considerations associated
with closely spaced signals are presented in Section 4.

Detailed signal operations features that promote consistent, safe, and efficient control of traffic
signals are identified in the City’s “Traffic Signal Operations Policies and Strategies”.
Queue Spillback
Another important operational (and safety) concern is the queuing between two closely spaced
signalized intersections, where long queues may result in the blockage of the upstream
intersection and could impose excessive delays to cross street traffic; safety hazards can also
arise. Queue spillback and safety hazards may also occur at locations with heavy traffic turning
onto a road with closely spaced signals, such as at a highway off-ramp. A field visit is often
conducted to evaluate the extent of the queues and the potential for gridlock. The signal timing
strategies presented in Section 4 can sometimes be used to alleviate queuing issues.

Transportation 7
Services Division
2.1.3. Human Factors

Closely spaced traffic signals can pose a unique hazard for motorists. As drivers approach a set
of closely spaced traffic signals, they can see the displays for both the downstream signal and
upstream traffic signals at the same time, which has the potential to create confusion if the
indications differ. Safety issues arise when the driver may look “through” the first signal and takes
his/her cue from the farther signal, particularly when the far signal indication is green while the
nearby signal indication is red.

The safety implications associated with human factors considerations at closely spaced signals
justifies the need for mitigating measures. These measures are discussed further in Section 4.

2.2. Jurisdictional Survey

A survey was conducted by the City to gather an understanding of how other jurisdictions address
closely spaced traffic signals. The survey received responses from twelve (12) jurisdictions across
North America. A 50/50 split was found between those that have a policy in place and those that
do not. Many of the jurisdictions that have a policy in place referenced existing guidelines such
as provincial guidelines (OTM, MTQ), and MUTCDC. The key factors in determining distances for
closely spaced traffic signals were focused on optimal corridor progression followed by vehicle
traffic safety and pedestrian safety.

The minimum spacing is predominantly assessed on a case-by-case basis based on local factors
in conjunction with industry references (e.g. OTM, MUTCDC, etc.). Spacing typically ranged from
100 m to 275 m where no mitigation measures were considered. Factors such as posted speed
limit, or functional classification of the roadway did not impact policy decisions, but
pedestrian/cyclist opportunities did factor in. Furthermore, external factors such as politics and
source of requests (e.g. private developer) did play a role in policy decisions on a case-by-case
basis.

The results of the literature review and jurisdictional survey suggest that the City of Toronto should
develop its own policy. Any policy should be realistic, pragmatic and defensible.

Transportation 8
Services Division
3. POLICY FOR MINIMUM SPACING OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS

3.1. Recommended Minimum Spacing

Drivers must have adequate time to perceive and respond to all traffic control devices, including
traffic signals. In the case of two closely spaced signalized intersections, drivers must be allowed
to direct their full attention to the first intersection while approaching and passing through it. This
allows drivers to identify and monitor the many conflict points that exist within all intersections,
including those between vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Therefore, the following three distances must be fully accommodated within the two closely
spaced signals:
1. Stopping Sight Distance,
2. Signal Visibility Distance,
3. Geometric Requirements (such as left-turn lanes).

The stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distance travelled by a vehicle once the driver has been
exposed to an impediment, such as another vehicle, debris on the road, or a traffic control device.
The signal visibility distance (SVD) is the distance from which a driver can see and recognize
traffic signal indications. SVD accounts for the driver’s cone of vision extending 40° horizontally,
and 15° vertically.

Signalized intersections commonly include left-turn lanes. Where left turn lanes are present,
sufficient space between the two intersections must allow for storage in each direction and a taper
to demarcate the two separate (back-to-back) lanes. However, when one of the signals is a
pedestrian signal, or where no left turn lanes exist, the process used to assess geometric
considerations should be based on the design vehicle length. The minimum signal spacing is
then the largest of these three values (since the largest distance will also accommodate the other
two).

The following process flow chart illustrates the recommended process.

Transportation 9
Services Division
 Start

Geometric
Stopping Sight Distance Signal Visibility Distance
Considerations
Equation 1 Table 4
Table 5

Adjust for:
Adjust for:
Lane Widths
Grades
Design Vehicle

SSDAdj SVD GCAdj

Highest Value = Minimum Signal Spacing

Figure 1 - Process Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Signal Spacing

The remaining sections of this policy further explain the recommended process and specify the
adjustments needed to determine the recommended minimum spacing between traffic signals.

There are several distances that may be referenced between any two signalized intersections.
These distances are shown in Figure 2 and described in Table 1.

Transportation 10
Services Division
 Figure 2 - Intersection Spacing References

Table 1 - Reference Distances for Closely Spaced Traffic Signals

Distance Description Applications

DDir1 Distance between stop lines in DMin is the shorter of DDir1 and DDir2 should be
Direction 1 used when considering signal offsets and
DDir2 Distance between stop lines in driver confusion between signal indications
Direction 2
D℄ Distance from the centreline of Usually is similar to the average of DDir1 and
one intersection to the DDir2 and can, therefore, be used when a
centreline of the other reference to a single distance is required.
DLink Distance from the downstream To be used when considering stopping sight
curb of the crossing street at distance.
the first intersection to the
stop line of the second
intersection

3.1.1. Stopping Sight Distance

The ability of a driver to safely slow down and stop his/her vehicle prior to a traffic control device
is paramount to safety. In the case of two closely spaced signalized intersections, drivers must
be allowed to direct their full attention to the first intersection while approaching and passing
through it. As such, it is not until drivers exit the first intersection that they can be expected to
focus on the second.

Stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distance travelled by a vehicle once the driver has been
exposed to an impediment such as another vehicle, debris on the roadway or a traffic control
device. As shown in Equation (1), SSD is comprised of two intervals - the distance travelled during
the perception and reaction time of the driver, and the braking distance.

Transportation 11
Services Division
 (1)

The following table lists the following SSDs for automobiles and a range of posted speeds. The
table has been replicated from the TAC’s Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, which
originally provides SSD for different design speeds. An estimate of the posted speeds was then
added to the table. The estimates are based on the posted speed of the road approximated as
design speed minus 10 km/h for design speeds of 80 km/h or below and design speed minus 20
km/h for design speeds of 90 km/h or higher. These assumptions result in the posted speed of 70
km/h being shown twice. In this case, the row showing a design speed of 90 km/h is recommended
for a posted speed of 70 km/h as it results in a more conservative assumption.

Table 2 – Stopping Sight Distance on Level Roadways for Automobiles 6

Posted Brake Braking

Stopping sight distance
speed reaction distance
(km/h) distance (m) on level (m) Calculated (m) Design (m)
10 13.9 4.6 18.5 20
20 20.9 10.3 31.2 35
30 27.8 18.4 46.2 50
40 34.8 28.7 63.5 65
50 41.7 41.3 83.0 85
60 48.7 56.2 104.9 105
70 55.6 73.4 129.0 130
707 62.6 92.9 155.5 160
80 69.5 114.7 184.2 185
90 76.5 138.8 215.3 220
100 83.4 165.2 248.6 250
110 90.4 193.8 284.2 285
Note: Brake reaction distance predicated on a time of 2.5 s; deceleration rate of 3.4 m/s 2 used to determine
calculated sight distance.

The TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads suggests modification factors for grades.
Table 3 lists revised stopping sight distance values for approaches with grades. The table has
was replicated from the TAC’s Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, which originally
provides SSD for different design speeds. An estimate of the posted speeds was then added to

6 TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, June 2017, Table 2.5.2 (modified with posted speed)
7 This row is recommended over the 80 km/h design speed to provide more conservative results

Transportation 12
Services Division
the table. Similar to the previous table, the estimates are based on the posted speed of the road
approximated as design speed minus 10 km/h for design speeds of 80 km/h or below and design
speed minus 20 km/h for design speeds of 90 km/h or higher. These assumptions result in the
posted speed of 70 km/h being shown twice. In this case, the row showing a design speed of 90
km/h is recommended for a posted speed of 70 km/h as it results in a more conservative
assumption.
Table 3 - Stopping Sight Distance on Grades 8

Stopping sight distance (m)

Posted speed
(km/h) Downgrades (%) Upgrades (%)

3 6 9 3 6 9
10 20 20 20 19 18 18
20 32 35 35 31 30 29
30 50 50 53 45 44 43
40 66 70 74 61 59 58
50 87 92 97 80 77 75
60 110 116 124 100 97 93
70 136 144 154 123 118 114
70 164 174 187 148 141 136
80 194 207 223 174 167 160
90 227 243 262 203 194 186
100 263 281 304 234 223 214
110 302 323 350 267 254 243

The values shown as appropriate in either Table 2 or Table 3 will form the SSDAdj and compared
with the values derived in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 for Signal Visibility Distance and Geometric
Considerations respectively.

3.1.2. Signal Visibility Distance

The Ontario Traffic Manual provides guidance on the recommended visibility distance upstream
from the stop line to provide the approaching driver with a sufficient distance from which the
“signal heads can be seen and recognized.”9 The distances provided consider the driver’s cone
of vision (vertically and horizontally) as well as the conspicuity of the signal heads. OTM Book 12,
Figure 32 – Cones of Vision for Signal Visibility is presented in Figure 3 below:

8 TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, June 2017, Table 2.5.3 (modified with posted speed)
9 Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 12 – Traffic Signals, March 2012, Page 113

Transportation 13
Services Division
 Figure 3 - Cones of Vision for Signal Visibility10

Table 25 of the same publication provides the minimum distance from the stop bar for which signal
indications must be clearly visible for a range of 85th percentile speeds. The values shown in Table
4 were extracted from Table 25 and have been modified to show the minimum distances based
on estimated posted speeds. Specifically, the estimates are based on the posted speeds
approximated as 85th percentile speeds minus 10 km/h for 85th percentile speeds of 80 km/h or
below and for 85th percentile speeds minus 20 km/h for 85th percentile speeds of 90 km/h or
higher. Note these assumptions result in the posted speed of 70 km/h being shown twice. In this
case, the row showing the 85th Percentile speed of 90 km/h is recommended for a posted speed
of 70 km/h as it results in a more conservative assumption.

Table 4 – Signal Visibility Distance11

Minimum Distance from

Posted Speed
Stop Bar for Signal Indications to be
(km/h)
Clearly Visible [DLink] (m)
30 65
40 85
50 110
60 135
70 165
70 200
80 230

The distances shown in Table 4 constitute the parameter SVD shown in Figure 1 and shall be
compared against the values derived for Stopping Sight Distance and the Geometric
Requirements.

10 Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 12 – Traffic Signals, March 2012, Figure 32

11 Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 12 – Traffic Signals, March 2012, Distance values extracted from Table 25

Transportation 14
Services Division
3.1.3. Geometric Considerations

In cases where there are left turn lanes, there must be enough distance for the storage of vehicles
in each direction, plus a tangent section to separate the two back-to-back lanes. These sections
are denoted ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ in Figure 4.

The required minimum distance for geometric consideration shall be calculated using equation 2
below:

GCAdj = 2 x (DVL + 5) + (w x 10) (2)

Where:
GCAdj = Geometric Consideration Factor
DVL = Design Vehicle Length (Table 5)
w = Width of left-turning lanes

Note12, a taper ratio of 10:1 is shown in equation 2 (i.e. w x 10) for the length of section b as
shown in Figure 4, but a ratio of 13:1 (i.e. w x 13) should be considered for posted speeds greater
than 60 km/h.

Table 5 lists the lengths for common design vehicles.

Table 5 - Design Vehicle Lengths

Vehicle Type Reference Length (m)

Tractors – Semi-Trailers TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads,
20.7
(WB-19) Chapter 2, Figure 2.4.5
Tractors – Semi-Trailers TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads,
22.7
(WB-20) Chapter 2, Figure 2.4.6
TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads,
A –Train Double (ATD) 24.5
Chapter 2, Figure 2.4.7
TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads,
B –Train Double (BTD) 25.0
Chapter 2, Figure 2.4.8
Streetcar – CLRV Glossary Section 15.3
Streetcar – ALRV Glossary Section 23.2
Streetcar – Flexity Outlook Glossary Section 30.2
Double Streetcars N/A 65

12 TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, June 2017, Table 9.17.2 – Bay Tapers Straight Line

Transportation 15
Services Division
 Figure 4 - Geometric Considerations for Closely Spaced Signals

If there is one or no left turn lanes between the two closely spaced intersections, then the required
minimum distance for geometric consideration shall be calculated using equation 3 below:

GCAdj = DVL + 10 (3)

Where:
GCAdj = Geometric Consideration Factor
DVL = Design Vehicle Length (Table 5)

Transportation 16
Services Division
3.2. Recommended Signal Spacing Policy

The minimum spacing between two closely spaced signals (DLink as shown in Figure 2) shall be
the greater of:
1. The Stopping Sight Distance (SSDAdj)
2. The Signal Visibility Distance (SVD)
3. Geometric Considerations (GCAdj)

The placement of adjacent signalized intersections at distances closer than the minimum spacing
identified through this recommended process will result in the violation of fundamental traffic
engineering principles and safety and efficiency issues are highly likely. In these circumstances,
mitigating measures as listed in Section 4 must be used.

However, these mitigating measures may also be used to improve operational and safety
measures where the distance between two intersections is greater than the minimum thresholds
identified above.

4. MITIGATING MEASURES FOR CLOSELY SPACED TRAFFIC

SIGNALS
Measures that may be taken to mitigate the negative consequences of closely spaced signals
take several different forms, as listed in Table 6.

Although one or a combination of the following measures must be considered when the minimum
signal spacing as documented in Section 03 is violated, these mitigating measures may also be
used to improve operational and safety measures where the distance between two intersections
is greater than the minimum thresholds identified above but at the discretion of the City and on a
case by case basis.

Table 6 - Mitigating Measures for Closely Spaced Traffic Signals

Mitigating Measure Description Criteria for Use

Signal Coordination These techniques address queuing issues To limit or control queues
Techniques between closely spaced signals. Descriptions of To improve traffic flow
the proposed techniques are provided in To reduce conflicting signal
Table 7. indications
Visibly Limited These devices limit the distance at which To eliminate conflicting
Signal Indications approaching drivers can see the signal indication. signal indications
They may be louvred indications, or optically
programmable signal indications.

Transportation 17
Services Division
 Mitigating Measure Description Criteria for Use
Dedicated The traffic signal controllers are linked (e.g. a To eliminate unwanted
Interconnection hardwire or dedicated wireless link) such that changes in offsets between
they remain synchronized. signals due to clock drift.
A dedicated interconnection between two To be used where the
modern controllers from the same manufacturer distance between the two
with capability for built-in logic is a Peer-to-Peer intersections is less than
(P2P) communication. When the logic processor the SSD calculated as per
is enabled and communication is on, the master Table 2 and Table 3.
controller can apply 'call', 'omit', 'hold' and 'force-
off' to control phases in the slave controller.
Common Signal For very closely spaced intersections, the traffic To be used where signal
Controller signal equipment (indications, detectors, auxiliary indications may conflict
devices) at both locations can be operated while in flash or during
through a single traffic signal controller. power failures (i.e. a single
MMU will be of benefit or
if individual controllers are
in separate power grids)

Uninterruptable When power is interrupted at traffic signals, they To be used whenever

Power Supply (UPS) become all-way stop-controlled. Two closely common signal controllers
spaced all-way stop intersections have a high are used.
potential to generate long delays and gridlock. Can also be considered if
This situation may be avoided for shorter dedicated interconnect is
duration power interruptions with the use of a used.
UPS.
300 mm Signal OTM Book 12 – Traffic Signals recommends the To be used on a case by
Indications use of 300 mm for at least red indications where case basis based on
drivers may confuse the signal indications, or findings from field
there is conflicting or competing background investigations.
distractions.
Transit Signal TSP detects the arrival of a transit vehicle and To be used where transit
Priority (TSP) modifies the phase times (in the form of transit vehicles are delayed or
green extension, non-transit phase truncation service becomes
and/or transit only phase) within the cycle to unreliable.
better service the transit vehicle. TSP could be
added to the new signal provided that TSP
already exists at the adjacent closely spaced
signal.

The signal coordination techniques may be further defined as listed in Table 7.

Transportation 18
Services Division
 Table 7 - Signal Coordination Techniques for Closely Spaced Traffic Signals

Risk Signal Coordination Techniques

Queuing through upstream One or more of:
signal • Split optimization for downstream intersection/green time
• Synchronize ambers/reds of closely spaced signals
• Optimize green band for neighbouring signals
• Upstream signal gating (i.e. shorter split for upstream signal)

Queue spillback in left-turn One or more of:

lanes • Add/Extend left-turn phase
• Opportunities to extend left turn lane, especially if it is in paint
• Simultaneous through green indications
• Lead-lag phasing
• Critical intersection control

Mode of Control (MOC) Closely spaced traffic signals may also need to use harmonized MOCs.
Details of this requirement are provided in the City’s Standard
Operating Practice (SOP).

The City may adopt one or more of these mitigating measures to apply to a given set of problems
or challenges at a specific location. As each location is unique, an engineering assessment to
identify the presence of the challenges and safety issues as described in Section 2.1 is
recommended. It is strongly recommended that the approval of new closely spaced signals only
be issued in conjunction with the applicable mitigating measures.

Transportation 19
Services Division