Eglinton/Allen Road Westbound North Turning Lanes

[nfitz]

I should have included a "by a noticeable amount" in there. I don't see ridership jumping 10% (which would still fit) let alone 50% to justify running more trains.

I thought the current demand already justified running more trains, which is why it was already supposed to start. I'd think even a small increase would be quite significant.

As we're still looking at a year or two before this would happen, I'd be surprised if they haven't already added the trains by then, given that they now have the trains available.

 

[rbt]

I thought the current demand already justified running more trains, which is why it was already supposed to start. I'd think even a small increase would be quite significant.

Maybe, but current demand has nothing to do with the proposed temporary Allan Road closure.

I have a problem with the recurring assertion that short-segments of subway will divert freeway use (Sheppard Subway for 401 and Spadina subway acting as an alternative for Allan Road).

 

[nfitz]

Maybe, but current demand has nothing to do with the proposed temporary Allan Road closure.

The current demand hasn't anything to do with a temporary Allan Road closure, but future demand may.

I have a problem with the recurring assertion that short-segments of subway will divert freeway use (Sheppard Subway for 401 and Spadina subway acting as an alternative for Allan Road).

I agree. However, there's a difference between building it and they will come, and completely closing an expressway from A to B, and not expecting anyone who travels from A to B to look at other ways of getting there.

I really don't see the point of this ... they've long-since announced that the short-turn location would be moved further north.

 

[sixrings]

If they tolled the Allen now, it would reduce demand somewhat so that when Eglinton/Allen is closed many will have already dispersed to alternative routes. Perhaps one possibility would be to build a transit SB off/NB on at Glencairn and/or Viewmount so Allen south of Lawrence could be used as a rapid bus route to Glencairn during the closure (where the current St Clair West partial service turnback is supposed to be shifted to the pocket track just north of the station at Glengrove - that was *supposed* to happen in 2011...)

I just have a hard time imagining the glencarin ppl being ok with cars coming off the highway and passing their million dollar homes. Lawrence seems like a more natural end to the Allen with proper ramps of course. However if glencarin could be or I'd be okay with that as well. Either we need to make the ramps work better or we should be considering closing the thing down. A T intersection is no way to end a highway.

 

[reaperexpress]

I was wondering now that it is known that the allen expressway northbound will have to be shut down between eglinton and lawrence for the eglinton lrt construction for at least a year,,, how long would it take to make a proper on ramp at lawrence to the allen north bound. if they used the space where the allen off ramp is on the south side of lawrence to make a proper doughnut for east bound drivers it would seem to fix a lot of traffic headaches... after we see how traffic changes we could consider closing the allen north bound at eglinton and again ppl could use lawrence instead.

I've done a sketch of what I think you're describing. Is this correct?

And I've also sketched what the City of Toronto plans to do:

In both images, the lines indicate the movements permitted during the signal phase when Lawrence has a red light. Red is cars or buses and blue is pedestrians.

With the loops in your version, cars would theoretically be able to turn onto Lawrence for a big portion of the signal cycle, but in practice i don't expect there to be enough gaps in pedestrian and car traffic that many cars could get through.

Between these two options, I prefer the City's version. It would also bring a significant capacity increase relative to the current layout because eliminating the south ramps to/from the Allen allows the number of signal phases to be cut down from 3 to 2.

Compared to the SixRings design, fewer traffic movements are permitted when pedestrians can cross, making it much safer for everyone.

As for the Eglinton/Allen intersection, I disagree about the way in which traffic congestion should be eased. I think that the current configuration is an excellent compromise between pedestrian and motorist convenience and safety. Building a more highway-like intersection would make walking more dangerous and unpleasant, which is unacceptable at a subway station.
Besides, there is no point in increasing the car capacity of the intersection, since Eglinton itself is unable of handling any more cars anyway.
As a result, the only way to reduce the traffic jams is to reduce the number of cars.

I suspect that traffic is so bad because people are willing to put up it thanks to the high speed along the Allen.

I think that we should narrow the Allen to 1 lane per direction south of Lawrence (as shown on both sketches). This would result in a southbound traffic jam almost twice as long, but moving almost twice as fast. The capacity of the road is not affected, since the Eglinton/Allen intersection would be unchanged.
I expect that this would make driving along the Allen feel much slower because people would be sitting in a traffic jam for twice as long (even though trip times would be unchanged).

 

[sixrings]

I've done a sketch of what I think you're describing. Is this correct?

And I've also sketched what the City of Toronto plans to do:

In both images, the lines indicate the movements permitted during the signal phase when Lawrence has a red light. Red is cars or buses and blue is pedestrians.

With the loops in your version, cars would theoretically be able to turn onto Lawrence for a big portion of the signal cycle, but in practice i don't expect there to be enough gaps in pedestrian and car traffic that many cars could get through.

Between these two options, I prefer the City's version. It would also bring a significant capacity increase relative to the current layout because eliminating the south ramps to/from the Allen allows the number of signal phases to be cut down from 3 to 2.

Compared to the SixRings design, fewer traffic movements are permitted when pedestrians can cross, making it much safer for everyone.

As for the Eglinton/Allen intersection, I disagree about the way in which traffic congestion should be eased. I think that the current configuration is an excellent compromise between pedestrian and motorist convenience and safety. Building a more highway-like intersection would make walking more dangerous and unpleasant, which is unacceptable at a subway station.
Besides, there is no point in increasing the car capacity of the intersection, since Eglinton itself is unable of handling any more cars anyway.
As a result, the only way to reduce the traffic jams is to reduce the number of cars.

I suspect that traffic is so bad there is that people are willing to put up it thanks to the high speed along the Allen.

I think that we should narrow the Allen to 1 lane per direction south of Lawrence (as shown on both sketches). This would result in a southbound traffic jam almost twice as long, but moving almost twice as fast. The capacity of the road is not affected, since the Eglinton/Allen intersection would be unchanged.
I expect that this would make driving along the Allen feel much slower because people would be sitting in a traffic jam for twice as long (even though trip times would be unchanged).

Yea that looks like my proposed plan in the first picture. What is the city's plan you are referring to? And in the "as for the eglinton/allen" paragraph who is advocating for a more highway like entrance at allen and eglinton. I have always been a advocate to get cars off before eglinton since it's a major retail street and the cars are destroying a potentially vibrant transit community. A heavy toll charge at eglinton could work as well. I always thought tho that if the Allen was taken away from Lawrence to eglinton maybe some condos could be built and stations like glencarin would be used better. Btw I always thought my Lawrence reconfiguration would work the best if it was combined with a Lawrence lrt which would eliminate the bus terminal. That being said I'm frustrated oakwood station is being considered to be dropped because if it was built there really would be no reason for the eglinton west bus station.

 

[reaperexpress]

What is the city's plan you are referring to?

IIRC it was a part of the Lawrence Heights Revitalization. I'll see if I can find a source.

And in the "as for the eglinton/allen" paragraph who is advocating for a more highway like entrance at allen and eglinton. I have always been a advocate to get cars off before eglinton since it's a major retail street and the cars are destroying a potentially vibrant transit community. A heavy toll charge at eglinton could work as well. I always thought tho that if the Allen was taken away from Lawrence to eglinton maybe some condos could be built and stations like glencarin would be used better.

Sorry, I thought that the following statement was advocating more highway-style ramps:

Either we need to make the ramps work better or we should be considering closing the thing down. A T intersection is no way to end a highway.

And yes, tolls are another effective way of decreasing demand.

Btw I always thought my Lawrence reconfiguration would work the best if it was combined with a Lawrence lrt which would eliminate the bus terminal. That being said I'm frustrated oakwood station is being considered to be dropped because if it was built there really would be no reason for the eglinton west bus station.

I don't think a Lawrence LRT is ever going to happen, there are about a million transit projects which are higher priority. I agree that they should aim to close the bus terminal at Eglinton West, since the buses pulling in and out are a nuisance for pedestrians.

 

[sixrings]

My T section comment was suggesting if we could make a proper end at Lawrence then that's what we should do and eliminate the damn the section at eglinton. Sorry to cause confusion. There's no way I was advocating more cars on eglinton. Eglinton between dufferin and bathurst could all look like the section from chaplain to avenue aka the eglinton way but because everyone's on these sections to get on the Allen the pedestrian environment is destroyed and as a result the stores are as well. I understand adding cars to Lawrence would effect that street as well but it wouldn't hurt any retail since there is very little that faces Lawrence.

 

[reaperexpress]

That makes a lot of sense. The only part I disagree with is that "a T intersection is no way to end a highway". I think that if executed properly, it can be just fine. The issue with the one at Eglinton is that too many people are trying to use it.

Anyhow, I've done a bit of research and it turns out that the intersection is part of the "Allen Road Individual Environmental Assessment". Although the design of Lawrence & Allen is not finalized, the preliminary documents consistently point towards the south ramps being removed. For example:

The City has developed short-term improvements for the intersection of Allen Road at Lawrence Avenue West to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety around the Lawrence West subway station.

The Allen Road ramps on the south side of Lawrence Avenue West are not well-used and have very low traffic volumes. The ramps should be further assessed to determine if they could be removed, which could free up space at this key intersection for other uses, help simplify the intersection conguration, and improve conditions for pedestrians.

The IEA doesn't seem to have progressed much at this point, but here's a quick overview from a year ago.

 

[sixrings]

I read about the removal of the Lawrence ramps as well. I don't see how that's going to help eglinton tho. There are very few people getting on the Allen to go south from Lawrence. Similarly very few ppl use the Allen at eglinton to get to Lawrence. If it's that close you miscellaneous use side streets or Marlee. Can you explain to me how removing these ramps will have any effect on eglinton.

 

[reaperexpress]

The effect of removing the south ramps at Lawrence is that it increases the capacity of the Lawrence-Allen intersection. Let me explain.

At the moment, there must be 3 traffic signal phases, because there are 3 movements which must be phase-separated: left turns onto Lawrence, left turns off of Lawrence and straight on Lawrence.

Let's say that the cycle is 50 seconds for Lawrence and 25 seconds each for the turning phases. If we eliminate one of the turning phases, we've freed up 25 seconds in the cycle which can be put toward either the remaining turning phase or the Lawrence phase.

That could theoretically help Eglinton-Allen by diverting some traffic, though the extra capacity could easily be used up by latent travel demand. To avoid inducing more traffic, Allen south of Lawrence would need to be narrowed, tolled, slowed or closed.

 

[sixrings]

How does removing the South bound ramps remove a turning phase.

 

[ShonTron]

I don't think a Lawrence LRT is ever going to happen, there are about a million transit projects which are higher priority. I agree that they should aim to close the bus terminal at Eglinton West, since the buses pulling in and out are a nuisance for pedestrians.

With the loss of all those 32 buses, there will be less of a need for the bus terminal, and yeah, it's not a bad idea.

But that could work only if the Oakwood stop is not cut for budget reasons (I personally think Oakwood is essential). Otherwise the 63 and 109 needs somewhere to connect to the LRT and subway - if there is an Oakwood stop, an on-street loop should work for the 63, or even a through-running with the 109.

 

[car4041]

But that could work only if the Oakwood stop is not cut for budget reasons (I personally think Oakwood is essential). Otherwise the 63 and 109 needs somewhere to connect to the LRT and subway - if there is an Oakwood stop, an on-street loop should work for the 63, or even a through-running with the 109.

I also think an Oakwood station should be built, but I would hope that the Oakwood bus would continue to terminate at Eglinton West station. Terminating a route one stop short of a major interchange station with ample terminal facilities doesn't seem like great network design. Similarly, I believe the Avenue North and Mt Pleasant North buses are expected to continue terminating at Eglinton station even though there will be Avenue and Mt Pleasant stations. I'm not a transfer-phobe, but making people transfer to ride a single stop is a little perverse.

In any case, the pedestrian situation at Eglinton West will be improved by the long underground public walkway leading from one side of the Allen to the other (and also by the south-side entrance, if it's built).

 

[reaperexpress]

How does removing the South bound ramps remove a turning phase.

Maybe this diagram will clarify things. Not only does removing ramps simplify the intersection, it also makes it safer by reducing the number of conflict points (places where lines cross).
Blue: Pedestrians
Black: General Traffic
Red: Bus-Only