News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 2.6K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 1.7K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 10K     10 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

Actually as I ponder this a bit more, it might be better to reverse the bridge and the tunnel. Since the grade of the land is going up from the bridge over the river to the CPR overpass, it might be more sensible to have a tunnel for EB Eglinton to NB Leslie and a bridge going from SB Leslie to EB Eglinton. But then again this might interfere with the pedestrian bridge so maybe the original plan is better.

Don't mind me, thinking out loud.
 
Last edited:
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Why would you want to slow down traffic on Eglinton?
Click to expand...

To make it safer for pedestrians by slowing down the two tons of deadly moving masses. In fact, once the entire LRT is put in, they should lower the speed limits to 50 km/h (40 km/h in school zones) wherever the LRT stops are. Why should they remain want-to-be-expressways, especially if we're going to increase the population density around them?

It won't happen, because "streets are for cars".
 
W. K. Lis said:
To make it safer for pedestrians by slowing down the two tons of deadly moving masses. In fact, once the entire LRT is put in, they should lower the speed limits to 50 km/h (40 km/h in school zones) wherever the LRT stops are. Why should they remain want-to-be-expressways, especially if we're going to increase the population density around them?

It won't happen, because "streets are for cars".
Click to expand...

People like you are why Rob Ford exists and are popular. Hell, your post makes ME appreciate Rob Ford.
 
explain the reasoning for maintaining stupidly high speed limits.. I'm amazed that main arterial can even have speed limits above 50km/h consdering how many entrances, exits, and stoplights there are. lowering design speeds on roads with lots of stop lights usually has minimum impact on over-all travel times anyways as people simply spend more time travelling between lights and less time idling at them.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Lowering the speed limits to 50 km/h will allow for narrower traffic lanes, AND allow for bicycle lanes from the available space as well.
Click to expand...

Please, don't worry RoFo. Lower speed limits, bike lanes and fancy streetcars? That's enough to kill the man.

iva8tiT.jpg
 
You are going to get lots of opposition from the locals in the area if you want to lower speed limits on that part of Eglinton.

I myself even cringed at the thought, and I'm usually all for pedestrian friendly roads.
 
If the neighbourhoods around the LRT line become more urban with mixed-use midrise development, lowering speed limits and adding intersections for pedestrians to cross the street will be logical.
 
This isn't an urban, mixed-use area. It is a stretch of road between Brentcliffe and Don Mills that goes over the Don River Valley and besides access to the park, offers no attractions to pedestrians nor has any potential for development. This is the area of Eglinton where you would want to take advantage of the road and lack of streetlights and speed up on your way towards Midtown or Scarborough/DVP.

The road here is wide and can easily be expanded further if needed. I think it can easily accommodate car lanes, LRT right-of-way and bike lanes adequately without sacrificing the speed limit. Pedestrians don't really walk there and if the Leslie station is built, would have even less reason to.
 
If there's no urbanization potential, then the speed limit shouldn't be lowered. However, I think the bike lanes should be separated from the roadway on higher speed suburban stretches of Eglinton, either by a curb or by a buffer strip.
 
junctionist said:
If there's no urbanization potential, then the speed limit shouldn't be lowered. However, I think the bike lanes should be separated from the roadway on higher speed suburban stretches of Eglinton, either by a curb or by a buffer strip.
Click to expand...

I agree. If the speed limits are to be 50 km/h, the bicycle lanes can be separated by a low round curb. 60 km/h would need collapsible bollards in addition to a curb.

flexiblebollardsdefinition02.jpg
flexiblebollardsdefinition01.jpg
 
W. K. Lis said:
Another consideration is the width of the lanes and the need to have someplace to plow the snow windrows. How wide are the traffic lanes currently? What width do the plans give the traffic lanes to be? Could they be narrowed even more, almost to the traffic lanes in old Toronto and not use suburban Toronto traffic lane widths? Wide traffic lanes only encourage faster speeds, better to go narrow to slow down the traffic.
Click to expand...

The abutment to abutment is 86' (26.2m).

It looks like the lanes are about 3.5m now - the cross section being 1.8m s/w, 3@3.5m lanes, 1.6m raised median, 3@3.5m lanes, 1.8m s/w.

In the LRT configuration, it will be 3.0m shared bike/ped, 2@3.25m lanes, 2@3.6m LRT lanes, 2@3.25m lanes, 3.0m shared bike/ped.

If the LRT tracks are switched to the south side, I would make the configuration: 3.1m s/w/bike lane, 3@3.25m lanes, 0.5m raised median, 3@3.25m lanes, 3.1m s/w/bike.

CPR-Egl.jpg
 

Attachments

  • CPR-Egl.jpg
    CPR-Egl.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 271
Last edited:
So, does anyone want to comment on the idea I proposed below?


Ozman said:
There is one simple solution to solve the problems of Leslie and Eglinton and I believe it would make the LRT riders AND drivers happy. Unfortunately, while simple to imagine, it would probably be prohibitively expensive to build. However, I'll throw it out to see what you guys think.

Keep the LRT in the median with the station just east of Leslie St, as per the current plan.

Keep two westbound lanes on Eglinton (north of LRT tracks).

Keep two eastbound Eglinton lanes (south of LRT tracks). Southernmost EB lane ends (merges into other EB lane) between intersection and CPR overpass.

Have (only) ONE left turn lane from EB Eglinton to NB Leslie. But have it start elevating just east of the West Don River bridge so that by Leslie St. it can turn north on a bridge over to Leslie north and then ramp down to grade to become the westernmost NB lane of Leslie.

Have one of the two SB Leslie lanes go to WB Eglinton as is now.

Have the other SB lane ramp down to a tunnel going under the WB Eglinton lanes and LRT tracks and curving south-east to emerge as the northernmost of the EB Eglinton lanes right near where the two (straight-through) EB lanes merge into one.

Have the WB Eglinton right-turn lane become the second NB Leslie lane (the one on the easternmost side of Leslie).

Build a pedestrian bridge with ramps from the south-side of Eglinton over to the NE comer of Leslie and Eglinton, with a ramp in the middle down to a centre LRT platform. It would also have elevators from the platform to the bridge and one at each end for full accessibility.

Here's the kicker:

Eliminate ALL signals!!!

LRT would continue totally grade separated from Brentcliffe portal through Leslie stop and Don Mills station.

All traffic on Leslie and Eglinton would be non-stop with NO SIGNALS. This would more than compensate for the pinched lanes (merging) on EB Eglinton and the fact that the left-turn lanes (both EB to NB and SB to EB) would be reduced from two to one. Traffic wouldn't back up because it would never have to stop. Pedestrians could cross Eglinton using the ramps/elevators and bridge across Eglinton and the yield to pedestrian signs could remain across the right turn lanes from WB to NB and SB to WB.

All traffic would flow continuously through the intersection: LRT, cars and pedestrians.


Something to chew on...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top