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

[innsertnamehere]

in all traffic engineering circles turning lanes are counted as an additional through lane, as without them another lane at intersections is generally devoted to left turns. To advertise it as 2 lanes is misinformation, as many would be led to believe that the entire street would be held up by someone turning left.

But again, and as always, This project has unanimous support from local groups, businesses, community organizations, politicians, and planners. what is wrong? Everyone who this lane reduction would actually effect seems to be perfectly fine with it.

 

[typezed]

The problem is that Ford is correct.

Go to Google and check how many through lanes there are at Yonge. 3 Eastbound + 2 Westbournd = 5 total lanes.
Next look at the new plan - link provided above. There is 1 lane EB and 1 lane WB = 2 total lanes.
Thus Eglinton is going from 5 lanes to 2. Although he has lied in the past, this statement appears to be 100% true.

Existing now: 5 lanes of which the outside 2 are occupied often by parked cars and bus traffic is heavy.
Future: 2 through lanes plus a turning lane = 3 lanes.
100% untrue to say it goes from 5 to 2.

And yes, also important that this plan is approved by the neighbourhood.

 

[EnviroTO]

Go to Google and check how many through lanes there are at Yonge. 3 Eastbound + 2 Westbournd = 5 total lanes.
Next look at the new plan - link provided above. There is 1 lane EB and 1 lane WB = 2 total lanes.
Thus Eglinton is going from 5 lanes to 2. Although he has lied in the past, this statement appears to be 100% true.

Currently immediately west of Yonge the configuration is:
1 eastbound lane where there are always cars trying to turn at the busiest pedestrian crossing in the city which means only a few cars per light get through.
1 eastbound lane which actually works.
1 westbound lane dedicated to transit only.
1 westbound lane which actually works.
1 westbound lane which has service vehicles in it or standing vehicles.

Ford doesn't get lost in the details. People who live in the neighbourhood and people conducting traffic studies get it. One of the materials presented was traffic counts showing vehicle movements through the various intersections.

 

[ehlow]

A few things I just noticed from the Eglinton Connects mega map:

A few new mixed-use areas between Mt Pleasant & Bayview: I'm pretty happy about this! Some retail would enliven this stretch of Eglinton.

In the Eglinton LRT EA from 2010 they show one left turn lane from Eglinton EB to Leslie NB. However, in the Eglinton Connects map they show two left turn lanes like we currently have. This aligns with what they say on the website: http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project/stations-and-stops/leslie-stop.

We are maintaining two northbound left turn lanes from Eglinton onto Leslie.

 

[WislaHD]

In addition to what the others have said,

After the Crosstown and Connects is completed, traffic on Eglinton even with the reduced roadspace will still move quicker and be less congested than it is currently today. This is the bottom line of the issue.

 

[WislaHD]

Give me a break. I'm at Yonge & Eglinton every day, throughout most of the day. You're trying to say there aren't many pedestrians at Yonge-Eg? It's usually one of the top 3 (sometimes #1) in pedestrian traffic.

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2011/06/0...oronto-with-the-top-25-walking-intersections/

This got me thinking. Will pedestrian scramble intersection come to Yonge and Eglinton? It certainly seems as if Y-E warrants one.

Maybe it is a part of Eglinton Connects, though I haven't seen anything about it.

 

[ehlow]

This got me thinking. Will pedestrian scramble intersection come to Yonge and Eglinton? It certainly seems as if Y-E warrants one.

Maybe it is a part of Eglinton Connects, though I haven't seen anything about it.

Yeah, I'd like to see that too, but not until the LRT is finished, since it would disrupt all the buses that go into the station through the intersection (which is already getting bad due to the LRT construction).

 

[BurlOak]

in all traffic engineering circles turning lanes are counted as an additional through lane, as without them another lane at intersections is generally devoted to left turns. To advertise it as 2 lanes is misinformation, as many would be led to believe that the entire street would be held up by someone turning left.

But again, and as always, This project has unanimous support from local groups, businesses, community organizations, politicians, and planners. what is wrong? Everyone who this lane reduction would actually effect seems to be perfectly fine with it.

1. A through lane is one that does not need to turn. A left/right turn lane is a lane that requires you to turn. Think about it. Does any road with one lane in each direction count as having 0 through lanes, because left/right turns are allowed from the single lane in each direction.
3. If local groups are what matters, then we should quickly build subway extensions at Sheppard East, Sheppard West, B-D to Sheppard, B-D to Sherway - because the locals want it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Does the Mayor and Councillors still get to park free at the Green P parking lots & garages. They were forced to turn in their free TTC passes. Just wondering. There are Green P lots along Eglinton.

 

[innsertnamehere]

what other interests are there to account for? finances? Those clear as well, unlike subways to every corner of the city. It clears traffic management studies, it has the approval of all persons with interests in the project, what is not to like? This project works in literally every way, but yet people who live 10km away or more still feel the need to cry outrage over a project that everyone involved likes, makes financial sense, and makes sense in terms of traffic management, simply because for 1.5km a singular "lane" is removed. its absurdity, and a major reason why so many were opposed to amalgamation. Interests from outside of the local area interfering with local issues. because of this sudden hoopla, this project is questionably now in jeopardy from suburban councillors whose wards are nowhere close to Eglinton and who feel the need to deny a community what it wants not for cost reasons, but because they want to have 4 "lanes" when driving through, even though it would make their trip no faster.

 

[BurlOak]

I tried to compile how the intersection geometry will change. It looks like the problem is indeed from Avenue Road to Mount Pleasant. DVP to Kennedy Road is also a problem. In the +/- Yonge area, there is enough room to fix this - just change the mid-block parking (bulb out) to a full through lane and allow parking in off-peak (and "peak" can be adjusted as traffic changes). The DVP to Kennedy portion can easily be fixed by elevating the line and having nominal widening for bike lanes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

There was an option for 4 lanes through the Yonge area, but the local residents and businesses chose the 3 lane one. You know, the people who will actually be driving on that road, not some armchair critic.

and as always, the lane dropped on the surface portion is an existing bus lane.

 

[EnviroTO]

I tried to compile how the intersection geometry will change. It looks like the problem is indeed from Avenue Road to Mount Pleasant.

How is it a problem unless you have vehicle counts to go with the data and statistics on how effectively those lanes move? Lakeshore at Ontario Place has 3 EB + 3 WB + turn lanes. Lakeshore at Burloak has 1EB + 1WB + turn lanes. Looks like the bigger problem is at Lakeshore and Burloak since that is 2 lanes less in both directions (total 4) on the same street. Oh wait, lanes don't matter without traffic data.

 

[ehlow]

what other interests are there to account for? finances? Those clear as well, unlike subways to every corner of the city. It clears traffic management studies, it has the approval of all persons with interests in the project, what is not to like? This project works in literally every way, but yet people who live 10km away or more still feel the need to cry outrage over a project that everyone involved likes, makes financial sense, and makes sense in terms of traffic management, simply because for 1.5km a singular "lane" is removed. its absurdity, and a major reason why so many were opposed to amalgamation. Interests from outside of the local area interfering with local issues. because of this sudden hoopla, this project is questionably now in jeopardy from suburban councillors whose wards are nowhere close to Eglinton and who feel the need to deny a community what it wants not for cost reasons, but because they want to have 4 "lanes" when driving through, even though it would make their trip no faster.

Yup. Anyways there was tons of public input throughout the last few years. I was at one of the meetings, but you could also fill out surveys online.

 

[WislaHD]

what other interests are there to account for? finances? Those clear as well, unlike subways to every corner of the city. It clears traffic management studies, it has the approval of all persons with interests in the project, what is not to like? This project works in literally every way, but yet people who live 10km away or more still feel the need to cry outrage over a project that everyone involved likes, makes financial sense, and makes sense in terms of traffic management, simply because for 1.5km a singular "lane" is removed. its absurdity, and a major reason why so many were opposed to amalgamation. Interests from outside of the local area interfering with local issues. because of this sudden hoopla, this project is questionably now in jeopardy from suburban councillors whose wards are nowhere close to Eglinton and who feel the need to deny a community what it wants not for cost reasons, but because they want to have 4 "lanes" when driving through, even though it would make their trip no faster.

Spot on once again. Well said.