News   Dec 12, 2025
Year in Review: Amexon's Residences at Central Park in 2025
 688     0 
News   Dec 12, 2025
Seven-Tower TOC Proposed Beside Clarkson GO in Mississauga
 1.6K     6 
News   Dec 12, 2025
VAST Industrial Corp. Announces Acquisition of The Whalen Company
 764     0 

Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

ehlow said:
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/
Click to expand...

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.
 
WislaHD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
innsertnamehere said:
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.
Click to expand...

  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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Lanes.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Lanes.jpg
    Lanes.jpg
    99.4 KB · Views: 464
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.
 
BurlOak said:
I tried to compile how the intersection geometry will change. It looks like the problem is indeed from Avenue Road to Mount Pleasant.
Click to expand...

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.
 
innsertnamehere said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
innsertnamehere said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on once again. Well said.
 
EnviroTO said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already proved the statement that there would be reduction of lanes from 5 to 2. Then the reply was that 2 lanes is correct, but traffic capacity will still be the same.

Let someone else prove that traffic volumes will fall by enough with the opening of the LRT that traffic capacity can be reduced by over 50%. While your at it, you can find me the proof that the traffic volumes drop by 50% between Avenue Road and Mount Pleasant.
 
BurlOak said:
I already proved the statement that there would be reduction of lanes from 5 to 2. Then the reply was that 2 lanes is correct, but traffic capacity will still be the same.

Let someone else prove that traffic volumes will fall by enough with the opening of the LRT that traffic capacity can be reduced by over 50%. While your at it, you can find me the proof that the traffic volumes drop by 50% between Avenue Road and Mount Pleasant.
Click to expand...

Of course car traffic will not decrease, it probably will increase because of all the new condo developments and because the LRT is overcrowded because the politicians refuse to build a regular subway like any normal city, so people will drive to avoid the overcrowded LRT. Of course the traffic will be bad no matter what happens (otherwise no one would use the LRT) but it is better to have 4 lanes with bad traffic than 2 lanes with worse traffic. Time and time again when we narrow roads to put "bike lanes" in (e.g. Dupont) traffic gets worse, and hardly anyone bikes in Toronto anyway because it is dangerous.
 
BurlOak said:
Let someone else prove that traffic volumes will fall by enough with the opening of the LRT that traffic capacity can be reduced by over 50%.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. How much capacity to carry cars does a lane with a UPS truck stopped in it have? Almost none. How much capacity to carry cars does a lane which allows right turns but only 1 or 2 cars can't get in a light sequence due to the pedestrian traffic? Almost none. How much capacity to carry cars does a lane which is dedicated to buses have? Assuming cars are following the rules, almost none. Traffic volumes don't need to fall. You remove one lane dedicated to buses and remove the side lanes which have very little ability to move traffic today, remove the buses from the traffic mix, and in the end not much has changed with the removal of lanes. The Eglinton Connects study found that the traffic between Avenue and Chaplin and between Duplex and Redpath is the part of Eglinton with the lowest vehicular traffic. Those sections carry about half that of Allen to Bathurst or Eglinton east of Laird. People think that because a place is built up that automatically the traffic would be higher at Yonge and Eglinton but that just doesn't hold true with the facts.
 
andrewpmk said:
Of course car traffic will not decrease, it probably will increase because of all the new condo developments and because the LRT is overcrowded because the politicians refuse to build a regular subway like any normal city, so people will drive to avoid the overcrowded LRT. Of course the traffic will be bad no matter what happens (otherwise no one would use the LRT) but it is better to have 4 lanes with bad traffic than 2 lanes with worse traffic. Time and time again when we narrow roads to put "bike lanes" in (e.g. Dupont) traffic gets worse, and hardly anyone bikes in Toronto anyway because it is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't know much about the Eglinton line. I'd suggest reading up on it a bit before saying any more.

You should read up on it. It's frigging genius! It IS in a subway anywhere where we expect a higher ridership! So put away the tin foil hats, overcrowded LRT won't be a concern in our lifetimes.

We should build a statue to honour David Miller. Best mayor ever!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top