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

[David Brake]

The latest thinking is that Eglinton West is no longer wanted as a heavy rail link but will probably be some form of LRT or even BRT link ( see my story http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/02/hostility-crosstown-west-lrt-voiced-etobicoke-consultation)

 

[BurlOak]

See and actually read the reports at this link.

No where will Eglinton be reduced to one lane in each direction. Unless parked cars in the non-rush hours count, but then the light rail vehicles would be underground along those points.

I am not sure which portion is being talked about here.

From about Avenue Road to Mount Pleasant (centred at Yonge), Eglinton will be down to 1 lane in each direction, with periodic turning lanes.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=44ae86664ea71410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro...ate/3 Comprehensive Map Bathurst to Yonge.pdf

In the West, your link did not have anything going under the 427, but currently there are 4 lanes between 2 bridge piers. It may be possible to squeeze 2 car lanes plus an LRT lane between piers, and moving the sidewalk to the end spans, but it is tight. Has there been any discussion of this before?

 

[Steve X]

This is repeating the broken transit promises by the provincial Liberals under Wynne. All projects listed under The Big Move were to be paid 100% by the province, mostly through implementing the Investment Strategy. Wynne refused to implement said strategy, despite repeated statements that it was time to have an adult conversation about paying for transit projects. Now, Crosstown West is a victim of it all, and instead of an adult conversation and re-prioritizing resources in the budget, there's an expectation for the feds and/or the city to chip in.

Metrolinx/Ontario never wanted nor planned to pay for a spur on Eglinton. ST gain traction cause Harper chipped in or Metrolinx would tell Tory a big fat NO to ST. If Toronto is really going to build these projects like Jane LRT, waterfront LRT, they really need to start finding new revenue for these project. Don't expect Wynne or Trudeau to pay for them fully. Otherwise nothing will ever get built beyond a few projects. Something like Sheppard or Steeles BRT is affordable. Waterfront LRT is already stretching it.

 

[David Brake]

I am not sure which portion is being talked about here.

From about Avenue Road to Mount Pleasant (centred at Yonge), Eglinton will be down to 1 lane in each direction, with periodic turning lanes.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=44ae86664ea71410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Urban Design/Eglinton Connects/Apri14 Update/3 Comprehensive Map Bathurst to Yonge.pdf

In the West, your link did not have anything going under the 427, but currently there are 4 lanes between 2 bridge piers. It may be possible to squeeze 2 car lanes plus an LRT lane between piers, and moving the sidewalk to the end spans, but it is tight. Has there been any discussion of this before?

All I can say is that at the public consultation we were repeatedly assured that there was space for the LRT without losing car lanes despite recent land sales.

 

[sixrings]

I dont know how the LRT is going to take away road space between Avenue road and mount pleasant if it is underground. Also some parts of Eglinton (the central portion) will always only have one car lane in each direction because there is parking on the sides for businesses. That is no different than today.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I dont know how the LRT is going to take away road space between Avenue road and mount pleasant if it is underground. Also some parts of Eglinton (the central portion) will always only have one car lane in each direction because there is parking on the sides for businesses. That is no different than today.

Except during rush hours... with the exception of those who stop to get coffee, of course.

 

[crs1026]

Except during rush hours... with the exception of those who stop to get coffee, of course.

Yeah, it's gonna be a shock to some folks when they start enforcing no stopping outside the coffee shops;-)

The issue on Eglinton West is not the LRT per se. There will definitely be enough room for the existing 2 roadway lanes plus LRT in the center. What is changing is the form of the street and the degree of flexibility for traffic. Instead of wide, often uncurbed shoulders, the street will be urban in style.....no shoulders, sidewalks right at the curb, buildings right at the sidewalk. Any presence of work vehicles or stuck cars will mean lane closures, where at present work vehicles just pull off on the shoulder.

A lot of the residents' frustration is that when the City sold the land, they left only the bare minimum 45m where they could have left wider shoulders for a much more interesting streetscape. LRT is the last to arrive, so it gets blamed, but it was a bad plan all along. None of the good ideas that Ms Keesmaat is espousing got applied when the City evaluated the land sale. The pedestrian/bicycle friendliness factor will be very low. Even if we assume LRT will work fine, the bicycle/pedestrian factor is actually the biggest sellout in the plan. I'm not sure about right turn lanes, either.

I spoke at the public meeting and made a point of grinding the politicians on the land sale. It's a done deal, but it's important to remind our Council members that decisions of that sort come back to bite. I'm still a believer in erring on the side of grade separating LRT, especially at arterial intersections, but having the land sale result in the mix differentiates Eglinton West from the norm on that point.

- Paul

 

[LNahid2000]

The pedestrian/bicycle friendliness factor will be very low. Even if we assume LRT will work fine, the bicycle/pedestrian factor is actually the biggest sellout in the plan.

Eglinton between Jane and Highway 427 already has some of the best bike lanes in the city. I agree with you that there may be issues in pedestrian friendliness though.

 

[crs1026]

Eglinton between Jane and Highway 427 already has some of the best bike lanes in the city. I agree with you that there may be issues in pedestrian friendliness though.

Yes - the bike lanes are great - the question is whether they will stay that way. The new plan will move them next to the road. The planner at the public meeting commented to that effect. What we have may be gone soon.

- Paul

 

[LNahid2000]

Yes - the bike lanes are great - the question is whether they will stay that way. The new plan will move them next to the road. The planner at the public meeting commented to that effect. What we have may be gone soon.

- Paul

That's too bad. Moving them to the side of the road would actually decrease their attractiveness from present day.

 

[Palma]

The latest thinking is that Eglinton West is no longer wanted as a heavy rail link but will probably be some form of LRT or even BRT link ( see my story http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/02/hostility-crosstown-west-lrt-voiced-etobicoke-consultation)

we already knew it would not be heavy rail from the Metrolinx board meeting back in Feb. But i find it unlikely it was be bus. The whole point is to connect the eat to the west along that corridor and then to airport. People will not get off at Weston and hop on a bus to go to airport with luggage. Those people as we all know feel LRT will interfer with the car because during a presentation to sell townhouses up at Eglinton and Kipling I think it was, the presentation showed the LRT in the middle of the road. That conjures up lefthand turns or U-turns aka St Clair.

 

[Palma]

I dont know how the LRT is going to take away road space between Avenue road and mount pleasant if it is underground. Also some parts of Eglinton (the central portion) will always only have one car lane in each direction because there is parking on the sides for businesses. That is no different than today.

This is so true. There will never be less than 1 lane. Perhaps they are thinking about the bike lanes being added and sidewalks made wider and where presently there are 2 lanes for cars during rush hour will become one lane even during rush hour. I read somewhere that to allow this whole Eglinton connects, delivery vehicles would happen not along Eglinton but behind lane ways which would be expanded. There are residents concerned that those lane ways will be expanded (as land or houses go up for sale) and there will be traffic going through their neighbourhoods because there will be no parking on Eglinton.

To allow wider sidewalks, bike lanes in both direction and 1 lane parking in each direction plus 2 lanes of traffic in each direction is not possible

 

[Palma]

All I can say is that at the public consultation we were repeatedly assured that there was space for the LRT without losing car lanes despite recent land sales.

I do not recall that. I heard them say even with the land sale there is still room for the LRT. Something like 45m width, Now I am not sure if thats from centre of the road or what. Now I did leave early from the presentation or perhaps just did not hear the part of losing bike lanes as it appears most of the people talking when I was there were against it because of interference to cars, left-hand turns, over head wires where LRT will be running

 

[crs1026]

I recall discussion about the Martin Grove intersection in particular in which that comment was made.

Interestingly, the EA recommened new roadways to address the volume of turns at Martin Grove that would require more than 45 meters of roadway. This option may no longer be feasible.

http://thecrosstown.ca/sites/defaul...port-section-2-intro-martin-grove-to-jane.pdf

At other locations, the study recommends right turn lanes at Kipling, Islington, etc. I'm not sure if those fit any more, either.

Another observation about the traffic study in that EA is that it was predicated on an absence of traffic priority for LRT. The study assumed that LRT would stop for red lights in the east-west direction, and proceed in the same cycle as auto traffic. If Crosstown West ever comes to be, this needs revisiting. Lack of traffic priority for the LRT is a potential contributor to a "street car" level performance, expecially since the traffic study recommends a 120 second light cycle. There's no advantage in far-side loading platforms unless you have traffic priority to support it.

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it was necessary to calculate the minimum green and clearance intervals necessary to safely operate the LRV. The minimum green duration is calculated based on the LRV starting from a stopped position reaching a farside platform. This scenario would yield the absolute minimum time required to clear the intersection. This time includes the time to accelerate to a maximum speed of 25 km/hr, plus the time to slow to a stop position.

- Paul

 

[Napoleon]

Another observation about the traffic study in that EA is that it was predicated on an absence of traffic priority for LRT. The study assumed that LRT would stop for red lights in the east-west direction, and proceed in the same cycle as auto traffic. If Crosstown West ever comes to be, this needs revisiting. Lack of traffic priority for the LRT is a potential contributor to a "street car" level performance, expecially since the traffic study recommends a 120 second light cycle. There's no advantage in far-side loading platforms unless you have traffic priority to support it.

I can't even imagine installing a new LRT without transit signal priority. I think that's part of the minimum package that distinguishes LRT from streetcars. Imagine how much longer it would take to get somewhere without it.