asher__jo
Active Member
Haha, don't make it all doom and gloom. The upgrades are already a massive improvement, and there's always potential to improve it in the future.
|
|
|
Northern Light
Superstar
Because I'm their target shopper and I wouldn't shop on a street I find ugly; or unpleasant to walk along.
The majority of customers for these businesses are not drivers; they are walkers, cyclists and transit users.
They are locals.
Make the experience unpleasant and they will go elsewhere.
The businesses on Eglinton don't win customers on price.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I guess you never shop....
Also, trees in a street are actually a bad thing. Their roots break up concrete and asphalt. Look at the old streets with mature trees that have not been recently repaved and you will see the heave.
Northern Light
Superstar
We disagree about pretty much everything.
Trees are important to the environment; important to aesthetics, important to shade/wind conditions, and important to property values. All facts supportable by evidence.
Also, I'm not going to be patronized by you.
robmausser
Senior Member
Haha, I feel the same way, I literally disagree with almost everything micheal_can says on this board.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am not patronizing you or anyone else. I do not disagree that trees should be planted, however, arguing that they are needed or no one will shop is a straw man argument. Trees tend to be planted so that if a car leaves the road they hit a tree and not the pedestrian. That is a good reason for it. Also, the city tends to plant deciduous trees which provide no shelter or aesthetics in winter. So it looks horrible in winter. So, why not plant conifers and trim the lower branches away to created a green and aesthetically pleasing year round?
afransen
Senior Member
^Not sure that is the reason. Other countries use bollards to protect pedestrians from sidewalk intrusions. I think sidewalk trees are more for aesthetics and livability.
Towered
Superstar
That sounds rather far fetched to me - do you have a source?
NoahB
Active Member
They don't typically put bollards in every street, especially not quiet residential streets.
While I haven't heard of using trees as barriers (crashing into trees has a high fatality rate), trees usually make streets feel narrower to drivers thus making the them slow down. It is apparently more calming for drivers which can decrease road rage.
More sources in the article.
Trees Are a Tool for Safer Streets | DeepRoot Blog
north-of-anything
Active Member
I've read in multiple places that having trees and other vertical elements at the side of the road psychologically encourages drivers to slow down. It's why lots of sound barrier walls on the 401 have visible vertical lines along them. I'm pretty sure that's also part of the "edge effect" that's referred to in NoahB's link. Blaming trees for requiring maintenance of roads is absurd, roads will require maintenance and upkeep no matter what.
crs1026
Superstar
In the context of completing a street that has been selected as a high volume transit corridor, which is about to attract the resulting densification, I will agree with you. Eglinton needs to become a "total avenue" - meaning it must be walkable, cyclable, traffic must be calmed, large vehicles must be diverted to some other path etc. The investment in a subway enables all this....so let's not waste the opportunity.
There is the problem however of ensuring that materiel and services have adequate and appropriate pathways into the city. No point in densifying and then having this denser community choking because deliveries have been forced off the traditional main avenues (Notice I didn't say "drivers" or "automobiles".... I'm thinking plumbers' vans, Purolator trucks, beer and food supply chain, goods for small retail stores, and construction materials and so forth. More density = more plumbers!)
Eglinton has traditionally been just such a pathway. It's the terminal pathway from the 401 in the West end, 400 at Black Creek, and the Spadina Expressway. Tied to the DVP.
If we de-roadway Eglinton, I believe that some other corridor has to pick up the slack. There will be winners and losers - if every avenue sacrifices its traffic lanes, we will have a city where nothing goes anywhere. Or, we will have a huge volume of late night deliveries. (The "thump" that woke you up was UPS dropping your Amazon purchase on your porch.....at 3AM....)
If we move necessary traffic off Eglinton - a necessity if we reduce lanes - where do we route them?
- Paul
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
A valid question.
Some of which (by no means most) is addressable by changing the question to WHEN do you we move them.
Some deliveries can be restricted to evening hours or mid-morning or earlier on weekends or overnights.
Beyond that, I favour adding new roads to the grid. (expensive, but I believe necessary)
The grid should be 1km on square wherever practical.
One can't build all of that out quickly, nor should we.
But can put in place important pieces as shrink overly wide arterials down to size.
In the case of Eglinton West, there are already good alternatives in place to the north (that parallel both Eglinton and Lawrence)
Notably, Glencairn runs from Caledonia to Yonge.
While Beachborough/Castlefield/Roselawn/Elmridge runs from Keele to Yonge.
There should be workable capacity there for the most part; with the possible need some new left-turn lanes or the like.
I don't see a good corridor for expansion south of Eglinton W.
Rogers Road would be the obvious candidate to take east, but even getting to Bathurst would be hideously expensive and I'm not sure the value is there, eastward to Yonge doesn't make sense due to the presence of Cedarvale Ravine; and more expensive property!
crs1026
Superstar
I don't disagree, and I won't profess enough knowledge of the zoning, development history, and street flow in that area to debate intelligently.
A quick look at Streetview, however, certainly suggests that these streets are in many places 40 km/hr two-lane residential roads. Turning these into truck routes would undoubtedly create howls from residents.
Eglinton has been so constricted this past decade, thanks to Crosstown constructio, that maybe it's moot. By now, traffic may have found alternate routes, and infiltration may have solved the issue. However, Even today's traffic volume would not be compatible with the "total avenue" goal.
Every action has a reaction, is all I'm saying. There will be winners and losers if those lanes are removed. (I think they should be, but with a plan, and some courage to lay it out to the community)
- Paul
micheal_can
Senior Member
So, you are in favour of adding more traffic on other roads so that you can have trees? If your house was 1 km north or south of Eglinton, how would you feel about it being turned from a simple resitential side street into a major route?
If the road cannot fit trees, then don't put them. That does not make it a horrible street. It simply means you are working with the existing width.
Northern Light
Superstar
Kindly stop telling me what to do or think.
It doesn't give your opinion any more weight with me or anyone else.
You have a preference.
That's fine.
Its not mine; or that of many others.
Your aggressive tone is obnoxious and unwelcome.