News   Nov 08, 2024
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: City of Toronto’s Rental Housing Push, Ontario Market Forecasts, and December's Buildings Show
 588     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
Tricon's Birch House Welcomes Residents to the Canary District
 1K     4 
News   Nov 08, 2024
News Roundup for November 8, 2024
 523     0 

Eglinton Connects - Revitalizing Eglinton Avenue after LRT construction

Attended the EglintonTOday Complete Street Project public meeting on Wed. Nothing new was said, just the same Metrolinx slide deck that we all know about. The audience was very typical NIMBY crowd; the majority of questions were related to the number of lanes and the number of parking spots. A couple of positive comments from people who live, drive, and cycle in the area and questions about safety of bike lanes (no, no plans for protective intersections). These voices were flooded by "concerned citizens of Eglinton" who did not want any bike lanes (let them ride on small streets), wanted four car lanes and lots of parking. I wanted to reply to these voices, but could not get my turn as there were too many callers.. At least I texted my replies:
  • The crossing of highway ramps and bike lanes can co-exist quite well, look at Danforth & QEW and Dundas & QEW: both crossings are quite safe for cyclist to cross.
  • Where will all these people park their cars? Why not to walk, cycle, or take LRT?? I used to live on Ava Rd (2013-2019) and I never used my car to reach local businesses.
  • Adding lanes only adds to congestions, look at 401. Check traffic literature on the notion of induced demands.
  • Finally, the idea of using sidestreets for cycling is preposterous for any long bike trip, there is no direct way to cross the city around the area: you need to go either way south to Bloor or way north to ... Finch Hydro corridor trail.
I asked if the hydro lines along Eglinton are going to be buried and the answer was "it is not part of this project". I assume it is between Metrolinx and Toronto Hydro to carry this work?
 
vz64 said:
Finally, the idea of using sidestreets for cycling is preposterous for any long bike trip, there is no direct way to cross the city around the area: you need to go either way south to Bloor or way north to ... Finch Hydro corridor trail.
Click to expand...
This is a failure of our city design. Eglinton is a stroad (h/t for pointing out the autocorrect), and we don't have a good option for making it a road or a street.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Why don't you go look at Google Maps, and study the intersections in question, and then overlay protected intersection design on them and come back and tell us all how that works. I look forward to the results.

While you're doing that, you may wish to read the presentation that City staff gave on this project:

Click to expand...

I'm not a traffic engineer. I have no idea at all on how to do that.
 
LemonCondo said:
I'm not a traffic engineer. I have no idea at all on how to do that.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should stop burying the City's traffic engineers for not implementing something, until you understand why they did not.

***

I've said before, I'm pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, pro-transit, and certainly not shy about critiquing where I feel our government or developers fall short.

But you shouldn't just wildly criticize everything when you haven't yet taken the time to understand how things work.

***

Below is a render of a protected intersection Toronto will be putting in on Bloor Street:

1661896872353.png



Now, look at how many travel lanes there are on the approaching streets.

(answer, one per direction of travel, and no turn lanes)

Now, see if you can impose that on the intersection of Eglinton and Mt. Pleasant. Keep in mind Eglinton is already losing travel lanes as part of the Crosstown project.

You not only have to cut out some turn lanes, you need to narrow Mt. Pleasant along its entire length by one lane each way (which, btw, I support) but you can't just add that project to Eglinton all in one go.

Then you face similar issues at most other major intersections, so are you going to do lane reductions on Bathurst and Avenue, and Oriole, and Bayview all in one go?

Yes, we can and should do protected intersections here over time, but it simply can't all be bundled into one project, there literally are not enough engineers to model the impacts or do the drawings.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Why don't you go look at Google Maps, and study the intersections in question, and then overlay protected intersection design on them and come back and tell us all how that works. I look forward to the results.
Click to expand...
If you have room for buffered bike lanes, you have room for protected intersections.
 
Northern Light said:
Then perhaps you should stop burying the City's traffic engineers for not implementing something, until you understand why they did not.

***

I've said before, I'm pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, pro-transit, and certainly not shy about critiquing where I feel our government or developers fall short.

But you shouldn't just wildly criticize everything when you haven't yet taken the time to understand how things work.

***

Below is a render of a protected intersection Toronto will be putting in on Bloor Street:

View attachment 423987


Now, look at many travel lanes there are on the approaching streets.

(answer, one per direction of travel, and no turn lanes)

Now, see if you can impose that on the intersection of Eglinton and Mt. Pleasant. Keep in mind Eglinton is already losing travel lanes as part of the Crosstown project.

You not only have to cut out some turn lanes, you need to narrow Mt. Pleasant along its entire length by one lane each way (which, btw, I support) but you can't just add that project to Eglinton all in one go.

Then you face similar issues at most other major intersections, so are you going to do lane reductions on Bathurst and Avenue, and Oriole, and Bayview all in one go?

Yes, we can and should do protected intersections here over time, but it simply can't all be bundled into one project, there literally are not enough engineers to model the impacts or do the drawings.
Click to expand...

Can we also perhaps starting using coloured asphalt at some point. Red or green, doesn't really matter. Especially with our winters you would imagine paint would have to be redone a whole lot.
 
afransen said:
If you have room for buffered bike lanes, you have room for protected intersections.
Click to expand...

True ***, providing you have buffered bike lanes on the intersecting street; and providing you have buffered bike lanes at the intersections.

You can try and cheat a bit, depending on ROW width, and a number of other factors......
 
Northern Light said:
Why don't you go look at Google Maps, and study the intersections in question, and then overlay protected intersection design on them and come back and tell us all how that works. I look forward to the results.

While you're doing that, you may wish to read the presentation that City staff gave on this project:

Click to expand...
As tempting as it is to shut down debate with the "I'd like to see you do better" strategy, I think it's more informative to watch an actual engineer who designs protected intersections for a living give it a go.

As Mr. Pinder so aptly demonstrates, protected intersections don't require more space than unprotected intersections. And they don't require a reduction in the number of lanes. Although they do require getting rid of ramps/slip roads, which is a good thing.

The City's presentation doesn't mention protected intersections (unless of course Adobe's search function is suddenly not working). Even interim bike infra like this should be built as close to best practices and modern standards as possible.

Northern Light said:
I've said before, I'm pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, pro-transit, and certainly not shy about critiquing where I feel our government or developers fall short.
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling that there's a "but" coming?

Northern Light said:
But
Click to expand...
Ah, there it is. 🤣
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
As tempting as it is to shut down debate with the "I'd like to see you do better" strategy, I think it's more informative to watch an actual engineer who designs protected intersections for a living give it a go.
Click to expand...

I will try and watch after dinner. Though I may need new headphones, mine are getting difficult to charge.

MisterF said:
As Mr. Pinder so aptly demonstrates, protected intersections don't require more space than unprotected intersections. And they don't require a reduction in the number of lanes. Although they do require getting rid of ramps/slip roads, which is a good thing.

The City's presentation doesn't mention protected intersections (unless of course Adobe's search function is suddenly not working). Even interim bike infra like this should be built as close to best practices and modern standards as possible.


Why do I get the feeling that there's a "but" coming?


Ah, there it is. 🤣
Click to expand...

There are 'buts' in most of my posts.......I like to be balanced!

Psst, there are three transportation engineers who are UT members........( no I'm not one of them) LOL
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I examined the video.

I also contacted a transportation planner and went over the discussion point for point.

I will stand by what I said in my posts.

The example cited above in the video still poaches room for the protection, but does so from space adjacent to the intersection.

***

In the context of the urban portion of Eglinton (core area) there really isn't anywhere to poach from (without road dieting)

I went over a number of different designs w/the planner with an eye to discussing what was possible here.

While the person would not rule out the protected intersections of some sort being possible here, it does seem quite unlikely if you can't narrow/pinch the cross streets.

***

Its worth adding here, this design for Eglinton is viewed as temporary by City staff and will be changed/enhanced as road reconstruction occurs, and as bike lanes are implemented on intersecting streets.
 
Northern Light said:
Ok, so I examined the video.

I also contacted a transportation planner and went over the discussion point for point.

I will stand by what I said in my posts.
Click to expand...
The thing with transportation planners and engineers is that there's a huge variety of opinions among them. Far too many are stuck in 1960, with the primary goal of moving cars as quickly as possible (that's how a transportation engineer friend of mine puts it) and following long disproven concepts of safety. Some don't even know what a protected intersection is, let alone how to design one. While it's great to have people like Matt Pinder or Chuck Maroun advocating for better solutions, you can't trust someone's opinion just because they're a transportation professional.

Northern Light said:
The example cited above in the video still poaches room for the protection, but does so from space adjacent to the intersection.

***

In the context of the urban portion of Eglinton (core area) there really isn't anywhere to poach from (without road dieting)

I went over a number of different designs w/the planner with an eye to discussing what was possible here.

While the person would not rule out the protected intersections of some sort being possible here, it does seem quite unlikely if you can't narrow/pinch the cross streets.

***

Its worth adding here, this design for Eglinton is viewed as temporary by City staff and will be changed/enhanced as road reconstruction occurs, and as bike lanes are implemented on intersecting streets.
Click to expand...
In that video the protected intersection fits within the space of the existing design. Of course if you widen the bike lanes then you'll need more room for that. But really the only extra space you need is within the existing roadway - moving the stop bars back. It's the standard intersection design in the Netherlands, on both wide and narrow streets. And Ottawa has been building them all over the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top