[Admiral Beez]

With what land? How much more expensive did you want the project to be in order to buy all of those buildings to tear down for your jughandles?

I assume your question is disingenuous, intended as a dismissal rather than true inquiry, but both sides of Eglinton from Victoria Park onwards are slated to be torn down and residential development put in. Now's our chance to require those developments to include the roads to reduce left turns off Eglinton. I expect you may reply the contrarian, to tell us why this cannot, will not or should not be done, but so be it.

 

[T3G]

Sure, yes, good, but none of these intersect with the Eglinton line, which this thread is about.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who finds the constant hand wringing about off topic posts on this forum to be totally absurd? Human conversations are known for drifting from. The original topic all the time, and if the given subject of a discussion is fruitful enough, it should drift back naturally. Since there is nothing to talk about at present, no new information has been released and the only thing we can do is rehash the same old discussion about how the project is late and how it should or should not have been constructed differently, I'm *really* not seeing the trouble here.

 

[ShonTron]

Exactly. We frown upon non sequitur posts, bitter arguments and tangents that go way beyond the original point, but we certainly allow some discussion on related things provided they stay within bounds.

 

[txlseries4]

IMO, there should be no left turns allowed on any streetcar or LRT route in this city. As for Eglinton, any left turns not eliminated should be Jughandles.

These would make the road much less safe for people not in cars. Forget people getting hit by the LRT if they cross mid-block, many people would be hit by drivers not looking as they exit to the ramp or afterwards when making a right or left turn.

 

[ShonTron]

These would make the road much less safe for people not in cars. Forget people getting hit by the LRT if they cross mid-block, many people would be hit by drivers not looking as they exit to the ramp or afterwards when making a right or left turn.

Very true. Jughandles are popular in New Jersey, which has some of the most pedestrian hostile suburban roads I’ve ever encountered. They can be useful in certain circumstances, but definitely not in an area that will see dense mixed use development.

A better option would be to have drivers use secondary parallel roads north and south of Eglinton. Ashtonbee already fills this role on the north, and there will be a new road on the south once redevelopment starts.

 

[Bizari]

This has been said a million times in this thread, but there is "basic signal priority". At all signals, the red signal can be shortened and the green can be extended to allow trains running behind schedule to recover and maintain headway.

The reason given for no more aggressive form of TSP is that a) it would negatively impact high volumes of north-south car traffic at intersections along Eglinton b) these roads also have very frequent bus service which would also be subject to the increased congestion, offsetting some of the positive impact of more aggressive TSP for riders who need to transfer from these routes.

"Basic signal priority" means that:

1] trains take precedence over left-turn cars;

2] An auto green light extension is provided to almost always allow the LRT to pass without waiting at lights.

Do you see any of that here?
Those are the "basic" things ANY modern transit system around the world has.

Unless you are telling me our standard of "basic" is just supposed to be inferior compared with anyone else?

In terms of the argument that an actual signal priority would affect the North-South frequent bus service.

Can we stop acting like Toronto is the only city where a tram line intersects with other transit lines?

I'm pretty sure that in almost every European city, a modern tram system doesn't just intersect with high-frequency buses, but also high-frequency trams!

If they can do that, what is our excuse? Or we are just so "special" that we can't have any basic good things.

 

[Northern Light]

For the record, 'Jughandles' were originally proposed on Eglinton east of Victoria Park, and I'm one of the people who spiked that idea, because it creates a pedestrian-hostile environment.

See this post........ from 2008!

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

IIRC, TTC wanted a BRT on Eglinton and Subway on Sheppard. Rae instead funded a shorter subway on Sheppard and shorter subway on Eglinton. Harris actually did the right thing in cancelling Eglinton as a subway. Numbers didn't support it then and they still don't. Sadly, we never did get the...

toronto.skyrisecities.com

Jughandles were also proposed on the west extension at Martin Grove, prior to the current design iteration.

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1668610621/Images/Metrolinx/ECWE_EPR_2020_Addendum.pdf see p. 78

 

[Bizari]

IMO, there should be no left turns allowed on any streetcar or LRT route in this city. As for Eglinton, any left turns not eliminated should be Jughandles.

The most no-brainer solution is not to let the left-turning car go before the trams!!!

Like how nobody in the city hall understands this is actually insane

 

[Northern Light]

The most no-brainer solution is not to let the left-turning car go before the trams!!!

Like how nobody in the city hall understands this is actually insane

The bolded is not true.

Lots of people in City Hall understand that there are better ways to do things. They just didn't win this particular battle.

 

[Voltz]

well that goes to my point, the Eglinton subway was a fraction of the length of the Crosstown LRT so if the Crosstown was proposed as a subway i would have never been proposed at it current length, at most it would probably be half the current length as a subway project.

I gladly take a 28km Eglinton LRT lines (both phases) over a half as long Crosstown subway anyday.

We’re getting a longer subway than we would have if it was an actual subway, with a transfer free connection at the end to the surface section.

 

[Parkdalian]

If this city was actually focused on moving people around as efficiently as possible, we could make a lot of decisions that would accomplish this. But transit is for poor people, cars are for rich people, and so cars are prioritized. Can you imagine the angry calls into Newstalk 1010 from SUV drivers who had to wait at a stop light because the poors were allowed to go first? The suffering and waiting of transit riders is the point.

 

[BrenWilson]

Jughandles are a highway solution, should never have that kind of solution in a mixed use urban ROW.

 

[adys123]

At southbound Bathurst at Adelaide the advance greed left turn should get extended until the streetcar clears the intersection.

This was actually a change that was made a couple months back!

 

[Admiral Beez]

For the record, 'Jughandles' were originally proposed on Eglinton east of Victoria Park, and I'm one of the people who spiked that idea, because it creates a pedestrian-hostile environment.

Can we consider the interchange from eastbound Kingston Road to northbound Midland via Kelsonia Ave. as a jughandle? That's what I have in mind. I think the right turn design at Kelsonia does not encourage high speed entry.

 

[Northern Light]

Can we consider the interchange from eastbound Kingston Road to northbound Midland via Kelsonia Ave. as a jughandle? That's what I have in mind. I think the right turn design at Kelsonia does not encourage high speed entry.

View attachment 674455

You could.

That one is an oddity, and you'll note actually supports two-way traffic as well.

There are multiple different examples.

Jughandle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

****

Thing is, if you want to remove left-turns from impeding LRTs you need at least 2 juglandles at each intersection, if you're intending to remove them from competing N-S roads, then you need up to 4.

You also have to consider the amount of land consumed, and that the land inside the jughandles would not generally be developable, unless you made them quite circuitous.

For development purposes, to fit a single tower + podium the corner of an intersection you'll need at least 27m x 27m not including additional space for sidewalks.

To be clear, you can play with building shapes a bit..........but just to give some context, Here's the intersection above with a buildable proposal (dimensions) superimposed:

So you would have to bend any jughandle around that, or you would have dead space on every corner.