[TheTigerMaster]

Did they say why it needed to be in the centre of the road, rather than side?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I still can't figure out how it will work as the map is small but sounds crazy.

I was at a meeting the councillor for Ward 11 and 12 had last night at the Civic Centre on Eglinton, along with staff and Metrolinx. Apparently they did confirm that the Crosstown west LRT is to run in the middle as presently planned. Residents at the meeting last night appeared to be from Mount Dennis (Ward 11) and were not happy about that.

Nor were they happy about the back up electrical power plant (for Crosstown) to be build and perhaps there would be pressure for another plant for the electrification for the UPX tracks. The view was why greener technology such as solar panels , etc was not being used and why they are so behind what is happening in other jurisdictions and countries.

No wonder why they made up the majority of people it seems. I still refuse to believe these community meetings ever change anything the majority of the time. perhaps only in areas where residents are very involved

I don't think community meetings should ever change policy directions, largely because the meetings only represent the people who had the means to attend those meetings. You see this reflected in the demographics of who attends these meetings: generally 65+ and white.

 

[nfitz]

Did they say why it needed to be in the centre of the road, rather than side?

Generally, you don't want at the side, because of all the extra signals, and road crossings. Look at how many more signals there on Queens Quay now it's on the side, instead of in the centre.

However, I thought we'd seen more recent plans than this that elevated it through the Jane intersection, with an elevated SRT-like station, simply because of the geography. Maybe I'm thinking of Black Creek though - there have been too may versions of this ...

 

[CapitalSeven]

That's all being looked at behind the scenes, but nothing concrete has leaked out yet.

 

[crs1026]

I don't think community meetings should ever change policy directions, largely because the meetings only represent the people who had the means to attend those meetings. You see this reflected in the demographics of who attends these meetings: generally 65+ and white.

Hey, go easy on us older guys, I haven't hit that milestone yet (though I may look it). ;-)

My guesstimate of the demographics at these meetings would be more like about one-third crotchety old folks, one third organized residents' groups, and one-third transit geeks. I challenge your statement that there was no diversity. That's why there are meetings all over the city.

The residents' groups are the most articulate, but not necessarily the most enlightened. The transit geeks are the least articulate at the microphone. Everyone likes the free coffee and cookies - word gets around. If people in a democracy come out and speak, we should respect them for that.

As to the merits of what @Palma reported,
- the backup power plant is overkill. Today was proof that power outages are inconvenient, but not that frequent, and not that crippling. Had Crosstown been running today, it would not have shut down, even without the generator. Multiple feed points is all it needs.
- the left turn recommendations in the EA are sufficiently extreme that they deserve full discussion. People don't have to be traffic analysts to look at the maps and go "whaaaa?". When you look at how left turns at major intersections are changed, it's not a local residents' issue - it affects through traffic.

I did a bit of back of envelope scribbling today. It's 6.6 km from Weston Road to the East Mall. At the projected speed of 28 kph, the travel time is 850 seconds between those points. There are 11 signalled intersections today, and the U turn lanes add more. The data in the traffic study suggested that it takes 31 seconds for an LRT to recover from a full stop at a red light. If you assume there will be more red lights, and use 31 seconds to estimate the delay at some percentage of these, it doesn't take many more lights before you eat up much of the 850 seconds. If you assume more than 6-7 stops, this adds dwell time. The left turns that are being converted to U-turns already have heavy volume. The amount of time that cars making U turns will spend crossing LRT tracks is significant, meaning that even with traffic priority there will be conflict with LRT.

It doesn't take much for the result to be a longer travel time. That makes the LRT a poorer performer.

Never mind what the residents think - if you want this LRT to succeed, you need to be very concerned about how feasible this traffic plan is. It could kill overall speed.

- Paul

 

[Palma]

Did they say why it needed to be in the centre of the road, rather than side?

They said they could consider other alignment when asked if it had to be in the middle but I don't think they explained why. And I really do not believe they will consider a side road route. A resident asked if it could be put on south side (guess she was implying LRTs going in opposite direction would be on one side only and Metrolinx replied or the north side but they will not put both on one side of the road. If they thought side alignment was a good idea they would have shown options for both middle and side and explained the advantages and disadv

 

[Palma]

Generally, you don't want at the side, because of all the extra signals, and road crossings. Look at how many more signals there on Queens Quay now it's on the side, instead of in the centre.

However, I thought we'd seen more recent plans than this that elevated it through the Jane intersection, with an elevated SRT-like station, simply because of the geography. Maybe I'm thinking of Black Creek though - there have been too may versions of this ...

They did say it could not be underground going west from Black Creek because of a steep hill, Eglinton Flats and also having to go below Black Creek but that perhaps at certain areas (I am assuming intersections) it could go underground.

The other concern was lack of parking at stations and that people would park in neighboring streets and that Crosstown west should go ahead so that perhaps parking could be put at Martingrove

 

[salsa]

Did they say why it needed to be in the centre of the road, rather than side?

Are we seriously gonna keep debating the viability of a north side alignment? It ain't happening.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Are we seriously gonna keep debating the viability of a north side alignment? It ain't happening.

I know why WE think it can't be done, but I want to know what the planners thought about it, since they are considering it.

 

[GenerationW]

I don't think community meetings should ever change policy directions, largely because the meetings only represent the people who had the means to attend those meetings. You see this reflected in the demographics of who attends these meetings: generally 65+ and white.

Should we only listen to those who don't take the time to attend? Though maybe we do that already since a petition from condo residents scared Jaye Robinson so much that we ended up getting a stupid stop at Leslie.

I've been to a bunch of meetings (never in Etobicoke I confess), and the demographics you describe don't reflect reality.

 

[sixrings]

I don't think community meetings should ever change policy directions, largely because the meetings only represent the people who had the means to attend those meetings. You see this reflected in the demographics of who attends these meetings: generally 65+ and white.

I go but I am 36 and white.... I think the bigger issue of the age and race is that it is probably the least likely group to be taking transit in Toronto and so they may have ulterior motives in their suggestions.

 

[Palma]

Should we only listen to those who don't take the time to attend? Though maybe we do that already since a petition from condo residents scared Jaye Robinson so much that we ended up getting a stupid stop at Leslie.

I've been to a bunch of meetings (never in Etobicoke I confess), and the demographics you describe don't reflect reality.

yet when residents in Weston complain about the gas plant being located in their ward, Metrolinx does nothing although they did say if there is a lot of opposition and no one wants it there, it can be moved. They are just paying lip service I think. Guess if this happened in the east say Leslie a decision would have already been made to remove it by Metrolinx

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Should we only listen to those who don't take the time to attend? Though maybe we do that already since a petition from condo residents scared Jaye Robinson so much that we ended up getting a stupid stop at Leslie.

I've been to a bunch of meetings (never in Etobicoke I confess), and the demographics you describe don't reflect reality.

No, I don't think we should be making major policy decisions based on community meetings. Exactly because the people who need this infrastructure the most are the same people who have the least ability to take three hours out of their day to come to these public meetings. This includes people who are at work, people with multiple jobs, watching kids, lower income people, etc...,

If people want to complain about small details at community meetings, that's fine. But broad policy should never be set solely because of feedback at the meetings. That should be done via elected representatives.

 

[crs1026]

No, I don't think we should be making major policy decisions based on community meetings. Exactly because the people who need this infrastructure the most are the same people who have the least ability to take three hours out of their day to come to these public meetings. This includes people who are at work, people with multiple jobs, watching kids, lower income people, etc...,

If people want to complain about small details at community meetings, that's fine. But broad policy should never be set solely because of feedback at the meetings. That should be done via elected representatives.

You aren't giving sufficient credit to the dynamics of public meetings. There is theatre in many directions eg the (sometimes contrived) aplause. However - One noisy public meeting may have more impact on elected reps' thinking than a hundred insightful, well-composed emails. I'm actually impressed with how the elected representatives that I see in public meetings process that much conflicting input. (did I just say something nice about politicians? sheesh.) If they can't find a way through it all, they don't get reelected.

There is a difference between 'input' and 'analysis'. I agree that public meetings are a poor forum to talk on a technical level. When I chatted with the ML people who were staffing the display boards, I had no illusion that I could make some point that would make them say 'That's a good idea - I'm going to make that change.' then and there. But - when six people in a row complained (to applause) that some part of the study was 'crap', I knew that the elected reps were going to be asking followup questions, and that meant that staff were going to be rethinking their sums. Even if the speakers had no substance to their comments at the time, the elected rep wants something better to take back next time. It's an interesting way to challenge and dissect a plan, but it produces some interesting forward progress.

- Paul

 

[k10ery]

the left turn recommendations in the EA are sufficiently extreme that they deserve full discussion. People don't have to be traffic analysts to look at the maps and go "whaaaa?". When you look at how left turns at major intersections are changed, it's not a local residents' issue - it affects through traffic.

I did a bit of back of envelope scribbling today. It's 6.6 km from Weston Road to the East Mall. At the projected speed of 28 kph, the travel time is 850 seconds between those points. There are 11 signalled intersections today, and the U turn lanes add more. The data in the traffic study suggested that it takes 31 seconds for an LRT to recover from a full stop at a red light. If you assume there will be more red lights, and use 31 seconds to estimate the delay at some percentage of these, it doesn't take many more lights before you eat up much of the 850 seconds. If you assume more than 6-7 stops, this adds dwell time. The left turns that are being converted to U-turns already have heavy volume. The amount of time that cars making U turns will spend crossing LRT tracks is significant, meaning that even with traffic priority there will be conflict with LRT.

It doesn't take much for the result to be a longer travel time. That makes the LRT a poorer performer.

Never mind what the residents think - if you want this LRT to succeed, you need to be very concerned about how feasible this traffic plan is. It could kill overall speed.

- Paul

I can't believe that even Toronto would fail to set up transit priority at a dedicated U-turn signal!

Looking at your map above, the indirect left turns look pretty well planned out to me. Left turn phases at suburban arterials drive me crazy in general - it's so inefficient! Much of the time, I bet the proposed arrangements will be faster for all drivers than the current arrangements.

As a downtown resident, I wish we had the option to eliminate left turns so easily. Left turns slow traffic, especially mixed traffic streetcars. And they kill quite a few pedestrians. Good for the planners on this one, in my view.