Recent comments

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Diesel trains are 2 years away and one has to stop their infrastructure from being built in the first place so you wait till 2015 to say we dont want this.

    And as I have said before the city is working on the Dupont issue and I know there have been talks about fixing the bottleneck at St. Clair and Keele.

    So you have 2 issues it seems and both have politicians working (and citizens) on them. The only other thing your post had was swipes and NDP politicians. Come on Jack we are smarter than that.

  • General Electric / Hitachi Uranium Processing Plant on Dupont St.   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Jack,

    I live in the neighbourhood, it takes me about 10 minutes to walk to the plant from home. FYI, Cheri DiNovo came with the anarchists this weekend- it got crazy, Zach Ruiter even started banging on one of my neighbour's cars while they were driving past...

    http://www.genuinewitty.com/2013/03/11/ndp-mp-cheri-dinovo-delivers-keyn...

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Corrections Scott,

    My concern isn't only about local traffic. I was also talking about CO2, Pollution, People's Health, Environment.. I wasn't taking a swipe at anyone. You might be surprised to know that are many residences in the JT, you may not know that are concerned about the community, including dupont and St.clair. Just because they don't attend the meeting, others are talking.

    Lastly, I think politicians should not be picking and chosen what is important. I feel dupont/st clair is very concerning to me and others.. Traffic/idling is causing a lot of pollution in the community, specially in the spring summmer. An issue that exist currently and not something down the road like diesel trains. JF

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    This is a big job.

    But signalized roundabouts that treat pedestrians fairly exist. Remember that roundabout are found in Europe where people walk and bike more. Take a look at image #5 as an example. Note that the intake lanes are shaped differently to match the terrain and pedestrian stops in all directions.

    http://www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts-signals/report.htm

    The question would be "well if you stop traffic from entering are you not defeating the idea?" but remember that when the signals go green they go green in all directions meaning traffic flow for 3 times the amount of time that a single direction gets time now at our intersection. There are many different configurations . THe issue will be that in return for traffic moving...cars must obey the speed limit as seen in the video bellow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXD0guLQY0

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    The only way this could happen would be if Go decides to have a ditch to put their trains under Wallace avenue.

    There was a disastrous meeting about this a few years ago where GO looked like fools and quickly beat a retreat. They will be back some day and if they are willing to cover the cost and allow a bridge over the ditch then it's possible. I think the residents on our side wont like the additional traffic it will bring so I would vote for a pedestrian/cycle bridge.

    And Vic, dont get anybody talking about that stupid tunnel!

  • Local man charged with cruelty to animals for attacking raccoons   5 years 5 weeks ago

    And so it ends.

    "Man who attacked raccoons with shovel pleads guilty to animal cruelty"
    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/12/man_who_attacked_raccoons_wit...

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Although I would probably be supportive overall, there would be many things to consider if they make a roundabout here, especially when it comes to pedestrian and cyclist access (if the traffic is always flowing, it's hard for peds to get through).

    Also, "traffic flow never stops (unless something blocks the exits)". Yeah. A potential problem is that if one of the roundabout exists (esp Dupont or Dundas going north/west) gets plugged up, then it could plug the rest of the roundabout.

    Completely removing Old Weston Rd. from the mix would be a good start too.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Regarding the idea of a Lappin/Antler crossing: A while back, there was a push from residents on both side of the tracks to create pedestrian/bike crossing here. Apparently during Giambrone's time there was even some money set aside for it.

    This is impossible now, as the piece of City-owned land on the East (Lappin) side of the tracks was sold or leased to one of the adjacent landowners. I think this had something to do with Ubisoft needing more parking (argh!). I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but Councillor Bailao's office could provide them. It's too bad...it was a lost opportunity to open things up a bit.

    Some discussion and design lives on at the archive.org copy of walkhere.org, though all the images are missing. Probably more on the DIGIN mailing list too if you search back.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080623021559/http://www.walkhere.org/railwa...

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Everybody wants something done so it would have to be a "think big" solution. The great thing about roundabouts is that traffic flow never stops (unless something blocks the exits). I would love to see this solution.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    I have to say that I really like the idea of a roundabout at Dundas/Annette/Dupont. I'm not sure how it would work since Dupont dips down... it's not exactly a very level intersection. However, the idea has potential to stop traffic from backing up along those streets.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Thanks for your feedback. I would like to clarify some points that are incorrect or things that you may not have not have noticed. Have you ever wondered why every other community has one way streets? There must be a reason. Or is everybody nuts? The fact that you propose more roads gives me some understanding of where you are coming from but the days of "more roads" as a solution are over. Here we go....

    First read the post to Jack below about Dupont. There you go the City is working on it. A lot of the Dupont issue is incresed volume which you also see on Dundas and Bloor too. Its not just Dupont.

    Lappin/Antler/Ward.There is no possibility of any streets crossing the Barrie Rail line. Railways absolutely do not want new level crossings and a bridge or undercut would be massively expensive. Will never ever happen.You would also be creating a new cut through.

    The traffic situation at the school is already a mess and so something has to be done. Leaving as is is not acceptable.

    This plan increases street parking. You are also forgetting that street parking is only a small part of the number of cars in the area. People will still use the alleys as they always have. Most people use their garage or park in the alley So infact most people who have garages will have other choices. They will drive as they do now.

    In terms of your models for driving below you asume that everybody wants to drive to the same destination which is not the case. I will answer the points regardless.

    A) Edwin residents must use Ruskin to reach their homes.

    They already do because street parking faces north. Edwin being narrow most people drive north.
    Edwin is shielded from the development and will loose a fair amount of traffic heading south.

    B) Residents of the new townhouse complex, must use Ruskin to reach their homes.
    No they wont. They will use Wallace which remains two way and where the parking garage entrance is as will visitors. The entrance was moved to make residents of Ruskin and Edwin happy.Do you not recall?

    C) Parents who drop off their children at the school, must use Ruskin to exit the community

    This is one of the tweaks that other have suggested instead of just criticizing. Many people think that having Perth 2 way between Wallace and Antler would make things flow better. I would add that we started a dialoge with the local schools about finding out why so many children are being driven to school. A few blocks away at Dovercourt Public School they have won awards for discouraging driving children to school. Remember the point is to discourage needless school trips.

    D) Every Macaulay resident who comes from the North, or wants to travel North, must use Ruskin every time they come or go from their home.

    Or they could take Symington which has less turns and less stops and no speed bumps; which is the point. You are assuming that going north only means using Edwin.

    Or they take Wallace coming south on Symington.

    E) All Perth residents between Ruskin and Macaulay must use Ruskin to leave their homes.
    Absolutely but Ruskin and Edwin lose south/east bound traffic. Or they use their alley. Or we look at answer C.

    F) Every Perth Resident from Antler to Ruskin, must use Ruskin any time they leave their homes.
    This answer for C applies here. Or they use their alleys.

    I am not sure I understand some of your other example but for the Macaculy one you use Wallace and it means one extra turn. Big deal. In other cases have you ever thought of walking ?

    So things dont seem to be the big nightmare you imply. I thought you might want to know that I was stopped last week by a neighbour of yours who is a life long resident of your street and a professional driver in the city. Give or take a few tweaks he loves the plan and thinks it will make for a quieter safer community. He thinks it makes no sense to not have traffic restrictions like other communities. This is a guy who lives doors from you. If you know who it is strike up a conversation. Thanks for input and using your name.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Certainly not set in stone. Thats why people have been encouraged to give feedback and why there will be more meetings. Based on feedback there have already been 2 good changes from residents.

    In terms of Dupont the issue is out side of the JT traffic Group although it was discussed. The lights on Dupont in general are not set right (especially at Old Weston and Lansdowne) and there is a desperate need for advance greens. This was our advice.

    MPPs and MPs do not deal with local transit issues so taking swipes at them is pointless but electric trains is an issue they do deal with. As well they have both lobbied the Prime Minister to create a national transit strategy to get people out of cars which is the best solution. (The train issue also has to do with walls, and the far superior service in the west end that an electric service would provide. Its not just about a localized increase in diesel.)

    The intersection at the end of Dupont touches 3 different wards and the City is taking a comprehensive look at solutions that will make the entire intersection safer and have more flow through. One solution may be to create a large roundabout. Whatever the solution it will take some time and some money (like the Dufferin jog) and discussion has been ongoing for a while.
    So in fact there is action going on about Dupont you are just unaware of it. (By the way this is not the first time I have mentioned this to you.)

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Hi Stewart,

    Just to let you know that this plans is not in stone and Ana's office(Michael) is aware of this letter.

    You make some very good points. I agree and others as well with many of them that you mentioned.

    I also have concerns and echo what you say:
    1)We don't want to increase traffic in the School Zone, with this present plan it might just do that, making unsafe for the children, parents and crosswalk guard.
    2)The traffic and nightmare on dupont, which nothing has been done. We have both our MP & MPP concern so much with electric trains, they forgot about the traffic on dupont and St Clair . Not to mention the Co2 problem, causing health problems with children and sick eldery.

    As well now that Solways and Sons is closed, we will not get the amount of unsafe small and big trucks in the neighourhood which caused alot of traffic and co2, idling and other issues. JF

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Please see below my letter to Councillor Bailao

    Dear Councillor Bailao,

    My name is Stewart Clark and I live on Ruskin ave. I am writing to express my grave concern over the proposed changes to the traffic flow in the Junction triangle.

    My primary concern is the creation of all of the one streets. I cannot see how those changes will help the community. They will, however, hurt the residents of Wallace, Macaulay and especially Ruskin. The direction restrictions on Perth will force people onto the aforementioned streets into order to get from spot A to spot B, thereby heavily increasing the traffic on these streets. Ruskin is a school zone and an increase in traffic on this street is a large safety issue. The use of one way streets on Franklin, Edwin and Perth, will further increase the traffic the Ruskin school zone by forcing the following:

    A) Edwin residents must use Ruskin to reach their homes.
    B) Residents of the new townhouse complex, must use Ruskin to reach their homes.
    C) Parents who drop off their children at the school, must use Ruskin to exit the community
    D) Every Macaulay resident who comes from the North, or wants to travel North, must use Ruskin every time they come or go from their home.
    E) All Perth residents between Ruskin and Macaulay must use Ruskin to leave their homes.
    F) Every Perth Resident from Antler to Ruskin, must use Ruskin any time they leave their homes.

    Obviously, this will lead to a massive increase in traffic in the school zone. This will create a much more dangerous environment than the one that currently exists.

    The proposed one way streets will make our community significantly more difficult to navigate, and offer no benefit in return. Overall, there is no reason for any street in the neighbourhood, save Edwin, to become a one way street. Due to its narrowness, Edwin makes sense as a one way street, but it is much more logical for it to be a southbound one way street. This would alleviate some of the traffic from Ruskin, while creating a more direct route into the townhouse complex.

    Multiple issues will also arise from adding the school drop off zone on Perth. Adding the drop off zone to Perth in tandem with the use of one way restrictions on Perth, will make it extremely difficult for parents to get to the school to drop their children off. Under the proposal, everyone south of Ruskin who wanted to access the zone, would need to drive all the way up to Dupont and then go across and down Perth. This would be a major inconvenience to parents, as well as a big increase on Ruskin traffic. If you are truly concerned about student drop off causing a traffic backup, it would make more sense to have a drop off area indented into the sidewalk on Ruskin and/or Perth.

    Currently rush hour traffic on Dupont is a nightmare. The proposed changes will only make this worse. Currently, residents of the community who are traveling west on Dupont, can turn south onto Campbell, therefore removing themselves from the gridlock on Dupont. If the restricted left turn is enacted on Campbell ave. it will force more cars to stay on Dupont, thereby increasing the gridlock. Also, if someone was traveling East on Dupont they would need to travel all the way to Symington before they would have an outlet from Dupont (unless they lived North of Ruskin). Again, this would increase the traffic problems that already exit on Dupont.

    If people are expected to use the proposed advance on Symington as a way of decreasing Dupont traffic, then the proposed one way restrictions on Perth will prevent them from getting home without taking a convoluted route. For example, if I wanted to get to a home on Macaulay, I would need to turn south on Symington, turn right on Antler, turn left on Perth, turn right on Ruskin, turn left on the proposed Edwin extension, and finally turn left on Macaulay. Not only is this ridiculous for the resident of Macaulay, but it will increase the traffic on Ruskin, which is a school zone.

    What our neighbourhood really needs is an increase in East/West corridors. Connecting Antler street to Lappin ave./Ward street, would allow commuters to get off Dupont at Lansdowne and still enter the community, thereby reducing Dupont Gridlock. This road connection would also allow shoppers at the Galleria to travel without ever going on Dupont. On top of these benefits, the connection would also reduce a great deal of traffic pressure from Wallace ave. which will have a great deal of increased traffic once the Church condos, Wallace condos and Scrap yard condos are built.

    The proposed changes will not serve this community. This community is going through a number of changes that are making it a less liveable place. We are dealing with Diesel trains, sound walls, parking shortages, condo construction, and now a traffic plan that will only serve to make life in our community more difficult. I strongly urge you stop these changes from occurring.

    Thank you very much

    Stewart Clark

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Kori I sent you an email a few months ago but maybe it went into a spam folder.

    There cannot be a stop at Ernest and Symington because the four corners are at such an off kilter angle. As well we looked at traffic calming measures there but you cannot do that on a TTC route. They wont approve it. BUT you will noticed the proposal for louvered lights facing north on Symington so that drivers cannot see the light and will have less incentive to race to make them. One other suggestion that could work is to enforce the no parking at the corners so that people have a line of sight. This wont make any difference on Paton going west as the issue is with the property owners fence and hedge.

    Generally speaking people dont speed in alleys anyway because they often have parked cars and people coming and going not to mention potholes. The bumps north of Wallace have to do with traffic leaving the church development and the temptation for people driving their kids to school to look for cut arounds. Its an attempt to control what will become a busier alley regardless

    By Lansdowne and Ward you mean the north end of Ward? We only looked at getting the timing and the advance green at Dupont and Lansdowne but I can see your point that left turning traffic onto Lansdowne may be a problem---duly noted.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Hi Scott,

    I noticed a few suggestions we spoke of that don't appear on this current plan. Namely a 4 way stop sign on the corner of Symington & Ernest, it seems strange to ignore this intersection when a often used bus stop is there, it's a blind spot for those coming out of Ernest (and Paton as well) going north or south onto Symington, and the long stretch from Wallace to Bloor is.... long, which invites cars to speed well above limit making cars turning (from Ernest/Paton) even more dangerous.

    Aside from that a few observations, the speed bumps on the laneway between Perth/Symington why do the bumps not extend south of Wallace ? This will make drivers feel its ok to speed in lane south of Wallace to make up for "lost time" north of Wallace.

    Last, the intersection of Lansdowne & Ward, which is currently only a stop sign for Ward St, yet that's another busy intersection only about to become much busier as those condos units get occupants, (maybe this is already in the plan???), but it seems odd that this intersection is already hard to navigate for those trying to cross/turn onto Lansdowne, with a bus stop and pedestrian crossing it seems like a full weight-sensored traffic light ought to be planned, namely anticipating the usage it will gain as residents / visitors enter those new condos, it could be a potential hotspot for congestion & accidents, namely in those heavy commuting hours.

    Please pass these ideas along to our councillors office,

    Just my two cents :)

    Kori

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 5 weeks ago

    Hi Scott,

    I noticed a few suggestions we spoke of that don't appear on this current plan. Namely a 4 way stop sign on the corner of Symington & Ernest, it seems strange to ignore this intersection when a often used bus stop is there, it's a blind spot for those coming out of Ernest (and Paton as well) going north or south onto Symington, and the long stretch from Wallace to Bloor is.... long, which invites cars to speed well above limit making cars turning (from Ernest/Paton) even more dangerous.

    Aside from that a few observations, the speed bumps on the laneway between Perth/Symington why do the bumps not extend south of Wallace ? This will make drivers feel its ok to speed in lane south of Wallace to make up for "lost time" north of Wallace.

    Last, the intersection of Lansdowne & Ward, which is currently only a stop sign for Ward St, yet that's another busy intersection only about to become much busier as those condos units get occupants, (maybe this is already in the plan???), but it seems odd that this intersection is already hard to navigate for those trying to cross/turn onto Lansdowne, with a bus stop and pedestrian crossing it seems like a full weight-sensored traffic light ought to be planned, namely anticipating the usage it will gain as residents / visitors enter those new condos, it could be a potential hotspot for congestion & accidents, namely in those heavy commuting hours.

    Please pass these ideas along to our councillors office,

    Just my two cents :)

    Kori

  • book a campfire   5 years 5 weeks ago
  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 6 weeks ago

    Depends what you think the Anex is as my office is there and there a couple of do not enter streets. You should add that in the Anex you make one turn and then drive a few blocks (like on Lennox or Barton) . In our case you might make 2 turns (big deal) and then you are on an arterial. Thats better. Every area has a slightly different take on its one ways.

    One could argue that Traffic Departments have been in love with the car for the last few decades and are finally starting to include pedestrians, public transit, and cycling as part of "traffic". This has been written about in every major news paper and magazine over the last 10 years and in many books. In many cases traffic planners have ideas that are based in habit rather than study. Donald Shoup has an excellent discussion of this in his book. The reality is that people have wanted this done in their hoods so it doesnt matter what the traffic department, of which quality of life is not a goal, thinks. Thats why we have councillors and the community councils.

    I am glad you have opinions but others have a different opinion and videos taken of intersections in the community show cut through traffic is a rising issue and it was the number 1 thing that residents told us. Every where I drive in downtown there are one ways so I dont really have any problem with a few more and in reality it will only add a few seconds to ones trip. I cant ask you to solve a problem you dont see but send in feedback.

  • Perth-Dupont Community Garden Upgrade Meeting   5 years 6 weeks ago

    I assume it happened, though I wasn't there. I hope you didn't go tonight though - that's exactly one month late. :)

    Actually...the listed address of 143 Franklin may be slightly wrong. The meeting would have been in the church across the street from 143 Franklin (143 is the church's residence). I didn't even notice that address discrepancy on the two meetings that week.

  • Perth-Dupont Community Garden Upgrade Meeting   5 years 6 weeks ago

    Did this meeting happen? I went and it seemed like the wrong address

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 6 weeks ago

    I was having a discussion the other day on this issue and a question was posed to me; Why do I see so many issues with this plan and yet the Anex works very well with just as many one-way streets? It was a good question and so I thought about it, I looked at maps and I drove through the neighbourhood; here's what I found. In the Anex there are no streets which do not connect with the main roads surrounding the neighbourhood. The consequence is that even with the one-way roads is virtually impossible to be more than a single turn from an exit to the neighbourhood. Not only that in the entirety of the Anex there is only a single street that if you drive down it you run into a Do Not Enter sign, and yet Perth, the only non-arterial road that runs from one end of our neighbourhood to the other, there are two such locations in this plan.

    Your argument that the planning department doesn't know what their doing because they didn't find a problem with traffic light timing before the resident did is not applicable. There is a big difference between not identifying a problem vs. concluding there is no problem.

    On you point about traffic rising, I did not say that traffic has not risen, I said the traffic level is not unreasonably high. The only way this plan will cause traffic levels to decline is if the traffic volume is driven by people cutting through the neighbourhood, otherwise this plan will cause traffic volume to rise since residents will need to take less direct routes to get home. In my opinion traffic is rising for the same reason traffic is rising everywhere else in Toronto, increasing population and density.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 6 weeks ago

    Hi Jeff; I could not agree with you more. There are a number of issues with the plan including the stop sign on Wallace, they should be resolved; but the plan for Perth is dumbfounding.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 6 weeks ago

    The stop sign at Ward and Wallace is no different that the many stop signs that are the same distance or shorter along Wallace east of Symington. They range from 82 to about 90 meters while the stretch from Ward to Lansdowne is 92 meters. At 89 the length between Perth and Symington is shorter as well. The speeding along this strip, which is especially to catch the light was one of the top 3 things that residents we talked to mentioned.

    Perth as proposed changes 5 times not 6 and there are other streets that change many times it really depends on what outlets there are. At the community meeting a resident made a suggestion that looks workable that would mean 3 changes. You have to work with what you are given and a lot of care was put into not having to make people make more turns than others. Its hard.

    You dont remove speed bumps on one ways as that increases speed. Thats why Edwin would get them.

    Take the plan and spend some time with it and forward your suggestions. There have been a couple good ones so far.

  • Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan   5 years 6 weeks ago

    I have to say that I'm not a big fan of this plan either.

    I'll admit that most of the streets in the JT are too narrow to be two-way, especially Edwin. Symmington is only street that's pleasant to drive on... it's wide, has no speed bumps, you can park without blocking traffic and there's few four way stops. I say this as someone who predominantly rides a bike and drives occasionally in the evenings and on weekends.

    I have issues with two parts of the proposal. One is the unnecessary stop sign at Ward and Wallace. Ward is literally 100m from Lansdowne. I'm not sure if it's the residents of Ward or Wallace who are for this idea, but it seems kind of crazy to me. How fast can someone go between Campbell and Lansdowne? Given the level of traffic currently on Wallace, I'd be surprised if anyone is going above 50km/h there.

    The other is having Perth change directions five times. The acronym WTF has never been more appropriate when looking at this plan for Perth. There's a few streets running north/south in the Kensington area that stretch up to Davenport or Dupont that change five or six times but that's a longer distance, with some two-way stretches. I doubt there's a single other street in all of Toronto that changes directions as frequently as Perth would in the same or shorter distance.

    I'm fine with making Perth one-way but changing directions twice is enough. If they're really insistent on making it change directions so frequently, at least remove the speed bumps.