Hard to believe that the Chairman of Metrolinx is also a casino lobbyist. Makes you wonder. Lot of people asking whether this is good policy.On one hand Metrolinx is supposed to reduce congestion and on the other a casino would bring thousands of cars into the downtown. Something not right here.
It gets kind of repetitive but here is another person in the paper talking about how Metrolinx's plans for the corridor are counterproductive. Cant say people didnt say so, over and over and over.
The NDP seems more interested in making it cheaper to drive than to provide comprehensive transit for people of all incomes.
A DRL and electric system would provide affordable relief for a few hundred thousand west enders for local, express, and airport travel just as every transit expert has stated, in fact even Metrolinx's own electrification study has stated.
The inferior diesel system will be an even greater white elephant that when the Tories buried the Eglinton Subway years ago (Hudak was there by the way and so was Fords Dad). We have an opportunity to reverse panicked planning and create a really usable expanded airport service because frankly the Liberals need the NDP to survive.
Andrew and Jonah I believe do want to see this happen.
The NDP leader stood in our community and pledged to push for a superior transit system that would not increase cancer causing emissions in the west end. Was she trying to shake the Liberals or just trying to shake hands ?
When it comes to the election Gods, they give, and they taketh back.
A nightmare? Oh come on what a first world complaint. A few additional turns is a nightmare? Really? I would rather have some alternative ideas if it is not working for you. Give us some ideas to make it better.Or is it just that you dont like change? I like the plan and I lose my 2 favourite shortcuts. No nightmare for me; just quieter safer streets.
Given that there has been no traffic review of our community in living memory its time for a new review. This one was asked for by residents.
Given that almost every other community downtown has done so instead of us may says more about the ability of past councillors and the budget and time challenged Traffic Department than anything else. That would be the same traffic department that changed the physical intersection at Lansdowne and Dupont and did not change the traffic light timing until our committee brought this up. If you think the Traffic Department is so great .....why are all the traffic light timings on Bloor and Dupont wrong (by their own admission)? This would be the same traffic department that has ignored the North American trend over the last 40 years to uses advance greens at every light so we are far behind everybody else on this?
Given that books like "The High Price of Free Parking " among others have exposed traffic "science " as somewhat scattered and well frankly not based on any science I would, well listen to the people at this point. Just like the people have spoken in every community that surrounds us. Traffic talk is boring so when residents create a committee you know there must be an issue.
Given that in all the other communities there is not a hark heard to change things tells me that communities know things that only those that live there know and they like how things have played out. Try to get rid of traffic calming in other areas. Good luck.
I leave you with this thought. The traffic counts show an increase on our local streets. Long time residents notice an increase on our local streets. Bloor, Dupont, and Dundas show an obvious increase that everybody talks about. The intensification in the West End means more cars. You may not have noticed any increase but a lot of other people have. And that's their nightmare.
To be clear I'm OK with the one way routing on Franklin and the existing section of Edwin, the roads run parallel and are linked so the routing is intuitive. The proposals for Ruskin, Macaulay and Perth individually are a mess, all together they are a nightmare. All of the East/West streets including Ruskin and Macaulay should be left bidirectional and Perth should not be divided into more than 2 sections.
I'll leave you with a final thought; according to a number of news articles (Globe and Star) written over the last few years, the majority of the traffic calming measures used in the city of Toronto were implemented because the city counsellor ignored the recommendations of the planning department and acted on the wishes of the residents. In general it was the opinion of the experts that either the measures were not necessary or would not accomplish the stated goals. It seems to me if the issues this committee are trying to solve were real, then it would be the city planning department that was generating the solution and not a committee of residents. Personally, I drive these streets daily and I see no evidence of significant traffic volume on any of our residential streets, cut-through or otherwise.
There was a lot of interesting train news last week. We learned that the seats on the new Tier 4 diesel trains Metrolinx is purchasing for the Union-Pearson Express failed their crash tests. We got an update on the Clean Train Coalition legal tussle with the aforementioned rail agency, learned that they’re doing it in Latvia (converting their entire rail system to electric) and got details of Montreal’s regional rail authority trying to keep their electrification study secret.
You can find all the train news plus our letter to NDP Leader Andrea Horwath on the Junction Triangle Rail Committee Facebook page. Please join us. http://www.facebook.com/groups/413180405403017/
There obviously must be issues because thats why the committee was created and given that there has been zero traffic management in our area in 30 years it was probably time. You may not be aware of this but JT is the only area in ward 18 without one way streets. In fact it its one of the few areas in the downtown without traffic flow control. I am not aware of people in other areas asking for for 2 way streets again and there must be a reason for that.
Since this map was created by actual residents rather than planners (although planners provided data) a lot of time went into trying to consider businesses and how many turns each person had to make and school routes etc. The group had residents from all over the area, some had cars, some had bikes, the majority had both, so there were people who could talk about the ripple effect from any part of our community.
I am not disagreeing with you but one way systems are based on circles---they may be really long rectangular circles but circles none the less.
The starting Edwin issue has to do with the width of the street.There was no shortage of Edwin residents wanting change. There will be changes in local traffic for sure but discouraging cut through traffic reduces it overall. Also the traffic exits for the new development south of Edwin will be on Wallace and that traffic will stay on Wallace in both directions.
If you have some ideas on how to stop cut through traffic then formulate it and post it. The only other option is to create traffic calming measures (which can be ugly) as some areas have done with zig zagging traffic and concrete boxes and also 4 corner bump outs.
Granted I recognise that imposing a one-way system onto roads designed for bidirectional traffic will never result in perfection, but this option is far worse then the current situation. One way street systems are based on parallel one-way routes, and are designed intuitively lead traffic to the desired destination, even in our area this can be done without creating through routes between arterial roads. It seems the designers got lost in creating circles without contemplating how people could follow them without a map.
I recognise that residents on Edwin don't like the traffic but I wonder if they understand that under this plan as a key exit from the area, it is likely more than half the northbound traffic which currently use Perth will instead use Edwin.
Here is some of thoughts on your comments and thanks for posting. If you have ideas draw a map or write it out and send them to the Councillor. At the meeting one resident came up with ideas that will improve this plan and make Ruskin safer for kids and another had concerns for cyclists that is going to lead to a better plan on Mid Perth.
One way street systems are based on circles long or short. In our case these circles are actually pretty small compared to a few blocks east where one really has to take a long trip to get around a block.
The new street that goes from Edwin to Wallace will in be in a year. Elsie is not affected.
People get lost all the time whether there are one ways or not just like in the rest of the city. Locals dont get lost.
When one drives or cycles out of our area there are tons of turns ---this plan adds a few more which is the price of reducing traffic. Remember, due to upcoming developments local traffic will double. This plan takes away 2 of my fav routes but 2 extra turns taking a few seconds is nothing when I think of having a quieter safer corner.
In the case of Edwin there has been considerable input that people want a one way with traffic bumps route to slo traffic, reduce outside traffic, and stop the damage to cars from sideswiping.
Some people will cut through alleys but that will be locals and locals already cut through alleys if they wish. Generally alleys discourage people from using them as routes as they force people to drive really slow.
Your route descriptions are a bit confusing but because Antler doesnt line up with other streets you have to make turns anyway to get to it so there is not much difference. Symington
Perth was set up as a series of shorter one ways so that circles would be created so nobody had to drive all the way down to Bloor or up to Dupont to make a turn
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the meeting this past week but having reviewed the plan I have grave concerns.
The first and most obvious issue with this plan is that it is entirely dependent on roads which don't yet exist and which are at a minimum several years away. For traffic west of Symington in this plan there are only two ways to exit the neighbourhood, via Wallace to Symington or via Edwin. I'm sure that existing via Symington was intentional but the number of one-ways streets creates a maze ultimately forcing all cars onto Wallace. Far from reducing traffic this will cause many cars to drive two or three times as far on neighbourhood streets before they can exit.
Unintended consequences are many and include our visitors getting lost and residents who will begin to use the lane-ways to get to their destination. If for example if I was at the south end of Edwin and I wanted to go south, I would cut through the lane-way at the north end of Edwin over to Franklin to avoid traffic on Dupont, I would then turn right on Franklin left on Parkman, right on Perth and left on Antler in order to access Symington, given the traffic on Dupont I suspect this will become the preferred option and not the backup option for many. A much better solution would be leave Ruskin, Macaulay and the yet to be built section of Edwin as bidirectional roads, and either make Perth one-way southbound on it's entire length or have the section of Perth North of Wallace run one-way Northbound and the section south of Wallace run one-way Southbound from Bloor to Wallace.
Clearly a bunch of thought went into this plan, but the result remains inadequate and would be worse than any of the current problems.
Go back in time at Rankin and Paton via Streetview. Start here, and click forward, and the northernmost part of Erwin Krickhahn Park reverts back to being a street. http://goo.gl/maps/q4nsu
I haven't been there yet (hope to check it out soon), but it's at the NE corner of Wallace and Lansdowne. I updated the original post here with the address and a couple of links.
Hey Danielle - go back and re-read what you wrote. Is that really how you talk to people? I haven't met any neighbours in the JT who address one another like that, even if they don't agree with them. I'm not going to even address this post other than say that we need to be a little more congenial, even if you feel safe in being rude in an online format. No one here is "stupid" - we just all have concerns, and perhaps some heard about meetings, and some didn't but we are all neighbours in this - many of which are supporters of transit - maybe just not big walls and diesel trains. Be nice - it'll get us all further here...
You're right Scott the bridge should be protected. Thanks for your advocacy on this issue. I find the handling of this by the developer / Ana B. and the city all quite insulting and underhanded. I'd like to see some documentation regarding who is going to pay for it. I find it pretty hard to believe a developer is going to pay for something the city wants, if in act that's the case and I've seen no evidence that it is.
And where is our councilor on all this? Ducking questions and looking at plans that were being drafted before anyone knew what was going to happen. That in itself reveals her allegiance and disregard for her own pledge of "consultation". Any meetings on this are just going to be window dressing - the councilor / city / developer have made up their minds about the fate of the bridge.
THE BRIDGE IS NOT BEING TORN DOWN. Doesnt anybody read previous posts? And there will be a public meeting to comment on the new stairs layout (It hasn't happened yet as there are still some site plan issues being resolved.)
As per a question raised in another post: From the 1996 report about the bridge and it's significance. (the report later recommended the replacement of the east stairs which was done.)
"HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
Use of steel
Steel began to be used in bridge construction from 1885 onwards, replacing timber and
wrought iron as the favoured construction material. This pedestrian bridge is presumably
a fairly early example of steel construction (if one assumes steel has been used for over
110 years in Ontario).
Use of riveting
Early metal bridges were often bolted together and relied on pin connections for their
assembly. Late nineteenth century field riveting techniques were primitive and there was
seldom any guarantee of quality control. At the turn of the twentieth century portable
pneumatic tools revolutionized field riveting permitting consistency and hence securely
riveted spans. This span could also be considered as an early example of riveting.
Rarity of pedestrian bridges
Pedestrian access across rail lines is usually achieved either at grade (street level), below
grade (underpass) or above grade (usually associated with a road bridge). Purpose-built
pedestrian bridges, and this is somewhat conjectural not knowing the precise numbers,
are probably rather rare. These spans would certainly appear to be an early example of a
rare type of structure.
For these reasons, the Wallace Avenue Footbridge is worthy of designation and
protection under the Ontario Heritage Act." (Which it was.)
The bridge is not being torn down! The stairs on the east side are being changed direction so that a new street can connect to Wallace. The stairs are not even original. So why is everyone so upset? It wont change the railpath or your ability to use the bridge.
If we as a neighbourhood get our proverbial panties in a bunch about all these little things, then city hall wont listen when we really do have real concerns.
It's the most efficient way for many residents to access transit, groceries, pharmacies, etc. There is no other crossing of the train tracks on the West end of the neighbourhood between Bloor and Perth.
Hard to believe that the Chairman of Metrolinx is also a casino lobbyist. Makes you wonder. Lot of people asking whether this is good policy.On one hand Metrolinx is supposed to reduce congestion and on the other a casino would bring thousands of cars into the downtown. Something not right here.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/lobbying-role-leaves-metroli...
It gets kind of repetitive but here is another person in the paper talking about how Metrolinx's plans for the corridor are counterproductive. Cant say people didnt say so, over and over and over.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/06/03/on_the_wrong_track_but_still_t...
Ontario Liberals....dont you even read Metrolinx's own studies ?
Gotta scratch my head here.
The NDP seems more interested in making it cheaper to drive than to provide comprehensive transit for people of all incomes.
A DRL and electric system would provide affordable relief for a few hundred thousand west enders for local, express, and airport travel just as every transit expert has stated, in fact even Metrolinx's own electrification study has stated.
The inferior diesel system will be an even greater white elephant that when the Tories buried the Eglinton Subway years ago (Hudak was there by the way and so was Fords Dad). We have an opportunity to reverse panicked planning and create a really usable expanded airport service because frankly the Liberals need the NDP to survive.
Andrew and Jonah I believe do want to see this happen.
The NDP leader stood in our community and pledged to push for a superior transit system that would not increase cancer causing emissions in the west end. Was she trying to shake the Liberals or just trying to shake hands ?
When it comes to the election Gods, they give, and they taketh back.
A nightmare? Oh come on what a first world complaint. A few additional turns is a nightmare? Really? I would rather have some alternative ideas if it is not working for you. Give us some ideas to make it better.Or is it just that you dont like change? I like the plan and I lose my 2 favourite shortcuts. No nightmare for me; just quieter safer streets.
Given that there has been no traffic review of our community in living memory its time for a new review. This one was asked for by residents.
Given that almost every other community downtown has done so instead of us may says more about the ability of past councillors and the budget and time challenged Traffic Department than anything else. That would be the same traffic department that changed the physical intersection at Lansdowne and Dupont and did not change the traffic light timing until our committee brought this up. If you think the Traffic Department is so great .....why are all the traffic light timings on Bloor and Dupont wrong (by their own admission)? This would be the same traffic department that has ignored the North American trend over the last 40 years to uses advance greens at every light so we are far behind everybody else on this?
Given that books like "The High Price of Free Parking " among others have exposed traffic "science " as somewhat scattered and well frankly not based on any science I would, well listen to the people at this point. Just like the people have spoken in every community that surrounds us. Traffic talk is boring so when residents create a committee you know there must be an issue.
Given that in all the other communities there is not a hark heard to change things tells me that communities know things that only those that live there know and they like how things have played out. Try to get rid of traffic calming in other areas. Good luck.
I leave you with this thought. The traffic counts show an increase on our local streets. Long time residents notice an increase on our local streets. Bloor, Dupont, and Dundas show an obvious increase that everybody talks about. The intensification in the West End means more cars. You may not have noticed any increase but a lot of other people have. And that's their nightmare.
To be clear I'm OK with the one way routing on Franklin and the existing section of Edwin, the roads run parallel and are linked so the routing is intuitive. The proposals for Ruskin, Macaulay and Perth individually are a mess, all together they are a nightmare. All of the East/West streets including Ruskin and Macaulay should be left bidirectional and Perth should not be divided into more than 2 sections.
I'll leave you with a final thought; according to a number of news articles (Globe and Star) written over the last few years, the majority of the traffic calming measures used in the city of Toronto were implemented because the city counsellor ignored the recommendations of the planning department and acted on the wishes of the residents. In general it was the opinion of the experts that either the measures were not necessary or would not accomplish the stated goals. It seems to me if the issues this committee are trying to solve were real, then it would be the city planning department that was generating the solution and not a committee of residents. Personally, I drive these streets daily and I see no evidence of significant traffic volume on any of our residential streets, cut-through or otherwise.
There was a lot of interesting train news last week. We learned that the seats on the new Tier 4 diesel trains Metrolinx is purchasing for the Union-Pearson Express failed their crash tests. We got an update on the Clean Train Coalition legal tussle with the aforementioned rail agency, learned that they’re doing it in Latvia (converting their entire rail system to electric) and got details of Montreal’s regional rail authority trying to keep their electrification study secret.
You can find all the train news plus our letter to NDP Leader Andrea Horwath on the Junction Triangle Rail Committee Facebook page. Please join us. http://www.facebook.com/groups/413180405403017/
Kevin
There obviously must be issues because thats why the committee was created and given that there has been zero traffic management in our area in 30 years it was probably time. You may not be aware of this but JT is the only area in ward 18 without one way streets. In fact it its one of the few areas in the downtown without traffic flow control. I am not aware of people in other areas asking for for 2 way streets again and there must be a reason for that.
Since this map was created by actual residents rather than planners (although planners provided data) a lot of time went into trying to consider businesses and how many turns each person had to make and school routes etc. The group had residents from all over the area, some had cars, some had bikes, the majority had both, so there were people who could talk about the ripple effect from any part of our community.
I am not disagreeing with you but one way systems are based on circles---they may be really long rectangular circles but circles none the less.
The starting Edwin issue has to do with the width of the street.There was no shortage of Edwin residents wanting change. There will be changes in local traffic for sure but discouraging cut through traffic reduces it overall. Also the traffic exits for the new development south of Edwin will be on Wallace and that traffic will stay on Wallace in both directions.
If you have some ideas on how to stop cut through traffic then formulate it and post it. The only other option is to create traffic calming measures (which can be ugly) as some areas have done with zig zagging traffic and concrete boxes and also 4 corner bump outs.
Granted I recognise that imposing a one-way system onto roads designed for bidirectional traffic will never result in perfection, but this option is far worse then the current situation. One way street systems are based on parallel one-way routes, and are designed intuitively lead traffic to the desired destination, even in our area this can be done without creating through routes between arterial roads. It seems the designers got lost in creating circles without contemplating how people could follow them without a map.
I recognise that residents on Edwin don't like the traffic but I wonder if they understand that under this plan as a key exit from the area, it is likely more than half the northbound traffic which currently use Perth will instead use Edwin.
Here is some of thoughts on your comments and thanks for posting. If you have ideas draw a map or write it out and send them to the Councillor. At the meeting one resident came up with ideas that will improve this plan and make Ruskin safer for kids and another had concerns for cyclists that is going to lead to a better plan on Mid Perth.
One way street systems are based on circles long or short. In our case these circles are actually pretty small compared to a few blocks east where one really has to take a long trip to get around a block.
The new street that goes from Edwin to Wallace will in be in a year. Elsie is not affected.
People get lost all the time whether there are one ways or not just like in the rest of the city. Locals dont get lost.
When one drives or cycles out of our area there are tons of turns ---this plan adds a few more which is the price of reducing traffic. Remember, due to upcoming developments local traffic will double. This plan takes away 2 of my fav routes but 2 extra turns taking a few seconds is nothing when I think of having a quieter safer corner.
In the case of Edwin there has been considerable input that people want a one way with traffic bumps route to slo traffic, reduce outside traffic, and stop the damage to cars from sideswiping.
Some people will cut through alleys but that will be locals and locals already cut through alleys if they wish. Generally alleys discourage people from using them as routes as they force people to drive really slow.
Your route descriptions are a bit confusing but because Antler doesnt line up with other streets you have to make turns anyway to get to it so there is not much difference. Symington
Perth was set up as a series of shorter one ways so that circles would be created so nobody had to drive all the way down to Bloor or up to Dupont to make a turn
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the meeting this past week but having reviewed the plan I have grave concerns.
The first and most obvious issue with this plan is that it is entirely dependent on roads which don't yet exist and which are at a minimum several years away. For traffic west of Symington in this plan there are only two ways to exit the neighbourhood, via Wallace to Symington or via Edwin. I'm sure that existing via Symington was intentional but the number of one-ways streets creates a maze ultimately forcing all cars onto Wallace. Far from reducing traffic this will cause many cars to drive two or three times as far on neighbourhood streets before they can exit.
Unintended consequences are many and include our visitors getting lost and residents who will begin to use the lane-ways to get to their destination. If for example if I was at the south end of Edwin and I wanted to go south, I would cut through the lane-way at the north end of Edwin over to Franklin to avoid traffic on Dupont, I would then turn right on Franklin left on Parkman, right on Perth and left on Antler in order to access Symington, given the traffic on Dupont I suspect this will become the preferred option and not the backup option for many. A much better solution would be leave Ruskin, Macaulay and the yet to be built section of Edwin as bidirectional roads, and either make Perth one-way southbound on it's entire length or have the section of Perth North of Wallace run one-way Northbound and the section south of Wallace run one-way Southbound from Bloor to Wallace.
Clearly a bunch of thought went into this plan, but the result remains inadequate and would be worse than any of the current problems.
....and going back in time is part of the plan !
In this case, I was actually looking at the intersection for the purpose of the JT Traffic Management plan. :)
Thats cool. Where do you find the time to uncover this stuff?
Go back in time at Rankin and Paton via Streetview. Start here, and click forward, and the northernmost part of Erwin Krickhahn Park reverts back to being a street. http://goo.gl/maps/q4nsu
Ana Bailao has posted a draft plan to her website. You can download it here:
http://www.anabailao.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/JTTMC-final-Traffic-p...
NOTE: Further comments on this event are closed. Please post all comments related to the Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan to the dedicated forum here.
So we should not care about adding further pollution to the air? Is that your point?
For the record the USGS states clearly that volcanoes are a minor contributor to air pollution and greenhouse gases compared to human activity.
Just remember that the Mt St Helen's eruption put out more particulate and SOx emissions than all cars...ever...
I haven't been there yet (hope to check it out soon), but it's at the NE corner of Wallace and Lansdowne. I updated the original post here with the address and a couple of links.
-Vic
.
Hey Danielle - go back and re-read what you wrote. Is that really how you talk to people? I haven't met any neighbours in the JT who address one another like that, even if they don't agree with them. I'm not going to even address this post other than say that we need to be a little more congenial, even if you feel safe in being rude in an online format. No one here is "stupid" - we just all have concerns, and perhaps some heard about meetings, and some didn't but we are all neighbours in this - many of which are supporters of transit - maybe just not big walls and diesel trains. Be nice - it'll get us all further here...
You're right Scott the bridge should be protected. Thanks for your advocacy on this issue. I find the handling of this by the developer / Ana B. and the city all quite insulting and underhanded. I'd like to see some documentation regarding who is going to pay for it. I find it pretty hard to believe a developer is going to pay for something the city wants, if in act that's the case and I've seen no evidence that it is.
And where is our councilor on all this? Ducking questions and looking at plans that were being drafted before anyone knew what was going to happen. That in itself reveals her allegiance and disregard for her own pledge of "consultation". Any meetings on this are just going to be window dressing - the councilor / city / developer have made up their minds about the fate of the bridge.
As above the tourney is on Sunday...
Marina
THE BRIDGE IS NOT BEING TORN DOWN. Doesnt anybody read previous posts? And there will be a public meeting to comment on the new stairs layout (It hasn't happened yet as there are still some site plan issues being resolved.)
As per a question raised in another post: From the 1996 report about the bridge and it's significance. (the report later recommended the replacement of the east stairs which was done.)
"HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
Use of steel
Steel began to be used in bridge construction from 1885 onwards, replacing timber and
wrought iron as the favoured construction material. This pedestrian bridge is presumably
a fairly early example of steel construction (if one assumes steel has been used for over
110 years in Ontario).
Use of riveting
Early metal bridges were often bolted together and relied on pin connections for their
assembly. Late nineteenth century field riveting techniques were primitive and there was
seldom any guarantee of quality control. At the turn of the twentieth century portable
pneumatic tools revolutionized field riveting permitting consistency and hence securely
riveted spans. This span could also be considered as an early example of riveting.
Rarity of pedestrian bridges
Pedestrian access across rail lines is usually achieved either at grade (street level), below
grade (underpass) or above grade (usually associated with a road bridge). Purpose-built
pedestrian bridges, and this is somewhat conjectural not knowing the precise numbers,
are probably rather rare. These spans would certainly appear to be an early example of a
rare type of structure.
For these reasons, the Wallace Avenue Footbridge is worthy of designation and
protection under the Ontario Heritage Act." (Which it was.)
The bridge is not being torn down! The stairs on the east side are being changed direction so that a new street can connect to Wallace. The stairs are not even original. So why is everyone so upset? It wont change the railpath or your ability to use the bridge.
If we as a neighbourhood get our proverbial panties in a bunch about all these little things, then city hall wont listen when we really do have real concerns.
It's the most efficient way for many residents to access transit, groceries, pharmacies, etc. There is no other crossing of the train tracks on the West end of the neighbourhood between Bloor and Perth.