Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan
Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan - Feb 2013 Draft
I've created this forum topic for all discussions related to the ongoing Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan, started in 2012 by local residents and Ward 18 City Councillor Ana Bailao.
Timeline, notes, links, etc.:
- February 28, 2013: Initial Public Meeting for Community Feedback
- Draft plan/map presented at February 28, 2013 meeting (PDF)
- Councillor Ana Bailao's post-meeting message (Note: You can send feedback directly to Councillor Bailao at councillor_bailao@toronto.ca)
This following was read at the meeting as part of the rationale for this plan.The plan is a first step and not set in stone. Already residents have offered improvements.There will be further public meetings.
"The amount and speed of traffic in the Junction Triangle has increased over the past 10 years. The data shows this.
A large percentage of this is traffic looking for shortcuts on residential side streets instead of staying on major arterial roads such as Bloor, Symington, and Dupont. Volume, speeding, and noise not only effects safety but also the quality of life in a community. There has not been any comprehensive traffic management planning of our area in living memory.
The Junction Triangle is the only area of Ward 18 that does not have any traffic flow control. In fact, Junction Triangle is one of the few areas downtown that has no traffic flow controls. The time has come to explore traffic management control so that our community has the same advantages that other communities do.
Over the past year a group of residents representing different parts of the area met frequently with the Councillor’s staff and with City Traffic Staff to look at the data numbers and suggest solutions that will help our community.
The goal of the committee was to improve the quality of life in the Junction Triangle by slowing down and discouraging non-local traffic. We recognize that when changes like this are made it takes a while to adjust. We all live in this community and these changes will affect us too. But if you ask people in other communities how they feel about traffic management they will tell you that they get used to it and grow to appreciate the benefits to the community."
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| JTTMC-final-Traffic-plan-to-be-presented-on-Feb-28-2013.pdf | 119.61 KB |
Junction Triangle Traffic Management Plan?
Does anyone know what the status of this Junction Triangle Management Plan?
This is a great initiative, it would be nice to see if there is some progress on this.
Junction Triangle Traffic Management Committee - traffic plan
Hi there, Michael Vieira here from Councillor Bailão's office. The Junction Triangle Management Traffic Management Committee traffic plan is still a go. Our office is in the process of ironing out a few details with the City's Transportation Services dept. An update will be posted on both this site and Councillor Bailão's website in a few days.
Thank you for your patience.
Michael M. Vieira
Constituency Assistant to Councillor Ana Bailão
Junction Triangle Traffic Management
Thanks for the update Michael. Much appreciated.
Staying on major arterial roads such as Bloor, Symington etc.,
"A large percentage of this is traffic looking for shortcuts on residential side streets instead of staying on major arterial roads such as Bloor, Symington, and Dupont. Volume, speeding, and noise not only effects safety but also the quality of life in a community"
Just a reminder that Symington is also a residential street, with many kids and seniors. Symington Ave has 3 crossing guards, more then any other street in the JT neighbourhood. I would be very careful having to much traffic going up & down this street, this also can effect SAFETY as someone wrote.
I will also cut and past this for Michael from Ana's office. JF
It would have been nice to
It would have been nice to see extra speed bumps added to Campbell Avenue. The ones that are in place are too far spread apart, and it's an all too common accurance to hear/see cars and trucks speed down the road.
It would have been nice to
It would have been nice to see extra speed bumps added to Campbell Avenue. The ones that are in place are too far spread apart, and it's an all too common accurance to hear/see cars and trucks speed down the road.
Bike Lanes?
Hello all
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were regarding bike lanes. I believe that the addition of bike lanes to some of the busier streets, such as Perth, would create a much safer area for the children of the community. If Perth does become a one way street, this would create enough extra space to allow bike lanes. Not only will these bike lanes create safer travel routes for children, they may also reduce the traffic created by the drop off/pick up of children at the schools. I predict that if the lanes did exist, parents would be more inclined to bike to school with their children, or allow the kids to bike to school themselves.
From a safety standpoint, I also think bike lanes around some of the streets near the Campbell ave. park would be a good idea.
Thoughts?
I would suggest using the
I would suggest using the Bike path and stay off of the busier streets if at all possible. there is still a lot of traffic even if it is a 1 way. (sterling Road is a 1 way street and yet we still have drivers that go the wrong way down the street.)
I would be strongly
I would be strongly supportive of more bike lanes on any or all streets, including Perth. I find Toronto a difficult city to walk and bike in. Ideally, I would prefer separated bike lanes where cars cannot park, but any marginal improvements (like paint on the road) would be helpful, in my opinion.
Alas, I doubt there is much support from the broader community.
Bike lanes
I would also strongly support bike lanes in this plan, especially on Edwin and Perth, mainly to allow contra-flow bike traffic. Edwin is especially important to preserve access to/from the Railpath. Perth would make an excellent route that crosses the entire neighbourhood north-south on a less busy street, connecting schools, parks, etc.
Any street that is going one-way in this plan should easily accommodate the space for a contra-flow bike lane.
As a bonus, slightly narrower regular lanes would work toward diminishing the concern that one-way streets create wider, faster lanes.
The Plan: Comments, complaints, and the process
So I'm joining a bit late to this conversation. There's no way I could comment on all the comments that have been made. I would just like to say that I think people need to provide constructive criticism to the plans that was presented. Many people worked long hours and had many debates about the proposed changes. From what I have read, there is a little bit of radicalism going on here. Let's be honest, if this plan was put in place, it is not going to "ruin" anyone's life or be detrimental to one’s health. Would a few extra turns inconvenience someone? Sure. Should it let your stress levels go through the roof? I hope not.
If you were moving into an area with these one way streets in place, you wouldn't think twice about it. It would just be the way it is. The goal of the plan was to increase safety in the neighbourhood. One of those concerns was the people who speed through the neighbourhood in an attempt to bypass traffic on Dupont. It is only a matter of time before we have a serious accident on our hands if and when someone gets hit by a car speeding along, not paying attention, or runs a stop sign to save a few seconds in their day.
Are the one ways proposed an inconvenience? Yes. Will they increase traffic on some streets? Yes. That is inevitable. However, I would argue that if you make the neighbourhood a pain in the ass to cut through, the only people using the streets will be local residents who care for the community, and drive with safety as a primary concern.
To attack an idea without understanding its purpose does little to solve the problem. It’s sort of like pissing in the wind. Ya, it provides relief, but the result is a mess with no happy party in the end. There is certain logic to the one-way streets. It creates circles that, while they may appear to be a nuisance (especially on Perth), they do create flow for locals and they do deter drivers looking to skip a bit of traffic, from cutting through. But to be so one-sided in your criticisms is not helpful. This is an open process. If you have concerns, feel free to pass them on through the councilor’s office. After reviewing the plan and reading some of the feedback, I will be proposing some changes to the Traffic Committee with some alternatives. If you really wanted to make a difference, you would do the same, and provide alternatives or solutions to some of the problems the plan has, not just filing rampant complaints, and shooting down ideas about them on this website. There is middle ground to be had here, and I implore you to not be so one-sided and to step back and see the bigger picture.
No plan will ever be perfect, nor will it address the needs of everyone. Change is coming to our neighbourhood. Things can’t stay the way they are. It’s not safe on our roads. I feel like for the first time in a long time, there is a group of people in this neighbourhood who actually care about it. And yes, they are all entitled to their opinion. But I ask you to respect the process. File your complaints, and provide constructive criticism. The committee wants to serve the neighbourhood for the greater good. Any feedback made to the appropriate channels will be addressed.
MSawa "You said"
You said:
"I feel like for the first time in a long time, there is a group of people in this neighbourhood who actually care about it"
There are many people both past and present who care for JT/Davenport, like myself and others. Like I said before, not everyone attends the meetings, like myself, but still contributes to the community behind the sceen. doesn't mean people don't care.. So to say that only certain people care in the community and not is not fair statement.
The concerns and post of the residents are legit and everyone has a right to their opinion, like you said. So I encourage the posting and yes letting the councillors office know as well.
You also said:
"I would argue that if you make the neighbourhood a pain in the ass to cut through, the only people using the streets will be local residents who care for the community, and drive with safety as a primary concern"
I live and use to own a home on Symington Ave for 40 yrs plus, and seen the changes regarding traffic flow. I personally don't think that these changes is really going to eliminate or effect the changes of traffic flow in the hood, as long as we have traffic on bloor and dupont drivers will always use other alternatives, like Symington and Perth. I seen this over the years. I do the same thing, if i am driving on bloor or dupont and there is traffic I will use side streets, one way and so forth to get back home.JF
An apology
I would like to apologize for the statement about finally having people who care in the community. I did not mean to insult those who have lived here for a long time. My intent was to say that the community is growing and it seems to me that the people moving in have an active interest in making this a better place to live. Look at the new stores, the young families. Change for the better. Every great neighbourhood goes through this. This area hasn't seen that in a long time and it is long overdue.
This plan looks good
The proposed plan looks good, it would certainly decrease traffic.
Regardless of what the final plan turns out to be, we can't stand pat with the current system, something has to be done to divert the ever increased traffic. Keep up the good work.
my letter to Councillor Bailao
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
proposed changes to traffic patterns
Hello,
I just read through your objections to the proposed traffic circulation problems and am quite puzzled by them. The overall thrust of your comments is that "things are fine as they are", which even a cursory knowledge of our neighbourhood traffic belies. One of the main concerns behind these proposals is that the current state of traffic is going to become much more intense over the next few years due to:
• the new townhouse development at Wallace and the Railpath;
• the church conversion at Wallace and Perth;
• the condo tower proposed for Campbell and Dupont;
• the ongoing developments at Lansdowne and Dupont.
Together, these developments will significantly increase the traffic in our neighbourhood. What is now quite regular "cutting through" our neighbourhood will undoubtedly become heavier traffic. You appear to be unaware of these developments or, in the case of the Wallace townhouses, unaware that they will significantly increase pressures. The solution proposed by the traffic committee is to emulate Toronto neighbourhoods like the Annex, where traffic is channelled on one-way streets, thereby reducing speeds and the "short-cut" attractiveness of residential streets. I live on Hugo Ave. north of Dupont and can certainly testify to the disruptive and dangerous practices of driver who decide to take a short cut. The proposed changes are intended to either reduce or end such practices.
These changes will not so much ruin our lives, as you seem to think, as cause a minor inconvenience as older habits are exchanged for new ones. I often find myself in the Annex for work reasons and must say that I do not find it difficult to navigate after familiarizing oneself with the neighbourhood.
My more serious concern about your letter is the lack of remedies therein. Indeed, the only remedy contained in your letter, a new road from Lappin to Antler, is obviously impractical into today's fiscal and political climate. It turns a series of minor traffic changes into a major public works project. This proposal has no wings.
I would welcome some concrete and realistic proposals from you. Alternatively, you need to convince the community that increased population can be accommodated and the quiet residential character of our streets can be preserved without change. I hope you will examine these issues more closely.
Sincerely,
Michael Dartnell
Your points clarified
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.
Response to Scott D.
Hi Scott.
Thanks for your input, but I would like to point out to you, that this is a forum to encourage community discussion. I don’t appreciate your comment about me “just criticizing” while others offer “tweaks” to the plan, nor do I appreciate the harsh way in which you demean the comments/proposals of other posters on this board. I, and others, do offer alternatives and suggest solutions to our critiques. In the end however, I don’t see much point in offering “tweaks” to, what I see as, a broken plan. I feel that the current situation is far superior to the proposed plan.
I see the validity of some of your responses to my post, but I still stand by my critique of the plan. After reading your post, I didn’t come away with any sense of how you think the proposed changes will help the community. Do you think you could clarify this for me? I stated in my post that the plan will increase the volume of traffic on Dupont, and I am interested to hear your perspective on how the proposed plan will reduce this volume. You also stated that the traffic situation around the current school drop off is a “mess”. As a Ruskin resident, I directly deal with the student drop off, every day, and I don’t find it an inconvenience. Could you explain to me how/why you think the current situation is a mess, and how the proposed plan will fix this mess? I am also confused by your claim that one way streets will increase street parking. Can you clarify this? Finally, You also claim that every neighborhood in the city has one way streets and that they must know something that we don’t. Can you specifically tell me how these one way streets will improve our daily lives?
As to your comment about my neighbor on Ruskin, I am sure that there are a number of people in the community who love the plan, and a number who hate it. I personally, don’t see how the plan is going to make our traffic situation any better. In my opinion it will make it a lot worse for some of the community members. That is why I am concerned about it. I can not see many positives to this plan, and I would be interested to hear your take on what makes this plan so positive.
Thanks for your response.
Stewart
I think I have gone over all
I think I have gone over all your questions in other posts.
I never said that one way streets will create more street parking. I said this plan will create more street parking and you can see it on the map.
More traffic on Dupont. Thats the idea. Keeping traffic on arterial roads. Read the posts about roundabouts and light timing.
Here is part of what was read at the public meeting.
"The amount and speed of traffic in the Junction Triangle has increased over the past 10 years.
A large percentage of this is traffic looking for shortcuts on residential side streets instead of staying on major arterial roads such as Bloor, Symington, and Dupont. Volume, speeding, and noise not only effects safety but also the quality of life in a community. There has not been any comprehensive traffic management planning of our area in living memory.
The Junction Triangle is the only area of Ward 18 that does not have any traffic flow control. In fact, Junction Triangle is one of the few areas downtown that has no traffic flow controls. The time has come to explore traffic management control so that our community has the same advantages that other communities do.
Over the past year a group of residents representing different parts of the area met frequently with the Councillor’s staff and with City Traffic Staff to look at the numbers and suggest solutions that will help our community.
The goal of the committee was to improve the quality of life in the Junction Triangle by slowing down and discouraging non-local traffic. We recognize that when changes like this are made it takes a while to adjust. We all live in this community and these changes will affect us too. But if you ask people in other communities how they feel about traffic management they will tell you that they get used to it and grow to appreciate the benefits to the community."
Hi Scott; I think many people
Hi Scott;
I think many people including myself are looking for real justification for the changes that are being proposed and which you are clearly in favour of. From all of the posts I've read it seems that the defence of this plan is based on several elements, let me speak to them.
*Most other downtown area's are one-way, everyone else cannot be crazy therefore we should stop missing out on the benefits. - This is false evidence for a number of reasons; we don't know what problem those residents were trying to resolve, we don't know if the problems they were trying to resolve were in fact resolved and we don't know if there was a reduction or an increase in traffic volume. The road layouts in other area’s are entirely different from our own, therefore even if we did have aforementioned facts, without significant modelling we cannot reasonably assume that the impacts those neighbourhoods see, would be the same impacts we would see. In addition we are not downtown, we should instead be comparing our neighbourhood to other mid-town areas; the Danforth, High Park/Swansea, Yonge/Eglinton are all better comparisons and unlike this plan, in those area’s greater than 50% of their roads are bi-directional.
*Much of the traffic in the community is non-local and will disappear with these plans. - On this front I have seen two arguments the first is that residents believe this to be the case, and the second is that video's have been taken showing this cut through traffic. - This again is false evidence; the only way to identify cut through traffic is to show it entering and leaving the area, and showing that the person in the car had no other reason to be in the area, this cannot be accomplished without simultaneous recording all entry and exit points and cross identifying the traffic. A study like this would be large and expensive, did this occur? On the issue of complaints from residents, these are valid but only a starting point, they are a reason to conduct a study not evidence of a problem.
*It’s what the people want – I think from the evidence of both this forum and Ana Bailao’s Facebook page opinion is very clearly divided, not only on the solution but also on whether or not a problem really exists in the first place. The act which allows for implementation of Councillor driven traffic calming provides for a vote by affected residents, it calls for a minimum 50% plus 1 participation in the vote by affected residents and a 60% support by voting residents, from where I sit now I find it hard to believe you have the votes needed to make this change.
I agree that change is difficult, many will oppose change simply because they prefer the devil they know to the one they don't, but the way gain supported is to communicate openly and honestly and to offer evidence that the change will improve the lives of the affected people. This has not happened here; the committee worked for far too long a period in a silo and without the ongoing feedback of the affected residents, the consequence is a plan which reflects the views of far too few people and which is more likely to fail than succeed. The proponents of this plan are far too tied to their solution, rather than to finding a solution the community can live with.
Finally; since it appears you've previously ignored my proposals I will repeat them here; I hope this time you will view them with a more open mind.
First; I am fine with making Edwin and Franklin one-way per the plan. All of the East west streets should be left bidirectional, making them one way will simply cause people to drive in circles and result in a greater traffic volume as a result, moreover it does nothing to prevent cut through traffic, since that is only affected by roads which join up with the surrounding arterial roads. The current solution for Perth is utterly unacceptable; Perth should be divided into no more than two one-way sections. If there is consensus that Perth should be one-way then it should run South from Dupont to Wallace and North from Bloor to Wallace. A better solution might be to place no-entry (either 7a-10a/3p-6p or 7a-6p) signs at both the North and South ends, where Perth meets Bloor and Dupont, and then leave Perth bi-directional.
Wonderful comments
I don't have a ton to say, other than that I fully support your comments. You have made a strong case for your arguments, and I agree that we need more research in order to truly confirm that the alleged increased traffic in our community actually exits, and that it is a result of people cutting though the community, rather than from an increase in something like two car homes for example. You also make a good point that having north/south one way streets in conjunction with east/west one way streets will result in people driving in cricles. I would add that this driving in circles means that a car from the community would have to drive on more community streets to enter or leave, therefore increasing the ammount of cars that each of our streets would see.
I would also like to add that I know this group was making proposals based on changing traffic patterns south of Dupont, but I want to reiterate that I am very concerned about any plan that wants to channel more traffic onto Dupont. I understand wanting traffic to stay on major roads, but Dupont is already a complete mess during rush hour. I know that many members of our community use Dupont to enter and leave the area, meaning that the problems that currently exist on Dupont are ones that directly, and negatively, impact our community.
Thanks a lot
Stewart
Hello, This response ignores
Hello,
This response ignores the points made in my post yesterday. Surely you understand that within 5 years the traffic situation in our neighbourhood is going to change dramatically as a result of the many important developments either underway, planned or currently under examination pending approval. These changes are intended to retain the residential character of the area, protect the increasing numbers of young children, and generally ensure that the Junction Triangle does not become a thoroughfare for people commuting to and from the downtown core.
Hi Michael; I read you post
Hi Michael;
I read you post in full. Generally you points were that the community feels there is an issue, and that a number of new developments in the area will cause traffic to rise.
I believe I responded fully to the first point already so I won't go through that item again.
On the second item; traffic levels will go up, they will rise over time as the population rises on this we agree. I do not agree that the developments outside of this neighbourhood are likely to materially impact traffic volume within the neighbourhood since all of the developments you referred to are East of us and from the East traffic will arrive at Symington before Perth and therefore use that road rather than trying to turn left(South) across traffic without the aid of a traffic light. The same would be true of traffic travelling East on Bloor, turning left(North) onto Perth is a slow and at times dangerous process, if you were travelling to the East of our neighbourhood you would use the traffic lights at Symington to aid you left turn. Traffic not moving South-west from Dupont and Lansdown would have no reason to drive down Perth and any traffic travelling to Dupont and Lansdown coming from anywhere but the South-west would have no reason to arrive at Perth either. On the issue of developments within the neighbourhood I would argue that planning which is designed to prevent local residents from using local roads is based on an unacceptable motivation, we are all equals and all equally entitled to use the roads which we jointly pay for.
The overall point in my post was that no measurable evidence or professional opinions have been added to this discussion, your post did not address either or those requests.
You seem to not understand
You seem to not understand the process that has been under way. Councillor Bailao received many complaints about traffic and decided to form a committee. A public call went out and locals showed up. This group spent a fair amount of time discussing different issues and how they might be resolved. It took a while because people are donating their time and have busy lives and there was a lot of thought that went into this. This plan is like version 10. This is not my plan, it is a plan that a committee of locals came up with in conjunction with the councillors office and the Traffic Department. As part of that process we looked at traffic counts and other data to inform what we saw with our eyes. This plan is to create conversation and seek input. And now this plan has been presented once in public and put online for feedback and there will be more meetings and more input. Nothing is set in stone. Nothing has been decided by anybody.
It is clear to me that you just dont like this plan and that is ok. But I would add that your suggestion that this process, which is still underway, is somehow dishonest, says more about you than about the people who have donated their time to make their community better. I have tried to answer your points to the best of my ability but since you are crossing the line into questioning the honesty of fellow residents I am not going to follow up with you any more. Thanks for your input.
I'm sorry you feel that way
I'm sorry you feel that way Scott. No where did I suggest, state or make any accusations of dishonesty. I have however said that the process to date has not been transparent.
I believe I fully understand the process which has led us here, but please correct me if I've missed anything. Approximately 1 year ago a meeting on traffic issues was held in the community, that meeting resulted in a committee being struck, that committee worked for a year and have now presented a plan. Any feedback that I have seen to date which is not represented a minor alteration to the proposal and which upholds the intend of the proposal has been met with defensiveness.
As someone who makes a living managing change I can tell you that had the committee met with the community regularly throughout the process, asked for ongoing feedback and showed how that feedback was being integrated into the plan, the the resulting proposal would have enjoyed much broader support.
I would welcome additional meetings, these should be held on several different days of the week and at different times so that the entire community can participate. Only through thorough community consultation in a open goals (not positions) based approach can result in a successful solution.
This is much your community as anyone else
Hats off to you for speaking up. This is much your community as anyone elses. Though some residents or (small groups) form committees to make the JT/Davenport a better community, does not mean that one person or group have the last say, or feel they have more right over some other residents. There has been a trend with some groups/individuals in JT/Davenport who think they have more of a say then anyone else, having an agenda. Though they might think they mean well, this is a problem. I have seen this and been involved myself because of other residents or small groups within JT/davenport trying to make changes without proper consultation and feed back from other residence. Some is the fault of the elected officials giving into small groups, like I said I seen this in the past. I also have spoken to Ana's office. I hope before they go through with any changes, this is well thought out. JF
Lappin/Antler crossing
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...
Maybe
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!
Ditch
This is not exactly what I was talking about but similar. Instead of Strachan think Wallace. Would there be enough ditch to put a pedestrian bridge over north of Wallace? Posible but the rail line has to get back to grade by Dupont to head into the Davenport Diamond.
http://www.blogto.com/city/2013/03/by_the_numbers_the_strachan_overpass_...
This plans are not in stone,Michael from Ana's is aware of
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
Correction Jack Fava
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.)
Correction, Wasn't taking a swipe at the MP/MPP
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
Hmmm
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.
Roundabout
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.
Roundabouts
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.
Dupont/Dundas/Annette/OldWeston roundabout
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.
Roundabouts Not just for cars
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
Roundabout
When I drove around Iceland, I encountered some roundabouts that had speed bumps as you entered and exited the loop. I'm not a huge fan of speed bumps in general but they would slow down the ever-moving traffic as it moves through the roundabout.
I always like driving through the roundabout on Windemere in Swansea. Other than the one on Claxton Blvd in Forrest Hill, they're the only roundabouts I know of in the city. Luckily, they're not totally unheard of here. Building one at Dundas/Annette/Dupont would be a challenge as it would require more lanes than the other two, and it would see a lot more traffic.
It's really the perfect intersection for a roundabout... what's sad is that we view this as such a challenge.
There's a National Post article from less than a year ago about this subject: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/21/roundabouts-are-one-of-the-best-...
Smallest Roundabouts
Roundabouts are starting to appear all over and the neat thing is that each one can be totally different than the other.
For interests sake two of the smallest in Toronto are the corners of Broadway and Rowley and Broadway and Banff Avenue 3 blocks away from each other.
As you say they can have speed control or hard stop/go control. The best thing is to tell our councillors to keep up the pressure and get these EA's and studies done. Although the Dufferin jog was on time and under budget it took decades to get a shovel in the ground. I was in high school living in Parkdale when I first heard about the jog and it took 30 years! Lets not let that happen here.
Few earlier suggestions missing
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
Granted I recognise that
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.
There obviously must be
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.
To be clear I'm OK with the
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.
A nightmare? Oh come on what
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.
I was having a discussion the
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.
Depends what you think the
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.
I have to say that I'm not a
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.
Hi Jeff; I could not agree
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.
Make Suggestions
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.
Rethink the traffic routing
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.
Keep those ideas coming
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
Hi Scott, I noticed a few
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
Heres is why
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.