[sixrings]

I would expect that a 2 lane road/avenue going in each direction would end up being placed over the actual subway part of the allen... So there would still be a road. But a road with traffic lights, a sidewalk, bike lanes, and some mid rise buildings arround it..

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I would expect that a 2 lane road/avenue going in each direction would end up being placed over the actual subway part of the allen... So there would still be a road. But a road with traffic lights, a sidewalk, bike lanes, and some mid rise buildings arround it..

The very same could likely be done while keeping the Allen, thus serving both local needs and longer "haul" needs. Without access to traffic reports I can't make an informed decision but I think removal of the Allen would be a non starter, unless there was some offsetting increase in capacity somewhere else (turning Black Creek Dr into a full fledged controlled access highway?)

 

[rbt]

The very same could likely be done while keeping the Allen, thus serving both local needs and longer "haul" needs. Without access to traffic reports I can't make an informed decision but I think removal of the Allen would be a non starter, unless there was some offsetting increase in capacity somewhere else (turning Black Creek Dr into a full fledged controlled access highway?)

I don't have the numbers infront of me, but Allan's capacity numbers are actually very low for the amount of land used, particulalry south of Lawrence.

The big reason, of course, is that Allan's total capacity south of Lawrence is restricted to a %age of Eglintons capacity. It must be less than Eglinton because Eglinton already has traffic.


Anyway, a feasible design might be a 3 lane one-way local southbound (lots of lights and intersections) overtop of the subway and a 2 lane northbound express. This might actually inrease Allan's total capacity (more streets to exit onto than Eglinton) while creating a better atmosphere for walking and pedestrians.

Another option might be a 5 lane local road (2 for parking, 2 for southbound traffic, and one lane for northbound traffic) overtop of the subway and 2-lane express northbound lanes.

 

[sixrings]

the biggest problem with the allen tho is the t intersection. Ther really is no way of fixing this. Theres no room for huge on and off ramps... Even if there were eglinton has plenty of lights and has on street parking so there would continue to be a large amount of mergin. The best idea would be to make an off and on ramp at bathrust... Then try to get drivers to either take the bathurst, the new allen ROAD... duffern.. or some other route like 427... OR how about actually using transit...

 

[sixrings]

OK heres a comprimise... that gives drivers what they want now... and makes it possibloe in the future to change to what i suggest 4 lanes 2 in each direction... OK buiild a 4 lane road like Jarvis.. Put lights on it that dictate what time of the days each lane is open to going north and south... Then have 3 lanes going south bound in the morning rush with only one lane going north bound during this time only accessable from the east side of Eglinton and allen. THIS removes a left hand tunr lane unto the allen that causes traffic flow problems between pedestrians cyclists and cars. IN the evening rush out of the city 3 lanes can open up going north bound and only one lane coming south bound with only west bound access at eglinton... Again helping reduce traffic congestion... This gives both cars a fast way into the city and out.. It takes away an expressway which should spur development and cause more intensification and create new transit users without affecting those who want to drive.. Well at least not the majority whom use it to go downtown during the morning and uptown in the evening.....

 

[Asterix]

IN the evening rush out of the city 3 lanes can open up going north bound and only one lane coming south bound with only west bound access at eglinton.

Evening rush hour traffic heading south bound can be backed up as far as Glencairn (or further) on a regular basis right now with two lanes (one with only west bound access).

Reducing to one lane isn't going to lower congestion for southbound drivers.

 

[sixrings]

well again i think encouraging the use of bathurst and dufferen is the best idea. Everything else were debating seems to only be benefitting cars. Again there should be aplace ofr cars but whose kidding who this isnt a real expressway and no one seems to know how to make it work properly.. Doing nothing is unexcusable...

 

[Asterix]

Doing nothing is unexcusable...

In your opinion. However others might feel that the status quo is far better than throwing piles of tax dollars at the Allen to bury it, deck it over or fill it in and run a nearly identical road on top.

It is a perfectly running expressway? Of course not. It was intended to deliver cars right smack downtown, but the fact it hasn't laid waste to the Cedarvale ravine or the Annex south of that is a good thing.

The amount of land potentially freed up by any of your proposals (at least what I can decipher them to be) is relatively minor. If there are four lanes and two subway tracks, burying the subway and putting four (or was it five) lanes on top is pretty close to what currently exists. There simply is not the demand for development dollars such that any private money is going to be willing to cover your costs for the public infrastructure.

You said there are already plans for Lawrence Heights redevelopment. The underground LRT on Eglinton has the potential to lure private development money for that street similar to what has occurred on Sheppard from Yonge on east through to Leslie.

There are several parks just east or west of the Allen up to the 401, so unless you want to start knocking down private homes to put in denser condo/apartments, there isn't the really strong need for parkland on any filled-in Allen trench (at least not a need comparable to the cost).

There are far more appropriate things I'd prefer by municipal tax dollars to go towards. Putting in better surface transit routes to deliver passengers more efficiently to the existing subway line would be a good step.

 

[picard102]

bathurst and dufferen

You want more people on Bathurst and Dufferin?

 

[Dan416]

There are far more appropriate things I'd prefer by municipal tax dollars to go towards. Putting in better surface transit routes to deliver passengers more efficiently to the existing subway line would be a good step.

I disagree. Our (admittedly limited) subway system is already overloaded at it is. We should be relieving it, not looking at ways to overload it even more.

 

[Neil]

People need to zoom out and look at the big picture. The north-south capacity in this part of the city south of Eglington is basically Dufferin and Bathurst. North of Eglington its Dufferin, Bathurst and Allen. Hence the unbalance, hence the queueing at the Eglington intersections. Remove the Allen and the grid is balanced and everything will flow better. The same number of cars will still move through the system because the capacity is still set by Bathurst and Dufferin south of Eglington.

Cost: Real Estate walking distance from a subway station for hi-rise development is gold. Especially with 2 levels of the parking garage already dug as a previous poster pointed out. Filling in the Allen ditch would be a money making endeavour for the city. And those people stuck in their cars in traffic. Well they're not there anymore because they live in these hi-rises, and they pay taxes.

Look at the last 50 years. Building roads does not get rid of traffic, it creates it. Conversely, getting rid of roads...

 

[Asterix]

I disagree. Our (admittedly limited) subway system is already overloaded at it is. We should be relieving it, not looking at ways to overload it even more.

Yonge side is maxed out. There is still some spare capacity on the Spadina side (witness the short turning of every second train in the morning at St Clair W).

 

[Disparishun]

People need to zoom out and look at the big picture. The north-south capacity in this part of the city south of Eglington is basically Dufferin and Bathurst. North of Eglington its Dufferin, Bathurst and Allen. Hence the unbalance, hence the queueing at the Eglington intersections.

Then isn't the way to address the "bottleneck" to make good use of it by investing in that part of the city as a destination?

Remove the Allen and the grid is balanced and everything will flow better. The same number of cars will still move through the system because the capacity is still set by Bathurst and Dufferin south of Eglington.

That assumes that the purpose of taking the Allen is to continue on well south of Eglinton. I would have thought good urban design would look to make better use of the "naturally"-occurring hub going west from Bathurst and north from Eglinton.

 

[sixrings]

right now the allen is 2 lanes south then the area for the subway and then 2 lanes going north. If the 4 lane road was built over the subway portion there would be quite a bit of land to develop on. This land is a gold mine. Some here suggest that it would cost the city money.... Hypothetically would your opinion change if it could be done without ANY TAX dollars being used.

 

[Asterix]

This land is a gold mine. Some here suggest that it would cost the city money.... Hypothetically would your opinion change if it could be done without ANY TAX dollars being used.

Of course. But right now, other than your assertion, I don't see any evidence to believe there is a "gold mine" of value for private money of the extent needed for this project.