[crs1026]

It can't be hard to minimise the effect of the U-turn points, only allowing U-turns when traffic at the main intersection has a red light would be easy and effective, and there will be no pedestrian crossings at the U-turns so there will be no minimum green times.

The study is clear on that point. The left turn volume exceeds the length of the left turn/U turn lane at several locations at peak. If you enhance the green light duration for the LRT, letting the left turns back up waiting for their light, they pile up into one of the through lanes of traffic and that gets blocked. Left turn volume is a significant issue for this study. Sure, we could say, let's give LRT priority and let drivers suck it up. That's not an optimal solution.

Also, the study hints to what is actually happening up there today: infiltration into side streets. Such as, few taxis or airport limo drivers will attempt north on Kipling to west on Eglinton any more. They take Longfield west from Kipling at the Kingsway light, and turn left on Eglinton from Lloyd Manor. This is one of the things that has the residents up in arms.... much more traffic on the side streets. People are finding new routings through the area. If that infiltration is desirable, great....but.... is it?

Based on what?

Based on
1) the volume of cross-Eglinton auto traffic and the projections for wait time for automobiles in the north-south direction. Hold up that traffic with traffic priority delaying the light cycle, and you get longer vehicular queues going north-south.
and
2) More importantly, the modellers didn't bother to propose traffic priority or show how it might change things. That implies, adding traffic priority screws up their model. Or, they just don't see that as a solution. Or, it's not in their kitbag of mitigations.
My point was mostly to defuse the LRT advocates who respond to velocity concerns on a knee jerk basis with "but traffic priority will solve that". Traffic priority isn't a silver bullet at the best of times, and in relation to Eglinton West it's just not that helpful.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

U-turn phase lengths aren’t specified, however it seems reasonable to me that with a cycle length of 120 seconds, we could get 8 cars to make a u-turn with a 15-20 second u-turn phase.

Consider that a train would be coming once every 3 to 4 minutes. With a 20 second u-turn phase every 120 seconds, the probability of the train having coming up against a red light at any individual u-turning intersection is just 11% (I hope I’m remembering my probability correctly). And this is the worse case scenario, where there is no transit signal priority, where all u-turning intersections have traffic volume to justify 20 second u-turn phases, and where it is assumed a u-turn phase will be actuated 100% of the time. And even when the train does come up to a red light, it’s stopped for at most 20 seconds - not a huge delay.

It’s rough math, but it gives us an idea of how these u-turn lanes will affect operations. I agree with the EA authors that this will not have a significant negative impact on operations.

Again, the issue may be the queuing of the left/U turns. One could probably program the traffic lights such that the u-turn reds and the main intersection cross-traffic red all happen simultaneously. That would certainly minimise any increased probability of an LRT hitting a red light as they pass through the three lights associated with one intersection. But - if the U-turn lane fills up with waiting vehicles?

It's a separate issue, perhaps, from the direct velocity vs cost question, but we need an LRT solution that isn't a direct takeaway from auto flow.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The study is clear on that point. The left turn volume exceeds the length of the left turn/U turn lane at several locations at peak. If you enhance the green light duration for the LRT, letting the left turns back up waiting for their light, they pile up into one of the through lanes of traffic and that gets blocked. Left turn volume is a significant issue for this study. Sure, we could say, let's give LRT priority and let drivers suck it up. That's not an optimal solution.

But this is all a moot point: we are not going to try to back-calculate the travel time savings of grade separations across the line on the back of a napkin when there are already travel time simulations done by actual professionals.

I've gone ahead and pulled the volume data for each of the six signalized intersections (including modified left turns) for the AM peak hour. The EA recommended design is in orange. The V/C Ratios in the table are volume/capacity ratios. V/C > 1.00 indicates an overcapacity intersection or movement.

I'm not seeing the problem you're describing. In the case of Jane, Islington, Scarlett and Royal York, the volume/capacity ratio of the intersection actually decreased with the introduction of the LRT. For Martin Grove and Kipling, the V/C ratio increases marginally, by 0.07 and 0.03 respectively

Looking specifically at left turns, you said the left turn volume exceeds capacity at several locations. Yet, looking at the volume/capacity ratios for each of the twenty-four possible left turns along the Crosstown West route, none of them have a V/C greater than 1.00. In fact, with the exception of Westbound Eglinton to Northbound Martin grove, none of the selected left-turn designs in the EA are expected to be running anywhere near capacity. And for that particular westbound to northbound movement at Martin Grove, the LRT increases the V/C by just 0.01.

In the case of Jane, Scarlett, Royal York, Islington, Kipling, and 3/4 of the left-turn movements at Martin Grove, the V/C ratios for left turns substantially decreases (this is a good thing).

Nowhere here do I see the traffic nightmare you’re describing.

Martin Grove:

Kipling:

Islington

Royal York:

Scarlett:

Jane:

 

[crs1026]

I've gone ahead and pulled the volume data for each of the six signalized intersections (including modified left turns) for the AM peak hour. The EA recommended design is in orange. The V/C Ratios in the table are volume/capacity ratios. V/C > 1.00 indicates an overcapacity intersection or movement.

I'm not seeing the problem you're describing. In the case of Jane, Islington, Scarlett and Royal York, the volume/capacity ratio of the intersection actually decreased with the introduction of the LRT. For Martin Grove and Kipling, the V/C ratio increases marginally, by 0.07 and 0.03 respectively

Thanks for putting those charts in one place - that report demands a lot of bouncing around to digest.

I was looking at the projected queues (Section 1, Appendix 2 - graphical representation) . You can see that at the intermediate intersections (where U turns will be permitted) there is projected to be a problem with queue length. I may have confused myself a little by reacting to data showing queues for left turns at intersections where the end recommendation is no left turn. But if the projected left turn volume was projected to be problemmatic, and the left turn is just moved further down the road to a new U turn lane, is that queue any smaller?

I take your point about the v/c ratio charts. One issue may be that these appear have been normalised to the new vehicular capacity of each intersection, which may be lower than today. The study theorises that after LRT arrives, some proportion of existing traffic will gravitate to other routes. A different reduction is applied to different intersections. (This is described in Item 3 of each of Section 1, Appendixes III-VIII) I don't know if all traffic studies apply that premise. Taking them at face value, those v/c ratios are helpful to analyse the different scenarios or options within an intersection, but I'm not sure that they are apples to apples across the intersections. Or that they describe what will happen if traffic doesn't decline as projected.

Lastly, note that the EA document (Section 2, Item 3.4.2 recommended solving Martin Grove with a partial "diamond" plan that built two new connector roads, substituting right turns for left turns. The Exhibit 3-11 is drawn from that recommendation, but there is no mention of that idea in the latest review. That being the case, the data in the EA is not representative of traffic issues there. The 'Traditional' number may be the more representative statistic.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I was looking at the projected queues (Section 1, Appendix 2 - graphical representation) . You can see that at the intermediate intersections (where U turns will be permitted) there is projected to be a problem with queue length. I may have confused myself a little by reacting to data showing queues for left turns at intersections where the end recommendation is no left turn. But if the projected left turn volume was projected to be problemmatic, and the left turn is just moved further down the road to a new U turn lane, is that queue any smaller?

Looking at the data you're referencing, there are a handful of turning movements where it's expected that the turn queue will occasionally spill out of the turning lanes during peak hours. This doesn't particularly concern me. Driving around Toronto, you'll see this happening frequently on our major thoroughfares. The lane spillage on Eglinton Avenue West with the LRT doesn't strike me as being unusually problematic. This is the cost of living in a city with 3 Million people.

That said, depending on the cost, I do believe the Martin Grove intersection can be improved. The eastbound to northbound turning lanes are at capacity, and this situation might be improved with a flyover to allow vehicles to do that particular movement without being impeded by traffic signals. However, it must be emphasized that with or without the LRT, this particular movement would be at a V/C of about 1.00; this isn't a problem triggered by the presence of the LRT.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I take your point about the v/c ratio charts. One issue may be that these appear have been normalised to the new vehicular capacity of each intersection, which may be lower than today. The study theorises that after LRT arrives, some proportion of existing traffic will gravitate to other routes. A different reduction is applied to different intersections. (This is described in Item 3 of each of Section 1, Appendixes III-VIII) I don't know if all traffic studies apply that premise. Taking them at face value, those v/c ratios are helpful to analyse the different scenarios or options within an intersection, but I'm not sure that they are apples to apples across the intersections. Or that they describe what will happen if traffic doesn't decline as projected.

A quote from the EA:

It should be noted that the assumptions used to generate these findings are conservative, since there were no adjustments made to the future traffic volumes based on an anticipated change in transportation modal split (shift from travelling by car to travelling on the Eglinton CLRT).

Page 27: http://thecrosstown.ca/sites/defaul...l-design-options-sections-2.1-through-2-6.pdf
​

So the EA isn't taking into account any drivers that will switch to transit. This is a smart move, as we've frequently seen that new transit infrastructure very often does not result in higher transit modal share.

 

[Rainforest]

Spotted a massive difference in the cost estimates for grade separations, according to the two recently published reports:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrzqfHhIJoRSvVTwwKvVzCDh33dfu1ZH/view

Versus

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109250.pdf

In the first document, they use "$" for 0-50 million and "$$$" for 100 - 150 million.

Islington comes at "$", 0-50 M.
Each of Jane, Scarlett, Royal York, Kipling, Martin Grove comes at "$$$", or between $100 M and $150 M

In the second document:

Jane 70.6 to 106.0
Scarlett 93.0 to 139.6
Royal York 187.1 to 280.8
Islington 74.1 to 111.3
Kipling 220.6 to 331.0
Martin Grove 236.5 to 354.9

Either I miss something in undertanding of those reports, or they miss something in one of the reports (or both).

Royal York, Kipling, Martin Grove (underground options) come roughly twice more expensive in the second report than in the first report.

Islington (elevated) is roughly twice more expensive as well.

Scarlett (elevated) is about same.

Jane (elevated) is actually cheaper according to the second report than according to the first.

How is that all possible?

 

[Voltz]

When reading the Business Case Analysis carefully, you'd see that they assume the speeds of the trains. Metrolinx didn't do any kind of quantitative study to determine how quickly the trains would be moving; that was undertaken in the Environmental Assessment. If what I recall from the Metrolinx BCA's is correct, they assumed all the Transit City LRTs would have 22 km/h running speeds, regardless of their location.

I'm pretty sure I remember that the actual estimated speed of the western section from the original Eglinton Crosstown EA was 30km/h

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Spotted a massive difference in the cost estimates for grade separations, according to the two recently published reports:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrzqfHhIJoRSvVTwwKvVzCDh33dfu1ZH/view

Versus

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109250.pdf

In the first document, they use "$" for 0-50 million and "$$$" for 100 - 150 million.

Islington comes at "$", 0-50 M.
Each of Jane, Scarlett, Royal York, Kipling, Martin Grove comes at "$$$", or between $100 M and $150 M

In the second document:

Jane 70.6 to 106.0
Scarlett 93.0 to 139.6
Royal York 187.1 to 280.8
Islington 74.1 to 111.3
Kipling 220.6 to 331.0
Martin Grove 236.5 to 354.9

Either I miss something in undertanding of those reports, or they miss something in one of the reports (or both).

Royal York, Kipling, Martin Grove (underground options) come roughly twice more expensive in the second report than in the first report.

Islington (elevated) is roughly twice more expensive as well.

Scarlett (elevated) is about same.

Jane (elevated) is actually cheaper according to the second report than according to the first.

How is that all possible?

Probably a genuine error by whoever wrote the report.

I'd trust the numerical values, and ignore the dumb "$$$$$" meter. Particularly because the numerical values have more precision than the "$$$$$$" meter, which seems to round to the nearest 50-millionth. And, for what its worth, the values on the Eglinton West LRT website match the numerical values

 

[MisterF]

I know I keep bringing this up but an at grade LRT with crossing arms at intersections would give the line the speed of a grade separated line at near the cost of a streetcar-style line. This would drastically reduce the number of grade separations. Are staff looking at this option?

 

[Rainforest]

I know I keep bringing this up but an at grade LRT with crossing arms at intersections would give the line the speed of a grade separated line at near the cost of a streetcar-style line. This would drastically reduce the number of grade separations. Are staff looking at this option?

They aren't likely to attempt that; too much interruptions to the N-S traffic given that Eglinton LRT is going to be fairly frequent, up to a car every 3 min in each direction. That means, unscheduled halts to all N-S traffic every 1.5 min on average.

Intelligent transit priority would be more subtle; it would extend the Eglinton green signal by 5-10 sec if an LRV is going to just barely miss it, to help it actually get through the intersection. If the LRV is going to miss it anyway, then the transit control system might shorten both main cycles (Eglinton and the subsequent N-S) to help the LRV pass sooner once the next Eglinton green starts.

 

[MisterF]

They aren't likely to attempt that; too much interruptions to the N-S traffic given that Eglinton LRT is going to be fairly frequent, up to a car every 3 min in each direction. That means, unscheduled halts to all N-S traffic every 1.5 min on average.

Intelligent transit priority would be more subtle; it would extend the Eglinton green signal by 5-10 sec if an LRV is going to just barely miss it, to help it actually get through the intersection. If the LRV is going to miss it anyway, then the transit control system might shorten both main cycles (Eglinton and the subsequent N-S) to help the LRV pass sooner once the next Eglinton green starts.

Those frequencies are nothing new for an at grade system with crossing arms at intersections. The Calgary LRT has trains as often as every 3 minutes each direction at peak; in Edmonton it's every 5 minutes. There's nothing unique about Eglinton West that prevents that kind of system as far as I can tell. There can still be selective grade separations at the busiest streets, as both aforementioned cities have.

Signal priority would be more subtle but also more ineffective. The Highway 7 busway has signal priority too but buses routinely wait at red lights.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Those frequencies are nothing new for an at grade system with crossing arms at intersections. The Calgary LRT has trains as often as every 3 minutes each direction at peak; in Edmonton it's every 5 minutes. There's nothing unique about Eglinton West that prevents that kind of system as far as I can tell. There can still be selective grade separations at the busiest streets, as both aforementioned cities have.

Signal priority would be more subtle but also more ineffective. The Highway 7 busway has signal priority too but buses routinely wait at red lights.

From what I’ve heard, that setup in Calgary has really screwed up cross traffic.

 

[TransitBart]

From what I’ve heard, that setup in Calgary has really screwed up cross traffic.

It has. Edmonton too. I go there regularly. We are building something for the ages. Why we have to keep inventing ways to cut corners (or more vulgarly, cheap out) is beyond me.

 

[Voltz]

Crossing gates only speed up the LRT because they LRT provide full priority over traffic, but really the same could be done with regular traffic signals, I don't think there is a big issue with cars running red lights that we need gates as well.

But I would consider having short crossing arms for the left turn lanes on Eglinton, so there is no risk of cars turning against a red light, while straight through traffic has a green, and getting t-boned by a LRT, requiring annoyingly slow operation of trains through intersections.