toronto transit commission (ttc) section 1: transit...

R E P O R T

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)

SECTION 1: TRANSIT PROJECT ASSESSMENT STUDY - OVERALL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

February, 2010 -IV-C-5

Exhibit B-6: Scenario 2 – HCM Results (PM)

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRVolumes 1672 257 1442 210 1159 226 879 175v/c Ratio (HCM) 0.94 0.81 0.95 0.60 0.73 0.44Vehicular Delay (HCM) 8.5 24.7 50.8 31.5 27.8 22.3Avg. Ped. Delay 26 26 41 41Max. Ped Delay 51 51 81 81

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Volumes 78U 179L 1621 113 164U

131L 1640 62 179 144 119 72 110 155

v/c Ratio (HCM) 0.99 1.00 1.21 1.00 0.96 0.54 0.38 0.51Vehicular Delay (HCM) 104.6 52.3 161.2 61.6 96.1 39.0 38.3 39.6Avg. Ped. Delay 32 32 44 44

Max. Ped Delay 64S 65N

64S 65N 88 88


Volumes 140U 71L 1362 33 77U

41L 1593 81 47 69 45 78 56 56

v/c Ratio (HCM) 0.81 0.69 0.51 0.86 0.55 0.77Vehicular Delay (HCM) 69.2 10.5 50.0 27.5 46.2 31.0Avg. Ped. Delay 28 28 44 44Max. Ped Delay 55 55 88 88


Volumes 104 62 17 25 49 17 263U 51L 1094 34 46 856 66

v/c Ratio (HCM) 0.75 0.29 0.63 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.39 0.05Vehicular Delay (HCM) 48.9 44.3 22.8 1.7 0.0 10.7 12.1 9.2Avg. Ped. Delay 43 43 26 26

Max. Ped Delay 86 86 46E 56W

46E 56W


Volumes 10 10 1092 10 293U10L 843

v/c Ratio (HCM) 0.08 0.42 0.01 0.59 0.27Vehicular Delay (HCM) 52.8 7.7 5.1 27.2 0.7Avg. Ped. Delay 46 46 25 25Max. Ped Delay 92 92 50 50

Widdicombe Hill & Kipling Avenue (120 Seconds)

Byland Road & Kipling Avenue (120 Seconds)

Eglinton Avenue West & Kipling Avenue (120 Seconds)

Eglinton Avenue West & Widdicombe Hill (120 Seconds)

Eglinton Avenue West & Wincott Drive (120 Seconds)

R E P O R T



APPENDIX V

EGLINTON AVENUE LRT – EGLINTON AVENUE AT JANE STREET SYNCHRO ASSESSMENT

R E P O R T

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) SECTION 1: TRANSIT PROJECT ASSESSMENT STUDY - OVERALL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

February, 2010 Page 1-V- 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a part of the Transit Project Assessment Study process for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (ECLRT), a preliminary study was completed for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street. The study considered the implications of interfacing the ECLRT with the Jane LRT (JLRT) at this intersection with both operating in an at-grade alignment, and the associated pedestrian volume increases of 750% to as much as 1462 pedestrians/hour. Three conceptual at-grade LRT interface options were considered:

1. Option 1 - ECLRT and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway;

2. Option 2 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway; and

3. Option 3 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade west of roadway

In addition to the three interface options, two traffic redistribution scenarios were considered to mitigate the left turn volumes at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection:

Scenario 1- Prohibited left turns at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street and redistribute to Eglinton Avenue signals; and

Scenario 2 – Prohibited left turns at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street and redistribution to Eglinton Avenue West signals and Jane Street signals.

Based on the Synchro analysis of the above options and scenarios, Option 3 and Scenario 2 were found to be the most appropriate. This includes:

Option 3 is to provide the capacity on Eglinton Avenue West east and west of Jane Street to integrate the ECLRT from north of Eglinton Avenue West into the centre of the roadway and to provide the capacity on Jane Street north and south of Eglinton Avenue West to integrate the JLRT from west of Eglinton Avenue West into the centre of the roadway. This option requires modifying the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street signalized intersection to allow the ECLRT to cross Jane Street north of the intersection, and the JLRT to cross Eglinton Avenue West west of the intersection.

Scenario 2 is to implement all of the following:

A 90 second cycle length and four phase signal operation with prohibited east-west and north-south left turn movements at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection;

A minimum of 25.9 seconds for the ECLRT phase on a through movement;

A new signalized intersection on Eglinton Avenue West east of Jane Street with the capacity to accommodate eastbound u-turns;

A new signalised intersection on Jane Street north of Eglinton with the capacity to accommodate northbound u-turns;

Provide the accommodation for westbound u-turns at the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection; and

R E P O R T



Provide the accommodation for southbound u-turns at the Jane Street and Lambton Avenue intersection.

Analysis was conducted to measure the time savings to LRT users of the recommended interface Option (Option 3) over the base scenario (Option 1). The delay to pedestrians interchanging between the ECLRT and the JRLT was compared and found that Option 3 saves pedestrians transferring between the ECLRT and the JLRT approximately 40 seconds over Option 1. A comparison of LRT delay between Options 1 and 3 was also conducted, but found little to no time difference between Options 1 and 3.

The above findings were based only on transit and traffic considerations. It is recognized that other factors will be considered in the Transit Project Assessment Study context, such as property requirements and natural heritage impacts.

R E P O R T



2. PROJECT SCOPE This report documents the Synchro traffic analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street signalized intersection, and surrounding road network. The purpose of the analysis is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the future Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) operation, and to determine the best alternative for transit operations while minimizing impacts to traffic operation. The objective of this report is to advance the initial design to a point where it could be confidently presented to the public as a workable Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. The analysis conducted in this report is the foundation for future preliminary and detailed design.

Exhibit 2-1 shows the study area with the signalized intersections included in the analysis.

Exhibit 2-1: Study Area

Proposed SignalizedIntersection

Legend

Existing SignalizedIntersection

Eglinton Avenue

Jane

Stre

et

Emmett Avenue

Lampton Avenue

R E P O R T



In consultation with City of Toronto and TTC staff, Synchro analysis was conducted to evaluate the LRV operation for two intersection configuration scenarios, and three LRT interface options. The two scenarios are:

Scenario 1- Prohibited left turns at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street and redistribute to adjacent Eglinton Avenue West signals; and

Scenario 2 – Prohibited left turns at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street and redistribution to adjacent Eglinton Avenue West signals and Jane Street signals.

The three LRT interface options are:

Option 1 – Eglinton Crosstown LRT (ECLRT) and Jane LRT (JLRT) at-grade in centre of roadway;

Option 2 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway; and

Option 3 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade west of roadway

Other interface options involving above or below grade LRT operation were considered, but were not included in this analysis as their impacts to traffic could not be interpreted by a Synchro model.

The report describes:

Traffic volumes developed for the future LRT operation under each of the scenarios (Section 3);

Details on the ECLRT and JLRT interface options (Section 4);

The Synchro analysis results for the two traffic reassignment scenarios and three LRT interface options (Section 5); and

The recommended intersection configuration scenario and LRT interface option (Section 6).

The findings in this report were based only on transit and traffic considerations. It is recognized that other factors will be considered in the Transit Project Assessment Study context, such as property requirements and natural heritage impacts.

3. DATA The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street.

3.1 Existing TTC Bus Operation Exhibit 3-1 shows the existing bus routes traveling through the study area.

R E P O R T



There are four existing bus routes travelling north/south along Jane Street (35A, 35B, 35C, 35D). These four branches of the Jane bus route provide service from the Jane Subway Station to points north of Eglinton Avenue. Thus, Jane Street bus service will be entirely replaced by the JLRT within study area.

There are four branches of the Eglinton West bus route traveling east/west along Eglinton Avenue West through the study area (32, 32A, 32B, 32D). For Routes 32, 32A and 32B, service between Eglinton West Station to the east and Renforth Drive to the west is exclusively along Eglinton Avenue. The service provided by these routes will be covered by the ECLRT, and so their operation will be terminated. For Route 32D, service will not be covered by Eglinton LRT in the Emmett Road residential neighbourhood (as far as 700m from ECLRT and JLRT). In consultation with City of Toronto and TTC staff, it was concluded that the 32D Emmett bus route will remain operational travelling to Keele Station under future conditions with the LRT. As a result, route 32D was the only bus route included in the analysis.

Exhibit 3-1: Existing TTC Bus Operation

R E P O R T



3.2 LRV Phase On this section of the Eglinton Avenue runningway, the ECLRT operates concurrently with the east-west through phase. However, given the intersection geometry, length of the LRV, as well as future plans to add bicycle lanes on arterial roads, it was necessary to calculate a minimum green duration from a stopped position based on a far side platform option, which would yield the absolute minimum time required to clear the intersection. This time includes the time to accelerate to a maximum speed of 25 km/hr, plus the time to slow to a stop position. The phase was calculated to include:

5 seconds of minimum green time;

3 seconds of amber time; and

17.9 seconds of all red time.

The minimum phase duration for the LRV is 25.9 seconds.

The phase calculation can be found in Appendix A. Based on the new minimum pedestrian crossing requirements established by the City of Toronto, the minimum east-west phase was determined to be 26 seconds.

3.3 Traffic Evaporation

With the implementation of the ECLRT and JLRT, a reduction in roadway capacity may result in vehicles that currently use Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street to detour from Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street to alternate routes. As a result, an analysis of the study area was conducted to determine the future traffic operations on the two corridors. Traffic volumes at the study intersections were reduced such that the left turn volume-to-capacity ratios would be equal to or less than 1.5. Of the analysed intersections, only the Eglinton Avenue West at Jane Street intersection was found to require traffic volume reductions of left-turn movements. This capacity reduction is caused by changing the EW left turn movement from protected-permitted to protected only, and adjustments to signal timings due to new pedestrian crossing requirements. The left turn traffic evaporations are shown in Exhibit 3-2 for the AM peak hour and Exhibit 3-3 for the PM peak hour. The reduced left turn volumes were propagated to adjacent signalized intersections in the study area.

Exhibit 3-2: Traffic Volume Reductions (AM)

Future Left-Turn/U-Turn

Volume

Reduced Volume

Left-Turn/U-Turn Reduction (%)


Volume

Reduced Volume

Left-Turn/U-Turn Reduction (%)

262 152 42% 225 131 42%

NBLEglinton Avenue West at Jane Street

EBL

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-3: Traffic Volume Reductions (PM)

Exhibit 3-4 and Exhibit 3-5 show the future traffic volumes with the anticipated traffic evaporation.

Exhibit 3-4: Future Traffic Volumes (AM)


Volume

Reduced Volume

Left-Turn/U-Turn Reduction

(%)


Volume

Reduced Volume

Left-Turn/U-Turn Reduction

(%)227 131 42% 169 107 37%

Eglinton Avenue West at Jane StreetNBLEBL

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-5: Future Traffic Volumes (PM)

3.4 Traffic Volume Distribution

3.4 .1 BASE C ON DIT ION S – FUT URE CONDIT IONS WI TH L EFT TUR NS

Under base conditions, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street are not restricted. The left turns operate exclusively during protected only left-turn phases.

3.4 .2 SCENARIO 1 – L EFT T URN S PR OHIB IT E D: R EDISTR IBUTION T O EGLINTON A VENU E SIGNAL S

Under Scenario 1, left turns are prohibited at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection, and left-turn volumes are redistributed to u-turn at downstream intersections along

R E P O R T



Eglinton Avenue West. Exhibit 3-6 presents redistributed left turn movements for the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection under Scenario 1. With the prohibition of left turn movements it is expected that more green time can be allocated to the through phases, thereby providing the LRTs with more green time and reducing their delay. Under this scenario, a new signalized intersection is required on Eglinton Avenue West east of Jane Street, to accommodate u-turning traffic. The location of this intersection will be determined by the LRT alignment, which will be determined by the available property. Based on those considerations, this intersection may be able to be located west of the existing Park Entrance.

Exhibit 3-6: Scenario 1 – Left Turns Prohibited: Redistribution to Eglinton Avenue Signals

Eglinton Avenue

Jane

Stre

et

Emmett Avenue


Legend


3.4 .3 SCENARIO 2 – L EFT T URN S PR OHIB IT ED: R EDI STR IBUTION T O EGLINTON A VENU E AND JANE ST REET SIGN A LS

Under Scenario 2, left turns were prohibited at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection, and left-turn volumes are redistributed to u-turn at downstream intersections along Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street. Similar to Scenario 1, with the prohibition of left turns it is expected that more green time will be provided to the through phases benefiting the LRTs and decreasing their delay time. Exhibit 3-7 presents redistributed left turn movements for the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection under Scenario 2. Under this scenario, two new signalized intersections are required to accommodate u-turns, they are:

1. Eglinton Avenue West east of Jane Street; and

2. Jane Street north of Eglinton Avenue West.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-7: Scenario 2 – Left Turns Prohibited: Redistribution to Eglinton Avenue and Jane Street Signals

Eglinton Avenue

Jane

Stre

et

Emmett Avenue

Lampton Avenue


Legend


4. ECLRT AND JLRT INTERFACE With the implementation of the LRT network, the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection is expected to experience a pedestrian volume increase of 750%. This translates to an increase from 166 to 1250 pedestrians in the AM peak period, and an increase from 195 to 1462 pedestrians in the PM peak period. These expected pedestrian transfer figures are based on the Transit City 2031 Ridership Forecast Presentation from the Transit City Forecasting Workshop (August 2008).

In consultation with City of Toronto and TTC staff, three options for the interface between the ECLRT and the JLRT were considered in this analysis, namely:

Option 1 - ECLRT and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway;

Option 2 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway; and

Option 3 - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade west of roadway.

The three options are illustrated in Exhibit 4-1, Exhibit 4-2 , and Exhibit 4-3, respectively. Note that an additional signalized intersection on Jane Street north of Eglinton Avenue West is required for the ECLRT operation under Option 2, and JLRT operation under Option 3.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 4-1: Option 1 – ECLRT + JLRT At-Grade in Centre of Roadway

Exhibit 4-2: Option 2 - ECLRT North of Roadway + JLRT in Centre of Roadway

PEDESTRIAN

TRANSFER

STATION

Legend Existing

Intersection

Proposed Intersection

Legend Existing

Intersection


R E P O R T



Exhibit 4-3: Option 3 – ECLRT North of Roadway + JLRT West of Roadway

Under Option 1, all passenger transfers will occur at the Eglinton Avenue West at Jane Street intersection. Transferring passengers will have to cross at both Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street to make their transfer.

For both Option 2 and 3, a passenger transfer station is proposed in the northwest corner of the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection. Under these options, it is assumed that the u-turn signal on Eglinton Avenue West east of Jane Street can accommodate the LRT moving in and out of the running way.

Under Option 2, passengers will have to cross the northern leg of Jane Street to transfer between LRTs. With the ECLRT no longer in the centre of the roadway, the north and south pedestrian clearance time requirements will reduce. This will allow for more green time for Eglinton Avenue West. Lastly, under this option, an additional signalized intersection north of Eglinton Avenue West is required for the LRT to cross Jane Street. This intersection needs to be at least 60m from the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection so that the JLRT can stop on this segment of roadway if required. Coordination between the two intersections is important for the progression of the JLRT.

Under Option 3, passengers will transfer at the station and will not have to cross either Eglinton Avenue West or Jane Street. In addition, as both LRTs are outside of the roadway in this option, pedestrian clearance time requirements are reduced at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection. In addition, a modified traffic signal is required at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street to allow the ECLRT to cross Jane Street north of the intersection, and the JLRT to cross Eglinton Avenue West west of the intersection. It is assumed that traffic signal will be able operate such that pedestrians can wait between the LRT right of way and the roadway. The southbound right and eastbound right turn movements will be controlled by a protected phase to avoid

PEDESTRIAN

TRANSFER

STATION

Legend Existing

Intersection


R E P O R T



conflicting with the LRT and pedestrian movements. During north-south green, the southbound right turn will be restricted when an LRT or pedestrians are crossing, and during east-west green the eastbound right turn will be restricted when an LRT or pedestrians are crossing. Furthermore, eastbound and southbound right turns on red are restricted to prevent LRT-vehicle conflicts.

Exhibit 4-4 presents a drawing of the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection and Exhibit 4-5 presents a signal timing plan for Option 3.

Exhibit 4-4: Option 3 - Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street Intersection Drawing

Exhibit 4-5: Option 3 - Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street Phase Diagram

1 3

8765

Vehicle MovementPedestrian MovementTransit Movement

2 4

NJane Street

Eglinton Avenue West

R E P O R T



5. SYNCHRO ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1 Traffic Distribution Exhibit 5-1 and Exhibit 5-2 present the Synchro v/c ratios for the two traffic distribution scenarios, as well as the base conditions scenario (left turns allowed at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street), during the AM peak and PM peak, respectively.

Exhibit 5-1: Left Turn Distribution Comparison (AM)

Exhibit 5-2: Left Turn Distribution Comparison (PM)

Both scenarios show an improvement in comparison to the base condition for the through movements. The right turn movements degrade due to additional traffic returning to the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection after making a u-turn at the downstream signal and returning to the intersection to make a right turn.

5.2 Scenario 1 Exhibit 5-3 and Exhibit 5-4 present the Synchro analysis results for each of the three ECLRT and JLRT interface options under Scenario 1, during the AM peak and PM peak, respectively.

Eglinton Avenue West & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRBase Conditions 1.50 0.95 0.28 1.53 0.89 0.08 1.50 0.84 0.22 0.87 0.69 0.54Scenario 1 0.89 0.43 0.85 0.31 0.71 0.47 0.60 0.79Scenario 2 0.91 0.47 0.83 0.34 0.77 0.31 0.59 0.92

Eglinton Avenue West & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRBase Conditions 1.50 0.98 0.27 1.56 1.04 0.29 1.51 0.87 0.20 0.82 0.75 0.70Scenario 1 0.84 0.46 0.98 0.43 0.82 0.39 0.66 0.91Scenario 2 0.89 0.51 1.01 0.47 0.81 0.25 0.64 1.02

R E P O R T



Exhibit 5-3: Scenario 1 Synchro Results (AM)

Eglinton Avenue West & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.88 0.43 0.84 0.31 0.72 0.47 0.61 0.80

Option 2 0.82 0.39 0.79 0.29 0.81 0.52 0.66 0.50

Option 3 0.92 0.45 0.88 0.72 0.68 0.46 0.58 0.90

Eglinton Avenue West & Emmett AvenueLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.41 0.74 0.80 0.56 0.39 0.45 0.48 0.45

Option 2 0.44 0.81 0.95 0.88 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.60

Option 3 0.44 0.81 0.95 0.88 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.60

Emmett Aveune & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.51

Option 2 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.51

Option 3 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.52

Lambton Avenue & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.18 0.52 0.56 0.40 0.54

Option 2 0.18 0.52 0.56 0.40 0.54

Option 3 0.20 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.80

Eglinton Avenue West & Half SignalLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.74 0.39 0.54

Option 2 0.54 0.39 0.58

Option 3 0.54 0.39 0.58

R E P O R T



Exhibit 5-4: Scenario 1 Synchro Results (PM)

5.3

Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street

The Synchro analysis results of Scenario 1 reveal that the Eglinton Avenue West at Jane Street intersection is operating under capacity with the exception of the westbound through movement and southbound right turn movement under interface Option 3, which are operating marginally over capacity in the PM peak period. The v/c ratios for these movements are comparable to those under interface Option 1 in the PM peak. It is important to note that under Option 2, northbound and southbound traffic will encounter two closely spaced intersections on Jane Street (approximately 100 meters apart). The north intersection will be used to allow the ECLRT to cross Jane Street.

Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue

The Synchro analysis results of Scenario 1 reveal that the westbound direction v/c ratios are approaching 1.0 at the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection under Options 2 and 3. This is a result of the redistributed left turns from the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection that are now making the westbound u-turn movement at the Eglinton Avenue West and


Option 1 0.80 0.44 0.94 0.41 0.86 0.41 0.70 0.96

Option 2 0.77 0.42 0.90 0.40 0.91 0.44 0.74 0.56

Option 3 0.86 0.48 1.01 0.83 0.79 0.39 0.64 1.00


Option 1 0.43 0.75 0.81 0.69 0.34 0.40 0.44 0.40

Option 2 0.84 0.80 0.95 0.97 0.60 0.57 0.78 0.57

Option 3 0.84 0.80 0.95 0.97 0.60 0.57 0.78 0.57


Option 1 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.52

Option 2 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.52

Option 3 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.53


Option 1 0.13 0.40 0.61 0.36 0.33

Option 2 0.12 0.39 0.61 0.37 0.33

Option 3 0.13 0.41 0.61 0.51 0.48


Option 1 0.54 0.38 0.76

Option 2 0.48 0.38 0.80

Option 3 0.48 0.38 0.80

R E P O R T



Emmett Avenue intersection and the reduced westbound green time due to the LRT realignment phase. The volume of westbound u-turns at this intersection is 193 veh/hr in the AM peak period and 207 veh/hr in the PM peak period.

5.4 Scenario 2 Exhibit 5-5 and Exhibit 5-6 present the Synchro analysis results for each of the three ECLRT and JLRT interface options under Scenario 2, during the AM peak and PM peak, respectively.

Exhibit 5-5: Scenario 2 Synchro Results (AM)


Option 1 0.91 0.47 0.82 0.34 0.77 0.31 0.59 0.92

Option 2 0.83 0.41 0.75 0.31 0.85 0.35 0.66 0.59

Option 3 0.96 0.50 0.87 0.76 0.73 0.31 0.57 0.94


Option 1 0.41 0.70 0.72 0.56 0.39 0.45 0.48 0.45

Option 2 0.44 0.78 0.88 0.84 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.60

Option 3 0.44 0.78 0.88 0.84 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.60


Option 1 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.51

Option 2 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.51

Option 3 0.49 0.26 0.04 0.14 0.30 0.46 0.52


Option 1 0.17 0.53 0.63 0.55 0.54

Option 2 0.17 0.53 0.63 0.55 0.54

Option 3 0.20 0.57 0.61 0.57 0.82


Option 1 0.61 0.39 0.48

Option 2 0.31 0.39 0.56

Option 3 0.31 0.39 0.56

Half Signal & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.34 0.34 0.48

Option 2 0.32 0.32 0.46

Option 3 0.30 0.32 0.41

R E P O R T



Exhibit 5-6: Scenario 2 Synchro Results (PM)

Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street

The Synchro analysis results of Scenario 2 reveal that the westbound through and southbound right movements at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection are operating marginally over capacity under interface Options 1 and 3. All other movements in all interface options are operating under capacity.


Option 1 0.89 0.51 1.01 0.47 0.81 0.25 0.64 1.02

Option 2 0.81 0.45 0.92 0.43 0.90 0.28 0.71 0.62

Option 3 0.92 0.53 1.03 0.85 0.79 0.25 0.63 1.01


Option 1 0.43 0.73 0.77 0.70 0.31 0.37 0.40 0.37

Option 2 0.84 0.78 0.92 0.94 0.60 0.57 0.78 0.57

Option 3 0.84 0.78 0.92 0.94 0.60 0.57 0.78 0.57


Option 1 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.52

Option 2 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.52

Option 3 0.46 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.53


Option 1 0.12 0.39 0.67 0.48 0.33

Option 2 0.12 0.39 0.67 0.48 0.33

Option 3 0.13 0.42 0.66 0.60 0.47


Option 1 0.36 0.38 0.71

Option 2 0.28 0.38 0.77

Option 3 0.29 0.38 0.77

Half Signal & Jane StreetLane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Option 1 0.33 0.40 0.53

Option 2 0.33 0.40 0.53

Option 3 0.32 0.40 0.50

R E P O R T



Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue

Similar to Scenario 1, the results of the Scenario 2 Synchro analysis reveal that the westbound direction v/c ratios are approaching 1.0 at the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection under Options 2 and 3. When compared with Scenario 1, the westbound u-turn volume at this intersection has decreased by 64 veh/hr in the AM peak period and 40 veh/hr in the PM peak period. This decrease in volume has resulted in improvements in the westbound v/c ratios.

Jane Street and Lambton Avenue

The Synchro analysis results of Scenario 2 reveal that the Jane Street and Lambton Avenue intersection operates under capacity under all interface options during both the AM and PM peak period despite the addition of southbound u-turn traffic in Scenario 2.

5.5 Recommended Scenario and Option Based on the Synchro analysis results of the two scenarios under the two traffic redistribution scenarios, Option 3 is preferred since it best accommodates the pedestrian transfers between the Jane LRT and the Eglinton LRT, which is expected to increase by 750% to as much as 1462 pedestrians/hour.

Of the traffic redistribution scenarios considered, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative as it is less disruptive to the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection than Scenario 1, under interface Option 3.

6. PASSENGER TRANSFER AND ECLRT TIME Analysis was conducted to measure the time savings to LRT users of the recommended interface Option (Option 3) over the base scenario (Option 1).

6.1 Passenger Transfer In order to measure passenger transfer delay, two platform configuration options were considered for the recommended LRT interface option (Option 3). The two options are, in addition to the base scenario (Option 1) are:

Option 1 - ECLRT and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway;

Option 3a - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade west of roadway and center platforms; and

Option 3b - ECLRT at-grade north of roadway and JLRT at-grade west of roadway and side platforms.

Exhibit 6-1 and Exhibit 6-2 present the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection under Options 3a and 3b respectively.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 6-1: ECLRT/JLRT Interface -Option 3a (Centre Platforms)

Exhibit 6-2: ECLRT/JLRT Interface -Option 3b (Side Platforms)

R E P O R T



The delay experienced by pedestrians when crossing between LRTs for the three options are shown in Exhibit 6-3. These delays were computed by calculating the individual delay experienced by single pedestrians arriving at a platform in an LRV during various stages in the signal phasing and averaging the results. It was assumed that the pedestrians would enter and exit and LRV at the center of the vehicle (i.e. 45m from the edge of the ECLRT‘s platform and 30m from the edge of the JLRT’s platform). An average pedestrian walking speed of 1.2 was assumed.

Exhibit 6-3: Comparison of Pedestrian Delay

From / ToEglinton

Eastbound LRTEglinton

Westbound LRTJane Northbound

LRTJane Southbound

LRTAverage

DelayEglinton Eastbound LRT - - 163 163Eglinton Westbound LRT - - 151 151Jane Northbound LRT 136 136 - -Jane Southbound LRT 163 163 - -Eglinton Eastbound LRT - - 112 112Eglinton Westbound LRT - - 111 111Jane Northbound LRT 112 112 - -Jane Southbound LRT 112 112 - -Eglinton Eastbound LRT - - 120 115Eglinton Westbound LRT - - 115 110Jane Northbound LRT 119 114 - -Jane Southbound LRT 115 110 - -

Option 3b 114.75

Option 1 153.25

Option 3a 111.75

The table shows an average time savings of 41.5s for Option 3a and 38.5s for Option 3b over the base scenario (Option 1 - ECLRT and JLRT at-grade in centre of roadway). Based on these findings, the center platform option is the most suitable to accommodate the anticipated high volume of pedestrian transfers at this intersection.

6.2 ECLRT The ECLRT travel times for Options 1 and 3 in the PM peak hour are shown in Exhibit 6-4. The Time-Space Diagrams used to determine the travel time can be found in Appendix B. In determining the travel times, the three signalized intersections of Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue, Jane Street and the Half Signal were set to run at 90s cycle lengths in order to be coordinated. It was also assumed that the ECLRT would travel at an average speed of 20kph between links and would stop for a period of 20s at the Jane Street Platform to accommodate passenger boarding and alighting.

Exhibit 6-4: ECLRT Travel Time from Emmett Avenue to Half Signal

Option 1 Option 3

EB 205 205

WB 240 245

The findings in Exhibit 6-4 indicate that there is relatively little difference in LRT travel time between Options 1 and 3.

R E P O R T



7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Summary The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at

and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be mitigated by prohibiting all left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street, and redistributing these volumes to downstream intersections where they can u-turn.

Allowing traffic to u-turn at intersections on Jane Street in addition to Eglinton Avenue West slightly improves the condition of the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection.

Under interface Option 3, pedestrians do not have to cross Eglinton Avenue West or Jane Street to transfer between LRTs. Under this option, westbound and southbound right turns require a protected phase. Eastbound and southbound right turns on red need to be restricted.

The maximum traffic evaporation for left turn movements at the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection is 42%.

Providing a transfer facility in the north-west corner of the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street intersection saves pedestrians transferring between the ECLRT and the JLRT approximately 40 seconds.

7.2 Recommended Scenario and Option Based on the analysis results, Option 3 is preferred since it best accommodates the pedestrian transfers between the Jane LRT and the Eglinton LRT, which is expected to increase by 750% to as much as 1462 pedestrians/hour.

Option 3 is to implement all of the following:

Provide the capacity on Eglinton Avenue West east and west of Jane Street to integrate the ECLRT from north of Eglinton Avenue West into the centre of the roadway.

Provide the capacity on Jane Street north and south of Eglinton Avenue West to integrate the JLRT from west of Eglinton Avenue West into the centre of the roadway.

Modify the Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street signalized intersection to allow the ECLRT to cross Jane Street north of the intersection, and the JLRT to cross Eglinton Avenue West west of the intersection.

R E P O R T



Of the traffic redistribution scenarios considered, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative as it is less disruptive to the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection than Scenario 1, under interface Option 3.

Scenario 2 is to implement all of the following:

Four phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street with prohibited east-west and north-south left turn movements;

90 second cycle length at Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street;

Minimum of 26 seconds for the ECLRT phase on a through movement;

A new signalized intersection on Eglinton Avenue West east of Jane Street with the capacity to accommodate eastbound u-turns;

A new signalised intersection on Jane Street north of Eglinton with the capacity to accommodate northbound u-turns;

Provide the accommodation for westbound u-turns at the Eglinton Avenue West and Emmett Avenue intersection; and

Provide the accommodation for southbound u-turns at the Jane Street and Lambton Avenue intersection.

R E P O R T


APPENDIX A

CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE TRANSIT PHASE DURATION

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-V-A-1

Jane Street Start at Beginning of Green (Farside Platform)

Distance to clear (stop bar at Jane Street to “stop mark” at farside platform) (Dt) = 126 m

Initial speed (Vi) = 0 m/s

Maximum traveling speed Mv = 25 km/hr, or 6.9 m/s

Acceleration (Ac) = 1.4 m/s2

Deceleration (Dc) = -1.6 m/s2

Time to accelerate (Ta) to 25 km/hr = (Mv-Vi)/Ac = (6.9-0)/1.4 = 4.9 sec

Distance to accelerate (Da) to 25 km/hr = Vi*Ta+0.5*Ac*Ta2 = 0*5+0.5*1.4*52

= 17.0 m

Time to decelerate (Td) from 25 km/hr = (Vi-Mv)/Dc (0-25)/-1.6 = 4.3 sec

Distance to decelerate from (Dd) 25 km/hr = Vi*Td+0.5*Dc*Td2 = 0*4.3+0.5*1.6*4.32

= 14.9 m

Distance at Mv (DMv) = Dt-(Da+Dd) = 130 – (17.0+14.9) = 94.3m

Time at Mv (TMv) = DMv/Mv = 97.7/6.9 = 13.7 sec

Total Time = Ta+TMv+Td = 4.9+14.2+4.3 = 22.9 sec

Total Clearance:

Assume start up lost time = 2 seconds

Total transit phase duration = 2+22.9 = 24.9 seconds

Using this information, the transit vehicle green duration is:

As a result the east-west (transit) phase consists of:

• 5 second minimum green

• 3 second amber

• 17.9 second all red.

• Minimum phase duration of 25.9 seconds.

R E P O R T


APPENDIX B

TIME SPACE DIAGRAMS TO DETERMINE LRT TRAVEL TIME

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-V-B-1

ECLRT Time Space Diagram – PM (Option 1)

ECLRT Time Space Diagram – PM (Option 3)

WB -240s

EB -205s

WB -247s

EB -203s

R E P O R T


APPENDIX VI

EGLINTON AVENUE LRT – BLACK CREEK REPORT ANALYSIS

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-VI-1

North AccessDriveway

Photography DriveAccess

Carhouse Depot

1. INTRODUCTION A Light Rail Transit (LRT) depot is proposed on Eglinton Avenue West, just west of Black Creek Drive and east of the CN Rail track. The intention is to use this depot as a storage space for Light Rail Vehicles (LRV), and as a point for loading and offloading LRV along Eglinton Avenue West throughout the day. It is anticipated that this depot will service the following lines:

1. Pearson Airport;

2. Kennedy Station;

3. Jane Street; and

4. St Clair Avenue.

Exhibit 1 illustrates the proposed location of the Black Creek depot, along with the two proposed LRV access driveways. The first, referred to as the North Access Driveway, will be located on the north side of Eglinton Avenue, between Black Creek Drive and the CN Rail tracks. The second, referred to as the Photography Access Driveway, will be located along Photography Drive, and will intersect Black Creek Drive at Photography Drive. It is anticipated that the North Access Driveway will be the primary source for loading/offloading LRV, while the Photography Access Driveway will act as a relief point if the North Access Driveway movements become restricted or schedule delays occur.

Exhibit 1: Loading Area & Proposed Access Driveways

R E P O R T



Automobilelanes

WB TrackEB Track

Automobilelanes


Eglinton Avenue

Four signalized intersections are within the study area, namely: Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway, Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive, Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive at Photography Drive.

The purpose of this report is to assess the impact of at-grade LRT operations at the Black Creek depot, and the impact of this facility on traffic operations during peak periods of depot activity (i.e. during system loading). Of particular concern is the traffic operation at the signalized intersection at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive.

Section 2 describes the study methodology and presents the analysis results, while Section 3 identifies the report conclusions.

2. SYNCHRO ANALYSIS To asses the traffic impact of the Back Creek Depot on the signalized intersections in its immediate vicinity, three approaches were considered for depot activity, namely:

Scenario 1: A four-track system is constructed that will allow for two LRV to simultaneously enter, and two LRV to simultaneously exit from the Black Creek depot at the Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway signalized intersection (i.e. two tracks in and two tracks out).

Scenario 2: A two-track system is constructed that will allow for one LRV to enter and one LRV to exit from the Black Creek depot at the Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway signalized intersection (i.e. one track in, one track out).

Scenario 3: Two LRV are allowed to exit the depot at the Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway signalized intersections. For this scenario, the impact of a four-track system and a two-track system were analyzed (as in Scenario 1 and 2).

2.1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 assumes that two tracks outbound and two tracks inbound will be constructed to allow LRV vehicles to simultaneously enter, and two LRV to simultaneously exit from the Black Creek depot. This assumption assumes that for vehicles exiting the Black Creek depot, one vehicle will travel eastbound on Eglinton Avenue West, while the second vehicle is travelling westbound on Eglinton Avenue West. An example of a dual track system is provided in Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2: Example Dual Track System

R E P O R T



2.1 .1 ASSUMPTION S

The following was assumed for Scenario 1:

Two tracks available for loading, and two tracks available for offloading LRV;

Each train consists of 3 cars to represent the longest vehicle, and most time for an LRV to enter/exit from the system (i.e. worst-case scenario);

When the LRV is entering/exiting the depot (turning), it requires 35 seconds to clear an intersection from a stopped position;

One LRV may be served per phase per track; and

Sufficient LRV storage space is available on Eglinton Avenue West between the signalized intersections at the North Access Driveway and Black Creek Drive.

In order to complete the traffic analysis, a future projection of both traffic and transit vehicles was required. The future traffic volumes are based on the existing volumes provided by TTC staff, while the transit vehicles were calculated using an LRV loading spreadsheet provided by TTC staff (refer to Appendix A). From the LRV loading spreadsheet, the following analysis assumptions were developed:

A maximum of 130 cars are available for service in the Black Creek depot;

The Black Creek deport will service 100% of the Eglinton Avenue Crosstown LRV.

The Black Creek depot will service 50% of the Jane LRV, with the remaining Jane LRV serviced from the Finch depot;

The Black Creek depot will service 100% of the St. Clair LRV.

An analysis of the spreadsheet presented in Appendix A was conducted to identify the peak loading and unloading period (i.e. LRV peak period).The objective was to identify the time period with the largest number of LRV either entering or exiting from the system, and travelling through the signalized intersection at Eglinton Avenue West at the North Access Driveway. The largest 15-minute LRV volumes at this intersection occur between 6:45am and 7:00am, where approximately 25 LRV are projected to be progressed through this intersection. The LRV peak hour period was identified as the period between 6:15am and 7:15am, where it was projected that 84 LRV would be progressed through the intersection. The analysis was completed using a worst-case scenario, and assumes that 100 LRV will be progressed through the intersection (i.e. 25 LRV in 15 minutes). Exhibit 3 presents the 15-minute peak period loading numbers, and the one hour loading peak period per direction.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3: Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway Peak Period LRV Activity

Time Period Outbound - Westbound

(southbound right)

Outbound - Eastbound

(southbound left)

Westbound In Service

LRV (westbound

through)

–Eastbound In Service

LRV (eastbound

through)

LRV 15-minute peak period (6:45am – 7:00am) 12 5 4 4

LRV 1-hour peak period (6:15am – 7:15am) 48 20 16 16

2.1 .2 ANALYSIS

For Scenario 1, three iterations were analyzed using Synchro, namely:

Iteration 1: All LRV served from North Access Driveway with vehicle left turns prohibited at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive;

Iteration 2: LRV served from both accesses with vehicle left turns prohibited at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive; and

Iteration 3: LRV served from both entrances with an allowance for vehicular left turns at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive.

Iteration 1 – All LRV Served via North Access Driveway

For this iteration, all vehicles were assumed to access the network exclusively from the North Access Driveway. Based on this assumption, the minimum required cycle length for the intersection is calculated by:

3600 seconds per hour / 48 LRV per hour = 75 second cycle

Exhibit 4 presents the loading volumes assuming a 75 second cycle length, and incorporating the values presented in Exhibit 3. Note that for this AM peak period, it is not anticipated that any LRV will be offloaded from the tracks.

R E P O R T



Automobilelanes

WB TrackEB Track

Automobilelanes


Eglinton Avenue

16

16

2048

64

36

Exhibit 4: Iteration 1 LRV Loading

The LRV volumes presented in Exhibit 4 used to complete the Synchro analysis for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway. As presented in Exhibit 5, it is possible to service Phase 6 (LRV) and Phases 4 and 8 (east-west) within a 75 second cycle length, while maintaining an acceptable volume to capacity ratio for vehicular traffic.

Exhibit 5: Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway (75s Cycle)

When considering the options for the different cycle lengths, it is important to consider the impact on adjacent signalized intersections. The Synchro analysis results for the study area are presented in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6: Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive (75s Cycle)

Expected v/c ratiosExpected v/c ratios

Green times assuming a train is served at each cycleGreen times assuming a train is served at each cycle


R E P O R T



Automobilelanes

WB Track

EB Track

Automobilelanes


Eglinton Avenue

16

16

2040

64

36

8

The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive can accommodate the LRV volumes under a 75 second cycle length, while maintaining an acceptable volume to capacity ratio for vehicular traffic.

The following can be concluded for Iteration 1:

A 75 second cycle length is feasible. However, this iteration does not provide spare LRV system capacity for unplanned delays. In order to maintain loading times in case of an unplanned event, the Photography Drive Access will be used.

Note: An analysis of the intersection west of the North Access Driveway (Eglinton Avenue and Weston Road) was not conducted. The total number of LRV per hour in the westbound direction is 64, which could potentially cause delays at Weston Avenue.

Iteration 2 – Two Accesses and Vehicle Left Turns Prohibited

The results from Iteration 1 demonstrated that a 75 second cycle length is required to progress the LRV without using the Photography Drive Access. For the second iteration, a 90 second cycle length was assumed due to the likelihood of implementing a cycle length of 90 seconds along the corridor. The number of cycles per hour, and by extension the number of LRV progressed per cycle per track is calculated as follows:

3600 seconds per hour / 90 second cycle length = 40 cycles

Exhibit 7 presents the loading volumes assuming a 90 second cycle length, and incorporating the values presented in Exhibit 3. Note that for this AM peak period, it is not anticipated that any LRV will be offloaded from the tracks.


The LRV volumes presented in Exhibit 7 were analyzed in Synchro for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway. As presented in Exhibit 8, it is possible to service Phase 6

R E P O R T



(LRV) and Phases 4 and 8 (east-west) within a 90 second cycle length, while maintaining an acceptable volume to capacity ratio for vehicular traffic.

Exhibit 8: Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway (90s Cycle)

The Synchro analysis results for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive are presented in Exhibit 9. Note that the left turn phases have been removed.

Exhibit 9: Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive (90s Cycle)

The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive can accommodate the LRV volumes using a 90 second cycle length, while maintaining an acceptable volume to capacity ratio for vehicular traffic.

The following can be concluded for Iteration 2:

For a 90 second cycle length, 8 LRV will be loaded via Photography Drive (heading to westbound Eglinton Avenue West);

The LRV Phase at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive (northbound left, phase 5) will be active 20% of the time (8 cycles out of 40);

Green times assuming a train is served at each cycleGreen times assuming a train is served at each cycle


Green times when a LRV is being servedGreen times when a LRV is being served

Green times when NO LRV is being servedGreen times when NO LRV is being served

R E P O R T



One track used for loading LRV andone track used for unloading LRV

Automobilelanes

WB TrackEB Track

Automobilelanes


Eglinton Avenue

When the LRV Phase is active Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive, the southbound phase is reduced to 17s to allow for LRV operations.

This short southbound phase will serve vehicles only, and omit the pedestrian display on the west leg; and

A maximum of 7 additional LRV can be diverted to Photography Drive in case of unplanned events.

Iteration 3 – Two Accesses and Left Turns Allowed

In Iteration 3, left turns at the signalized intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive are allowed. An analysis was completed to test various cycle lengths. The results of this analysis are:

If a pedestrian phase is omitted during LRV activity, a 102 second cycle length is feasible at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive;

If a left turn phase is omitted during LRV activity, a 120 second cycle length is feasible at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive; and

In order to serve all vehicle and pedestrian phases, a cycle length of 133 seconds is required. However, this cycle length is too long to progress the anticipated number of LRV.

2.2 Scenario 2 The analysis presented in Section 2.1 was completed with the assumption of two tracks servicing the outgoing LRV simultaneously at the Eglinton Avenue West at North Driveway Access signalized intersection. In Scenario 2, it was assumed that only one track will service the outgoing LRV, while another track will service the incoming LRV. An illustration Scenario 2 is presented in Exhibit 10

Exhibit 10: Single Tracks

R E P O R T




Eglinton Avenue

16

16

64

36

48 20

2.2 .1 ASSUMPTION S

The following was assumed for Scenario 2:

One track for loading and one tracks for offloading;

Each train consists of 3 cars to represent worst-case;

Train requires 35s to clear an intersection from the stop position;

One LRV may be served per phase per track; and

The Photography Drive Access is not used for loading and offloading regularly scheduled LRV;

Sufficient storage space is available for LRV between North Access Driveway and Black Creek Drive; and

Eastbound movement for vehicles at Eglinton Avenue and north Access Driveway is under constant green.

2.2 .2 ANALYSIS

Iteration 4 – Peak Hour Volumes

The first step in Scenario is to determine whether a single track system can accommodate the LRV at the signalized intersection at Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway. For this iteration, the peak hour LRV volumes that were calculated in Scenario 1 Iteration 1 have been assumed. These volumes are presented in Exhibit 11.


For this scenario, a minimum of 68 cycles is required to service the 68 LRV loading onto the network, which translates into a 53 second cycle length:

R E P O R T




Eglinton Avenue

14

14

53

29

39 15

3600 seconds per hour / 68 cycles = 53 second cycle length

Assuming that an LRV requires 35 seconds to clear the intersection, only 18 seconds will be available to service the east-west LRV and vehicular volumes. For this reason, this iteration is not feasible based on the volumes that have been assumed.

Iteration 5 – Actual Hourly Loading

The LRV volumes that have been incorporated into the above analysis were calculated by multiplying the 15 minute peak period loading by 4 to represent the one hour peak period for LRV loading, and represent a worst-case scenario. A more accurate representation of the peak hour LRV loading can be attained by summing the actual projected 15-minute LRV volumes. The values for the period between 6:15am and 7:15am are presented in Exhibit 12 and are illustrated in Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 12: Iteration 5 Projected LRV Loading

Outbound - Westbound

Outbound - Eastbound

LRV on Track – Westbound

LRV on Track - Eastbound

LRV 1-hour peak period (6:15am – 7:15am) 39 15 14 14


Assuming the volumes presented in Exhibit 12, 54 cycles are required to service the LRV using a single track. The required cycle length is calculated as follows:

3600 seconds per hour / 54 cycles = 67 second cycle length

R E P O R T



Assuming that an LRV requires 35 seconds to clear the intersection, a total of 32 seconds will be available to service the east-west LRV and vehicular volumes. For this reason, this iteration is not feasible.

R E P O R T




Eglinton Avenue

14

14

34

26

20 12

Iteration 6 - Even Loading

For this iteration, it was assumed that even loading of the LRV is performed and is conducted over a two and a half hour period; between 5:00am and 7:30am. For this loading scenario, the resulting peak hour volumes are presented in Exhibit 14.


Assuming the volumes presented in Exhibit 14, 32 cycles are required to service the LRV using a single track. The required cycle length is calculated as follows:

3600 seconds per hour / 32 cycles = 113 seconds

This cycle length is feasible, and provides an opportunity to coordinate the North Access Driveway signalized intersection with the signalized intersection at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive.

The minimum cycle length for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Black Creek Drive is:

13LT + 37NS + 13LT + 36EW = 99 seconds

2.3 Scenario 3 For this Scenario, the following assumptions have been made:

Two LRV can depart from the North Access Driveway in one phase;

Left turns are allowed at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive.

These assumptions were applied to both the four-track system and the two-track system in Iteration 7 and 8, respectively.

R E P O R T



Automobilelanes

WB Track

EB Track

Automobilelanes


Eglinton Avenue

14

14

1539

53

29

Iteration 7 – Dual Tracks & Left Turns Allowed

The volumes used for this iteration are presented in Exhibit 15.


Assuming that two LRV can clear the intersection back-to-back, then the maximum cycle length for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at North Access Driveway is calculated as follows:

3600 seconds per hour / (39/2) cycles = 185 seconds

At the signalized intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive, it may not be feasible to progress back-to-back LRV given the minimum phase requirements and multiple phasing. However, it is possible to provide sufficient spacing between the two signalized intersections to store up to two LRV.

Given the LRV approach volume presented above for the signalized intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive, a cycle length of 124 seconds will progress all transit vehicles in one cycle:

3600 seconds per hour / 29 cycles = 124 seconds

This analysis shows that the three intersections are capable of accommodating the LRV volume during the peak hour. A 120 second cycle length would allow for the coordination for the three intersections.

Iteration 8 – Single Tracks and Left Turns Allowed

Iteration 8 assumes back-to-back LRV can clear an intersection in one cycle and left turns are allowed at Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive. The LRV volumes for this iteration are presented in Exhibit 16.

R E P O R T




Eglinton Avenue

14

14

53

29

39 15


Assuming that two LRV can clear the intersection in one cycle, then the maximum cycle length for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and North Access Driveway is 133 seconds:

3600 seconds per hour / (54/2) cycles = 133 seconds

As in Iteration 8, a 124 second cycle length is required to progress all LRV in one cycle.

The above analysis demonstrates that the three intersections are capable of accommodate the LRV volume during the one hour peak period.

R E P O R T



3. CONCLUSIONS The analysis results are presented in Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17: Summary of Loading Scenarios

Scenario/Iteration

Cycle Length (seconds)

Feasible (Y/N)

Comments

Scenario 1 – Dual tracks

Iteration 1 75 Y No left turns at Eglinton Avenue at Black Creek.

Iteration 2 90 Y No left turns at Eglinton Avenue at Black Creek.

Iteration 3 102 Y Pedestrians not serviced and southbound phase truncated when LRV serviced. Recovery time available.

120 N Left turn omitted when LRV serviced. No recovery time available

133 N No recovery time available

Scenario 2 – Single tracks

Iteration 4 (Based on 15 minute

peak)

53 N Cycle length too short at North Access Driveway

Iteration 5 (Based on

1 hour peak)

67 N Cycle length too short at North Access Driveway

Iteration 6 (Even

loading)

113 Y

Scenario 3 – Back-to-Back LRV Clearance in One Cycle

Iteration 7 (Four-track

System)

120 Y

Iteration 8 (Two-track

120 Y

R E P O R T



Scenario/Iteration

Cycle Length (seconds)

Feasible (Y/N)

Comments

system

The results displayed in Exhibit 17 illustrate that:

The Eglinton Avenue West at North Driveway Access is the primary LRV access, and that the Black Creek Drive at Photography Drive will mostly likely act as a “relief” driveway used

during incidents.

Scenario 3 Iteration 7 and 8 are preferred, provided that two LRV can be serviced during the LRV phase at the Eglinton Avenue West at North Driveway Access. This option provides left turn phasing at Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive.

Scenario 3 requires an intersection spacing of 200 metres or more between Eglinton Avenue West at North Driveway Access and Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive to store LRV. The storage space is necessary because multiple LRV may not be able to clear the signalized intersection of Eglinton Avenue West at Black Creek Drive in one cycle.

Scenario 3 Iteration 7 is preferred over Scenario 3 Iteration 8 from an LRV operations perspective since it offers the most flexibility in terms of LRV access. However Scenario 3 Iteration 8 is the most cost-efficient alternative.

R E P O R T


APPENDIX VII

EGLINTON LRT – EGLINTON AVENUE AT WYNFORD DRIVE SYNCHRO ASSESSMENT

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-VII-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Transit Project Assessment Study process for the Transit City Eglinton Avenue East Light Rail Plan, a preliminary study was conducted for the signalized intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive. The objective of this report is to advance the initial design to a point where it could be comfortably presented to the public. Also included in this work, is the analysis of the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) West and East Ramps to observe queuing concerns onto the DVP.

As part of this preliminary assessment the current road network of Eglinton Avenue East from the DVP West Ramp to Wynford Drive was assessed using the future volumes. In this scenario, Wynford Drive was operating as a half signal. From this analysis, traffic conditions appeared to be operating at a good level of service for most movements. However, queuing concerns were observed at both the DVP ramps during both peak periods. As a result of the potential queuing concerns, future scenarios were developed to mitigate this concern. The future scenarios developed were as follows:

Future Scenario 1 – LRT Line with 120 second cycle length;

Future Scenario 2 – LRT Line with 90 second cycle length; and

Future Scenario 3 – LRT Line with 120 second cycle length and DVP Ramp modifications.

The purpose of modelling the future scenario with a 120 second cycle length was to observe the queuing impact prior to DVP ramp modifications. As expected, significant queuing concerns were observed at both ramps.

The purpose of modelling a 90 second cycle length is to minimize the maximum wait time experienced by the DVP ramp traffic which results in less vehicles queuing in the DVP ramp storage lanes and subsequently reduces the risk of vehicles queuing on the DVP. Consequently, less green time is provided on Eglinton Avenue East and a greater traffic evaporation factor needs to be applied to model anticipated traffic conditions. Overall, the 90 second cycle length operations significantly reduced the queuing concern at both DVP ramps.

Future scenario 3 addresses the DVP ramp queuing concerns by implementing additional right turn lanes at both DVP ramps, and as a result, the queuing impact is significantly reduced.

Future scenario 2 is desirable, since it resolves the queuing concern at the DVP ramps, while minimizing the physical improvements to the study area. However, future scenario 3 is the preferred alternative since it incorporates physical geometric improvements that favour LRV operations, pedestrian transfers, cycling operation, GO operations, and DVP queuing concerns.

R E P O R T




2. PROJECT SCOPE This report documents the Synchro traffic analysis completed on Eglinton Avenue East from the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) West Ramp to the Wynford Drive signalized intersection. The purpose of the analysis is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the future Light Rail Transit (LRT) operations, and to determine impacts to traffic operation and land use. The objective of this report is to advance the initial design to a point where it could be comfortably presented to the public. The analysis conducted in this report can be used as a base to develop a preliminary and detailed design.

Synchro analysis was conducted for three scenarios, which included analyzing alternative DVP ramp configurations. Exhibit 2-1 shows the study area with the three signalized intersections included in the analysis. As part of the new alignment on Eglinton Avenue East, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive will be modelled as an at-grade full signalized intersection.

The report describes:

Traffic volumes and pedestrian volumes developed for the future LRT operation, along with the recommended lane configurations, specifically at the DVP West and DVP East Ramps;

The results of the Synchro analysis that was used to assess each of the three scenarios; and

The recommended scenario.


R E P O R T




3. FUTURE CONDITIONS The current lane configurations and future traffic volumes at the Eglinton Avenue East study area intersections were modelled to quantify traffic operations, and identify critical movements. Modifications to the road network in comparison to the existing conditions include:

Eglinton Avenue East modelled with three through lanes in each direction;

The Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive intersection operates as a half signal. In the eastbound direction, all left turns on Eglinton Avenue East are prohibited and no driveway accesses are located within the study area; and

All three signalized intersections operate under a 120 second cycle length.

The following subsections present the analysis results for the future conditions analysis

3.1 Synchro Analysis Results Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 3-2 presents the future conditions intersection traffic operations for the AM peak and PM peak, respectively.

Exhibit 3-1: AM Peak – Future Conditions Intersection Operations

From the above AM peak analysis, the following can be observed:

The westbound through and southbound right movements at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP West Ramp are operating above capacity;

The northbound right movement at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp is operating above capacity; and

All remaining movements at the study area intersections are operating well below capacity.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.38 0.34 - - - - 0.25 - 1.07 -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 0.85 0.35 0.28 - 1.16 - - - -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.41 0.12 - 0.54 0.38 - - 0.44 - - 0.25 N/A

1.04

0.51

Eglinton Avenue East & DVP West Ramp

Eglinton Avenue East & DVP East Ramp

Eglinton Avenue East & Wynford Drive

R E P O R T




Exhibit 3-2: PM Peak – Future Conditions Intersection Operations

From the above PM peak analysis, the following can be observed:

The southbound right movement at the DVP West ramp and the northbound right movement at the Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp are operating above capacity;

All other remaining movements at the study area intersections are operating well below capacity.

3.2 Maximum Queue Length Analysis Results Exhibit 3-3 and Exhibit 3-4 illustrates the queue lengths observed at the DVP West and East ramps under the 50th and 95th percentile conditions. As a worse case scenario, the queue length observed in the left turn and right turn lanes are combined and compared to the estimated storage length of 280 m and 250 m for the west ramp and east ramp respectively. It is important to analyze the maximum queue length because there is a risk of vehicles queuing onto the DVP, which poses a safety risk to general purpose traffic on the DVP.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.65 0.29 - - - - 0.59 - 1.08 -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 0.57 0.35 0.26 - 1.43 - - - -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.60 0.07 - 0.30 0.17 - - 0.79 - - 0.21 N/A



Eglinton Avenue East & DVP East Ramp0.80

0.85

R E P O R T




Exhibit 3-3: Future Conditions – DVP West Ramp – Maximum Queue Length (m)

From the above analysis, the following can be observed:

The DVP West Ramp maximum 95th percentile queue length exceeds the available storage length during the PM peak period; and

Under all other conditions, the maximum queue length is not a concern.

217206

304

132

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)

50th Percentile 95th Percentile

R E P O R T




Exhibit 3-4: Future Conditions – DVP East Ramp – Maximum Queue Length (m)

From the above analysis, the following can be observed:

In both the AM peak and PM peak, the maximum 95th percentile queue exceeds storage capacity, which is a safety concern;

Future scenarios developed for this intersection should address this concern.

3.3 Summary of Future Conditions Overall, the critical movements are at the DVP West and East ramps. The maximum queue length is a concern at both ramps during both peak periods. The future scenarios will test different alternatives to address this issue.

The westbound through movement is at or approaching capacity during the AM and PM peak period. These east/west movements will worsen with the introduction of the LRT line, which reduces the three through lanes in each direction to two through lanes (1/3 lane capacity reduction). Section 3 describes the future scenarios and presents the Synchro analysis for each scenario.

4. DETAILED FUTURE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION This section of the report presents the three Synchro future scenarios proposed for the Eglinton Avenue East study area intersections. The analysis results are derived using the Synchro traffic analysis software with LRV and vehicle traffic movements. The three scenarios analyzed are as follows:

297309

224

383

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


R E P O R T




Scenario 1 – Future LRT Line with 120 second cycle length;

Scenario 2 – Future LRT Line with 90 second cycle length; and

Scenario 3 – Future LRT Line with 120 second cycle length and DVP ramp modifications.

It should be noted that the assumed transit LRV headway is 3 minutes and 30 seconds for both directions. This translates into 34 transit vehicles per hour in two directions. The LRV operates on the Eglinton Avenue East east/west through phase (phase 2 and 6).

4.1 Assumptions The following assumptions were incorporated in the three scenarios:

LRT line to occupy centre median lanes;

Eglinton Avenue East reduced from three (3) through lanes to two (2) through lanes;

Bike lanes introduced on Eglinton Avenue East;

Pedestrian timings revised according to City of Toronto standards;

Pedestrian volumes increased significantly at Eglinton Avenue East at DVP West Ramp and Eglinton Avenue East at Wynford Drive;

At Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive, LRT transit stops are located nearside for the eastbound direction and farside for the westbound direction;

At Eglinton Avenue East and DVP West Ramp, LRT transit stops are located nearside for the eastbound direction and farside for the westbound direction;

No transit stops are located at the Eglinton Avenue and DVP East Ramp;

Queue jump lanes and phases are provided for GO Transit buses at both DVP off ramps to provide priority to transit ahead of general purpose traffic;

Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive is reconfigured to an at-grade full signalized intersection;

The DVP channelized off ramps and on ramps on Eglinton Avenue East are now integrated into the intersection and signal controlled as a safety precaution due to the expected increase in pedestrian activity and the introduction of curb side bike lanes.

4.2 LRV Phase The LRV is travelling eastbound and westbound on Eglinton Avenue East. The transit phase duration was calculated by estimating the clearance time from a stopped position. This time includes the time to accelerate to the maximum speed (assumed to be 25 km/hr), plus the time to slow to a stop position assuming that a farside stop is implemented. The transit phase was calculated to be:

R E P O R T




5 seconds minimum green time;

18.2 seconds amber time; and

3.0 seconds all red time.

The minimum phase duration is 26.2 seconds.

4.3 Future Scenario 1 – 120 Second Cycle Length In future scenario 1, a 120 second cycle length is used, which provides green time to the LRV, but causes queuing on the DVP off ramps. In contrast to the 90 second cycle length scenario, the additional 30 seconds of green time is provided directly to E-W phase. Therefore, a lower traffic evaporation factor is applied to achieve an east/west through movement v/c ratio of 1.00 when compared to a 90 second cycle length. The following sub-section will present the Synchro analysis and illustrate the changes to the maximum queue length.

4.3 .1 VOL UME R EDU CTION

Exhibit 4-1 presents the evaporation factor applied during the AM and PM peak period for future scenario 1. The evaporation factor was only applied to the through movements and not off ramp movements.

Exhibit 4-1: Future Scenario 1 – Traffic Evaporation

Direction AM Peak PM Peak Eastbound - 20% Westbound 28% 6%

The westbound direction in the AM peak and the eastbound direction in the PM peak have the highest evaporation factor under this scenario. Furthermore, the traffic evaporation factor is also lower then the capacity reduction due to the lane reduction.

4.3 .2 SYN CHR O ANAL YSIS

Exhibit 4-2 and Exhibit 4-3 present the intersection traffic operations for the AM and PM peak, respectively.

Exhibit 4-2: Future Scenario 1 – AM Peak – Intersection Operations

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.60 0.53 - 0.71 0.92 - - - 0.21 - 0.87 -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - 0.52 0.46 - 0.98 0.40 0.27 - 1.18 - - - -

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 1.00 0.70 0.19 0.24 N/A


0.79 0.42 0.28



R E P O R T





With the reduction in lane capacity, the westbound through movements are a concern at Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive and at the DVP East Ramp;

The northbound right movement at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp operate above capacity; and

All other movements at the study area intersections operate at a good level of service.

Exhibit 4-3: Future Scenario 1 – PM Peak – Intersection Operations


With the reduction in lane capacity, the eastbound and westbound through volumes are a concern at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp;

The southbound right movement operate above capacity at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP West Ramp;

The northbound right movement operate above capacity at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp;


4.3 .3 MAXIMU M QU EU E L EN GTH ANAL YSIS

Exhibit 4-4 and Exhibit 4-5 illustrate the maximum queue length on the DVP West and East ramps, respectively.



Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 0.74 0.32 0.69 0.37 N/A


0.87 0.62 0.75



R E P O R T




Exhibit 4-4: Future Scenario 1 – DVP West Ramp – Maximum Queue Length (m)

Based on the analysis, the maximum queue length during the PM peak is a concern. Overall, the maximum queue length observed under a 90 second cycle length is significantly lower when compared to this 120 second cycle length operations.

Exhibit 4-5: Future Scenario 1 – DVP East Ramp – Maximum Queue Length (m)

93

279

192

159

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)50th Percentile 95th Percentile

209

322

238

292

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


R E P O R T




It is clear from the analysis that the maximum queue length during high capacity conditions is operating well above the available storage length during the PM peak. Furthermore, in normal operating conditions, the maximum queue length during both peak periods is also close to the available storage length threshold.

4.4 Future Scenario 2 – 90 Second Cycle Length The purpose of modelling the study area with a 90 second cycle length is to address the queuing concern at the DVP ramps without physically altering the road geometrics. By reducing the cycle length from 120 seconds to 90 seconds and subtracting this time directly from the main street (East/west on Eglinton Avenue East), this provides an increased green split to the off ramp, but detriment to the LRT operation. Consequently, because of the reduced time on Eglinton Avenue and the lane reduction, the through traffic v/c ratio increases to a critical state. As a result, a traffic evaporation factor is applied to the through movements to achieve a through movement v/c ratio of 1.00. The following sub-section will present the Synchro analysis and illustrate the changes to the maximum queue lengths.


As mentioned above, traffic evaporation factors were applied to achieve a through movement v/c ratio of 1.00. This means that the through movements are operating at capacity with two through lanes. The traffic evaporation factor will be greater than the 120 second cycle length analysis because 30 seconds of east-west green time is now removed on Eglinton Avenue East. Exhibit 4-6 presents the evaporation factor applied to the AM and PM peak period for future scenario 2.



The reduction to the through lanes on Eglinton Avenue East from three through lanes to two through lanes is expected to result in a 1/3 capacity reduction for general purpose traffic. The traffic evaporation factor in the westbound direction in the AM peak and the eastbound direction in the PM peak are within close range of this approximation.


Exhibit 4-7 and Exhibit 4-8 present the intersection traffic operations for the AM and PM peak respectively.

R E P O R T






With the reduction in lane capacity and signal green time, the eastbound and westbound through movements are operating close to or at capacity, respectively at Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive;





The eastbound through and westbound through movements at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp operate at capacity;


All other remaining movements at the study area intersections operate at a good level of service.


Exhibit 4-9 and Exhibit 4-10 illustrate the maximum queue lengths on the DVP West and East ramps, respectively.



Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 1.00 0.75 0.13 0.16 N/A0.210.32




0.96



Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 0.68 0.31 0.41 0.28 N/A0.730.80 0.60




R E P O R T





Due to the increased green split provided to the DVP West Ramp, the potential of queue spillback onto the DVP is reduced significantly.


47

103

177

84

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


154

229

137

212

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


R E P O R T




Similar to the DVP West ramp, the 90 second cycle length combined with the increase green split to the off ramps resolve the queuing concerns at the DVP East Ramp. However, in high capacity conditions, the maximum queue length is close to the maximum storage length.

4.5 Future Scenario 3 –DVP Ramp Geometric Modifications The purpose of this future scenario is to maintain traffic operations at a 120 second cycle length, and reduce the queuing experienced on both DVP ramps by implementing geometric ramp modifications to both ramps. The high volume of right turning vehicles is the main cause of queuing. As a result, an additional right turn lane is proposed at both DVP ramp approaches to resolve this concern. It should be noted that due to this lane configuration, right-turn-on-red movements are now prohibited for safety concerns due to high through traffic, cyclist and pedestrian volumes. Also, the GO Transit bus transfers are improved through the use of a centre platform for bus boarding alighting, and provides the potential for a GO bus queue jump lane on the DVP off ramp. Exhibit 4-11 illustrates the ramp geometrics for both off ramps.

Exhibit 4-11: Proposed Geometric Configuration for DVP Off Ramps

LRT

Ped

estri

anC

ross

ing

R E P O R T





Traffic volumes and lane configurations along Eglinton Avenue East remain the same as future scenario 1, and thus the through movement traffic evaporation factor is identical. Exhibit 4-12 displays the evaporation factor applied during the AM and PM peak period for future scenario 3.




Exhibit 4-13 and Exhibit 4-14 present the intersection traffic operations for the AM and PM peak respectively.



With the reduction in lane capacity, the westbound through movements is a concern at Eglinton Avenue East and Wynford Drive and at the DVP East Ramp;

The northbound and southbound ramps operate well, with the exception of the westbound right movement at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP West Ramp and the westbound through movement and the Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp, which are operating close to capacity; and





Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 1.00 0.70 0.19 0.24 N/A0.280.42




0.79



Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Jump Phasev/c Ratio - - 0.74 0.32 0.69 0.37 N/A0.750.87 0.62




R E P O R T





With the reduction in lane capacity, the eastbound and westbound through volumes are operating at capacity at Eglinton Avenue East and DVP East Ramp; and



Exhibit 4-15 and Exhibit 4-16 illustrate the maximum queue length on the DVP West and East ramps, respectively.


Based on the analysis results presented above, the dual right turn lanes significantly lower the potential risk of having vehicles queue onto the DVP. Overall, the maximum queue lengths are significantly lower with the implementation of the ramp modifications.

63

129

171

90

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


R E P O R T





At the Eglinton Avenue and DVP East Ramp intersection, it is clear from the analysis that the maximum queue length during high capacity conditions is operating well below capacity during the PM peak. Furthermore, in normal operating conditions, the maximum queue lengths during both peak periods do not appear to be a concern.

5. RECOMMENDED SCENARIO Future scenario 2 is desirable, since it resolves the queuing concern at the DVP ramps, while minimizing the physical improvements to the study area. However, future scenario 3 is the preferred alternative since it incorporates physical geometric improvements that favour LRV operations, pedestrian transfers, cycling operation, GO operations, and DVP queuing concerns.

112

148

110

150

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AM PEAK PM PEAK

Max

imum

Que

ue L

engt

h (m

)


R E P O R T


APPENDIX VIII

EGLINTON LRT – EGLINTON AVENUE AT VICTORIA PARK AVENUE SYNCHRO ASSESSMENT

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-VIII-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A first step of the Eglinton LRT Transit Project Assessment Study traffic analysis identified locations where traffic conditions are significantly impacted by the introduction of the LRT. The Eglinton section which includes the signalized intersections of Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, at Eglinton Square, and at Pharmacy Avenue has been identified as one of these highly impacted locations.

Potential solutions designed to ensure quality LRT operations, and reduce traffic impacts in the area have been developed and tested through an iterative process. Through this iterative process various road network scenarios were tested and refined to obtain a final ideal scenario which will be the foundation for future preliminary and detailed design.

The Final Scenario derived from the iterative analysis incorporates the following road network modifications and upgrades:

Prohibition of eastbound/westbound left turns on Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue;

Signalization (half signal) of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville to allow for eastbound left turns;

A new U-turn signal on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue which will also allow for pedestrian crossings;

Upgrades for the eastbound approach at Jonesville Crescent and Victoria Park Avenue to separate left turning vehicles from through/right turning vehicles; and

Recalibration of traffic signal timing plans to allow for a 90 seconds cycle length along this corridor section.

The traffic analysis of the Final Scenario reveals that the expected traffic impacts on the network are mitigated to some extent.

R E P O R T



2. PROJECT SCOPE The purpose of this analysis is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the future Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) operation, and to determine impacts to traffic operations in the area assuming different operating scenarios. The assumptions for each scenario were determined through an iterative process that incorporates findings from previous iterations into the newest scenarios. A total of three iterations were completed, and are documented in this report.

The overall objective of this analysis is to advance the initial design to a point where it could be confidently presented to the public as a workable Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. The analysis conducted in this report is the foundation for future preliminary and detailed design.

This report documents the Synchro traffic analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue East at the Victoria Park area road network, which includes the following intersections:

Eglinton Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue;

Eglinton Avenue East and Eglinton Square;

Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue;

Victoria Park Avenue and Jonesville Crescent;

Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent; and

Eglinton Square and Victoria Park Avenue.

Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the study area and the above locations.


R E P O R T



3. DATA

3.1 Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes presented in this report and used for this analysis are the same traffic volumes applied in the Future Scenario Synchro models created in the first stage of the Eglinton LRT Transit Project Assessment Study to determine expected hot spots along Eglinton Avenue.

Note that traffic volumes for the scenarios presented in this report do not include any traffic reduction or “traffic evaporation”. Traffic evaporation needs for the Final Scenario are determined in

Section 6.2 of this report.

3.2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) In order to assess the LRT coordination in the corridor, the followings assumptions were made:

LRT operating average speed = 35 km/hr

LRT boarding/alighting time = 20 seconds

LRT phase minimum green = 5 seconds

LRT phase clearance time = 18.5 seconds

LRT phase all red time = 3 seconds

LRT minimum phase duration (min green + clearance + all red) = 26.5 seconds

4. SYNCHRO ANALYSIS FIRST ITERATION The Future Scenario traffic analysis is the benchmark for comparing transit and LRT operations under the various scenarios developed in this report. The following describes the various scenarios analyzed during the first iteration.

The objective of the first iteration was to determine if there are significant issues regarding the LRT coordination along this section of the Eglinton Avenue Corridor assuming the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: This scenario assumes prohibited eastbound/westbound left turns at Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue. Note that northbound and southbound left turns at this location are already prohibited. Exhibit 4-1 presents the rerouted paths of the eastbound/westbound left turn vehicles.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 4-1: Scenario 1 Assumptions

Scenario 2: This scenario builds on the same assumptions as Scenario 1 with the addition of prohibited eastbound/westbound left turns at Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue, and a half signal on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue to allow U-turns. Exhibit 6-16 presents the proposed rerouting paths for the prohibited left turn vehicles.

Exhibit 4-2: Scenario 2 Assumptions

4.1 Scenario 1 Analysis Results The following summarizes the traffic analysis results and refers to Exhibits presented in Appendix A.

Exhibit A-1: This table compares the volume to capacity ratios (v/c) and the Average Vehicle Delay for the AM Peak Hour Future Scenario and Scenario 1. Average Delay for Scenario 1 includes two data sets. The first data set (Scenario 1 LRT) is generated by assuming that traffic signals are coordinated to favour the LRT needs. The second data set (Scenario 1 vehicles) is generated by assuming that traffic signals are coordinated to favour the vehicle traffic flow.

Exhibit A-2: Similar to Exhibit A-1, but shows the results for the PM peak hour.

Exhibit A-3: These traffic flow diagrams illustrate the impacts of coordination on the AM peak hour traffic flow and the LRT operation. Diagrams on the left side of the page show the impacts on the

R E P O R T



LRT operation while diagrams on the right side of the page show the impacts on vehicular flow. Also, the diagrams at the top of the page depict traffic conditions assuming the traffic signal are coordinated to serve the LRT needs, while diagrams at the bottom of the page illustrate traffic conditions assuming the traffic signals are coordinated to serve the vehicular flow.

Exhibit A-4: Same as Exhibit A-3, but for the PM peak hour.

Based on Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 the following are concluded:

The prohibition of the eastbound and westbound left turns at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East benefits the operations at Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue. Particularly the eastbound and westbound through traffic;

Traffic congestion increases for the eastbound through and westbound left turn traffic at Eglinton Avenue East at Eglinton Square;

Traffic conditions at Eglinton Square at Victoria Park Avenue are slightly degraded. The largest impact occurs during the PM peak hour; and

Average vehicle delay significantly increases if traffic signals are coordinated to fit the LRT needs.

4.2 Scenario 2 Analysis Results The objective of the Scenario 2 is to determine if there are significant issues regarding the LRT coordination along Eglinton Avenue East assuming that eastbound and westbound left turns are prohibited at Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue. The following summarizes the traffic analysis results, and refers to Exhibits presented in Appendix B.

Exhibit B-1: This table compares the v/c ratios and the Average Vehicle Delay for the AM Peak Hour Future Scenario and Scenario 2. Average Delay for Scenario 2 includes two data sets. The first data set (Scenario 2 LRT) is generated by assuming that traffic signals are coordinated to favour the LRT needs. The second data set (Scenario 2 vehicles) is generated by assuming that traffic signals are coordinated to favour the vehicle traffic flow.

Exhibit B-2: Similar to Exhibit B-1, but shows the results for the PM peak hour.

Exhibit B-3: These traffic flow diagrams illustrate the impacts of coordination on the AM peak hour traffic flow and the LRT operation. Diagrams on the left side of the page show the impacts on the LRT operation while diagrams on the right side of the page show the impacts on vehicular flow. Also, the diagrams at the top of the page depict traffic conditions assuming the traffic signal are coordinated to serve the LRT needs, while diagrams at the bottom of the page illustrate traffic conditions assuming the traffic signals are coordinated to serve the vehicular flow.

Exhibit B-4: Same as Exhibit B-3 but for the PM peak hour.

Based on Exhibits B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 the following are concluded:

R E P O R T



Traffic congestion for eastbound and westbound operations at Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue improves as a consequence of prohibiting the eastbound and westbound left turns at these locations;

Traffic conditions at Eglinton Avenue East at Eglinton Square, and Victoria Park Avenue at Eglinton Square degrade because of the re-routed traffic; and

As in the case of Scenario 1, the Average Vehicle Delay is significantly higher if the traffic signals are coordinated to fit the LRT needs.

4.3 First Iteration Conclusions The overall conclusions for the first iteration analysis are as follows:

Elimination of left turns on Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue is feasible. Existing infrastructure can accommodate most of the re-routed traffic;

If left turns along Eglinton Avenue East are not prohibited, queues from these movements would block through traffic, reducing the level of service in the road network;

Since the negative impacts of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are similar, the preferred alternative is Scenario 2. Scenario 2 prohibits the eastbound and westbound left turns at Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue. Traffic conditions for the east/west direction of these intersections are improved and the LRT is benefited with wider green windows that reduce the likelihood of stopping at each intersection; and

In order to implement Scenario 2, a U-turn signal is needed on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue.

5. SYNCHRO ANALYSIS SECOND ITERATION Derived from the discussion of the first iteration, the following issues were carried forward for further analysis:

Are there any benefits if the intersection of Eglinton Avenue East at Jonesville Crescent is signalized?

Is it possible to operate a north-south pedestrian phase concurrently with the U-turn phase on the proposed new U-turn signal on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue?

Is it feasible to use shorter cycle lengths along Eglinton Avenue East (analysis in the first iteration was made assuming traffic signal cycle lengths of 120 seconds)?

What are the impacts of reducing Pharmacy Avenue to a two lane road? Pharmacy Avenue currently operates as a 4 lane road.

R E P O R T



The following sections present the analysis results for these issues.

5.1 Traffic Signal at Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent

5.1 .1 OBJECT IVE

The objective of this analysis is to quantify the benefits and impacts of signalizing the intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent.

5.1 .2 ASSUMPTION S

In preparing a Synchro model, the following assumptions were made:

No pedestrians allowed at this location;

No westbound left turn allowed to avoid neighbourhood traffic infiltration and reconfiguration of the south approach. Therefore, only a half signal is required;

Eastbound left turn and southbound right turn will run concurrently at Eglinton Avenue East at Jonesville Crescent; and

Northbound and southbound left turns at Eglinton Avenue East at Pharmacy Avenue are prohibited;

5.1 .3 ANALYSIS R ESULT S AN D CONCL USIONS

Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the traffic analysis results for the scenario under analyses. Also presented in the exhibit are the traffic conditions for Scenario 2 (documented in section 4.2) for comparison.

Exhibit 5-1: Traffic Analysis Summary

Eglinton Avenue East & Victoria Park Avenue Scenario EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Scenario 2 AM 0.83 1.07 1.05 0.72 0.05 Traffic Signal at Jonesville AM 0.71 1.01 1.00 0.72 0.12 Scenario 2 PM 1.25 0.77 1.14 1.05 0.03 Traffic Signal at Jonesville PM 1.04 0.69 1.03 0.84 0.15

Eglinton Square & Victoria Park Avenue Scenario EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Scenario 2 AM 0.81 0.42 0.42 0.91 0.58 0.65 0.06 0.34 0.84 Traffic Signal at Jonesville AM 0.76 0.43 0.44 0.87 0.58 0.64 0.06 0.33 0.81 Scenario 2 PM 1.09 0.68 0.81 1.10 1.00 0.86 0.11 0.73 1.10 Traffic Signal at Jonesville PM 0.97 0.70 0.68 1.04 1.01 0.80 0.10 0.73 1.02

Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Scenario EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Scenario 2 AM 0.68 1.15 0.27 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.65 Traffic Signal at Jonesville AM 0.60 0.96 0.23 0.82 0.96 Scenario 2 PM 1.28 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.39 Traffic Signal at Jonesville PM 1.08 0.54 0.50 0.83 0.64

Eglinton Avenue East & Eglinton Square Scenario EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Scenario 2 AM 0.90 1.01 0.58 0.55 0.07 0.15

R E P O R T



Traffic Signal at Jonesville AM 0.81 1.08 0.54 0.55 0.07 0.15 Scenario 2 PM 1.04 1.21 0.54 0.27 0.64 0.48 Traffic Signal at Jonesville PM 0.93 1.29 0.49 0.27 0.64 0.45

Based on the analysis results presented, the following are concluded:

The signalization of Eglinton Avenue East at Jonesville Crescent generates positive impacts on Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue, Eglinton Square, and Pharmacy Avenue; and

The intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Eglinton Square also shows positive impacts if a half traffic signal is implemented at Eglinton Avenue East at Jonesville Crescent.

5.2 Concurrent U-turn and Pedestrian phases

5.2 .1 OBJECT IVE

The objective of this analysis is to explore the feasibility of running a pedestrian phase concurrently with the U-turn phase at the proposed new signalized U-turn intersection on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue. Exhibit 5-2 illustrates the intended operation.

Exhibit 5-2: Pedestrian/U-turn operation

5.2 .2 ASSUMPTION S

Analysis in this section is based on Scenario 2 described in section 4.2 of this report. Traffic signal phasing is as illustrated in Exhibit 5-3.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 5-3: Traffic Signal Phasing Diagram


Volume to Capacity ratios for the AM and PM peak hour are shown in Exhibit 5-4.

Exhibit 5-4: Volume to Capacity Ratios

U-Turn on Eglinton Avenue East Between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue Scenario EB-U EBT WB-U WBT

AM Peak Hour 0.62 0.38 0.37 0.63 PM Peak Hour 0.80 0.93 0.49 0.79

Based on the analysis results presented above, it is concluded that it is feasible to run a pedestrian phase and a U-turn phase concurrently from the capacity point of view.

From the coordination point of view, it is concluded that as long as the cycle length equals or exceeds 90 seconds, the implementation of a pedestrian phase and a U-turn phase running concurrently is feasible.

5.3 Feasibility of Shorter Traffic Signal Cycles

5.3 .1 OBJECT IVE

The objective of this analysis is to explore the feasibility of implementing shorter cycle lengths along Eglinton Avenue East from Lebovic Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue. The current cycle length in this portion of the Eglinton Avenue corridor is 120 seconds during the AM and PM peak hours. Shorter cycles can improve LRT and vehicular operations by reducing traffic queue lengths, reducing vehicle average delays, and reducing LRT waiting time (delay) when the LRT misses the green band coordinated window.

5.3 .2 ASSUMPTION S

Assumptions for this analysis are based on Scenario 2 assumptions described in Section 4.2 of this report;


Appendix C, Exhibit C-1 illustrates how LRT coordination may be affected by different cycle lengths. The main issue in reducing the cycle length along the corridor is that the green/coordination band also decreases and therefore, the probability of stopping the LRT at each location increases. Based on this, it is concluded that a reasonable cycle length to operate LRT during the peak hours ranges between 90 and 120 seconds.

R E P O R T



5.4 Lane Reduction Along Pharmacy

5.4 .1 OBJECT IVE

The objective of this analysis is to measure the impacts of reducing Pharmacy Avenue from a four-lane road to a two-lane road. This lane reduction is based on future plans to allocate bicycle lanes along this road. It is expected that a left turning lane in the middle of the road will remain along the corridor.

5.4 .2 ASSUMPTION S

Assumptions for this analysis are based on Scenario 2 described in section 4.2 of this report. The northbound left turn movement at Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue are permitted during a permissive phase.


Exhibit 5-5 shows the v/c ratios for the four-lane scenario and the two-lane scenario, which was derived based on Scenario 2. Under the two-lane scenario, analysis results are presented for a situation where the phase split timing for the east/west movements along Eglinton Avenue East remain unchanged (referred as Same Split) and a situation where phase split timings are optimized (referred as recalculated split).


Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Movement EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT

Scenario 2 AM (4-Lanes) 0.68 1.15 0.27 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.65 Same Split AM (2-Lanes) 0.68 1.15 0.27 1.68 0.98 1.88 1.24 Recalculated Split AM (2-Lanes) 0.85 1.43 0.34 1.17 0.79 0.77 1.00 Scenario 2 PM (4-Lanes) 1.28 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.39 Same Split PM (2-Lanes) 1.28 0.65 0.59 0.72 0.93 1.39 0.75 Recalculated Split PM (2-Lanes) 1.16 0.59 0.57 1.22 1.09 1.59 0.88

Based on analysis results presented above, it can be concluded that the reduction of lanes along Pharmacy Avenue negatively impacts the traffic conditions along Pharmacy Avenue. These negative impacts also affect Eglinton Avenue East during the AM peak hour if traffic signal timings are optimized.

5.5 Second Iteration Conclusions The overall conclusions for the second iteration analysis are as follows:

The signalization of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent provides positive impacts and therefore, the Final Scenario in the area must include this network modification;

R E P O R T



The implementation of a pedestrian phase that runs concurrently with the U-turn phase at the new signal proposed on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue is feasible from the capacity and LRT-coordination point of view. Note that U-turns at this location are intended for vehicles and small trucks only. Final geometric design must ensure a safe pedestrian environment;

The implementation of a shorter traffic signal cycle is feasible. However, cycles shorter than 90 seconds may significantly reduce the available LRT green band; and

The reduction of Pharmacy Avenue from a four-lane to a two lane road to allocate bicycle lanes produces negative impacts and severe traffic conditions at Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue.

6. SYNCHRO ANALYSIS THIRD ITERATION Derived from the discussion of the second iteration, the following issues were carried forward for the final scenario analysis:

The final scenario must be based on Scenario 2 (see section 4.2 for details) and must assume a half signal at Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent; and

Traffic evaporation for the Final Scenario above described must be quantified. Traffic evaporation must target a v/c ratio of 1.0 for through traffic and 1.5 for left turning traffic.

The subsections following present the analysis results for these issues.

6.1 Final Scenario

6.1 .1 OBJECT IVE

The objective of this analysis is determine the traffic impacts of a Final Scenario that takes into consideration the findings and conclusions of iterations 1 and 2.

6.1 .2 ASSUMPTION S

The Final Scenario model is based on the following assumptions:

No left turns allowed at Eglinton Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue;

No eastbound/westbound left turns allowed at Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue;

Northbound/southbound left turns at Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue operate in “permissive” mode only;

The intersection of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent is upgraded with a half signal, which allows for a protected eastbound left turn from Eglinton Avenue East onto Jonesville Crescent; and

R E P O R T



A new traffic signal on Eglinton Avenue East between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue will allow for north/south pedestrians and U-turning vehicle movements. Pedestrian phase and U-turn phase will run concurrently.

Assumptions for re-routed paths to handle the former left turning traffic at Eglinton Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue are illustrated in Exhibit 6-1.

Exhibit 6-1: Re-routing Assumptions

Vic

tori

a P

ark

Ave

nu

e

Eglinton Avenue East

Eglinton Square

O’Connor D

rive

Ph

arm

acy

Ave

nu

e

Jonesville Crescent

Vic

tori

a P

ark

Ave

nu

e

Eglinton Avenue East

Eglinton Square

O’Connor D

rive

Ph

arm

acy

Ave

nu

e

Jonesville Crescent


Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for the Final Scenario and the Future Scenario.

R E P O R T




Eglinton Avenue East & Victoria Park Avenue SCENARIO EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Final Scenario AM 0.68 1.03 1.06 0.79 0.13 Final Scenario PM 1.08 0.79 0.95 0.99 0.15 Future Scenario AM 1.36 0.89 0.88 1.34 0.86 0.75 0.05 Future Scenario PM 1.86 1.32 0.67 0.96 0.92 1.04 0.04

Eglinton Avenue East & Eglinton Square SCENARIO EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Final Scenario AM 0.95 0.93 0.63 0.47 0.06 0.11 Final Scenario PM 1.1 1.08 0.59 0.26 0.48 0.41 Future Scenario AM 0.73 0.71 0.62 0.55 0.07 0.15 Future Scenario PM 0.85 0.88 0.58 0.27 0.64 0.51

Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue SCENARIO EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Final Scenario AM 0.61 1.02 0.31 1.13 0.63 0.86 0.84 Final Scenario PM 1.18 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.59 0.61 0.52 Future Scenario AM 1.17 0.69 0.93 1.38 0.11 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.64 Future Scenario PM 3.03 1.31 0.69 0.73 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.4 0.4

Eglinton Square & Victoria Park SCENARIO EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Final Scenario AM 0.74 0.47 0.38 0.85 0.45 0.69 0.06 0.3 0.83 Final Scenario PM 0.95 0.84 0.77 1.05 0.89 0.79 0.09 0.67 1.02 Future Scenario AM 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.81 0.5 0.56 0.05 0.26 0.75 Future Scenario PM 0.97 0.79 0.69 0.98 0.94 0.7 0.09 0.64 0.97

Based on the following are concluded:

Negative impacts observed in the future scenario on Eglinton Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue and at Pharmacy Avenue are dissipated in the Final Scenario without affecting the traffic conditions for the eastbound and westbound through movements. In fact, traffic conditions for the eastbound and westbound through traffic at these locations are improved;

Although lightly impacted, the traffic conditions at the intersection of Eglinton Square and Victoria Park Avenue remain very similar; and

The greatest impacts on the network correspond to the eastbound through and westbound left turn at Eglinton Avenue East and Eglinton Square.

6.2 Traffic Evaporation Needs

6.2 .1 OBJECT IVE

With the reduction of through lanes on Eglinton Avenue East for the implementation of the LRT, there will be a loss in capacity. It is assumed that vehicles will find alternative routes, or switch from

R E P O R T



the automobile to transit. Therefore, a volume reduction (traffic evaporation) is used to replicate the potential loss in capacity. The objective of this analysis is to determine the traffic evaporation needs to maintain a volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 for through movements and 1.5 for left turn movements.

6.2 .2 ASSUMPTION S

Analysis in this section is based on the Final Scenario model described in the previous section (Section 6.1).


Exhibit 6-3 presents the required volume reductions to maintain a v/c ratio of 1.0 at through movements and 1.5 on left turn movements.

Exhibit 6-3: Traffic Evaporation Needs

Eglinton Avenue East & Victoria Park Avenue EBT WBT NBT AM Peak Hour 49 (2.7%) 78 (6.4%) PM Peak Hour 138 (8.7%)

Eglinton Avenue East & Eglinton Square EBT WBL PM Peak Hour 166 (8.8%) 47* (6.8%)

Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue EBT WBT AM Peak Hour 30 (100%) PM Peak Hour 361 (15.6%)

Eglinton Square & Victoria Park WBT SBT PM Peak Hour 49 (5.2%) 19 (1.8%) Traffic Evaporation needs to keep a volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 on through movements and 1.5 on left turn movements * Volume evaporation needed to maintain a volume to capacity ratio equal to 1.0 (dual left turn)

Based on Exhibit 6-3, the following are concluded:

In general, the traffic evaporation needs for the Final Scenario are small and therefore the implementation of the Final Scenario is recommended; and

The movement with the greatest traffic evaporation needs is the eastbound through movements at Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue during the PM peak hour. This movement needs a traffic evaporation of 361 vehicles which represents 16% of the current traffic volume.

R E P O R T



7. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Based on information presented in this report the following are concluded:

The traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting eastbound and westbound left turns on Eglinton Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue and at Pharmacy Avenue as well as providing alternative ways to achieve the intended left turn;

In order to provide more alternative routes for left turning vehicles, a half traffic signal at Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent and a U-turn signal on Eglinton between Pharmacy Avenue and Lebovic Avenue must be installed. Also, the eastbound approach at Jonesville Crescent and Victoria Park Avenue must be upgraded to separate left turning vehicles from through/right turning vehicles; and

Traffic evaporation needs under the Final Scenario above described are relatively small. The maximum evaporation requirement is only a 16 % of the current traffic volume. This percentage is small compared with the expected transit modal split which should be at least 30% of the trips in the area.

R E P O R T


APPENDIX A

AM/PM SCENARIO 1 - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-VIII-A-1

Exhibit A-1: AM Peak Hour Scenario 1 Traffic Analysis Summary

Volume to Capacity Ratio Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Eglinton Avenue East & Victoria Park Avenue Future Scenario 1.36 0.89 0.88 1.34 0.86 0.75 0.05 Scenario 01 0.80 1.04 1.02 0.75 0.05

Eglinton Avenue East & Eglinton Square Future Scenario 0.73 0.71 0.62 0.55 0.07 0.15 Scenario 01 0.85 0.87 0.58 0.55 0.07 0.15

Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 1.17 0.69 0.93 1.38 0.11 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.64 Scenario 01 1.17 0.69 0.93 1.38 0.11 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.64

Eglinton Square & Victoria Park Avenue Future Scenario 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.81 0.50 0.56 0.05 0.26 0.75 Scenario 01 0.78 0.41 0.38 0.88 0.57 0.65 0.06 0.33 0.83

Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Eglinton Avenue East & Victoria Park Avenue Future Scenario 243 61 294 538 391 34 10 Scenario 01 LRT 48 51 103 29 16 Scenario 01 Vehicles 8 46 58 28 16

Eglinton Avenue East & Eglinton Square Future Scenario 253 56 34 3 46 16 Scenario 01 LRT 13 213 108 22 46 15 Scenario 01 Vehicles 9 57 15 25 46 15

Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 174 34 113 208 16 56 42 28 29 Scenario 01 LRT 156 24 99 198 3 56 42 28 29 Scenario 01 Vehicles 147 45 102 196 2 56 42 28 29

Eglinton Square & Victoria Park Avenue Future Scenario 81 35 27 57 23 26 6 16 270 Scenario 01 LRT 45 29 14 35 32 32 8 17 19 Scenario 01 Vehicles 45 29 16 30 32 32 8 20 33

R E P O R T



Exhibit A-2: PM Peak Hour Scenario 1 Traffic Analysis Summary

Volume to Capacity Ratio EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 3.03 1.31 0.69 0.73 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.40 Scenario 01 3.03 1.31 0.69 0.73 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.40


Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 953 175 77 33 8 44 40 28 25 Scenario 01 LRT 945 196 80 17 2 44 40 28 25 Scenario 01 Vehicles 943 174 62 27 8 44 40 28 25


R E P O R T



Exhibit A-3: AM Peak Hour Scenario 1 – Coordination Analysis

R E P O R T



Exhibit A-4: PM Peak Hour Scenario 1 – Coordination Analysis

R E P O R T


APPENDIX B

AM/PM SCENARIO 2 – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 1-VIII-B-1

Exhibit B-1: AM Peak Hour Scenario 2 Traffic Analysis Summary

Volume to Capacity Ratio Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 1.17 0.69 0.93 1.38 0.11 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.64 Scenario 02 0.68 1.15 0.27 0.63 0.73 0.46 0.65


Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 174 34 113 208 16 56 42 28 29 Scenario 02 LRT 16 126 7 56 42 28 30 Scenario 02 Vehicles 44 91 3 56 42 28 30


R E P O R T



Exhibit B-2: PM Peak Hour Scenario 2 Traffic Analysis Summary

Volume to Capacity Ratio EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 3.03 1.31 0.69 0.73 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.40 Scenario 02 1.28 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.40 0.39


Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR



Eglinton Avenue East & Pharmacy Avenue Future Scenario 953 175 77 33 8 44 40 28 25 Scenario 02 LRT 449 8 3 44 40 28 24 Scenario 02 Vehicles 145 18 7 44 40 28 24


R E P O R T



Exhibit B-3: AM Peak Hour Scenario 2 – Coordination Analysis

R E P O R T



Exhibit B-4: PM Peak Hour Scenario 2 – Coordination Analysis

R E P O R T


APPENDIX C

AM/PM SIGNAL SENSITIVITY

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page1-VIII-C-1

Exhibit C-1: Traffic Signal Cycle Sensitivity

toronto transit commission (ttc) section 1: transit...

Documents