section 2: transit project assessment study - u- turn ... · toronto transit commission (ttc)...

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)

SECTION 2: TRANSIT PROJECT ASSESSMENT STUDY - U-TURN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

REPORT

FEBRUARY, 2010

R E P O R T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

February, 2010 Page 2-i.

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 2-1

3. MARTIN GROVE ROAD ....................................................................................................... 2-4

3.1 Data...................................................................................................................................................... 2-4

3.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -5

3.1 .2 Pedest r ian Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -5

3.1 .3 Traf f ic Volume Dist r ibut ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -5

3.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -8

3.2 Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................... 2-11

3.2 .1 Traf f ic Analysis and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -11

3.2 .2 Travel le r Ana lys is and Perfo rmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -14

3.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2-18

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 2-19

3.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -19

3.4 .2 Recommended Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -21

4. KIPLING AVENUE .............................................................................................................. 2-22

4.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-22

4.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -22

4.1 .2 Pedest r ian Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -23

4.1 .3 Traf f ic Volume Dist r ibut ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -23

4.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -27






4.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -37


5. ISLINGTON AVENUE ......................................................................................................... 2-40

5.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-40

5.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -40



5.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -42


R E P O R T

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

February, 2010 -ii.

5.2 .1 Traf f ic Analys is and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -44




5.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -51


6. ROYAL YORK ROAD ......................................................................................................... 2-54

6.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-54

6.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -54



6.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -56



6.2 .2 Tra vel le r Ana lys is and Perfo rmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -60



6.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -64


7. SCARLETT ROAD .............................................................................................................. 2-67

7.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-67

7.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -67



7.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -70






7.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -79


8. JANE STREET .................................................................................................................... 2-82

8.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-82

8.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -82



R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-iii.

8.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -85






8.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -95


9. VICTORIA PARK AVENUE ................................................................................................ 2-98

9.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2-98

9.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -98



9.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -101

9.2 Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................. 2-102

9.2 .1 Traf f ic Analysis and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -102

9.2 .2 Travel le r Ana lys is and Pe rfo rmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -104

9.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis ............................................................................................................... 2-110

9.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 2-111

9.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -111

9.4 .2 Recommended Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -113

10. PHARMACY AVENUE ...................................................................................................... 2-114

10.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................. 2-114

10.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -114

10.1 .2 Pedest r ian Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -115

10.1 .3 Traf f ic Volume Dist r ibut ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -115

10.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -117


10.2 .1 Traf f ic Analysis and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -120

10.2 .2 Travel le r Ana lys is and Perfo rmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -122



10.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -127

10.4 .2 Recommended Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -128

11. WARDEN AVENUE ........................................................................................................... 2-130

11.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................. 2-130

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-iv.

11.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -130



11.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -134


11.2 .1 Traf f ic Analysis a nd Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -137




11.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -146


12. BIRCHMOUNT ROAD ....................................................................................................... 2-150

12.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................. 2-150

12.1 .1 LRV Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -151



12.1 .4 Signal Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -153


12.2 .1 Traf f ic Analysis and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -156




12.4 .1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -164


13. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 2-167

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1-1: Operational Traffic Changes and Impacts .................................................................... 2-1

Exhibit 2-1: Transit Analysis and Performance Parameters ............................................................ 2-2

Exhibit 2-2: Traffic Analysis and Performance Parameters ............................................................. 2-3

Exhibit 3-1: Martin Grove Road Study Area ..................................................................................... 2-4

Exhibit 3-2: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 2 .............................. 2-6



Exhibit 3-5: Eight Phase Operation .................................................................................................. 2-9

Exhibit 3-6: Minimum Cycle Length with Eight Phase Operation ..................................................... 2-9

Exhibit 3-7: Six Phase Operation ................................................................................................... 2-10

Exhibit 3-8: Minimum Cycle Length with Six Phase Operation ...................................................... 2-10

Exhibit 3-9: Four Phase Operation ................................................................................................. 2-11

Exhibit 3-10: Minimum Cycle Length with Four Phase Operation ................................................. 2-11

Exhibit 3-11: AM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................. 2-12

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-v.

Exhibit 3-12: PM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................. 2-13

Exhibit 3-13: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) ............................................ 2-13

Exhibit 3-14: PM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) ............................................ 2-14

Exhibit 3-15: Parameters and Assumptions for Traveller Analysis and Performance ................... 2-14

Exhibit 3-16: Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ....................................................... 2-15

Exhibit 3-17: Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ....................................................... 2-16

Exhibit 3-18: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) .................... 2-17

Exhibit 3-19: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) .................... 2-17

Exhibit 3-20: Summary of Traveller Analysis and Performance .................................................... 2-18

Exhibit 3-21: Optional Routes for Left-Turning Heavy Vehicles ..................................................... 2-19

Exhibit 3-22: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (AM Peak) ..................... 2-20

Exhibit 3-23: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (PM Peak) ..................... 2-20

Exhibit 3-24: Recommended Scenario .......................................................................................... 2-21

Exhibit 4-1: Kipling Avenue Study Area ......................................................................................... 2-22

Exhibit 4-2: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 2 ............................ 2-24


Exhibit 4-4: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 4 & 5 ...................... 2-26


Exhibit 4-6: Eight Phase Operation ................................................................................................ 2-27

Exhibit 4-7: Minimum Cycle Length with Eight Phase Operation ................................................... 2-28


Exhibit 4-9: Minimum Cycle Length with Four Phase Operation ................................................... 2-28

Exhibit 4-10: Six Phase Operation ................................................................................................. 2-29

Exhibit 4-11: Minimum Cycle Length with Six Phase Operation .................................................... 2-29















Exhibit 5-1: Islington Avenue Study Area ....................................................................................... 2-40






Exhibit 5-7: AM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................... 2-45

Exhibit 5-8: PM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................... 2-45

Exhibit 5-9: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) .............................................. 2-46








R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-vi.





Exhibit 6-1: Royal York Road Study Area ...................................................................................... 2-54






Exhibit 6-7: AM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................... 2-58

Exhibit 6-8: PM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ............................................................... 2-59

Exhibit 6-9: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) .............................................. 2-59












Exhibit 7-1: Scarlett Road Study Area ........................................................................................... 2-67























Exhibit 8-1: Jane Street Study Area ............................................................................................... 2-82







R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-vii.

















Exhibit 9-1: Victoria Park AvenueStudy Area ................................................................................. 2-98

Exhibit 9-2: Left Turn Routing under Scenario 2 .......................................................................... 2-100

Exhibit 9-3: Proposed Traffic Signal and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 3 ............................ 2-101

Exhibit 9-4: Scenario 1 Phase Operation ..................................................................................... 2-101

Exhibit 9-5: Scenario 1 Minimum Times ...................................................................................... 2-101

Exhibit 9-6: Scenario 2 Phase Operation ..................................................................................... 2-102

Exhibit 9-7: Scenario 2 Minimum times ........................................................................................ 2-102



Exhibit 9-10: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) .......................................... 2-104

Exhibit 9-11: PM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) .......................................... 2-104

Exhibit 9-12: Parameters and Assumptions for Traveller Analysis and Performance ................. 2-104

Exhibit 9-13: LRV Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ............................................. 2-105

Exhibit 9-14: Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ..................................................... 2-106

Exhibit 9-15: LRV Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ............................................. 2-107

Exhibit 9-16: Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ..................................................... 2-108

Exhibit 9-17: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) .................. 2-109

Exhibit 9-18: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) .................. 2-109

Exhibit 9-19: Summary of Traveller Analysis and Performance .................................................. 2-110

Exhibit 9-20: Optional Routes for Left-Turning Heavy Vehicles ................................................... 2-111

Exhibit 9-21: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (AM Peak) ................... 2-112

Exhibit 9-22: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (PM Peak) ................... 2-112

Exhibit 9-23: Recommended Scenario ........................................................................................ 2-113

Exhibit 10-1: Pharmacy Avenue Study Area ................................................................................ 2-114

Exhibit 10-2: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 2 ........................ 2-116


Exhibit 10-4: Seven Phase Operation .......................................................................................... 2-118

Exhibit 10-5: Minimum Cycle Length with Seven Phase Operation............................................. 2-118

Exhibit 10-6: Five Phase Operation ............................................................................................. 2-119

Exhibit 10-7: Minimum Cycle Length with Five Phase Operation ................................................ 2-119

Exhibit 10-8: Four Phase Operation ............................................................................................. 2-120

Exhibit 10-9: Minimum Cycle Length with Four Phase Operation ............................................... 2-120

Exhibit 10-10: AM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ......................................................... 2-121

Exhibit 10-11: PM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance ......................................................... 2-121

Exhibit 10-12: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) ........................................ 2-122

Exhibit 10-13: PM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds) ........................................ 2-122

Exhibit 10-14: Parameters and Assumptions for Traveller Analysis and Performance ............... 2-122

Exhibit 10-15: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Subject Intersection (AM Peak) .............. 2-123

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-viii.

Exhibit 10-16: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Adjacent Intersection (AM Peak) ............ 2-123

Exhibit 10-17: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Subject Intersection (PM Peak) .............. 2-124

Exhibit 10-18: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Adjacent Intersection (PM Peak) ............ 2-124

Exhibit 10-19: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ................ 2-125

Exhibit 10-20: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ................ 2-125

Exhibit 10-21: Summary of Traveller Analysis and Performance ................................................ 2-126

Exhibit 10-22: Optional Routes for Left-Turning Heavy Vehicles ................................................. 2-127

Exhibit 10-23: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (AM Peak) ................. 2-128

Exhibit 10-24: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (PM Peak) ................. 2-128

Exhibit 10-25: Recommended Scenario ...................................................................................... 2-129

Exhibit 11-1: Warden Avenue Study Area ................................................................................... 2-130




Exhibit 11-5: Scenario 1 Phase Operation ................................................................................... 2-135

Exhibit 11-6: Scenario 1 Minimum Times .................................................................................... 2-135


Exhibit 11-8: Scenario 2 Minimum Times .................................................................................... 2-135


Exhibit 11-10: Scenario 3 Minimum Times .................................................................................. 2-136

Exhibit 11-11: Scenario 4 Phase Operation ................................................................................. 2-136

Exhibit 11-12: Scenario 4 Minimum Times .................................................................................. 2-137






Exhibit 11-18: LRV Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ........................................... 2-140

Exhibit 11-19: Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak) ................................................... 2-141

Exhibit 11-20: LRV Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ........................................... 2-142

Exhibit 11-21: Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak) ................................................... 2-143








Exhibit 12-1: Birchmount Road Study Area ................................................................................. 2-150



Exhibit 12-4: Seven Phase Operation .......................................................................................... 2-154

Exhibit 12-5: Minimum Cycle Length with Seven Phase Operation............................................. 2-154

Exhibit 12-6: Five Phase Operation ............................................................................................. 2-155

Exhibit 12-7: Minimum Cycle Length with Five Phase Operation ................................................ 2-155

Exhibit 12-8: Four Phase Operation ............................................................................................. 2-156

Exhibit 12-9: Minimum Cycle Length with Four Phase Operation ............................................... 2-156






Exhibit 12-15: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Subject Intersection (AM Peak) .............. 2-159

Exhibit 12-16: Traveller Analysis and Performance at West Adjacent Intersection (AM Peak) ... 2-159

R E P O R T


February, 2010 Page 2-ix.

Exhibit 12-17: Traveller Analysis and Performance at East Adjacent Intersection (AM Peak) .... 2-160

Exhibit 12-18: Traveller Analysis and Performance at Subject Intersection (PM Peak) .............. 2-160

Exhibit 12-19: Traveller Analysis and Performance at West Adjacent Intersection (PM Peak) ... 2-161

Exhibit 12-20: Traveller Analysis and Performance at East Adjacent Intersection (PM Peak) .... 2-161








Exhibit 13-1: Recommended Intersection Operation ................................................................... 2-168

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Calculations to determine transit phase duration

R E P O R T

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) SECTION 2: TRANSIT PROJECT ASSESSMENT STUDY - U-TURN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

February, 2010 Page 2-1

1. INTRODUCTION The Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (ECLRT) line is one of seven Transit City LRT initiatives aimed at expanding the transit infrastructure across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The purpose of the analysis is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the future Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) operation along Eglinton Avenue, and to determine impacts to bus operation, pedestrian operation and vehicle 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.

The implementation of the ECLRT is projected to change the way traffic operates along Eglinton Avenue. The anticipated changes to traffic operation and their associated impact on traffic operation are shown in Exhibit 1-1.

Exhibit 1-1: Operational Traffic Changes and Impacts

Change Impact

Left-turn will be prohibited at existing unsignalized side-streets and entrances (i.e. to become right-in and right-out accesses)

Will redirect left-turning traffic to nearby signalized intersections.

East-west left turns at signalized intersections will operate as protected only (i.e. will operate only under a dedicated left-turn phase) to prevent collisions with LRV.

Will reduce the east-west left turn capacity of signalized intersections on Eglinton Avenue.

Reduced roadway capacity due to the removal of one travel lane in each direction along Eglinton Avenue East.

Will reduce the east-west through capacity of traffic signals on Eglinton Avenue East.

Ten locations along the ECLRT corridor were identified where mitigating measures could potentially improve travel of the ECLRT, cross-transit vehicles, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic. The ten locations indentified for potential improvement were the intersections of Eglinton Avenue at:

Martin Grove Rd Jane St Kipling Ave Victoria Park Ave Islington Ave Pharmacy Ave Royal York Rd Warden Ave Scarlett Rd Birchmount Rd

A detailed traffic-traveller analysis was conducted at the ten locations comparing operation with traditional left turns to various left turn rerouting scenarios, with consideration to truck routing. The scenarios were compared based on the delays experienced by the ECLRT, cross-street transit vehicles, general traffic, and pedestrians to determine which scenario was most beneficial to the spectrum of travellers.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY In order to enable alternative designs and configurations to be compared for planning purposes, a series of transit and traffic traveller performance parameters were developed by TTC Service

R E P O R T



Planning in conjunction with City of Toronto Staff. Exhibit 2-1 and Exhibit 2-2 show the transit and traffic traveller performance parameters used in this analysis, respectively. The evaluation parameters were applied to the analysis of all ten locations identified for potential improvement, for both the AM and PM Peak periods.

The analysis was conducted using Synchro software package in accordance with City Transportation Services guidelines, such that the HCM output was used to derive the results. It should be recognised that due to modelling constraints, the results of this analysis should not be considered as totally representative in absolute terms, especially in over-congested conditions.

Exhibit 2-1: Transit Analysis and Performance Parameters

Parameter Description of Parameter

R E P O R T



Exhibit 2-2: Traffic Analysis and Performance Parameters

Parameter Description of Parameter

The Total Intersection Person Delay (expressed in minutes), which is the sum of Overall Transit Traveller Delay, Overall Cross Transit Traveller Delay and General Traffic Traveller Delay, is determined as:

R E P O R T



The Total Intersection Person Delay does not include the delay to pedestrians.

Based on this evaluation methodology, the following sections describe the traveller analysis and performance analysis conducted at the ten locations.

3. MARTIN GROVE ROAD This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 3-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road signalized intersection.

Exhibit 3-1: Martin Grove Road Study Area

3.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road.

Martin

Grove

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend

Existing Traffic Signal

R E P O R T



3.1 .1 LRV PHA SE

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it was necessary to calculate the minimum green and clearance intervals necessary to safely operate the LRV. The minimum green duration is calculated based on the LRV starting from a stopped position reaching a farside platform. This scenario 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

17.6 seconds of all red time.

Based on the above requirements, the minimum phase duration for the LRV is 25.6 seconds. The phase calculations can be found in Appendix A.

3.1 .2 PED ESTRIA N PHA SE

Based on the new minimum pedestrian crossing requirements established by the City of Toronto, the minimum east-west phase was determined to be 31 seconds based on a new east-west cross section of 28.2 metres. This includes 7 seconds of walk and 24 seconds of flashing don’t walk time.

3.1 .3 TRAFFIC VOLUME DISTR IBUTION

3.1.3.1 Scenario 1 – Future Conditions with Traditional Left Turns

Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road remain at the intersection. East-west left turn operate protected only, while north-south left turns operate as protected and permitted.

3.1.3.2 Scenario 2 – East-west Left Turns Rerouted

Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to signals on Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as protected and permitted. To facilitate the rerouted east-west left turns, two new connector roads are proposed connecting Eglinton Avenue to Martin Grove Road. Two traffic signals are proposed at the intersection of the proposed connector roads with Martin Grove Road.

Instead of making a left turn from Eglinton Avenue onto Martin Grove Road, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will exit from the right most lanes to proceed on connector roads to perform a left turn at the new traffic signals of Martin Grove Road at the new connector roads.

Exhibit 3-2 presents the study area under Scenario 2 with the proposed connector roads, traffic signals and left-turn routing.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-2: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 2

3.1.3.3 Scenario 3–East-West Left Turns Rerouted, North-South U-Turns

Under this scenario east-west left turns are rerouted to new signals on Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue (as in Scenario 2). North-south left turns are rerouted to the new traffic signals on Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue. To facilitate the rerouted east-west left turns, two new connector roads are proposed connecting Eglinton Avenue to Martin Grove Road. Two traffic signals are proposed at the intersection of the proposed connector roads with Martin Grove Road. These proposed traffic signals will also facilitate north-south u-turns.

Instead of making a left turn from Eglinton Avenue onto Martin Grove Road, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will exit from the right most lanes to proceed on connector roads to perform a left turn at the new traffic signals of Martin Grove Road and the new connector roads. Instead of making a left turn, north-to-west and south-to-east travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn.

Exhibit 3-3 presents the study area under Scenario 3 with the proposed connector road, traffic signals and left-turn routing.

Proposed new roadfor re-routed left and

right turns

Martin

Grove

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.


right turns

Legend

Proposed Traffic Signal

Existing TrafficSignal

LRT Platform

East to North RoutingWest to South Routing

LRT Tracks

North to West Routing

South to East Routing

R E P O R T




3.1.3.1 Scenario 4 –West Left Turns Rerouted and East, North-South U-Turns

Under this scenario, west left turns are rerouted to a signal on Martin Grove Road north of Eglinton Avenue. North-south left turns are rerouted to the new traffic signals on Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue. To facilitate the rerouted east-west left turns, a connector road is proposed connecting Eglinton Avenue to Martin Grove Road. Three traffic signals are proposed, one at at the intersection of the proposed connector road with Martin Grove Road, and two to north and east of the intersections. The proposed traffic signals will facilitate west-to-south left turns as well as east, north, and south u-turns.

Instead of making a left turn from Eglinton Avenue onto Martin Grove Road, west-to-south travelling vehicles will exit from the right most lanes to proceed on connector roads to perform a left turn at the new traffic signals of Martin Grove Road and the new connector roads. Instead of making a left turn,east-to-north, north-to-west and south-to-east travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn.

Exhibit 3-4 presents the study area under Scenario 4 with the proposed connector road, traffic signals and left-turn routing.


right turns

Martin

Grove

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.


right turns

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T




3.1 .4 SIGNAL PH ASIN G

3.1.4.1 Existing Signal Timings

Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road operates under a 100 second cycle length during the AM peak period and 110 second cycle length during the PM peak period.


Exhibit 3-5 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road. The existing eight phase operation is maintained, with the east-west left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 3-6 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.


right turns

Martin

Grove

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-5: Eight Phase Operation

Exhibit 3-6: Minimum Cycle Length with Eight Phase Operation

Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 3 & 7 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 6 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 24 26 Amber 2 4 2 4 All Red 2 3 2 3 Total 10 38 10 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 98

Based on this phasing and cycle length composition, the minimum cycle length is 98 seconds. To accommodate the high volume of left turns at this intersection a cycle length of 130 seconds was used in the AM and PM peak periods of analysis.

3.1.4.3 Scenario 2 – East-West Left Turns Rerouted

Exhibit 3-7 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road. Under Scenarios 2, a six phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 3-8 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-7: Six Phase Operation

Exhibit 3-8: Minimum Cycle Length with Six Phase Operation

Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 24 26 Amber 2 4 4 All Red 2 3 3 Total 10 38 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 88

Based on this phasing and cycle length composition, the minimum cycle length is 88 seconds. To accommodate the high volume of left turns at this intersection a cycle length of 130 seconds was used in the AM and PM peak periods for analysis.

3.1.4.4 Scenario 3 –East-West Left Turns Rerouted, North-South U-Turns

Exhibit 3-9 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road. Under Scenario 3, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west and north-south left turn movements prohibited. Exhibit 3-10 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-9: Four Phase Operation

Exhibit 3-10: Minimum Cycle Length with Four Phase Operation

Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 24 26 Amber 4 4 All Red 3 3 Total 38 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 78

Based on this phasing and cycle length composition, the minimum cycle length is 78 seconds. A 90 second cycle length was used for the analysis.

3.1.4.5 Scenario 4 –West Left Turns Rerouted and East, North-South U-Turns

The NEMA phase diagram and minimum cycle lengths for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road under Scenario 4 are the same as under Scenario 3. Under Scenario 4 a 90 second cycle length was used during the AM peak period, and a 100 second cycle length was used during the PM peak periods of analysis.

3.2 Analysis Results 3.2 .1 TRAFFIC ANAL YSIS AND PERF OR MANC E

Exhibit 3-11 and Exhibit 3-12 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-11: AM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4

Exist Traditional EB/ WB LT+RT

Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT

Relocated and NB/ SB LT U-

Turn

WB LT+RT Relocated, EB LT U-Turn, and NB/ SB LT

U-Turn Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic (minutes) 3833 9226 6584 11687 12064

Overall Intersection V/C Ratio

(Eglinton/Martin Grove Only) 1.10 1.39 1.17 1.37 1.40

Thru and RT V/C Ratios:

Northbound 0.30

(0.11 RT) 0.35

(0.08 RT) 0.48

(0.17 RT) 0.79

(0.31 RT) 0.61

(0.32 RT)

Southbound 0.28

(0.97 RT) 0.29

(1.46 RT) 0.29

(1.64 RT) 0.26

(1.97 RT) 0.26

(1.97 RT)

Eastbound 0.81

(0.16 RT) 0.97 0.79 0.80 0.95 (0.28 RT)

Westbound 0.92 1.12 0.90 0.91 0.91 (0.53 RT)

Left-turn V/C Ratios: Northbound 0.99 1.15 1.00 1.01 1.01 Southbound 0.33 0.30 0.32 0.45 0.34

Eastbound 0.87 1.36 0.66 0.82 0.88 Westbound 0.24 0.44 0.04 0.05 0.05

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-12: PM Peak Traffic Analysis and Performance

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn


U-Turn Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic (minutes) 8067 13104 6416 9675 14754


(Eglinton/Martin Grove Only) 0.98 1.22 0.99 1.16 1.32


Northbound 0.32

(0.05 RT) 0.44

(0.02 RT) 0.82

(0.07 RT) 0.87

(0.15 RT) 0.53

(0.17 RT)

Southbound 0.15

(0.24 RT) 0.21

(0.27 RT) 0.18

(0.71 RT) 0.19

(1.02 RT) 0.21

(1.13 RT)

Eastbound 1.17

(0.44 RT) 1.30 1.08 1.25 1.42 (0.45 RT)

Westbound 0.96 1.02 0.66 0.77 0.70 (0.73 RT)

Left-turn V/C Ratios: Northbound 1.26 0.81 0.64 1.14 0.91 Southbound 0.09 0.30 0.83 0.49 0.53

Eastbound 0.53 1.48 0.99 0.91 0.98 Westbound 0.17 0.38 0.01 0.02 0.01

Of the four scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 2 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic. Individual movement v/c are lowest in Scenario 2 with the exception of the southbound right-movement during the AM peak period.

Exhibit 3-13 and Exhibit 3-14 present the left turn travel times of each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back.

Exhibit 3-13: AM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds)

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn

WB LT+RT

Relocated, EB LT U-Turn, and NB/ SB LT

U-Turn EB 90.0 251.0 81.2 108.05 124.3 WB 31.0 68.5 68.0 78.15 67.05 NB 45.5 137.3 80.0 577 585.2 SB 34.8 41.0 38.2 132.7 99.3

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-14: PM Peak Left Turn Travel and Delay Times (seconds)

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT

Relocated and NB/ SB LT U-Turn

WB LT+RT

Relocated, EB LT U-Turn, and NB/ SB LT

U-Turn EB 171.3 282.0 140.2 78.05 304.9 WB 30.9 78.2 113.9 103.65 63.75 NB 33.3 64.4 62.6 255.6 234.2 SB 25.7 41.2 107.9 105.8 128.6

Scenario 2 has the shortest travel time for left turn movements. In comparison with Scenario 1, rerouting left turn movements provides relief for the east-west left turns, with east-west travel times being reduced by an average of approximately 40% in Scenario 2. North-south left turn travel and delay time also reduces by an average of approximately 30% in Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 1. The north-south left turn travel times increase in Scenarios 3 and Scenario 4 compared to Scenario 1 by an average of 65% and 95%, respectively. The main source of these increases is the rerouted northbound left turn movement which contributes to the already constrained southbound right turn movement.

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative since it yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic, the greatest overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and individual movement capacity. Scenario 2 also decreases the left turn delay for east-west and north-south left turns.

3.2 .2 TRAVELLER ANAL YSIS A N D PERF ORMAN C E

The traveller analysis and performance analyzes traffic performance against traffic volumes and transit ridership statistics to estimate the overall impact to travellers. Exhibit 3-15 presents the transit ridership and average auto occupancy parameters used in the analysis.

Exhibit 3-15: Parameters and Assumptions for Traveller Analysis and Performance

Transit Ridership Average Auto Occupancy ECLRT EB ECLRT WB Cross Transit NB Cross Transit SB

AM 750 1650 185 334 1.11

PM 1650 750 333 288

Exhibit 3-16 and Exhibit 3-17 present the traveller analysis and performance of each scenario.

1 Source: http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2008.jsp

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-16: Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak)

Scenario Dir.

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn


U-Turn Cycle Length n/a 120 130 120 90 90

Eglinton Avenue Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 106 89 75 75

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) n/a - 22% 30% 22% 22%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 41.2 31.2 29.2 29.2

Martin Grove Road Average Cross Transit Bus Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 23.3 30.4 19.9 33.6 15.2 SB 33.5 37.8 22.2 27.4 20.8

Totals A. Overall Transit Traveller Delay (not including boarding/alighting delay) (minutes)

EB - 515 389 365 365

WB - 1132 857 802 802

A'. Overall Cross Transit Traveller Delay (minutes)

NB 72 94 61 104 47 SB 186 210 123 152 115

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 4216 10149 7242 12855 13271

Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) (does not include pedestrians)

n/a 4474 12100 8672 14174 14553

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-17: Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak)

Scenario Dir.

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn


U-Turn Cycle Length n/a 120 130 120 90 100

Eglinton Avenue Maximum Potential Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 108 80 75 75

Probability of a Transit Vehicle Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%)

n/a - 21% 38% 22% 30%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 42.8 25.0 29.2 26.3

Martin Grove Road Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 26.7 40.2 45.2 28.4 43.6 SB 24.5 36.6 24.3 26.7 11.4


EB - 1177 688 802 722

WB - 535 313 365 328


NB 82 124 139 88 134 SB 136 203 135 148 63

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 8873 14415 7058 10642 16230


n/a 9092 16453 8332 12045 17477

The first significant observation of the traveller analysis and performance during both peak periods is that the cycle length can be reduced with the redistribution of left turns. Consequently, the delay to transit vehicles is reduced under Scenario 2, Scenario 3, and Scenario 4 compared to Scenario 1. Scenario 2 yields the highest probability for a LRV to clear an intersection on green with zero signal delay. During the AM and PM peak periods, Scenario 2 performs best when the impact of delay on transit is combined with the general traffic delay as demonstrated by the Total Intersection Person Delay.

Exhibit 3-18 and Exhibit 3-19 present additional criteria for the traveller analysis and performance evaluation. In addition to representing the cycle length, the exhibits include the following parameters:

Through-movement and Right-turn Traffic Traveller Delay (expressed in minutes), which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay by the approaching through-movement and right-turning volume;

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay (with additional travel time, expressed in minutes), which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay by the approaching left-turning

R E P O R T



volume (if left-turns are re-routed, the associated through-movement, U-turn and right-turn traffic traveller delay is added, as in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3);

LRT Traveller Delay (expressed in minutes), which is the sum of Overall Transit Traveller Delay and Overall Cross Transit Traveller Delay; and

Average Pedestrian Delay (expressed in seconds per pedestrian), which is the average of the respective pedestrian delays for each approach weighted by the associated pedestrian volumes.

Exhibit 3-18: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (AM Peak)

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn


U-Turn Cycle Length 120 130 120 90 90 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) 3389 8183 5810 10366 8798

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions) 443 1043 774 1321 3266

LRT Traveller Delay - 1561 1246 1167 1167 Cross Street Bus Traveller Delay 258 304 185 256 162 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) - 44.6 37.7 33.8 33.8

Exhibit 3-19: Additional Criteria for Traveller Analysis and Performance (PM Peak)

Scenario

0 1 2 3 4


Relocated

EB/ WB LT+RT


Turn


U-Turn Cycle Length 120 130 120 90 100 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) 6922 11141 5444 8537 13801

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions) 1144 1963 973 1138 953

LRT Traveller Delay - 1254 1000 1167 1050 Cross Street Bus Traveller Delay 218 327 274 236 198 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) - 48.5 36.3 33.1 34.2

The first noteworthy observation is that Scenario 2 yields the lowest Through-movement and Right-turn Traffic Traveller Delay of the three scenarios involving LRT operation. Scenario 2 also outperforms all other Scenarios in Left Turn Traffic Traveller Delay, and LRT Traveller Delay in both the AM and PM peak periods. Scenario 4 yields the lowest Cross Street Bus Traveller Delay, since it requires more green time to be allotted to the north-south phase than any of the other scenarios. Scenario 3 has the lowest pedestrian delay.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-20 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the scenarios. As was observed in Exhibit 3-18 and Exhibit 3-19, transit delay is lowest in Scenario 4, although Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 are very close and still perform better for transit travellers than the traditional Scenario 1. General traffic operations perform best in Scenario 2. As was seen in Exhibit 3-16 and Exhibit 3-17, Total Person Delay is lowest in Scenario 2 during the AM and PM peak periods.

Exhibit 3-20: Summary of Traveller Analysis and Performance

# Scenario

Overall Transit

Traveller General Traffic

Total Person Delay

Comment AM PM AM PM AM PM 0 Exist - - - - - - No LRT Operation

1 Traditional 4 4 2 3 2 3 Highest cycle length, exclusive left-turn phases

2 Eglinton LT N/S Signal 3 2 1 1 1 1

Less constrained at Eglinton/Martin Grove intersection. Preferred Alternative.

3 Martin

Grove LT N/S Signal

2 3 3 2 3 2 Martin Grove LT reroutes significantly increases traffic delay.

4 Eglinton EBLT Signal

1 1 4 4 4 4 High traffic delay, Significant rerouting

Based on the results of the traveller analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative.

3.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on February 23, 2006 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:

Northbound: 2 veh/hour

Southbound: 2 veh/hour

Eastbound: 10 veh/hour

Westbound: 0 veh/hour

Exhibit 3-21 presents the identified routes that could be performed by heavy vehicles for left turns in each direction.

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-21: Optional Routes for Left-Turning Heavy Vehicles

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 3.4 .1 SUMMAR Y

Based on the results of both the traffic analysis and performance and the traveller analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred option. In comparison to the traditional operation of Scenario 1, Scenario 2:

Allows for short cycle length;

Reduces traffic delay;

Reduces LRT traveller delay;

Reduces cross-street bus traveller delay;

Reduces pedestrian delay;

Reduces left turn delay; and

Provides viable local routing for left turning heavy trucks.

EB

WB NB

SB

R E P O R T



Exhibit 3-22 and Exhibit 3-23 provide a summary of how Scenario 2 performs in comparison with Scenario 1 with respect to both traffic and traveller delay parameters. In all cases except for left-turn travel and delay time, the performance criteria favours Scenario 2 over Scenario 1.

Exhibit 3-22: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (AM Peak)

Factor Unit Traditional Recommended Difference Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) 22% 30% 34%

Average LRV Delay (total eastbound and westbound) seconds/vehicle 41 31 -10

Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 45 38 -7 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 251 81 -170 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 69 68 -1 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 137 80 -57

Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 41 38 -3

Total Intersection Person Delay minutes 12100 8672 -28%

Exhibit 3-23: Summary of Preferred Scenario Compared to Base Case (PM Peak)

Factor Unit Traditional Recommended Difference Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) 21% 38% 81%


Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 48 36 -12 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 282 140 -142 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 78 114 36 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 64 63 -2

Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 41 108 67


The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road. The left turn movements will be redistributed to a proposed connector road to make a left turn at proposed traffic signals on Martin Grove Road, north and south of Eglinton Avenue;

Maintaining the current 120 second cycle length would be in the best interest of the LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians based upon delay reductions associated with a 120 second cycle length; and

In the recommended scenario, left turning trucks at Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road will have alternate routes.

R E P O R T



3.4 .2 REC OMMENDED SCENARIO

Based on the Synchro analysis results of the four scenarios, Scenario 2 with rerouted east-west left turns is the preferred alternative as it provides a balance for the LRT, cross street buses, vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

Scenario 2 is to implement all of the following:

Six phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road with rerouted east-west left turn movements;

120 second cycle length;

Minimum of 31 seconds for east-west green time at Eglinton Avenue at Martin Grove Road;

Two proposed connector roads from Eglinton Avenue to Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue;

Two proposed traffic signals at the intersection of the connector roads at Martin Grove Road north and south of Eglinton Avenue.

Exhibit 3-24 presents a simplified representation of the recommended scenario.

Exhibit 3-24: Recommended Scenario

R E P O R T



4. KIPLING AVENUE This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 4-1 shows the study area which surrounds the Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue signalized intersection.

Exhibit 4-1: Kipling Avenue Study Area

4.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue.

4.1 .1 LRV PHA SE

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it was necessary to calculate the minimum green and clearance intervals necessary to safely operate the LRV. The minimum green duration is calculated based on the LRV starting from a stopped

KiplingAve.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend


R E P O R T



position reaching a farside platform. This scenario 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:






Based on the new minimum pedestrian crossing requirements established by the City of Toronto, the minimum east-west phase was determined to be 27 seconds based on a new east-west cross section of 23 metres. This includes 7 seconds of walk and 20 seconds of flashing don’t walk time.



Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue remain at the intersection. East-west left turns operate protected only, while north-south left turns operate as protected and permitted.

4.1.3.2 Scenario 2 – All Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue

Under this scenario, east-west and north-south left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Kipling Avenue.

Instead of making a left turn, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane. North-to-west and south-to-east travelling vehicles will make a right turn at the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to proceed through.

Exhibit 3-2 presents the study area under Scenario 2 with the proposed midblock U-turn signals and left-turn routing.

R E P O R T




4.1.3.3 Scenario 3 –All Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue and Kipling Avenue

Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. North-south left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Kipling Avenue. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Kipling Avenue. To facilitate the north U-turns, modifications to an existing traffic signal at Kipling Avenue at Widdicombe Hill is proposed. To facilitate the south U-turns, a new signalized intersection is proposed at Kipling Avenue at Byland Road.

Instead of making a left turn, vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane.

Exhibit 4-3 presents the study area under Scenario 3 with the proposed U-turn signal, signalized intersection and left-turn routing.

KiplingAve.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T




4.1.3.4 Scenario 4 – East-West Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue; North-South Left Turns Protected/Permissive

Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as protected and permitted. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Kipling Avenue.

Instead of making a left turn, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane.


KiplingAve.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T



Exhibit 4-4: Proposed Traffic Signals and Left Turn Routing under Scenario 4 & 5

4.1.3.5 Scenario 5 – East-west Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue; North-South Left Turns Permissive Only

Under this scenario, as in Scenario 4, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. North-south left turns will operate as permitted only. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Scarlett Road.


Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the proposed midblock U-turn signals and left-turn routing under Scenario 5, which is the same as Scenario 4.

4.1.3.6 Scenario 6 – All Left Turns Rerouted to Kipling Avenue

Under this scenario, east-west and north-south left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Kipling Avenue. To facilitate the north U-turns, modifications to an existing traffic signal at Kipling Avenue at Widdicombe Hill is proposed. To facilitate the south U-turns, a new signalized intersection is proposed at Kipling Avenue at Byland Road.

Instead of making a left turn, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will make a right turn at the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to proceed through. Instead of making a left turn, north-to-west and south-to-east travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane.

Exhibit 4-5 presents the study area under Scenario 6 with the proposed U-turn signal, signalized intersection and left-turn routing.

KiplingAve.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T






Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue operates under a 120 second cycle length during the AM and PM peak periods.


Exhibit 4-6 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue. The existing eight phase operation is maintained, with the east-west left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 4-7 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.


KiplingAve.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



R E P O R T




Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 3 & 7 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 20 27 Amber 2 4 2 4 All Red 2 2 2 2 Total 11 33 11 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 95

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 95 seconds. To balance the east-west and north-south through and left turning vehicle volumes, a cycle length of 120 seconds was used in the AM peak and PM peak periods of analysis.

4.1.4.3 Scenario 2 – All Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue

Exhibit 4-8 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue. Under Scenario 2, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west and north-south left turn movements prohibited. Exhibit 4-9 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.



Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 20 27 Amber 4 4 All Red 2 3 Total 33 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 73

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 73 seconds. To balance the east –west and north-south vehicle volumes, a 90 second cycle length was used in the AM peak and a 100 second cycle was used in the PM peak periods for the analysis.

R E P O R T



4.1.4.4 Scenario 3 –All Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue and Kipling Avenue

The NEMA phase diagram and minimum cycle lengths for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue under Scenario 3 are the same as under Scenario 2. Under Scenario 3 a 90 second cycle length was used during the AM peak period and a 100 second cycle length was used during the PM peak periods of analysis.

4.1.4.5 Scenario 4 – East-West Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue; North-South Left Turns Protected/Permissive

Exhibit 4-10 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue intersection. Under Scenarios 4, a six phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 4-11 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.



Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 20 27 Amber 2 4 4 All Red 2 2 2 Total 11 33 40 Minimum Cycle Length (AM) 84

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 84 seconds. To balance the east-west through, north-south through, and north-south left turn vehicle volumes, a 100 second cycle length was used in the AM peak period and a 120 second cycle length was used in the PM peak period of analysis.

R E P O R T



4.1.4.6 Scenario 5 – East-west Left Turns Rerouted to Eglinton Avenue; North-South Left Turns Permissive Only

The NEMA phase diagram and minimum cycle lengths for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue under Scenario 5 are the same as under Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Under Scenario 5 a 90 second cycle length was used during the AM peak period and a 100 second cycle length was used during the PM peak periods of analysis.

4.1.4.7 Scenario 6 – All Left Turns Rerouted to Kipling Avenue

The NEMA phase diagram and minimum cycle lengths for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue under Scenario 6 are the same as under Scenario 2, Scenario 3 and Scenario 5. Under Scenario 6 a 90 second cycle length was used during the AM and PM peak periods of analysis.


Exhibit 4-12 and Exhibit 4-13 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.


Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Exist Traditional U-Turn Egl. Only

U-Turn Egl. + Kip.

N/S LT (Prot), E/W U-

Turn Egl.

N/S LT (Perm), E/W U-

Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic (minutes)

2554 3544 4282 3595 4810 3044 2794


(Kipling/Eglinton Only) 0.82 0.85 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.81


Northbound 0.59

(0.15 RT) 0.49

(0.17 RT) 0.46

(0.68 RT) 0.55

(0.46 RT) 0.41

(0.32 RT) 0.46

(0.34 RT) 0.68

(0.46 RT)

Southbound 0.77

(0.05 RT) 0.61

(0.06 RT) 0.44

(0.17 RT) 0.47

(0.37 RT) 0.53

(0.05 RT) 0.44

(0.06 RT) 0.56

(0.36 RT)

Eastbound 0.81 0.96 (0.08) 1.04

(0.32 RT) 1.01

(0.32 RT) 1.07

(0.22 RT) 1.01

(0.32 RT) 0.91

(0.42 RT) Westbound 0.66 0.90 1.06 0.99 1.05 0.99 0.88

Left-turn V/C Ratios: Northbound 0.89 0.64 in EB 0.52 0.48 0.65 0.82 Southbound 0.38 0.29 in WB 0.37 0.23 0.24 0.78

Eastbound 0.74 0.93 0.84 0.73 0.77 0.73 in SB Westbound 0.68 0.91 0.71 0.62 0.68 0.62 in NB

R E P O R T




Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.


Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only


3562 4917 4290 4076 5131 3185 3603


(Kipling/Eglinton Only) 0.94 0.85 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.89


Northbound 0.65

(0.19 RT) 0.59 (0.19) 0.64

(0.65) 0.73

(0.51) 0.57

(0.30) 0.64

(0.34) 0.81

(0.48)

Southbound 0.69

(0.10 RT) 0.62 (0.10) 0.51

(0.32) 0.57

(0.40) 0.61

(0.10) 0.51

(0.13) 0.62

(0.36)

Eastbound 0.85 1.03 (0.06) 0.98

(0.24) 0.95

(0.24) 1.01

(0.18) 0.95

(0.24) 0.92

(0.36) Westbound 0.74 1.01 1.04 0.98 1.04 0.98 0.94

Left-turn V/C Ratios: Northbound 0.59 0.48 in EB 0.71 0.44 0.61 0.86 Southbound 0.63 0.50 in WB 0.61 0.45 0.56 0.85

Eastbound 1.11 1.02 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.76 in SB Westbound 0.91 0.97 0.76 0.68 0.71 0.67 in NB

Of the six scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 6 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic in the AM peak period, while Scenario 5 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic in the PM peak period. The overall intersection v/c ratio is lowest in Scenario 3 and Scenario 6 in the AM peak period and lowest in Scenario 1 and Scenario 5 in the PM peak period. The overall intersection v/c ratio remains below 0.9 in all scenarios with LRT operation in both peak periods. The individual movement v/c ratios that are above 1.0 under traditional left turn operations (Scenario 1) improve in Scenarios with left turn rerouting (Scenarios 2-6), with the exception of the eastbound through-movement in Scenario 4.

Exhibit 4-14 and Exhibit 4-15 present the left turn travel times of each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back.


Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.

N/S LT (Prot), E/W U-Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

EB 38.8 90.3 153.8 128.0 138.7 119.9 116.1 WB 38.2 78.4 115.1 101.1 102.7 101.3 127.7 NB 82.9 34.9 142.8 91.6 21.3 37.4 133.7 SB 39.7 29.1 99.9 126.0 20.3 10.5 137.8

R E P O R T




Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.

N/S LT (Prot), E/W U-Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

EB 116.4 97.9 130.3 121.4 168.5 111.8 136.1 WB 59.2 99.5 112.6 110.4 132.0 94.9 130.7 NB 34.6 27.1 138.6 148.3 25.5 40.8 157.5 SB 46.6 29.4 108.1 146.7 25.6 26.2 149.1

As can be seen, maintaining traditional left turn movements in Scenario 1 provides the shortest travel time for east-west turns, with travel time increasing by as much as 50% on average in Scenario 4. North-south left turn travel time is shortest when the movements remain at the intersection (Scenario 1, Scenario 4 and Scenario 5), and increases by as much as four times in Scenario 6.

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 5 is the preferred alternative for traffic signal phasing since it yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic in the PM peak, improved overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and individual movement capacity compared to Scenario 1. Scenario 5 increases left turn delay for east-west left turns by a modest amount, but reduces north-south travel time for left turns.

4.2 .2 TRAVELLER ANAL YSIS A N D PERF ORMANC E




AM 1100 1750 438 735 1.12

PM 1750 1100 542 445



R E P O R T




Scenario Dir.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.


Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

Cycle Length n/a 120 120 90 90 110 90 90 Eglinton Avenue

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle)

EB/WB - 98 71 71 84 71 71

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%)

EB/WB - 23% 27% 27% 29% 27% 27%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle)

EB/WB - 37.6 25.7 25.7 29.8 25.7 25.7

Kipling Avenue Cross Street Bus Delay

Byland Road NB - - - 15 - - 18 SB - - - 6 - - 33

Eglinton Avenue NB 38 30 21 10 22 21 8 SB 43 32 10 9 23 10 10

Widdicombe Hill NB 6 9 7 8 7 7 23 SB 10 10 12 30 11 12 15

Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 44 39 28 33 29 28 49

SB 52 42 22 45 33 22 58


EB - 689 470 470 546 470 470

WB - 1096 748 748 869 748 748


NB 395 355 254 294 257 255 443 SB 387 309 165 334 248 165 432

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 2810 3898 4710 3955 5291 3348 3073


n/a 3592 6347 6348 5802 7212 4986 5166

R E P O R T




Scenario Dir.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.


Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

Cycle Length n/a 120 120 100 100 120 100 90 Eglinton Avenue

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle)

EB/WB - 101 71 71 84 71 71

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%)

EB/WB - 20% 35% 35% 35% 35% 27%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle)

EB/WB - 40.0 23.1 23.1 27.3 23.1 25.7

Kipling Avenue Cross Street Bus Delay

Byland Road NB - - - 18 - - 27 SB - - - 16 - - 25

Eglinton Avenue NB 36 31 29 15 28 29 20 SB 31 24 16 18 23 14 14

Widdicombe Hill NB 4 10 7 15 7 9 21 SB 14 15 15 28 16 15 33


NB 40 41 36 47 35 38 68 SB 44 39 31 61 38 29 72


EB - 1166 673 673 797 673 748

WB 733 423 423 501 423 470


NB 363 371 327 428 316 342 612 SB 327 288 232 454 282 217 533

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 3918 5409 4719 4483 5644 3504 3963


n/a 4608 7968 6375 6462 7539 5160 6326

The first significant observation of the traveller analysis and performance during both peak periods is that the cycle length can be reduced with the redistribution of left turns. Consequently, delay reduces under all Scenarios with left turn rerouting, and is lowest in Scenario 2, Scenario 3 and Scenario 5 in both peak periods, and Scenario 6 in the AM peak period only. During both the AM and PM peak periods, Scenario 5 performs best when the impact of delay on transit is combined with the general traffic delay as demonstrated by the Total Intersection Person Delay.



R E P O R T



Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay (with additional travel time, expressed in minutes), which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay by the approaching left-turning volume (if left-turns are re-routed, the associated through-movement, U-turn and right-turn traffic traveller delay is added, as in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3);




Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.


Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

Cycle Length 120 120 90 90 110 90 90 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) 2222 3142 3287 2859 3912 2460 2074

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions)

333 402 996 736 899 584 719

LRT Traveller Delay 0 1785 1219 1219 1415 1219 1219 Cross Street Transit Traveller Delay 782 664 418 629 505 419 874

Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 40.4 45.8 34.1 34.1 38.9 34.1 34.1


Scenario

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


U-Turn Egl. + Kip.


Turn Egl.


Turn Egl.

U-Turn Kip. Only

Cycle Length 120 120 100 100 120 100 90 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) 3074 4265 3227 3219 4049 2526 2737

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions)

487 652 1063 857 1081 659 866

LRT Traveller Delay 0 1900 1097 1097 1297 1097 1219 Cross Street Transit Traveller Delay 690 659 559 882 598 560 1144

Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 36.3 44.1 34.8 34.8 39.3 34.8 32.7

The first noteworthy observation is that Scenario 5 and Scenario 6 yield the lowest through-movement and right turn traffic traveller delay of the six scenarios involving LRT operation. In terms

R E P O R T



of left turn traffic traveller delay, Scenario 1 and Scenario 5 perform best. Scenario 5 performs among the best in the remaining parameters of LRT traveller delay, cross street transit traveller delay and pedestrian delay.

Exhibit 4-21 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the three scenarios. As was observed in Exhibit 4-19 and Exhibit 4-20, transit delay is lowest in Scenario 2 in the AM peak period and lowest in Scenario 5 in the PM peak period. General traffic operations perform best in Scenario 6 in the AM peak period, and best in Scenario 5 in the PM peak period. As was seen in Exhibit 4-17 and Exhibit 4-18, Total Person Delay is lowest in Scenario 5 during both the AM and PM peak periods.


Scenario

Overall Transit


Total Person Delay



2 U-Turn Egl. Only 1 1 5 4 5 3 Reroutes traffic to constrained Eglinton Avenue E/W movements

3 U-Turn Egl. + Kip. 3 4 4 3 3 4 Reroutes less traffic to constrained Eglinton E/W movements than 2

4 N/S LT (Prot), U-Turn E/W Egl. 4 3 6 6 6 5 NB left turn phase increases cycle length

5 N/S LT (Perm), U-Turn E/W Egl. 2 1 2 1 1 1 Permissive N/S phases reduces CL.

Best traffic operation in the PM peak

6 U-Turn Kip. Only 5 5 1 2 2 2 Minimizes constrained Eglinton Avenue E/W movements. Best traffic operations in the AM peak

Based on the results of the traveller analysis and performance, Scenario 5 is the preferred alternative as it provides the best balance of benefits to transit and benefits to general traffic.

4.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on June21, 2006 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:





R E P O R T



Exhibit 4-22 presents the identified routes that could be performed by heavy vehicles for left turns in each direction. However, these routings are only recommended for local heavy vehicle traffic (e.g. moving trucks serving the local community). Commercial heavy vehicles will use alternate corridors (e.g. St Clair Ave West, Lawrence Avenue West).









Increases AM peak left turn delays (minor increases in PM peak);

R E P O R T



Provides viable local heavy truck routing.

Exhibit 4-23 and Exhibit 4-24 provide a summary of how Scenario 5 performs in comparison with Scenario 1 with respect to both traffic and traveller delay parameters. In all cases except for left-turn travel and delay time, the performance criteria favour Scenario 5 over Scenario 1.


Factor Units Traditional Recommended Difference Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) 23% 27% 19%


Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 46 34 -12 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 90 120 30

Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 78 101 23

Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 35 37 3






Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 44 35 -9 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 98 112 14 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 100 95 -5

Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 27 41 14



The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue and redistributing these volumes to a downstream intersection where they can U-turn;

Reducing the current 120 second cycle length would be in the best interest of the LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians based upon delay reductions associated with a 90-100 second cycle length; and

R E P O R T



In the recommended scenario, left turning trucks at Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue will have alternate routes.


Based on the Synchro analysis results of the scenarios, Scenario 5 with rerouted east-west left turns is the preferred alternative as it provides a balance for the LRT, cross street buses, vehicular traffic and pedestrians.


Four phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue at Kipling Avenue with rerouted east-west left turn movements;

90 and 100 second cycle lengths in the AM and PM peak periods, respectively; and

Minimum of 27 seconds for east-west green time;

Two proposed traffic signals on Eglinton Avenue to facilitate east-west u-turns; and

Exclusive east-to-north and west-to-south right turn lanes.



R E P O R T



5. ISLINGTON AVENUE This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 5-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue signalized intersection.

Exhibit 5-1: Islington Avenue Study Area

5.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue.

5.1 .1 LRV PHA SE



Legend


Eglinton Ave. W.

IslingtonAve.

R E P O R T










Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue remain at the intersection. East-west left turn operate protected only, while north-south left turns operate as permitted.


Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as permitted. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Islington Avenue.

Instead of making a left turn, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane. Exhibit 5-2 presents the study area under Scenario 2 with the proposed midblock U-turn signals and left-turn routing.

R E P O R T






Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue operates under a 112 second cycle length during the AM peak period and 120 second cycle length during the PM peak period.


Exhibit 5-3 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue. The existing six phase operation is maintained, with the east-west left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 5-4 presents the minimum cycle length for this condition.

R E P O R T





Phase 1 2 5 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 6 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 22 22 28 Amber 2 4 2 4 4 All Red 2 2 2 2 2 Total 10 32 10 32 41 Minimum Cycle Length 83

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 83 seconds. A cycle length of 100 seconds was used in the AM peak period, and 110 seconds was used in the PM peak period for this analysis.


Exhibit 5-5 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue. Under Scenarios 2, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 5-6 presents the minimum cycle length for this condition.


1 2 4

865

Vehicle MovementPedestrian MovementTransit Movement

R E P O R T




Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 22 28 Amber 4 4 All Red 2 2 Total 35 41 Minimum Cycle Length 76



Exhibit 5-7 and Exhibit 5-8 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.

2 4

86


R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic (minutes)

1757 2849 2156

Overall Intersection V/C Ratio Islington/Eglinton Only

0.72 0.82 0.70


Northbound 0.84 (0.10 RT)

0.62 (0.08 RT)

0.56 (0.12 RT)

Southbound 0.81 (0.09 RT)

0.63 (0.07 RT)

0.57 (0.16 RT)

Eastbound 0.68 0.95 (0.14 RT)

0.70 (0.50 RT)

Westbound 0.66 0.76 (0.05 RT)

0.80 (0.19 RT)

Left-turn V/C Ratios: Northbound 0.71 0.58 0.47 Southbound 0.77 0.36 0.27

Eastbound 0.26 0.74 0.42 Westbound 0.61 0.99 0.72


Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic (minutes)

2724 3328 2659

Overall Intersection V/C Ratio Islington/Eglinton Only

0.91 0.90 0.82



0.72 (0.15 RT)

0.67 (0.19 RT)

Southbound 0.80 (0.09 RT)

0.61 (0.07 RT)

0.56 (0.11 RT)

Eastbound 0.68 0.96 (0.06 RT)

0.90 (0.23 RT)

Westbound 0.67 0.80 (0.03 RT)

0.69 (0.22 RT)



R E P O R T



Of the two scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 2 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic. Individual movement v/c ratios and the overall intersection v/c ratio are the lowest in Scenario 2 with the exception of the westbound through-movement during AM peak period.

Exhibit 5-9 and Exhibit 5-10 present the left turn travel times for each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back. As seen in the tables, east-west turn traffic usually takes approximately 15 seconds less to travel under Scenario 1 operation than under Scenario 2 operation. However, Scenario 1’s north-south left turn travel and delay time are approximately 12 seconds longer than that of Scenario 2.


Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR EB 12.4 73.5 97.9 WB 17.6 96.5 104.6 NB 88.5 43.0 28.9 SB 100.1 30.2 21.4


Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR EB 15.2 68.0 88.1 WB 67.0 95.4 101.8 NB 180.7 69.7 48.6 SB 103.7 45.5 31.2

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative for traffic signal phasing, since it yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic, the greatest overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and individual movement capacity. Scenario 2 increases left turn delay for east-west left turns, but reduces north-south delay for left turns.


The traveller analysis and performance analyzes traffic performance against traffic volumes and transit ridership statistics to estimate the overall impact to travellers. Exhibit 5-11presents the transit ridership and average auto occupancy parameters used in the analysis.

R E P O R T




Transit Ridership Average Auto Occupancy ECLRT EB ECLRT

WB Cross Transit NB Cross Transit SB

AM 1400 1800 265 452 1.1

3

PM 1800 1400 431 312



Scenario Dir. 0 1 2 Existing Traditional EW RR

Cycle Length n/a 112 100 90 Eglinton Avenue

Maximum Potential Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 73.8 54.8

Probability of a Transit Vehicle Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) n/a - 31% 45%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 25.4 15.2

Islington Avenue Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 48.1 28.1 21.9 SB 46.6 28.2 22.0 Totals

A. Overall Transit Traveller Delay (not including boarding/alighting delay) (minutes)

EB - 592 354

WB - 762 455


NB 212 124 97 SB 351 212 166

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 1933 3134 2371

Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) n/a 2497 4824 3442


R E P O R T




Scenario Dir 0 1 2 Existing Traditional EW RR





Islington Avenue Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 59.6 35.5 29.1 SB 49.7 32.8 26.9 Totals


EB - 654 409

WB - 509 318


NB 428 255 209 SB 258 171 140



The above exhibits demonstrate that the redistribution of left turns leads to a reduction of cycle length during both peak periods. In addition, LRV, cross transit and general traffic travellers experience the least delay under Scenario 2 operation.



Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay (with additional travel time, expressed in minutes), which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay by the approaching left-turning volume (if left-turns are re-routed, the associated through-movement, U-turn and right-turn traffic traveller delay is added, as in Scenario 2);


R E P O R T





Scenario 0 1 2 Existing Traditional EW RR

Cycle Length (seconds) 112 100 90 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) (minutes) 1606 2589 1729

Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions) (minutes) 152 260 426

LRT Traveller Delay (minutes) - 1354 809 Cross Street Transit Traveller Delay (minutes) 563 337 262 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) (seconds) - 38.9 28.5


Scenario 0 1 2 Existing Traditional EW RR




During the AM and PM peak periods, it is observed that Scenario 2 always yields the lowest through-movement and right-turn traffic traveller delay, LRT traveller delay and average pedestrian delay. However, due to the U-turn signal operation under Scenario 2, east-west left turn vehicles are required to proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and then return to the intersection to make a right turn. In addition to the extra travel time, these vehicles also experience delays created by all three traffic signals (i.e. Royal York/Eglinton signal and the two U-turn signals). As a result, left-turn traffic travellers will experience a longer delay under Scenario 2.

Exhibit 5-16 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the three scenarios. Similar to what was observed in Exhibit 5-14 and Exhibit 5-15, transit delay is the lowest in Scenario 2. Also, general traffic operations perform better under Scenario 2. As was seen in Exhibit 5-12 and Exhibit 5-13, Total Person Delay is lowest in Scenario 2 during both peak periods.

R E P O R T




# Scenario

Overall Transit

Traveller

General Traffic

Total Person Delay Comment

AM PM AM PM AM PM 0 Existing - - - - - - No LRT Operation

1 Traditional 2 2 2 2 2 2 E/W left turn phase increases cycle length

2 EW RR 1 1 1 1 1 1 Best traffic operation in the AM and PM peak


5.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on November 13, 2006 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:

Eastbound: 2 vehicle /hour

Westbound: 8 vehicle /hour

Exhibit 5-17 presents the identified routes in the vicinity of the intersection that could potentially serve as alternate truck routes. As these routes are narrow and problematic to adjacent residences, they are not recommended for alternate truck routes. Commercial heavy vehicles will use alternate corridors (e.g. Dundas Street West, Lawrence Avenue West).


R E P O R T










Increases left turn delay; and

Provides no viable local heavy truck route for east-west left turns (problematic due to adjacent residential roads)

Exhibit 5-18 and Exhibit 5-19 provide a summary of how Scenario 2 performs in comparison with Scenario 1 with respect to both traffic and traveller delay parameters. In all cases except for eastbound and westbound left-turn travel and delay time, the performance criteria favour Scenario 2 over Scenario 1.




Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 39 29 -10 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 74 98 24 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 97 105 8 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 43 29 -14 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 30 21 -9 Total Intersection Person Delay minutes 4824 3442 -29%

R E P O R T






Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 40.5 32.1 -8 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 68.0 88.1 20 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 95.4 101.8 6 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 69.7 48.6 -21 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 45.5 31.2 -14 Total Intersection Person Delay minutes 5249 4002 -24%

The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue and redistributing these volumes to a downstream intersection where they can U-turn;

In order to provide the best interest to LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians, the total cycle length of the AM and PM peak periods are reduced to 90 seconds and 100 seconds, respectively; and

East-west left turning trucks at Islington Avenue will be required to find an alternate route other than Eglinton Avenue (e.g. Dundas Street West, Lawrence Avenue West).


Based on the Synchro analysis results of the two scenarios, Scenario 2 with the east-west U-turn signal is preferred as it provides a balance for LRT movements, vehicular traffic and pedestrians.


Four phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue at Islington Avenue with rerouted east-west left turn movements;

90- and 100-second cycle lengths during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively;

Minimum of 29 seconds for east-west green time; and



R E P O R T




R E P O R T



6. ROYAL YORK ROAD This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 6-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road signalized intersection.

Exhibit 6-1: Royal York Road Study Area

6.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road.

6.1 .1 LRV PHA SE


Royal York

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Royal York

Rd.

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend


R E P O R T











Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road remain at the intersection. East-west left turn operate protected only, while north-south left turns operate as permitted.


Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as permitted. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Royal York Road.


R E P O R T






Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road operates under a 112-second cycle length during the AM peak period and 120-second cycle length during the PM peak period.


Exhibit 6-3 presents the NEMA phase diagram at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road. The existing six phase operation is maintained, with the east-west left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 6-4 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.


1 2 4

865


R E P O R T




Phase 1 2 5 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 6 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 19 19 28 Amber 2 4 2 4 4 All Red 2 2 2 2 2 Total 10 32 10 32 41 Minimum Cycle Length 83



Exhibit 6-5 presents the NEMA phase diagram at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road. Under Scenarios 2, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 6-6 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.



Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8



2 4

86


R E P O R T




Exhibit 6-7 and Exhibit 6-8 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.


Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR


2225 2141 1804

Overall Intersection V/C Ratio Royal York/Eglinton Only

0.76 0.68 0.65



0.54 (0.06 RT)

0.49 (0.11 RT)

Southbound 0.61 0.52 0.47

Eastbound 0.88 0.81 (0.07 RT)

0.79 (0.18 RT)

Westbound 0.76 (0.09 RT)

0.79 (0.10 RT)

0.73 (0.26 RT)



R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2



3263 3357 2704

Overall Intersection V/C Ratio Royal York/Eglinton Only

0.83 0.85 0.79



0.59 (0.07 RT)

0.49 (0.10 RT)

Southbound 0.6 0.66 0.55

Eastbound 0.89 0.84 (0.14 RT)

0.79 (0.36 RT)

Westbound 0.97 (0.06 RT)

0.94 (0.06 RT)

0.95 (0.21 RT)



Of the two scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 2 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic. Individual movement v/c ratios and the overall intersection v/c ratio are also the lowest in Scenario 2 with the exception of the westbound through-movement during PM peak period.

Exhibit 6-9 and Exhibit 6-10 present the left turn travel times of each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back. As seen in the exhibits, maintaining traditional left turn movements in Scenario 1 always provide shorter travel time for east-west left turn movements except for westbound left turn movement during the PM peak period. In the north-south left turn movements, Scenario 2’s travel and delay time are approximately 30% lower than Scenario 1.


Scenario 0 1 2


EB 25.7 74.1 75.9 WB 25.3 82.1 105.6 NB 25.3 34.8 25.3 SB 37.0 33.2 24.2

R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2


EB 37.4 99.7 101.3 WB 55.7 115.4 113.5 NB 45.4 44.7 30.2 SB 38.6 38.1 27.2

Based on results of traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative for traffic signal phasing since it yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic, the greatest overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and the largest individual movement capacity. Scenario 2 increases east-west left turn travel and delay time, but reduces north-south left turn travel and delay time.




Transit Ridership Average Auto Occupancy ECLRT EB ECLRT

WB Cross Transit NB Cross Transit SB

AM 1600 1800 161 242 1.1

4

PM 1800 1600 259 135



R E P O R T




Scenario Dir. 0 1 2






Royal York Road Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 27.2 26.5 20.7 SB 35.0 26.1 20.5 Totals


EB - 810 625

WB - 912 703


NB 73 71 56 SB 141 105 83




Scenario Dir. 0 1 2






Royal York Road Average Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 34.5 37.4 30 SB 35.7 39.2 26.9 Totals

A. Overall Transit Traveller Delay (not including boarding/alighting delay) (minutes) EB - 860 633

R E P O R T



Scenario Dir. 0 1 2


WB - 765 563


NB 149 161 130 SB 80 88 61



The above exhibits illustrate the reduced signal cycle lengths with the redistribution of left turns. Comparing both scenarios, Scenario 2 yields the highest probability for a LRV to clear an intersection on green with zero signal delay. In addition, Scenario 2 experiences less delay on transit as well as on the general traffic.



Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay (with additional travel time, expressed in minutes), which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay by the approaching left-turning volume (if left-turns are re-routed, the associated through-movement, U-turn and right-turn traffic traveller delay is added, as in Scenario 2);




Scenario 0 1 2





R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2

Existing Traditional EW RR Cycle Length (seconds) 120 120 100 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) (minutes) 3005 3090 2282



During the AM and PM peak periods, Scenario 2 always yields the lowest through-movement and right-turn traffic traveller delay, LRT traveller delay and average pedestrian delay. However, due to the U-turn signal operation in Scenario 2, east-to-north and west-to-south travelling vehicles are required to proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn. In addition to the extra travel time along Eglinton Avenue, these vehicles also experience delays created by three traffic signals (i.e. Royal York Road/Eglinton Avenue signal and the two U-turn signals). As a result, these left-turn traffic travellers will experience a longer delay under Scenario 2 than Scenario 1.

Exhibit 6-16 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the three scenarios. As was observed in Exhibit 6-14 and Exhibit 6-15, transit delay is lowest in Scenario 2. General traffic operations perform best in Scenario 2. As was seen in Exhibit 6-12 and Exhibit 6-13, Total Person Delay is lowest in Scenario 2 during both peak periods.


# Scenario

Overall Transit


Total Person Delay

Comment AM PM AM PM AM PM 0 Existing - - - - - - No LRT Operation


2 EW RR 1 1 1 1 1 1 Permissive N/S phases reduces CL

Based on the results of the traveller analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative as it provides the best balance of benefits to transit and general traffic.

6.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on November 8, 2006 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:

Eastbound: 4 vehicle/hour

R E P O R T



Westbound: 6 vehicle/hour













R E P O R T






Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 36 31 -5 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 74 76 2 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 82 106 24 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 35 25 -10 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 33 24 -9 Total Intersection Person Delay minutes 4253 3451 -19%




Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 42 33 -9 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 100 101 2 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 115 114 -2 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 45 30 -15 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 38 27 -11 Total Intersection Person Delay Minutes 5567 4360 -22%

The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Royal York Road and redistributing these volumes to a downstream intersection where they can U-turn;

Reducing the current cycle length to 90 seconds and 100 seconds during AM and PM peak periods, respectively, would be in best interest of the LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians; and

East-west left turning trucks at Royal York Road will be required to find an alternate route other than Eglinton Avenue (e.g. Dundas Street West, Lawrence Avenue West).


Based on the Synchro analysis results of the two scenarios, Scenario 2 with east-west U-turn signal is the preferred alternative as it provides a balance for LRT movements, vehicular traffic and pedestrians.


Four phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue and Royal York Road with rerouted east-west left turn movements;

R E P O R T



90 and 100 second cycle lengths during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively;





R E P O R T



7. SCARLETT ROAD This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 7-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road signalized intersection.

Exhibit 7-1: Scarlett Road Study Area

7.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road.

7.1 .1 LRV PHA SE

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it was necessary to calculate the minimum green and clearance intervals necessary to safely operate the LRV. The minimum green duration is calculated based on the LRV starting from a stopped position reaching a farside platform. This scenario would yield the absolute minimum time required

R E P O R T



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:









Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road remain at the intersection. East-west left turn operate protected only, while north-south left turns operate as protected and permitted.


Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as protected and permitted. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Scarlett Road.


R E P O R T




7.1.3.3 Scenario 3 – All Left Turns Rerouted

Under this scenario, similar to Scenario 2, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. In a similar fashion, north-south left turns are rerouted to new traffic signals north and south of Eglinton Avenue.

To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Scarlett Road. To facilitate the north U-turns, a new signalized intersection is proposed at Scarlett Road at Richview Drive. Lastly, to facilitate the south U-turns a new midblock U-turn signal is proposed approximately 200m south of Scarlett Road.

Instead of making a left turn, vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane. Exhibit 7-3 presents the study area under Scenario 3 with the proposed midblock U-turn signals, signalized intersection and left-turn routing.


R E P O R T



7.1 .4 SIGNAL PH ASI N G


Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road operates under a 100 second cycle length during the AM peak period and 110 second cycle length during the PM peak period.


Exhibit 7-4 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road. The existing eight phase operation is maintained, with the east-west left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 7-5 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.



Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 3 & 7 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 28 19 Amber 2 4 2 4 All Red 2 3 2 3 Total 11 42 11 33 Minimum Cycle Length 97

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 97 seconds. To use a cycle length with a factor of 10, a cycle length of 110 seconds was used in the AM peak period and 100 seconds was used in the PM peak period for analysis.

7.1.4.3 Scenario 2 – East-west Left Turns Rerouted (EWRR)

Exhibit 7-6 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road. Under Scenarios 2, a six phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 7-7 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

R E P O R T





Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 7 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 25 19 Amber 2 4 4 All Red 2 3 3 Total 11 39 33 Minimum Cycle Length 83

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 81 seconds. To use a cycle length with a factor of 10, a cycle length of 90 seconds was used for the analysis.


Exhibit 7-8 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road. Under Scenario 3, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west and north-south left turn movements prohibited. Exhibit 7-9 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

R E P O R T





Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8


Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 68 seconds. To conform to Scenario 2, a cycle length of 90 seconds was used for the analysis.


Exhibit 7-10 and Exhibit 7-11 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.

R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2 3 Existing Traditional EW RR ALL RR

Total Intersection Delay for General Traffic

(minutes) 1788 2530 2060 2338


(Eglinton/Scarlett Only) 0.69 0.77 0.67 0.75


Northbound 0.65

(0.25 RT) 0.46

(0.10 RT) 0.40

(0.18 RT) 0.79

(0.77 RT)

Southbound 0.69

(0.04 RT) 0.48

(0.05 RT) 0.43

(0.05 RT) 0.51

(0.58 RT)

Eastbound 0.63

(0.23 RT) 0.91

(0.32 RT) 0.87

(0.59 RT) 0.84

(0.79 RT)

Westbound 0.50

(0.11 RT) 0.66

(0.14 RT) 0.90

(0.51 RT) 0.90

(0.71 RT) Left-turn V/C Ratios:

Northbound 0.71 0.51 0.42 0.47 Southbound 0.80 0.58 0.48 0.61

Eastbound 0.17 0.68 0.25 0.28 Westbound 0.54 0.76 0.40 0.61




(minutes) 2007 3302 2442 2625


(Eglinton/Scarlett Only) 0.67 0.72 0.69 0.68


Northbound 0.73

(0.19 RT) 0.53

(0.10 RT) 0.52

(0.17 RT) 0.81

(0.78 RT)

Southbound 0.48

(0.04 RT) 0.35

(0.05 RT) 0.34

(0.05 RT) 0.40

(0.35 RT)

Eastbound 0.62

(0.16 RT) 0.99

(0.20 RT) 0.90

(0.33 RT) 0.83

(0.74 RT)

Westbound 0.53

(0.23 RT) 0.91

(0.48 RT) 0.78

(0.64 RT) 0.80




Of the three scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 2 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic. Individual movement v/c ratios and the overall intersection v/c ratio is

R E P O R T



lowest in Scenario 2 with the exception of the eastbound through-movement during both peak periods (the east-west green time is less in Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 3).

Exhibit 7-12 and Exhibit 7-13 present the left turn travel times of each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back. As can be seen, maintaining traditional left turn movements in Scenario 1 provides the shortest travel time for east-west turns, with travel time more than doubling in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. However, north-south left turn travel and delay time reduces by approximately 50% in Scenario 2, while it doubles for southbound left turns and triples for northbound left turns in Scenario 3.


Scenario 0 1 2 3

Existing Traditional EW RR ALL RR EB 11.6 47.9 103.1 96.2 WB 25.7 41.9 100.9 94.2 NB 38.0 31.4 15.7 90.2 SB 48.1 34.0 16.1 77.8


Scenario 0 1 2 3

Existing Traditional EW RR ALL RR EB 25.2 86.1 110.8 100.2 WB 34.2 128.7 97.7 98.0 NB 33.5 19 15.8 81.9 SB 39.1 18.9 16.0 91.9

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative for traffic signal phasing since it yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic, the greatest overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and individual movement capacity. Scenario 2 increases left turn delay for east-west left turns, but reduces north-south delay for left turns.





AM 1950 1600 57 181 1.15

PM 1600 1950 112 93

Exhibit 7-15 and Exhibit 7-16 present the traveller analysis and performance of each scenario. 5 Source: http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2008.jsp

R E P O R T




Scenario Direction 0 1 2 3 Existing Traditional EW RR ALL RR

Cycle Length n/a 100 90 90 90 Eglinton Avenue

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 95 81 76

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) n/a - 19% 16% 22%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 38.4 33.8 29.6 Scarlett Road

Maximum Potential Cross Bus Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 71 80 63 58 SB 71 80 63 58

Probability of a Cross-street Bus Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%)

NB 34% 32% 36% 41% SB 34% 32% 36% 41%

Average Cross Transit Bus Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 23.4 27.3 20.3 17.1 SB 23.4 27.3 20.3 17.1 Totals


EB - 1249 1097 961 WB - 1025 900 789


NB 22 26 19 16 SB 71 82 61 52

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 1967 2783 2266 2572 Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) (does not include pedestrians) n/a 2059 5166 4344 4389

R E P O R T




Scenario Direction 0 1 2 3

Existing Traditional EW RR ALL RR Cycle Length n/a 110 90 90 90

Eglinton Avenue Maximum Potential Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 96 81 73

Probability of a Transit Vehicle Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) n/a - 10% 16% 25%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) n/a - 43.2 33.8 27.2 Scarlett Road

Maximum Potential Cross Transit Vehicle Delay (seconds/vehicle)

NB 81 70 63 61 SB 81 70 63 61

Probability of a Cross-street Transit Vehicle Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%)

NB 31% 35% 36% 38% SB 31% 35% 36% 38%


NB 28.0 22.8 20.3 19.0 SB 28.0 22.8 20.3 19.0 Totals


EB - 2089 1632 1314 WB - 576 450 363


NB 52 42 38 35 SB 43 35 31 29

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 2208 3632 2686 2887 Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) (does not include pedestrians) n/a 2304 6375 4837 4629

The first significant observation of the traveller analysis and performance during both peak periods is that the cycle length can be reduced with the redistribution of left turns. Consequently, delay reduces under Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, but Scenario 3 yields the highest probability for a LRV to clear an intersection on green with zero signal delay. During the AM peak period, Scenario 2 performs when the impact of delay on transit is combined with the general traffic delay as demonstrated by the Total Intersection Person Delay. Total Intersection Person Delay index for the PM peak favours Scenario 3.





R E P O R T






Cycle Length 100 110 90 90 Thru +RT Traffic Traveller Delay (all directions) 1505 2257 1535 2177 Left-turn Traffic Traveller Delay, including any additional travel time (all directions) 283 273 525 161

LRT Traveller Delay - 2275 1998 1750 Cross Street Transit Traveller Delay 93 108 81 68 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 32.8 41.0 34.0 28.8




LRT Traveller Delay - 2665 2082 1677 Cross Street Transit Traveller Delay 96 78 69 65 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 34.8 41.5 34.7 29.9

The first noteworthy observation is that Scenario 2 yields the lowest Through-movement and Right-turn Traffic Traveller Delay of the three scenarios involving LRT operation. Scenario 3 performs better than Scenario 2 for all of the other parameters, and appears to be the appropriate choice for implementation. However, a careful examination of Exhibit 7-17 and Exhibit 7-18 shows that Scenario 2 maintains approximately the same performance as existing conditions without LRT operation. Scenario 3 requires additional infrastructure than Scenario 2, including new signals at the intersection of Scarlett Road at Richview Drive, as well as a new half-signal south of Eglinton Avenue along Scarlett Road with a dedicated U-turn lane. Scenario 3 also restricts more vehicular movements than Scenario 2. The indices for Total Intersection Person Delay in Exhibit 7-15 and Exhibit 7-16 differ by an average of 50-200 minutes, favouring Scenario 2 in the AM peak and Scenario 3 in the PM peak.

Exhibit 7-19 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the three scenarios. As was observed in Exhibit 7-17 and Exhibit 7-18, transit delay is lowest in Scenario 3, although Scenario 2 still performs better for transit travellers than the traditional Scenario 1. General traffic operations perform best in Scenario 2, with less infrastructure requirements. As was seen in Exhibit 7-15 and Exhibit 7-16, Total Person Delay is lowest in Scenario 2 during the AM peak period, and Scenario 3 during the PM peak.

R E P O R T




# Scenario

Overall Transit


Total Person Delay

Comment AM PM AM PM AM PM 0 Existing - - - - - - No LRT Operation

1 Traditional 3 3 3 3 3 3 Highest cycle length, but exclusive left-turn phases remain (good for trucks)

2 EW RR 2 2 1 1 1 2 Performs best for general traffic (limited east-west left turns to re-route; reduced delay compared to Scenario 3)

3 ALL RR 1 1 2 2 2 1 Performs best for transit

Based on the results of the traveller analysis and performance, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative as it provides the best balance of benefits to transit and benefits to general traffic with less infrastructure requirements than Scenario 3.

7.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on January 27, 2009 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:





The movements of greatest concern in this analysis are the southbound and westbound left turning movements since they average between 20-25 vehicles per hour.


R E P O R T




LegendNB Legend

SB

LegendEB

LegendWB








R E P O R T





Exhibit 7-21 and Exhibit 7-22 provide a summary of how Scenario 2 performs in comparison with Scenario 1 with respect to both traffic and traveller delay parameters. In all cases except for left-turn travel and delay time, the performance criteria favours Scenario 2 over Scenario 1.


Factor Units Traditional Recommended Difference Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) 19% 16% -14%


Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 41 34 -7 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 48 103 55 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 42 101 59 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 31 16 -16 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 34 16 -18





Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 41 35 -7 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 86 111 25 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 129 98 -31 Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 19 16 -3 Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 19 16 -3


The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road and redistributing these volumes to a downstream intersection where they can U-turn;

Reducing the current 100-110 second cycle length would be in the best interest of the LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians based upon delay reductions associated with a 90 second cycle length; and

East-west left turning trucks at Scarlett Road will be required to find an alternate route other than Eglinton Avenue (e.g. Dundas Street West, Lawrence Avenue West).

R E P O R T




Based on the Synchro analysis results, Scenario 2 is the preferred alternative as it provides the best balance of benefits to transit and benefits to general traffic with infrastructure requirements.


Six phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue at Scarlett Road with rerouted east-west left turn movements;

90 second cycle length;





R E P O R T



8. JANE STREET This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 8-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street signalized intersection.

Exhibit 8-1: Jane Street Study Area

8.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street.

8.1 .1 LRV PHA SE

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it was necessary to calculate the minimum green and clearance intervals necessary to safely operate the LRV. The minimum green duration is calculated based on the LRV starting from a stopped

JaneStreet

Eglinton Ave. W.

Legend


R E P O R T



position reaching a farside platform. This scenario 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:









Under this scenario, left turns in all directions at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street remain at the intersection. Both east-west and north-south left turns operate protected only.


Under this scenario, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. As in Scenario 1, north-south left turns will continue to operate as protected and permitted. To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Jane Street.



R E P O R T





Under this scenario, similar to Scenario 2, east-west left turns are rerouted to new U-turn signals on Eglinton Avenue. In a similar fashion, north-south left turns are rerouted to new traffic signals north and south of Eglinton Avenue.

To facilitate the east-west U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Eglinton Avenue, approximately 200m east and west of Jane Street. To facilitate the north-south U-turns, two new midblock U-turn signals are proposed along Jane Street, approximately 200m north and south of Eglinton Avenue .

Instead of making a left turn, vehicles will proceed through the intersection, perform a U-turn at the downstream U-turn signal, and return to the intersection to make a right turn at an exclusive right turn lane. Exhibit 8-3 presents the study area under Scenario 3 with the proposed midblock U-turn signals and left-turn routing.

JaneStreet

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



Eglinton Ave. W.Em

mett

Avenue

R E P O R T






Currently, the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street operates under a 120 second cycle length during the AM peak period and a100 second cycle length during the PM peak period.


Exhibit 8-4 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street. The existing eight phase operation is maintained, with the east-west and north-south left turn phases operating protected only. Exhibit 8-5 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

JaneStreet

Legend



LRT Platform


LRT Tracks



Eglinton Ave. W.Em

mett

Avenue

R E P O R T





Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 3 & 7 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 6 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 28 28 Amber 2 4 2 4 All Red 2 3 2 3 Total 10 42 10 42 Minimum Cycle Length 104

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is104 seconds. To serve all of the east-west and north-south left turns without permissive operation, a cycle length of 130 seconds was used in the AM peak period and 120 seconds was used in the PM peak period for analysis.

8.1.4.3 Scenario 2 – East-West Left Turns Rerouted

Exhibit 8-6 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street. Under Scenarios 2, a six phase operation is used, with the east-west left turn movements rerouted. Exhibit 8-7 presents the minimum cycle length for this condition.

R E P O R T





Phase 1& 5 2 & 6 4 & 8

Minimum Green or walk 6 7 7 Minimum Green and FDWK 28 28 Amber 2 4 4 All Red 2 3 3 Total 10 42 42 Minimum Cycle Length 94

Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 94 seconds. To use a cycle length with a factor of 10, a cycle length of 110 in the AM Peak period and 100 seconds was used for the analysis.


Exhibit 8-8 presents the NEMA phase diagram for the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street. Under Scenario 3, a four phase operation is used, with the east-west and north-south left turn movements prohibited. Exhibit 8-9 presents the minimum cycle length for this scenario.

R E P O R T





Phase 2 & 6 4 & 8


Based on this phasing, the minimum cycle length is 84 seconds. Without the presence of left turn phases in Scenario 3, a cycle length of 90 seconds was used for the analysis.


Exhibit 8-10 and Exhibit 8-11 present the traffic analysis and performance of each scenario. The exhibits present the overall intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) for the overall operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street as well as the individual movements. The exhibits also present the total intersection delay for general traffic measured in minutes, which is the total sum of multiplying the respective approach delay against the approaching volume.

R E P O R T




Scenario 0 1 2 3 Exist Traditional EW RR ALL RR


(minutes) 2596 4134 3480 2682


(Eglinton/Jane Only) 1.08 0.84 0.80 0.77


Northbound 0.72 0.69

(0.14) 0.61

(0.13 RT) 0.75

(0.37 RT)

Southbound 0.67

(0.30 RT) 0.71

(0.14 RT) 0.60

(0.34 RT) 0.49

(0.67 RT)

Eastbound 0.62

(0.12 RT) 0.87

(0.12 RT) 0.96

(0.17 RT) 0.79

(0.30 RT)

Westbound 0.57

(0.02 RT) 0.96

(0.02 RT) 0.79

(0.23 RT) 0.65







(minutes) 3253 5450 4914 3110


(Eglinton/Jane Only) 0.87 0.94 0.86 0.83


Northbound 0.78 0.79

(0.20 RT) 0.67

(0.13 RT) 0.81

(0.28 RT)

Southbound 0.77

(0.28 RT) 0.76

(0.24 RT) 0.62

(0.45 RT) 0.59

(0.71)

Eastbound 0.69

(0.13 RT) 0.93

(0.13 RT) 0.87

(0.60 RT) 0.82

(0.41 RT)

Westbound 0.97

(0.22 RT) 1.07

(0.15 RT) 0.88

(0.60 RT) 0.85




R E P O R T



Of the three scenarios that include LRT operation, Scenario 3 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic. Individual movement v/c ratios and the overall intersection v/c ratio are also lowest in Scenario 3.

Exhibit 8-12 and Exhibit 8-13 present the left turn travel times of each scenario. This time is calculated as the sum of the signalized intersection delay for each movement on the turn path, including through movements and the additional travel time required to travel from the intersection to the u-turn signal and back. As can be seen, maintaining traditional left turn movements in Scenario 1 provides the shortest travel time for east-west turns, with travel time increasing by an average of approximately 35% in Scenario 2 and 5% in Scenario 3. North-south left turn travel and delay times decrease by an average of approximately 15% in Scenario 2 and increase by an average of approximately 20% in Scenario 3, when compared to Scenario 1.


Scenario 0 1 2 3

Exist Traditional EW RR ALL RR

EB 149.5 94.6 132.3 107.6 WB 28.8 80.7 136.6 117.9 NB 85.3 92.7 83.6 120.7 SB 60.5 75.3 59.9 108.9


Scenario 0 1 2 3

Exist Traditional EW RR ALL RR EB 79.5 132.9 143.1 106.5 WB 88.4 115.4 163.3 119.1 NB 36.7 130.6 121.7 124.5 SB 51.5 89.2 71.9 111.5

Based on the results of the traffic analysis and performance, Scenario 3 is the preferred alternative for traffic signal phasing. Scenario 3 yields the lowest total intersection delay for general traffic, the greatest overall intersection capacity (as measured by the v/c ratio) and individual movement capacity. Scenario 3 increases left turn delay for east-west left turns and north-south left turns.




Transit Ridership Average Auto Occupancy ECLRT EB ECLRT WB JLRT NB JLRT SB

AM 2600 1500 1150 1700 1.16

PM 1500 2600 1700 1150


R E P O R T





Scenario Direction 0 1 2 3 Exist Traditional EW RR ALL RR

Cycle Length n/a 120 130 110 90 Eglinton Avenue

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) EB/WB - 120 95 76

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) EB/WB - 12% 18% 21%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) EB/WB - 53 39 30 Jane Street

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) NB/SB - 119 99 78

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) NB/SB - 13% 15% 19%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) NB/SB - 51.8 41.9 31.3 Totals

A. Overall ECLRT Traveller Delay (not including boarding/alighting delay) (minutes)

EB - 2296 1680 1296 WB - 1325 969 747

A'. Overall JLRT Traveller Delay (minutes) NB - 993 804 600 SB - 1468 1189 887

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 2856 4547 3828 2950 Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) (does not include pedestrians) n/a - 10629 8470 6479

R E P O R T




Scenario Direction 0 1 2 3

Exist Traditional EW RR ALL RR Cycle Length n/a 100 120 100 90

Eglinton Avenue Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) EB/WB - 107 89 76

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) EB/WB - 15% 16% 21%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) EB/WB - 45.4 37.3 29.9 Jane Street

Maximum Potential LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) NB/SB - 109 89 78

Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) NB/SB - 14% 16% 19%

Average LRV Delay (seconds/vehicle) NB/SB - 46.9 37.0 31.3 Totals

A. Overall ECLRT Traveller Delay (not including boarding/alighting delay) (minutes)

EB - 1135 932 747 WB 1967 1616 1296

A'. Overall JLRT Traveller Delay (minutes) NB - 1328 1049 887 SB - 899 710 600

B. General Traffic Traveller Delay (minutes) n/a 3579 5995 5405 3421 Total Intersection Person Delay (minutes) (does not include pedestrians) n/a - 11323 9713 6950

The first significant observation of the traveller analysis and performance during both peak periods is that the cycle length can be reduced with the redistribution of left turns. Consequently, delay is reduced under Scenario 2, and further reduced under Scenario 3. Similarly, with the redistribution of left turns, Scenario 3 yields the highest probability for a LRV to clear an intersection on green with zero signal delay. During both the AM and PM peak periods, Scenario 3 performs best under the Total Intersection Person Delay, which combines the transit traveller delay with the general traffic delay.




ECLRT Traveller Delay (expressed in minutes), which is the sum of East and West ECLRT Traveller Delay and Overall Cross Transit Traveller Delay; and

R E P O R T







ECLRT Traveller Delay - 3621 2650 2043 JLRT Traveller Delay - 2461 1993 1487 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 30.8 53.4 43.9 36.2




ECLRT Traveller Delay - 3102 2548 2043 JLRT Traveller Delay - 2227 1759 1487 Average Pedestrian Delay (all directions) 31.9 48.8 41.1 36.2

The additional criteria for traveller analysis and performance indicate that Scenario 3 yields the lowest overall delays to through-movement and right-turn traffic, ECLRT travellers, JLRT travellers, and pedestrians of the three scenarios involving LRT operation. In terms of left-turn traffic traveller delay, Scenario 1 yields the best results. Since there are far fewer left turn traffic travellers than other travellers, the overall left turning traffic traveller delay decreases from Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 by approximately 200-300 minutes. Comparatively the overall through and right turn traffic delay increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 by approximately 1700 -2500 minutes. Considering the magnitude of travellers, the benefits of Scenario 3 to through movement and right turn traffic, ECLRT travellers, JLRT travellers and pedestrians outweigh the disbenifit to left turn traffic travellers.

Exhibit 8-19 summarizes the traveller analysis and performance of the three scenarios. As was observed in Exhibit 8-17and Exhibit 8-18, transit delay is lowest in Scenario 3. As was seen in Exhibit 8-15 and Exhibit 8-16, Total Person Delay is also lowest in Scenario 3.

R E P O R T




# Scenario

Overall Transit


Total Person Delay


1 Traditional 3 3 3 3 3 3 Highest cycle length, All left turns protected only

2 EW RR 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean cycle length, N/S left turns protected only

3 ALL RR 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lowest cycle length, no left turns at intersection


8.3 Heavy Vehicles Analysis An isolated heavy vehicles analysis was conducted as it was assumed that heavy vehicles will not be able to perform U-turn movements. The eight-hour average turning movement count collected by the City of Toronto for the subject intersection on May 2, 2007 captured the following average heavy vehicle left turn volumes:





Exhibit 8-20 presents the identified routes that could be performed by heavy vehicles for left turns in each direction. However, these routings are only recommended for local heavy vehicle traffic (e.g. moving trucks serving the local community). Commercial heavy vehicles will use alternate corridors (e.g. St Clair Ave West, Lawrence Avenue West).

R E P O R T








Reduces EC LRT traveller delay;

Reduces JLRT traveller delay;



Provides viable local routing for left turning heavy trucks.


LegendEBL Truck RouteWBL Truck Route

`

LegendNBL Truck RouteSBL Truck Route

R E P O R T




Factor Units Traditional Recommended Difference Probability of a LRV Clearing on Green with Zero Signal Delay (%) 19% 16% -14%


Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 41 34 -7 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 48 103 55 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 42 101 59

Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 31 16 -16






Average Pedestrian Delay (All directions) seconds/pedestrian 49 36 -13 Eastbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 133 107 -26 Westbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 115 119 4

Northbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 131 125 -6

Southbound Left-turn Travel and Delay Time seconds/vehicle 89 112 22


The following conclusions can be made about LRT and vehicular traffic operations at and around the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street based on the findings in this report:

Traffic impacts originally expected in the study area can be greatly mitigated by prohibiting left turns at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street and redistributing these volumes to a downstream intersection where they can U-turn;

Reducing the current 120-100 second cycle length would be in the best interest of the LRT operations, vehicular traffic and pedestrians based upon delay reductions associated with a 90 second cycle length; and

In the recommended scenario, left turning trucks at Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street will have alternate routes.

R E P O R T




Based on the Synchro analysis results of the four scenarios, Scenario 3 with rerouted east-west and north-south left turns is the preferred alternative as it provides a balance for the LRT, cross street buses, vehicular traffic and pedestrians.


Four phase signal operation at Eglinton Avenue at Jane Street with rerouted left turn movements;

90 second cycle length; and

Minimum of 35 seconds for east-west green time;

Two proposed traffic signals on Eglinton Avenue to facilitate east-west u-turns; and

Two proposed traffic signals on Jane Street to facilitate north-south u-turns;




R E P O R T



9. VICTORIA PARK AVENUE This section documents the traffic analysis and performance, traveller analysis and performance and heavy vehicles analysis completed on the Eglinton Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue signalized intersection and surrounding road network.

Exhibit 9-1 shows the study area with the Eglinton Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue signalized intersection.

Exhibit 9-1: Victoria Park AvenueStudy Area

VictoriaPark

Ave.

Eglinton Ave. W.Jonesvi

lleCres.

Legend


Eglinto

n Square

O’C

onno

r Dr.

9.1 Data The following data was used to formulate the analysis of the road network surrounding the intersection of Eglinton Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue.

9.1 .1 LRV PHA SE

On this section of the runningway, the LRV does not require its own phase. Since the LRV performs an east-west through movement, the transit vehicle operates concurrently with the east-west through vehicle phase. However, given the 90m length of the LRV and the intersection geometry, it

section 2: transit project assessment study - u- turn ... · toronto transit commission (ttc)...

Documents