The following discussion thread began as an email exchange between
several members of Roncesvalles Renewed. We decided to move the
comments to the RR website, so others could join in.

It starts with an email from Jeff Hanning, of the Sunnyside Community
Association. His group had a chance to study the joint proposal from
the TTC and the City for new bumpouts along Roncesvalles ( a ‘long’
plan, as Jeff refers to the scroll that shows the entire street,
available at this link if you’d like to have a look:

http://www.roncesvallesvillage.ca/docs/sidewalkplan0108.pdf

As you’ll see, the conversation moves on to concerns about new
traffic restrictions proposed by the TTC which then became a larger
philosophical debate about the TTC’s role in shaping the redevelopment
of Roncesvalles.

John, et al,
The Sunnyside Community Association debated the proposal at some length
last week in our annual meeting. We had the 'long' plan of the street
for review.
The overall feeling was one of support for the proposals. There was
recognition of the overall benefit to the community. It was noted that
Ronces is a unique street, catering more to the local residents than
destination shoppers, hence the testing of a more transit / cycling /
walking friendly street environment than the more auto centric
approach.
There was some concern expressed over increased traffic on Sunnyside.
There was some concern over lost parking on Ronces. and potential impact
on side street inhabitants. Gord Perks was in attendance and had the
statistics of current parking use, (less than 100% as we know...you can
usually find a spot within a block of where you want to go, Saturdays
perhaps excepted), loss of parking spaces, and the rationalle of why the
bumpouts are located as drawn. (streetcar stops, longer streetcars in
future, flow of cars at intersections, loading zones for businesses...)
I believe that the process to date has been exemplary, transparent, and
congratulate those involved!
Regards,
Jeff

On Feb 16, 2008 1:43 PM, Michael Craig 
wrote:
Dave, in response to your email about Ronces Renewed and traffic
spilling onto Sunnyside and other local streets, I am forwarding my
brief comment to Jeff who wrote on Thursday to John Bowker of the BIA. 
As you can see, Jeff highlighted the concern expressed in our recent
meeting about the spillover of traffic if Ronces gets hard to navigate.


Personally, I don't think this is going to be a big problem because, as
it now stands, Ronces only allows one lane of traffic in each direction,
and that will be retained. There may be a bit of slowdown, but not a
whole lot. However, that is not to say that this issue should not be
thoroughly examined. I think your best bet is to communicate directly
with Councillor Perks and attend the next RR meeting.

Michael

From: Dave Kroh
Hi Michael

Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Yes, I realise Roncesvalles is just one lane each direction, and will
remain that way.

Despite this, residents of Fern Ave, and Sunnyside from Fern to High
Park Blvd, already experience approximately 1500 cars per day, just from
northbound Roncesvalles traffic that would otherwise have turned left at
High Park Blvd. If we assume that currently, for every car that
"shortcuts" in this manner, 2 cars turn left at Roncesvalles onto High
Park Blvd as they should, then we have 3000 (2 x 1500) cars that will
not longer be able to turn left at this intersection. Those cars would
now be forced to turn left elsewhere - they easiest alternative - is to
go use Fern Ave to Sunnyside to High Park Blvd like 1500 cars already
do. That would increase the volume of "left turn alternative" traffic
on those residential road sections to 1500+3000 = 4,500 cars every 24
hours - in addition to the other traffic on those streets! A very major
porential impact - that would no doubt alarm residents on those and
surrounding sections of residential streets.

That is the scenario which has me particularly alarmed.

It's also disturbing to me that High Park Blvd, the ONLY east/west
street in the neighbourhood, that can best accommodate traffic, with
long lot frontages, proper boulevard barriers between the sidewalk and
the road, and a very wide road, is no longer going to take the strain
off the other, smaller, residential streets, as High Park Blvd was
designed to do.

The solution here likely cannot be on Roncesvalles alone. Added
restrictions and traffic management on residential streets, will have to
be part of the plan - and the local residents must agree to this. I
also want to ensure that changes to Roncesvalles will not
prevent/interfere with the effective design of residential street
traffic restrictions.


Thanks Michael

On Feb 17, 2008 2:43 PM, John Bowker wrote:
Hi Dave,

Do you have any data on the ultimate destination of these vehicles you
have counted? Do they carry on to Parkside or Indian Rd, or are these
folks heading home to Sunnyside or the High Park areas? When discussing
the effects of a left turn restriction at High Park, I have been
assuming that most of this traffic is local, not crosstown commuters. To
back this assumption up, I recently dug up some interesting numbers.
According to the StatsCan figures quoted in this BIA report, there are
about 3,500 people living south of High Park and north of the Queensway,
between Parkside and Roncesvalles. Add in the people living north of
High Park and south of Bloor (an additional 5,700 folks), and you have a
total of just over 9,000 people living west of Roncesvalles
(three-quarters of whom are adults pver 19). If even just a quarter of
these people are taking just one round trip a day (just a guess) that
would represent 2,250 roundtrips or 4,500 individual trips right there.
So I have to believe that most of the traffic Dave quotes is likely
local. If so, then these folks would not be able to easily switch
routes; they would have to turn left somewhere, and the restriction
would only further back up left turns at some other nearby intersection,
making the restriction useless for everyone.

I would love to get a copy of this research, Dave! 

Cheers
John Bowker
Parking and Beautification Chair
Roncesvalles Village BIA
www.roncesvallesvillage.ca
 
From: Dave Kroh 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:56 PM
To: John Bowker

Subject: Re: Left turn restrictions at High Park Blvd
John - 
What you surmise seems like it may be reasonable - but without study
data - it is for all of us - a bit of a guessing game.

I think you are on the right track though - if just for the fact that I
think Roncesvalles already is a far less than ideal route for people
that live significantly out of the area. Bloor street, and Lansdowne
are both easier arterial streeets to use than Roncesvalles - and of
course to the west we are bordered by High Park, and Parkside Drive. It
would seem people that don't live well within those boundaries are
better served by alternate arterial roads?

As to my count of vehicles turning north onto Sunnyside from Fern, and
then West onto High Park Blvd - I don’t know where the cars go next -
since that is as far as I can see :-) The fact they don't simply
continue north on Sunnyside, tells me that it is very likely they are
heading to Parkside Drive. Also a larger than usual portion of vehicles
is commercial, rather than standard automobiles, which indicates to me,
it is likely more of a through route.

Parkside Drive - is a direct route to the Lakeshore. Also, given the
congestion on Dundas, congestion on Bloor within Bloor West Village, and
left turn restriction from Dundas north to Bloor west (yet another TTC
turn concession - grrrr), it’s much easier to turn onto High Park
Blvd, then north onto Parkside drive, than it is to remain north on
Roncesvalles, continuing north on Dundas.

Regardless - as long as relatively easy alternate routes exist on
residential streets - through-traffic -- both local, semi-local, not too
local, and not local at all -- will spend more time on residential
streets, than on main through-streets. Bottom line - the volume of
traffic on residential streets WILL increase, unless as much effort goes
into traffic management on the residential streets, as on the main
streets.

Dave

From Jeff Hanning
Dave, John,
I have read the chain of emails on the left turn at High Park Issue. 
We will need to determine how flexible the TTC is on this item as High
Park / Howard Park are the preferred direct routes from Ronces to
Parkside. Whether a streetcar is held up by a car turning left from
Ronces north to Wright or Ronces north to High Park makes little
difference in my estimation to streetcar trip times. The TTC have the
ability to 'extend' green lights in their favour if needed.
The SCA can be in attendance at the next meeting with the TTC. How do
you both see the communications with the TTC working ideally?
Regards,
Jeff

From Dave:
Jeff

That's the million dollar question - how to communicate with the TTC -
or perhaps more specifically - how to get the TTC to care about concerns
that do not impact its route times. They only real way to do this, as I
said earlier, is for a major organisational change at city hall that
subordinates the TTC to a "walking friendly neighbourhood" department.
Of course, that's not in our current scope.

I should clarify that I'm not completely against additional turn
restrictions on Roncesvalles. I am, however, firmly against traffic
restrictions that are not part of a co-ordinated traffic plan for the
entire area. Otherwise, traffic problems don't get solved - they simply
become someone else's problem.

I know I rant quite forcefully at time - but when I termed the TTC as
sociopathic - that's not a rant - I think it is the unfortunate reality.
What is their incentive to accomodate pedestrians and neighbourhoods? 
They think in terms of schedules, passenger volumes, and coverage. I'm
not sure how we force neighbourhood, residential streets to be part of
the planning.

Gord has shown that he is willing to push through unpopular changes
over strong objections of indvidual constituents, for what he sees as
the greater good. Perhaps we can tap into that. I would like to see a
requirement that the TTC is never granted any requested traffic
restrictions along its route, unless it undertakes significant study of
how any such restriction impacts neighbouring residential streets, and
comes up with a mitigation plan. As it is right now - the TTC simply
passes its problems on without due concern for other affected parties.
Making changes on residential streets, even for the better of residents
is always difficult, people don't see the forest for the trees. Perhaps
that's where Gord's strong political will could come in handy.

Roncesvalles is already unattractive to traffic at
times, and the result is a spillover onto residential streets - with
such volume that cars literally climb sidewalks - even with pedestrians
on those sidewalks.

Dave