TheTigerMaster
Superstar
It's amazing to see so many people on Queens Quay. Waterfront Toronto has done a fantastic job
Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
Its the 2nd largest area for people at 17 million visitors a year. Eaton Centre Rank #1
scott
New Member
I just took walk from Yonge to Spadina and it is REALLY busy this weekend with the Waterfront Festival going on. Few observations:
* The quality of work looks great. It doesn't look like it rushed at all. You might be able to complain about the lack of vision/ambition but the actual work looks really well done and consistent.
* Despite completely crowded sidewalks there was pretty much no one on the MGT unless they needed to cross.
* Most of the MGT has a natural barrier between it on the sidewalk with trees, bike posts, and large benches. All of these definitely help. There's a few narrower areas where they aren't benches though so there's less of a barrier.
* The biggest problem area for cyclists and pedestrians is York/QQ. It's a huge bottleneck with crossings all over too much volume. From my brief time there it seems like cyclists believe they have the right to a complete unbroken MGT but at every intersection it's a shared area. They need to realize this and take it slow and maybe even walk their bikes across. There's a reason why the asphalt doesn't continue through intersection crossings.
Actually the worst area was on an "unrevitalized" section from Yonge to Jarvis. The sidewalk is just normal width and it was packed and people were overflowing onto the bike paths causing issues.
Does anyone know why the revitalization wasn't continued to where QQ ends at Lakeshore? With all the new developments and parks east of Yonge it seems strange not to carry over the work and tie it all together.
* The quality of work looks great. It doesn't look like it rushed at all. You might be able to complain about the lack of vision/ambition but the actual work looks really well done and consistent.
* Despite completely crowded sidewalks there was pretty much no one on the MGT unless they needed to cross.
* Most of the MGT has a natural barrier between it on the sidewalk with trees, bike posts, and large benches. All of these definitely help. There's a few narrower areas where they aren't benches though so there's less of a barrier.
* The biggest problem area for cyclists and pedestrians is York/QQ. It's a huge bottleneck with crossings all over too much volume. From my brief time there it seems like cyclists believe they have the right to a complete unbroken MGT but at every intersection it's a shared area. They need to realize this and take it slow and maybe even walk their bikes across. There's a reason why the asphalt doesn't continue through intersection crossings.
Actually the worst area was on an "unrevitalized" section from Yonge to Jarvis. The sidewalk is just normal width and it was packed and people were overflowing onto the bike paths causing issues.
Does anyone know why the revitalization wasn't continued to where QQ ends at Lakeshore? With all the new developments and parks east of Yonge it seems strange not to carry over the work and tie it all together.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Just got back from checking out the new MGT, I too was surprised at how few people were walking on it despite the ambiguous design.
If they wanted it to be a shared space, then why did they include massive bicycle symbols and elephants feet markings (which mean "yield to bikes") through the brick area?
The designers clearly could not make up their mind when it comes to pedestrian/bike conflicts. On one hand, the MGT has bicycle symbols at the intersections, which would suggest bicycles-only, yet the signage indicates a "shared (ped/bike) pathway". And when pedestrian and bicycle paths cross, the markings indicate that bicycles have priority yet the paving materials indicate that pedestrians have priority.
They need to officially make the MGT bicycles-only. It's barely wide enough for the volume of bicycle traffic, so there's no way it can accommodate pedestrians too. They should swap the current "shared path" signs for "bike lane" signs, and paint some diamond + bike + arrow markings intermittently along the path.
And they need to pick a priority arrangement for each ped-bike conflict and stick with it.
My preference would be to have the asphalt continue through all the intersections with bicycle signals, with the stop bar remaining where it is currently (behind the crosswalk). This would formalize the way it is currently working, with pedestrians yielding to bicycles while the latter have a green indication, and cyclists yielding to pedestrians when the latter have a walk indication.
The exception would be eastbound at York, where there is a very long distance along the path between the crosswalk and the conflict point with motor traffic. In that case, I'd leave the crosswalk in pavers, with asphalt the rest of the way through the intersection, and the stop bar right before the vehicle conflict point. There would be a "yield to pedestrians" beacon that flashes only while pedestrians have a walk indication.
At the intersections where there are no bicycle signals, such as Spadina, they should paint zebra crossings across the path (covering up the current elephant's feet markings), add "yield to pedestrians" signs (like the ones at roundabouts) and sharks' teeth markings. Pedestrian priority is necessary because there is not enough storage space for pedestrians to wait between the signalized intersection and the path, and because pedestrians can easily misinterpret their walk signal to include the MGT.
If they wanted it to be a shared space, then why did they include massive bicycle symbols and elephants feet markings (which mean "yield to bikes") through the brick area?
The designers clearly could not make up their mind when it comes to pedestrian/bike conflicts. On one hand, the MGT has bicycle symbols at the intersections, which would suggest bicycles-only, yet the signage indicates a "shared (ped/bike) pathway". And when pedestrian and bicycle paths cross, the markings indicate that bicycles have priority yet the paving materials indicate that pedestrians have priority.
They need to officially make the MGT bicycles-only. It's barely wide enough for the volume of bicycle traffic, so there's no way it can accommodate pedestrians too. They should swap the current "shared path" signs for "bike lane" signs, and paint some diamond + bike + arrow markings intermittently along the path.
And they need to pick a priority arrangement for each ped-bike conflict and stick with it.
My preference would be to have the asphalt continue through all the intersections with bicycle signals, with the stop bar remaining where it is currently (behind the crosswalk). This would formalize the way it is currently working, with pedestrians yielding to bicycles while the latter have a green indication, and cyclists yielding to pedestrians when the latter have a walk indication.
The exception would be eastbound at York, where there is a very long distance along the path between the crosswalk and the conflict point with motor traffic. In that case, I'd leave the crosswalk in pavers, with asphalt the rest of the way through the intersection, and the stop bar right before the vehicle conflict point. There would be a "yield to pedestrians" beacon that flashes only while pedestrians have a walk indication.
At the intersections where there are no bicycle signals, such as Spadina, they should paint zebra crossings across the path (covering up the current elephant's feet markings), add "yield to pedestrians" signs (like the ones at roundabouts) and sharks' teeth markings. Pedestrian priority is necessary because there is not enough storage space for pedestrians to wait between the signalized intersection and the path, and because pedestrians can easily misinterpret their walk signal to include the MGT.
Last edited:
Torontovibe
Senior Member
I filmed most of the new sections. Here is the video.
MetroMan
Senior Member
It was not a part of this phase. Work officially ended at Bay Street although a part of it was extended to about Yonge. Once the East Waterfront LRT is funded and as work progresses on the buildings lining Queens Quay, streets and sidewalks will be rebuilt as per the Queens Quay design.
There seems to be a large political appetite for the East Waterfront LRT and public reception to Queens Quay was extremely positive so it shouldn't be long before we see the next phase get the go ahead.
MetroMan
Senior Member
As I mentioned further back in this thread, there's a discrepancy between the high quality public realm and the third rate buildings lining Queens Quay. It's a world class street lined with parking garages, nail salons and dry cleaners.
Now that Queens Quay has increased the value of those street level store fronts, what do you think will happen in the coming years?
1: To parking garages?
2: Low rent businesses (nail salons, fast food, dry cleaners)?
3: Condo amenities?
I personally think that the small businesses that can only function on low rent will give way to high rent paying designer restaurants like those that have been taking over King St. West. Condo boards might be tempted to lease out their street level amenity spaces. Would you rather have a gym and party room or pay low or no condo fees? The parking garages are a tougher nut to crack. Rental parking spaces could be replaced by another condo or office space with parking below ground but if they belong to condo owners, they're not going anywhere. I doubt there will ever be any unanimous consensus. More likely is that these will be beautified or covered up and leasable retail spaces put in or improved on the sidewalk fronting faces.
Now that Queens Quay has increased the value of those street level store fronts, what do you think will happen in the coming years?
1: To parking garages?
2: Low rent businesses (nail salons, fast food, dry cleaners)?
3: Condo amenities?
I personally think that the small businesses that can only function on low rent will give way to high rent paying designer restaurants like those that have been taking over King St. West. Condo boards might be tempted to lease out their street level amenity spaces. Would you rather have a gym and party room or pay low or no condo fees? The parking garages are a tougher nut to crack. Rental parking spaces could be replaced by another condo or office space with parking below ground but if they belong to condo owners, they're not going anywhere. I doubt there will ever be any unanimous consensus. More likely is that these will be beautified or covered up and leasable retail spaces put in or improved on the sidewalk fronting faces.
scott
New Member
I agree the designers couldn't really make up their minds. But you'll notice that the bicycle symbols are only at the "entrances" of the bike path. When the pavement starts or ends you'll find a bike symbol to denote what the path is meant for. Which actually does make sense.
But if you take York for instance, it's pretty far between the paved bike paths since the intersection is wide and there isn't any more bicycle symbols between each end (unless I missed them). There's just dashed lines denoting the MGT connection implying that you can cross it since it's not a solid line.
drum118
Superstar
What the designers wanted and what are there are 2 different things.
City standards and various departments have the final say regardless what West 8 & DTAH, the committee and Waterfront Toronto wanted. Some was money also.
TTC needs to send someone down and remove all the old detour signs from shelters and poles
June 19 Lot more up on site
Needs welding and haft finish
Chased these 2's off the ROW
City standards and various departments have the final say regardless what West 8 & DTAH, the committee and Waterfront Toronto wanted. Some was money also.
TTC needs to send someone down and remove all the old detour signs from shelters and poles
June 19 Lot more up on site
Needs welding and haft finish
Chased these 2's off the ROW
salsa
Senior Member
Yes I was pleasantly surprised. Now we just need to get the car idiots off the streetcar tracks.
I visited in the evening and it was still pretty busy. Downtown was really rockin this weekend from all the different things happening.
Some people are pathetic.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
But wouldn't it solve the problem with drivers turning into the ROW? One direction...no confusion...no collisions?
I'm inclined to think with one-way traffic, more people would drive on the right-of-way to go east, not less.
42
42
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
There is more to life than organizing it around the needs/mistakes of drivers.
AoD
WislaHD
Superstar
That's great to hear. With Tory being buddy-buddy with the First Gulf site people, there should be a real chance of getting WELRT approved during his tenure.
I wish the political appetite extended to the WWLRT though.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I wish they can extend the same landscape treatment all the way to Bathurst - and in the longer term, all the way to OP.
AoD