King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[the lemur]

No we don't but the thing is we do live in a totally different climate than Melbourne....I love pedestrian areas but we just have to look around our own city for hints as to our own climate's influence on how we move around. This time of year people love to walk around places like the Distillery and along King West......in January and February, the busiest pedestrian areas in the city are the Path and the Eaton Centre.

Perhaps we are more suited to temporary/seasonal pedistrian areas?

P.S. are we really gonna quibble about when in the day (most often) the low temperature hits (anywhere) ?

Unless we're in a climate that allows for outdoor life more or less year-round, all pedestrian areas are going to be seasonal, even if we might still cross, say, Gould St because where we're going is not on the PATH.

That's not to say that a pedestrian area should be temporary (i.e., removed/dismantled in the off-season) for that reason as well - I think establishing it once and keeping it that way (depending on how important it is otherwise as a route for vehicles) is easier and more (cost-)effective. In that sense, I like that laneway in the video that was given over half to pedestrians and half to road traffic.

And I honestly thought average highs and lows referred to daytime temperatures. Not trying to quibble about any of this.

 

[RC8]

I bike, walk, and take transit year-round without too much hassle. Opening King/Queen to bikes, transit, and pedestrians will hugely improve transportation options throughout the year for everyone living or doing business along this corridor.

 

[sixrings]

I bike, walk, and take transit year-round without too much hassle. Opening King/Queen to bikes, transit, and pedestrians will hugely improve transportation options throughout the year for everyone living or doing business along this corridor.

Well if it was only part of King and Queen it might be doable. Id like to see from Sherborne to Bathurst happen. Then on Bathurst south of Bloor they could remove street parking and add a dedicated Bike Lane. Then we would be making a transit a bike and a pedestrian network.

 

[TheKingEast]

Well, As someone who travels along King from Peter to Parliament and back...taking the streetcar isn't a fun experience. Take today. I waited for 4 packed streetcars to pass until I could find one to hop on. Then it was stop start all the way down. Things get better after Jarvis. It's baffling though to see 1 lane of traffic shared between streetcars, buses, cars, trucks, etc. But we're a city that caters to cars so....I don't see things changing anytime soon.

 

[MisterF]

DO want! But you also have to realize that they don't have -20 degree winters with snow. I bet people still walk outside during the winter months in Melbourne. In Toronto not many want to venture outdoors for 6 months of the year.

Can we please stop using this excuse? There are pedestrian streets and pedestrian/transit malls in cities every bit as cold as Toronto. And colder.

 

[reaperexpress]

At the recent openhouse for the Richmond/Adelaide cycle tracks, the planners and consultants said that King and Queen were off the table for bicycle facilities because they would have too much impact on (car) traffic. But I suspect that closing King or Queen to through car traffic would shift enough people onto streetcars, bicycles and electric scooters to offset the larger reduction in automotive capacity.

I think people don't realize what a small proportion of transportation on King and Queen is by car. For instance that graphic on the previous page suggests that there are twice as many people carried by streetcar, and I'd venture a guess that the number of pedestrians would be double that again. Based on data and correction factors from the August 2010 bicycle count, Queen and King also carry approximately 1500 and 1700 cyclists per day respectively, at Spadina during the summer months. It's probably much more now, given the general upward trend and Bixi introduction.

Though we may be comparing apples and oranges, since the 43500/day figure is for the entire 501 route, not at a given point.

I think that rather than building a Montreal-style cycle track on Richmond or Adelaide, we should do something like this on King or Queen:

From Steven Vance on flickr

 

[Jonny5]

Officially dropped? Why are the signs still up?

I am referring specifically to King from Jarvis to John, which I would roughly call the CBD. I found a TTC meeting document containing a TPS report from 2004 that lists all diamond lanes in Toronto. King Street is included from Dufferin to John and Jarvis to Parliament only. I don't recall any signs or lane markings in the Jarvis to John stretch that is excluded, though I am sure I have read it was originally included.

 

[BMO]

Can we please stop using this excuse? There are pedestrian streets and pedestrian/transit malls in cities every bit as cold as Toronto. And colder.

Yes...in cities hundreds of years older...the likes of which it would be prohibitively expensive to build a path system like what we have. Necessity is different than a "nice to have". And that's not an exageration. But hey if you think Torontonians will be lining up to drink coffee on a patio in the middle of winter, i'd love to be proven wrong. In places like Prague which have similar winters they have pedestrian malls and areas without cars, but they don't have a nice cozy path system underneath to move people around. Sure maybe one or two squares in the entire city may be able to garner enough people interested to stay outside in Toronto, in the middle of winter, but I doubt it would be anything near what you see in Melbourne.

And can we also stop with the dilusions? One of the most important things to learn in planning is to acknowledge that cities are different. With different people, features and climate. Even a different sense of place. Sure, in some places pedestrian malls like what Melbourne has, work amazing, but it is not a rule, and just because you did somethign in one place doesn't mean the same effect will occur in another. You take bits and pieces and mold it to YOUR environment. And that environment includes the built as well as the natural.

 

[the lemur]

Yes...in cities hundreds of years older...the likes of which it would be prohibitively expensive to build a path system like what we have. Necessity is different than a "nice to have". And that's not an exageration. But hey if you think Torontonians will be lining up to drink coffee on a patio in the middle of winter, i'd love to be proven wrong. In places like Prague which have similar winters they have pedestrian malls and areas without cars, but they don't have a nice cozy path system underneath to move people around. Sure maybe one or two squares in the entire city may be able to garner enough people interested to stay outside in Toronto, in the middle of winter, but I doubt it would be anything near what you see in Melbourne.

And can we also stop with the dilusions? One of the most important things to learn in planning is to acknowledge that cities are different. With different people, features and climate. Even a different sense of place. Sure, in some places pedestrian malls like what Melbourne has, work amazing, but it is not a rule, and just because you did somethign in one place doesn't mean the same effect will occur in another. You take bits and pieces and mold it to YOUR environment. And that environment includes the built as well as the natural.

I think it's worth considering that there are pedestrian areas intended to promote a social interaction aspect, albeit seasonally (such as Willcocks St), and others designed mostly as a way of keeping traffic out of an area that doesn't particularly need it or where the intent is to direct traffic onto major routes/prevent shortcuts (Gould St, arguably, and part of Simcoe). Those both have a place in a city like ours, but yes, the intent and the effect need to be considered.

I think what MisterF was getting at was the ease with which some people reach for 'it's too cold' or 'we have winter' as an excuse not to do anything that deviates from the status quo, especially an idea that originates elsewhere. I've seen it used countless times as an argument against LRT - 'They want us to wait out in the cold for hours!' - even though we surely know how to dress for winter, check transit schedules and we're used to waiting for buses outdoors as well. That, and the notion that it somehow doesn't work in other cold climates.

The reason that Prague doesn't have a PATH system is more likely that there isn't the population or the commercial density to warrant it, the city is smaller and the winters are generally less severe than ours. The expense of tunnelling didn't preclude a subway there.

 

[MisterF]

Yes...in cities hundreds of years older...the likes of which it would be prohibitively expensive to build a path system like what we have. Necessity is different than a "nice to have". And that's not an exageration. But hey if you think Torontonians will be lining up to drink coffee on a patio in the middle of winter, i'd love to be proven wrong. In places like Prague which have similar winters they have pedestrian malls and areas without cars, but they don't have a nice cozy path system underneath to move people around. Sure maybe one or two squares in the entire city may be able to garner enough people interested to stay outside in Toronto, in the middle of winter, but I doubt it would be anything near what you see in Melbourne.

And can we also stop with the dilusions? One of the most important things to learn in planning is to acknowledge that cities are different. With different people, features and climate. Even a different sense of place. Sure, in some places pedestrian malls like what Melbourne has, work amazing, but it is not a rule, and just because you did somethign in one place doesn't mean the same effect will occur in another. You take bits and pieces and mold it to YOUR environment. And that environment includes the built as well as the natural.

Wow, I didn't realize that Ottawa and Calgary were hundreds of years older than Toronto! I guess you learn something new each day. Somebody should tell Harbin, a city much colder and snowier than Toronto (and 95 years newer) that their pedestrian malls don't work.

Okay I'm being needlessly sarcastic, but the point is that there's nothing delusional about the idea of pedestrian streets, woonerfs, and transit malls in Toronto. I don't get how the age of the city means anything when I see so many people walking around the city all year round. I can think of quite a few places in Toronto that could function like this street in Ottawa.

BTW, the PATH is mostly confined to the financial district. Prague may not have a cozy PATH system, but neither do St. Lawrence, Kensington, and Yorkville.

I think it's worth considering that there are pedestrian areas intended to promote a social interaction aspect, albeit seasonally (such as Willcocks St), and others designed mostly as a way of keeping traffic out of an area that doesn't particularly need it or where the intent is to direct traffic onto major routes/prevent shortcuts (Gould St, arguably, and part of Simcoe). Those both have a place in a city like ours, but yes, the intent and the effect need to be considered.

I think what MisterF was getting at was the ease with which some people reach for 'it's too cold' or 'we have winter' as an excuse not to do anything that deviates from the status quo, especially an idea that originates elsewhere. I've seen it used countless times as an argument against LRT - 'They want us to wait out in the cold for hours!' - even though we surely know how to dress for winter, check transit schedules and we're used to waiting for buses outdoors as well. That, and the notion that it somehow doesn't work in other cold climates.

The reason that Prague doesn't have a PATH system is more likely that there isn't the population or the commercial density to warrant it, the city is smaller and the winters are generally less severe than ours. The expense of tunnelling didn't preclude a subway there.

A strange Canadian trait I've noticed is that a lot of us think that we have winters that are uniquely cold and harsh. It's just not true but it contributes to "it would never work here" defeatism.

 

[gweed123]

I've debated whether this is more suited for this thread or the DRL thread, because it could really fit in either, but here it is:

This whole "no cars during rush hours" thing got me thinking on what is the best way to transport people using the King streetcar faster than what they currently are. Personally, I think the impact of closing King to cars during rush hour would be minimal on overall line speed, because the stops are so close together.

What I've been thinking is that it would be much more useful to take one of the 4 lanes on both Richmond and Adelaide and convert them to BRT lanes, much like what exists in Ottawa through downtown. It would be dedicated lanes from Bathurst to Parliament, with an option to run mixed traffic service beyond those points. The end result would be something like this:

It doesn't take much looking to notice that this route is nearly identical (except for the downtown part, which may shift a couple blocks north or south) to the route the DRL would likely take. But unlike a DRL subway, this could conceivably be implemented within 6 months. A few cans of paint on Richmond and Adelaide to create buses only lanes out of the rightmost lane, and a few bus stops put in.

It may not be ideal, but this would certainly relieve the Queen and King streetcars by offering a more express alternative. It would also be a decent way of refining estimates for DRL ridership, since it would be the precursor to the DRL. If it proves to be a popular service, normal buses can be swapped for artics, and if the outer areas of the routes are having consistency problems, peak period transit only lanes can be implemented to speed things along.

 

[BurlOak]

View attachment 15071

It doesn't take much looking to notice that this route is nearly identical (except for the downtown part, which may shift a couple blocks north or south) to the route the DRL would likely take. But unlike a DRL subway, this could conceivably be implemented within 6 months. A few cans of paint on Richmond and Adelaide to create buses only lanes out of the rightmost lane, and a few bus stops put in.

It may not be ideal, but this would certainly relieve the Queen and King streetcars by offering a more express alternative. It would also be a decent way of refining estimates for DRL ridership, since it would be the precursor to the DRL. If it proves to be a popular service, normal buses can be swapped for artics, and if the outer areas of the routes are having consistency problems, peak period transit only lanes can be implemented to speed things along.

It actually follows the exact route through downtown of this TRZ proposal. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

Would it not be better to go all the way to Roncesvalles in the West - that way both King and Queen would intersect this BRT in the East and West.

What does having peak period transit only lanes mean; buses travel along the streetcar tracks or the road closed to cars and buses in the right lane and streetcars in the middle?

 

[gweed123]

It actually follows the exact route through downtown of this TRZ proposal. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

True. There are many different proposals for the DRL, so it's bound to mimic one of them. Personally, if the DRL needs to be a completely separate line, I favour Wellington. But the point of this BRT proposal is to use the existing one-way streets to create a 2nd layer of E-W service through downtown that doesn't mess with the streetcar routes, and doesn't affect car traffic too much (and thus cause a flip-out on the right). It also acts as a temporary and immediately implementable precursor to the DRL.

Richmond and Adelaide are 4 lanes for their entire length from Bathurst to Parliament, yet they don't carry anywhere near the volume that a 4 lane one-way should carry. That's because a lot of the time lanes are used for parking and turning lanes. Redesign the street to be more efficient with 3 car lanes + 1 BRT lane, and they would be much more useful streets for everybody, instead of simply being the vehicular back alleys of King and Queen.

 

[Palma]

Well if it was only part of King and Queen it might be doable. Id like to see from Sherborne to Bathurst happen. Then on Bathurst south of Bloor they could remove street parking and add a dedicated Bike Lane. Then we would be making a transit a bike and a pedestrian network.

Why stop at Bathurst. Why not to Dufferin., I don;t know why all posts I see always say Sherbourne to Bathurst when talking about traffic. As if traffic stops at Bathurst. Have you seen what its like at Queen and Dufferin even all the way up to Bloor and Dufferin and all the pedestrian traffic

 

[Palma]

True. There are many different proposals for the DRL, so it's bound to mimic one of them. Personally, if the DRL needs to be a completely separate line, I favour Wellington. But the point of this BRT proposal is to use the existing one-way streets to create a 2nd layer of E-W service through downtown that doesn't mess with the streetcar routes, and doesn't affect car traffic too much (and thus cause a flip-out on the right). It also acts as a temporary and immediately implementable precursor to the DRL.

Richmond and Adelaide are 4 lanes for their entire length from Bathurst to Parliament, yet they don't carry anywhere near the volume that a 4 lane one-way should carry. That's because a lot of the time lanes are used for parking and turning lanes. Redesign the street to be more efficient with 3 car lanes + 1 BRT lane, and they would be much more useful streets for everybody, instead of simply being the vehicular back alleys of King and Queen.

THats a crazy idea - the bus on those streets. One or two lanes should be separated bike lanes or one lane and widen the sidewalks for people