King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[Midtown Urbanist]

Yes, a DRL station at Queen and Broadview would only be a 5-10 minute walk away from the Uniliver site. Totally unnecessary to divert off Queen for that. A more legitimate reason to divert south would be to allot for a station near Queen and Carlaw before swinging north underneath Pape.

Correct. Plus the Broadview streetcar extension should provide for easy access to the Unilever site from the RL station.

I wonder if we could have an underground transfer for the Broadview streetcar at this station. (Maybe for the Queen streetcar too? That would provide for some interesting possibilities.)

 

[Euphoria]

I'm not advocating for anything at Unilever, but if we get an RER/Smart Track station at Unilever, it's unlikely we'll get one at Parliament /Cherry. I agree that a Queen/Broadview RL station connecting with a streetcar into the Unilever site is plenty of transit for that site.

 

[Translude15]

Metrolinx desperately wants the DRL to reach the Unilever site. Doing so would necessitate the Don River flood protection plan however. Ultimately, you want the DRL to possess as many transit connections as possible. Also, based on the alignment drawings, an additional station would be located at Pape-Queen, not Carlaw.

 

[dowlingm]

The Don protection stuff is required for any Unilever development, so I think if we assume Unilever needs to be served. then the prerequisites to serve it will be satisfied, no?

 

[Translude15]

The Don protection stuff is required for any Unilever development, so I think if we assume Unilever needs to be served. then the prerequisites to serve it will be satisfied, no?

Yes, precisely. A DRL connection at Unilever would ultimately expedite the Don protection process though as opposed to building the DRL along Queen and dealing with Unilever later on.

 

[Edward Skira]

I'm not advocating for anything at Unilever, but if we get an RER/Smart Track station at Unilever, it's unlikely we'll get one at Parliament /Cherry. I agree that a Queen/Broadview RL station connecting with a streetcar into the Unilever site is plenty of transit for that site.

Unilever site will get 10 million square feet of office space. Will be way more busy than Parliament or Cherry. The RER stop needs to be at Unilever.

 

[Euphoria]

Then it better be mixed use. If we're paying for an ST station and a DRL station for single use during the day at Unilever, we're overbuilding. Isn't Unilever also one of the justifications for not removing the Gardiner east of Jarvis? We need an ST station at Parliament/Cherry for the Canary and Distillery districts and for future massive development of the Portlands, a much bigger site than Unilever.

 

[Forgotten]

Then it better be mixed use. If we're paying for an ST station and a DRL station for single use during the day at Unilever, we're overbuilding. Isn't Unilever also one of the justifications for not removing the Gardiner east of Jarvis? We need an ST station at Parliament/Cherry for the Canary and Distillery districts and for future massive development of the Portlands, a much bigger site than Unilever.

You'll be glad to hear that neither Kesmat or Tory's plan includes GO or RL stations anywhere near the Canary or Distillery districts.

 

[Euphoria]

Maybe not. I attended one of the public meetings and discussed with someone from planning the location of such a station, which he said would likely be closer to the Don rail yard, if built. The problem with that location is it would be too close to a Unilever station. For that reason it makes better sense to build it between Parliament and Cherry. A Cherry/Parliament station is one of the possible stations mentioned in the 50 station short list. Look, ST is seriously getting whittled down. In the core you're looking at Union and Liberty for stations. That's it. There is a solution to this, which is building a GO terminus for the Lakeshore GO line at Bathurst. That would free up room at Union for ST to run more frequently and have more stations. Problem is that the RL would have to meet the new GO station. If this station also had an ST station, we'd have perfect relief in the west.

 

[drum118]

It’s time to reimagine Toronto’s streetcar ‘King”

 

[salsa]

From this link, these are the options that will be considered for King St. The priority transit corridor runs between Dufferin and Parliament, and may require different solutions for different segments of the corridor.

1. Transit and private vehicles operate in mixed traffic.

2. Cars are allowed to operate with some limitations (e.g. no left turns at specific intersections, or no through-traffic in certain segments). Some left-hand turn restrictions already exist along King Street during rush hour. Enforcing these restrictions at all times allows for better transit flow and minimizes impacts on delivery and service vehicles

3. Streetcars have a designated lane in which private vehicles are prohibited. Reduces transit vehicle delays caused by car, but motorists maintain access for vehicle traffic and service deliveries.

4. The street is reserved for transit, pedestrian, and sometimes cycling traffic only. This option prioritizes transit and pedestrians over cars, and the re-allocation of the street creates more space for pedestrians, cyclists, and sidewalk cafes.

 

[salsa]

In our retro-political environment, while a pedestrian is killed every 9 days, is there any way option 4 would ever happen...

Highly unlikely. They will probably just do another towing blitz for a few days and call that a solution.

 

[LNahid2000]

Option 2 is pretty much useless since drivers in this city ignore turn restrictions.

 

[TOareaFan]

Option 2 is pretty much useless since drivers in this city ignore turn restrictions.

my thought on Option 2 was that the existing turn restrictions are not enforced....in fact the current restrictions, while time limited, are more than just turn restrictions...cars are not allowed in the streetcar lanes during rush hours....ever see it enforced?

I have long wished that we would just start again with the current restrictions.....but make sure the lanes use and turn restrictions are enforced....it would make a huge difference during the rush periods...and, really, that is where the issue is.

 

[ottbike]

A few comments on the 4 ideas posted on Pembina.

First of, I believe this is going to be a low-intervention "pilot" of some sort if they are looking to implement a concept anytime soon.

Option 2: Probably what we would see in the short term, i.e. cheapest option. Might also include restrictions on parking.

Option 3: Sort of what we have today, but we all know no-one takes it seriously. If they wanted to go with this option it would be best to apply red thermoplast or paint to the existing concrete to clearly mark it as a transit lane, or a very wide solid lane marking between the streetcar and curb lane.

Option 4 (as shown): If the City wanted to be creative in approach, in the SHORT term, bike lanes could be painted in place of the curb lanes, but with a very wide painted buffer similar to Richmond/Adelaide. In order to significantly improve corridor conditions in the LONG term (for both peds and cyclists), as properties re-develop, it could be possible to extend the sidewalk further into the street where the curb lane is and convert the would-be bike lanes into cycle tracks. In the long term (10-20 years) you could have a very nice cycling route and dedicated transit corridor. The City of Ottawa is actually implementing this approach on Beechwood Avenue. (more info on the project here). For properties that have recently been developed or are not expected to redevelop for a very long time, the City has taken the lead on making necessary curb work to facilitate reference conditions.

In fact, a recent development at 222 Beechwood agreed to a cycle track through site plan approval process (photo below).

The other option of course for number 4 would be a full corridor rebuild from scratch, however that would be extremely expensive and would only really be worth it if major underground utility work was planned at some point in the next few years.

"Transition" condition based on existing road width - road paint to be implemented in 2016

"Reference" condition (i.e. 5-10 year horizon using full ROW) - street frontage to be negotiated as part of site plan agreement as properties redevelop

222 Beechwood