News   May 30, 2024
 735     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 499     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 959     1 

King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

Without widening the street, which would create more problems than it solves, all we got is enforcement.
1700145665138.png
 
Except with bus lanes we wouldn't have the extra cost of having to maintain tracks.
There's always a balance. Track and OCS maintenance with operators, vehicles, fuel costs. It's not always as clear cut as just having extra infrastructure.
 
Alright then.

What ideas have you got?

Personally I would like to see spikes placed along the street that would puncture the tires of any motorist who doesn't live along the street that dares to use it, but I would also like a million dollars and a house made out of gold. In other words, keep dreaming.

So widening the street is a non starter. forbidding Torontonians from owning cars is a non starter. Even fully banning all rubber tired vehicles by digging out the concrete and turning the street into a railway style right of way is a non starter, because of people who live along the road, ambulances, deliveries, etc. So pretty much your only option is enforcement.

Posting cheap memes is easy, but it's a lot harder to meaningfully engage with ideas.
 
Alright then.

What ideas have you got?

Personally I would like to see spikes placed along the street that would puncture the tires of any motorist who doesn't live along the street that dares to use it, but I would also like a million dollars and a house made out of gold. In other words, keep dreaming.

So widening the street is a non starter. forbidding Torontonians from owning cars is a non starter. Even fully banning all rubber tired vehicles by digging out the concrete and turning the street into a railway style right of way is a non starter, because of people who live along the road, ambulances, deliveries, etc. So pretty much your only option is enforcement.

Posting cheap memes is easy, but it's a lot harder to meaningfully engage with ideas.
Tunneled LRT. Honestly, what other choice do we have?
 
Ideally, King should be a transit mall with no general traffic.

Some businesses fronting King depend on truck deliveries. Because of that, trucks making such deliveries would be allowed to enter the transit mall during several early morning hours, say 4 to 7 am, when the number of pedestrians is minimal.

Transit malls are common in the centers of European cities, and you can see an occasional truck bringing supplies, but no flowing traffic.

Streetcars in the middle of transit mall are less common, but I've seen a few such designs as well.
Truck deliveries are usually limited to early morning as well. Putting some loading bays on cross streets for daytime deliveries would also work.
 
What ideas have you got?
Just have some vision and optimism:
Tunneled LRT. Honestly, what other choice do we have?
Pretty much, here's what I'd do:

Short-Term: Close King to personal vehicles entirely. It should be only streetcars, bicycles, trees, and large sidewalks & patios. You can enforce with cameras as the ROI is amazing. Model it after Stephen Avenue in Calgary if you want something to look at.

Long-Term: Ideally, I'd have co-planned the alignment of this King Line with the Ontario Line, essentially mirroring it along a North-South Axis. Start at Eglington West, major stops at Dufferin & Trinity Bellwoods, align to King at Bathurst. Continue along King to the Don River, and then naturally along Queen St. E to the beaches.

All laws require enforcement, but just making something illegal and enforcing it is far form the best way to stop it. We have to provide people with a better alternative too.
 
Last edited:
Tunneled LRT. Honestly, what other choice do we have?
Scaling back our expectations, I would say. Let's not forget that we are, after all, in Toronto, where any idea takes an eternity to execute. If a King tunneled LRT was proposed right this second, it would go into 'studies' for at least 15 years and then take another 15 to build. In the meantime, King needs acceptable quality service.

Close King to personal vehicles entirely. It should be only streetcars, bicycles, trees, and large sidewalks & patios. You can enforce with cameras as the ROI is amazing. Model it after Stephen Avenue in Calgary if you want something to look at.
What about people who live on the street? What about delivery trucks?

Ideally, I'd have co-planned the alignment of this King Line with the Ontario Line, essentially mirroring it along a North-South Axis. Start at Eglington West, major stops at Dufferin & Trinity Bellwoods, align to King at Bathurst. Continue along King to the Don River, and then naturally along Queen St. E to the beaches.
That's a nice idea, and I'm sure King would benefit in the long run from having rapid transit under it, but I reiterate my concerns voiced above, and also add a new one: even fi there were a subway under the street, you would still need to run some form of local service above, unless you have Bloor-Danforth level stop spacing, and that has previously invited the chagrin of many commenters on the forum. And those who need to use the local service will still need it to run quickly and reliably.
 
Just have some vision and optimism:

Pretty much, here's what I'd do:

Short-Term: Close King to personal vehicles entirely. It should be only streetcars, bicycles, trees, and large sidewalks & patios. You can enforce with cameras as the ROI is amazing. Model it after Stephen Avenue in Calgary if you want something to look at.

Long-Term: Ideally, I'd have co-planned the alignment of this King Line with the Ontario Line, essentially mirroring it along a North-South Axis. Start at Eglington West, major stops at Dufferin & Trinity Bellwoods, align to King at Bathurst. Continue along King to the Don River, and then naturally along Queen St. E to the beaches.

All laws require enforcement, but just making something illegal and enforcing it is far form the best way to stop it. We have to provide people with a better alternative too.
Here's what I would do. A downtown , tunneled, LRT line that you could extend westward past the Humber loop all the way to Kipling or Sherway. The portion of the line between Roncesvalles Ave. and the Humber loop would be above ground. Just replace the existing track to accommodate LRT trains.

Downtown LRT route.png
 
Last edited:
For anyone who brings up that pedestrianization will stop deliveries and people living there from parking, it is a fallacy. Pedestrianization in most large scale applications always maintains local access and deliveries as they are usually incorporated into mixed use or commercial areas. It is not a valid reason against pedestrianization.
 
For anyone who brings up that pedestrianization will stop deliveries and people living there from parking, it is a fallacy. Pedestrianization in most large scale applications always maintains local access and deliveries as they are usually incorporated into mixed use or commercial areas. It is not a valid reason against pedestrianization.
I didn't say I was against pedestrianization. I'm replying to the assertion that King is a failure because it requires enforcement - any approach that maintains local access WILL require enforcement, or it will be an abject failure. Any approach that negates the need for enforcement will not maintain local access or deliveries.

For my part, I think the King pilot was not nearly radical enough. What they have inside the current segment is good, provided it gets enforced, but the 504 is still an utterly worthless transit line outside of the pilot sections. There, they should have restricted one lane for transit, one lane for transit, and no parking of any sort.
 
Here's what I would do. A downtown , tunneled, LRT line that you could extend westward past the Humber loop all the way to Kipling or Sherway. The portion of the line between Roncesvalles Ave. and the Humber loop would be above ground. Just replace the existing track to accommodate LRT trains.

View attachment 520703
A tunnelled LRT? Who is going to benefit, and what's the ridership increase, for $10 billion?

If you want fast, crosstown transit, expand the Ontario Line. If you want reliable local transit, expand the pilot project. A car-light (with enforcement) or car-free King Street would have the space for transit users. The value proposition to keep allowing for a few more law-breaking car owners is just not there.
 
I didn't say I was against pedestrianization. I'm replying to the assertion that King is a failure because it requires enforcement - any approach that maintains local access WILL require enforcement, or it will be an abject failure. Any approach that negates the need for enforcement will not maintain local access or deliveries.

For my part, I think the King pilot was not nearly radical enough. What they have inside the current segment is good, provided it gets enforced, but the 504 is still an utterly worthless transit line outside of the pilot sections. There, they should have restricted one lane for transit, one lane for transit, and no parking of any sort.
Enforcement is certainly an option. But clearer and more intentional design that makes obvious what you can and cannot do is much more effective, both in terms of costs and in compliance.
 
Do you have any pictures of corridors you are envisioning we copy?
I'm glad you asked.

Here are images from transit malls in Munich and Amsterdam. The design choices used here maximize the compliance.

Munich

MUNICH.PNG


Amsterdam
Amsterdam.PNG
Entrance A.PNG


If we make a concerted effort to build out those platforms, and introduce more materiality, along with changing the look so that the corridor doesn't look like a road, we could very well create a vibrant pedestrian space in the centre of the City. And if you get near-side traffic signals and automated enforcement on the grids then people will stop blocking them.

I know these images don't resemble King Street, but they provide a glimpse of what's possible with a change in design philosophy, many things of which are not illegal here (though they can certainly be enhanced).
 
Last edited:

Back
Top