King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[steveintoronto]

Thoughts?

It's close to being brilliant. There may be some downsides, but so many upsides that it would take a huge downside to override them. Something you hadn't mentioned is that by pairing opposing lanes together, it allows overtaking , as well as a sense of not 'riding a tightrope' like you get on Bloor (albeit Bloor has many downsides, but that's another matter).

One 'inconvenience' is having to stop to cross the tracks to get to your destination if it's on the street (presuming the tracks are in a cobblestoned RoW and/or there's a barrier). I think that's better to delineate the cycling RoW from pedestrian. It shouldn't happen, but it does, that cyclists and pedestrians really don't mix well with few exceptions.

In most transit mall configurations I've seen, the bike lane is right next to the sidewalk, which greatly increases the potential for cyclist-pedestrian collisions.

The clash is inevitable unless segregated.

Something I immediately like, and this can also be taken over to one of the cycling strings, is the sense of the central reserve as being a 'bike highway'. You don't have to be a 'road warrior' (as Shon Tron correctly calls them) to wish to make good time. Doing that safely on almost all of the present Toronto paths is oxymoronic. One can be the most conscientious and accomplished of cyclists, following every rule to the 't', and still be in great danger from other cyclist's whim to do crazy things. With this arrangement, and I can't fully explain it, it's mostly sixth sense and trained perception, that danger is minimized. For every danger I do see, it would be the same or worse in an orthodox arrangement. What I can state in an even orthodox arrangement is that a two-way paired bike lane one side is vastly better than one way each side. The pedestrian mall should be the other side. It will be much easier to keep pedestrians and cyclists separated, albeit there's always the danger of pedestrians crossing willy-nilly unless barriers are erected. The latter, again, is much easier with a centre reservation for cyclists. Crossing points on the tracks should be made at all stops, and cyclists must dismount to cross at same.

Something that might complicate using a centre reservation is a concept of local and express streetcar service. The streetcar track junctions (Bathurst, Spadina, etc) are complex and present a real challenge to alter, as Gweed has noted. If it is proposed that a four track system is instituted, the express use the present RoW position, and the locals are looped off and on as sidings between those track junctions, such that the locals re-attain the express tracks (present tracks) to go across the junction or turn off at that point. Express would only run during peak, and off-peak, the locals would use the express/present RoW, and parking would be permitted as at present. Not my idea of perfection, by any means, but it would satisfy the inevitable outcry from merchants. In this plan, cycle paths, unfortunately, would have to be accommodated as they are now. I propose this because as much as Gweed's idea has many merits, Toronto just isn't ready for something so logical and progressive.

Great idea Gweed! This deserves a lot more discussion, as even if this can't be done as presented, it still evokes a lot of useful ideas.

 

[steveintoronto]

Those poles for the trolley wires are potential collision obstacles for cyclists....is that a raised curb that they sit on? I would sacrifice the pretty streetlights for a combination light/trolley wire pole mounted on the sidewalk, as that's a safer place for the poles - especially if the bike (t)racks create a natural divider.

That's a very good point! The solution you offer is one good possibility. Edit: Just looking at the render again, I think it's a given that with such an arrangement, those poles would be part of a fence/screen to prevent cyclists and pedestrians crossing the tracks except at allocated spots. If no fence, then the poles could be either side of the street, and perhaps a zig-zag arrangement to minimize the number of poles and catenary support needed.

I wonder how comfortable cyclists would feel out there.

Even though it really appeals to me, as anyone who reads the cycling strings knows, I'm not typical. For me, just looking at the render, I want to hop on my machine and get downtown in good time, and feel great about it. I do represent a niche of cyclists, but a fair sized minority riding real road machines safely but at a good pace. I'm encouraged to see all the next gen down (especially the girls) who've dug out their *dad's* old performance bike from their parents' basement. My comment isn't sexist, it's just that male road machine frames were and still are optimized for performance, and to many girls, that's what they want. And it's great to see!

Other utilitarian cyclists may not agree. In the event, it might be moot, as I have a well-founded fear that cyclists won't be taken into account on this. In which case, I push for 'local' and 'express' tracks to maximize the throughput, speed and flexibility of the transit mall.

Edit to Add: Further to the "express track(s)" concept: There is the possibility of the 'express' track being like many NYC subways: single but bi-directional depending on the direction of rush-hour flows. It might have to change direction at say, Yonge or Bay, and the centre track is express in the other direction, the continued journey non-express being on the local tracks. This would still allow space for a bi-directional centred bike path.

Here's an Aussie blog discussing exactly the idea I suggest, and reference to a number of systems in Oz already using 3 track layouts for express. Melbourne even considering 4 track, and NYC used a 4 track system when they had trams:
https://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11339658.htm

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Here's my alternative configuration for a transit mall along King St. This drawing is configured for a 20m ROW, but it can be expanded to a 23m ROW by increasing the amount of sidewalk space on either side.

View attachment 97291

The main advantage to this configuration is that the pedestrian and cyclist traffic is physically separated. In most transit mall configurations I've seen, the bike lane is right next to the sidewalk, which greatly increases the potential for cyclist-pedestrian collisions. It also means that whenever a streetcar lets passengers off, the cyclists have to stop and wait. With the bike lanes in the middle of the road, that isn't an issue. Cyclists can access the sidewalk at any cross street, just as a pedestrian would if they wanted to get from one side of the road to the other. Also, the centre bike lanes are wide enough together to be the width of a general traffic lane, allowing the middle to be used for emergency vehicles without disrupting transit operations.

With this configuration, the streetcars pull right up to the edge of the sidewalk, which makes it easier for wheelchair/stroller access. The bike racks on the edge of the sidewalk serve a dual purpose. They have their intended use as a bike rack, but also double as a visual and semi-physical barrier between the sidewalk and the street. They effectively become a fence if placed at the appropriate intervals.

I realize that this configuration wouldn't be appropriate for the pilot project, since it involves removing and replacing the streetcar tracks. I do however think that if King St is permanently turned into a transit mall, that this configuration should be examined.

Thoughts?

This wouldn't work (easily) due to the curve radii of streetcars. How would they turn onto Bathurst, Spadina and other locations?

A workable solution would be to have the streetcar tracks switch to a road-centre alignment, at locations where they will be turning onto other streets.

 

[steveintoronto]

This wouldn't work (easily) due to the curve radii of streetcars. How would they turn onto Bathurst, Spadina and other locations?

A workable solution would be to have the streetcar tracks switch to a road-centre alignment, at locations where they will be turning onto other streets.

Doubtless it would take major track work to accommodate. Your point buttresses the case for 'local sidings' between the rail junctions where the locals loop off and back on the centre tracks before the track junctions. Streetcars would have to be slowing down to cross the intersection switches anyway, so slowing for curb sidings would add only a tiny bit of time, not to mention the express trams would be stopping at those junctions anyway for passenger p/u, drop-off for local service. The present junctions could be retained intact, a massive saving financially and not interrupting other roads and services. The 'sidings' could be added in sections, so that the entire street would not be affected all at once.

 

[Tuck]

Here's my alternative configuration for a transit mall along King St. This drawing is configured for a 20m ROW, but it can be expanded to a 23m ROW by increasing the amount of sidewalk space on either side.

View attachment 97291

The main advantage to this configuration is that the pedestrian and cyclist traffic is physically separated. In most transit mall configurations I've seen, the bike lane is right next to the sidewalk, which greatly increases the potential for cyclist-pedestrian collisions. It also means that whenever a streetcar lets passengers off, the cyclists have to stop and wait. With the bike lanes in the middle of the road, that isn't an issue. Cyclists can access the sidewalk at any cross street, just as a pedestrian would if they wanted to get from one side of the road to the other. Also, the centre bike lanes are wide enough together to be the width of a general traffic lane, allowing the middle to be used for emergency vehicles without disrupting transit operations.

With this configuration, the streetcars pull right up to the edge of the sidewalk, which makes it easier for wheelchair/stroller access. The bike racks on the edge of the sidewalk serve a dual purpose. They have their intended use as a bike rack, but also double as a visual and semi-physical barrier between the sidewalk and the street. They effectively become a fence if placed at the appropriate intervals.

I realize that this configuration wouldn't be appropriate for the pilot project, since it involves removing and replacing the streetcar tracks. I do however think that if King St is permanently turned into a transit mall, that this configuration should be examined.

Thoughts?

First, thats a nice render.

The problem I see is that automobiles/trucks are going to have to access the street sometimes. Stores do still need deliveries, right? Ambulances and firetrucks do need to get by. So what you end up having is trucks or ambulances parked on the tracks, which brings the streetcar to a complete stop. At least in the middle of the road, this would not be an issue.

I do like that the bike pains are together though, not a fan of separating them on each side of the street.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This wouldn't work (easily) due to the curve radii of streetcars. How would they turn onto Bathurst, Spadina and other locations?

A workable solution would be to have the streetcar tracks switch to a road-centre alignment, at locations where they will be turning onto other streets.

Same reason with tractor trailers.

 

[Johnny Au]

Same reason with tractor trailers.

...unless tractor-trailers had numerous articulated sections.

There's a very good reason why the future Chinese buses were never mass-produced.

 

[crs1026]

This wouldn't work (easily) due to the curve radii of streetcars. How would they turn onto Bathurst, Spadina and other locations?

A workable solution would be to have the streetcar tracks switch to a road-centre alignment, at locations where they will be turning onto other streets.

It's doable....but it creates complications that maybe we don't want.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...elivery-bombardier.3263/page-609#post-1156139

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

Thanks for the comments everyone! I just wanted to think outside the box a little bit. Yes, the curve radii was something I thought about, and I wasn't sure how big of an impact moving the tracks what amounts to 3m further away from the centre line of the road would have on the turning radius. By my count there are 6 intersections along King that feature streetcar tracks meeting at or near 90º angles. Spadina and Bathurst are the only 2 that are 4 directional though.

The placement of the poles is a good suggestion as well. Having them be a pantograph pole on one side and a street light on the other certainly makes sense. The buffer isn't raised, it's just a different pavement/concrete treatment to serve as a visual barrier between the cycling lanes and the streetcar lanes. I was considering putting some kind of low-rise planters in there, but I figured they may just become obstructions in the event of an emergency.

Speaking of emergencies, I figured the streetcar lanes could be used for parking an emergency vehicle in the event they need direct access to a building. It just makes so much sense to have an E-W artery that would be congestion free at all times of the day that could be used by emergency services to get somewhere quickly and reliably. And it's a lot easier for a cyclist to pull off to the side (on to the tracks if need be, presuming there's no streetcar coming), than it is for a streetcar to pull over.

As for the trees, I figured being whipped by a streetcar every 4 minutes would be enough to prevent any significant branches from getting in the way. You'd end up with a tree that is round on the outside and flat on the inside basically.

And yes, I feel like this is a far safer cycle track than curbside placement, simply because a cyclist knows that barring something catastrophic a streetcar isn't going to jump out in front of them. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people suddenly take a step or two into the street from the sidewalk (either by accident or on purpose). If I'm cycling close to the curb, I'm always on the lookout for someone stepping out in front of me. If I were in the middle of the street, even if someone did jaywalk, there would be enough reaction time from when they step off the curb to when they hit my lane that I could easily avoid them.

The idea of an express streetcar service is a very interesting one too. I think 4 tracks would be hard to accommodate in the ROW, but I think 3 tracks would be doable. Have the streetcars run express in and then local out in the AM, and vice versa in the PM.

As for deliveries, yes that can be a pain, but I think that there are enough cross streets on King that delivery trucks could park on those streets (maybe change the parking by-laws to have dedicated delivery zones on side streets immediately adjacent to King). Many of the newer developments along King also have some kind of side street access/loading area. One of the other options that I was considering was having one vehicle lane that was an alternating one way for each block. This would prevent through traffic but would still allow local access.

 

[steveintoronto]

Same reason with tractor trailers.

As you know, Walter, even the older CLRVs have a much tighter turning radius than the truck you show. The newest 'trams', as witnessed in very tight European situations, are like snakes around corners. Your illustration might have been overdone for the purpose of example, but it no longer holds true, even with Toronto's wider than standard track gauge.

If I'm cycling close to the curb, I'm always on the lookout for someone stepping out in front of me. If I were in the middle of the street, even if someone did jaywalk, there would be enough reaction time from when they step off the curb to when they hit my lane that I could easily avoid them.

*Sightlines!* Yes, that articulates one of the massive shortcomings with the Bloor cycle lanes that wouldn't pertain with the bi-directional centre reservation. One only has to consider the bi-directional pathways through parks to realize how much faster and safer they are in a relative sense. Being in a roadway, a King centre reservation wouldn't be quite as idyllic, but approaching it...*far safer* than next to a curb and/or parked vehicles.

As for deliveries, yes that can be a pain, but I think that there are enough cross streets on King that delivery trucks could park on those streets (maybe change the parking by-laws to have dedicated delivery zones on side streets immediately adjacent to King)

It certainly hasn't stopped many other progressive jurisdictions from doing it, many in North Am. San Diego's example, in "car central" California, has been a success for almost forty years in downtown SD. In the event, California now hosts many examples of progressive transit concepts.

Edit to Add: Something not discussed should be: Would it be time to address, if there is a complete reworking of King Street at some time in the future, post this test period upcoming, to make this an LRT line of standard gauge, and therefore the complex junctions with intersecting present streetcar tracks become moot?

Freedom and Outlook in Toronto
Flexity Freedom vehicles differ from the Flexity Outlook vehicles used on the Toronto streetcar system in that they are wider and faster, and use standard gauge rather than the streetcar system's unique broad gauge.[3] They are also bi-directional, with cabs on both ends and doors on both sides. While Flexity Outlook vehicles can negotiate the tight curves of the streetcar network, Flexity Freedom vehicles require a minimum curve radius of 25 metres (82.02 ft). Also, the Outlook streetcars must navigate the single-point switches of Toronto's legacy system, while the Freedom LRVs will use double-point switches.[7]

The light rail lines in Toronto will be constructed to standard gauge instead of Toronto's streetcar gauge because Metrolinx, the Ontario provincial transit authority funding the projects, wants to ensure a better price for purchasing vehicles by having a degree of commonality with other similar projects within Ontario.[8][...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Freedom

This raises entirely new possibilities, not the least the dual-voltage-mode models available *off the shelf* in Freedom models for 25kVAC and 600VDC bi-modal versions. (They are already in use in slight variations in France, Germany and elsewhere, including Oz).

This obviously eliminates the track switch problem at streetcar junctions, for both pro and con, but it offers the *massive* advantage of being able to be run as a version of SmartTrack, such that it attains King (and/or Queen, perhaps even as one-way on each with a local and express track, or two way express on one street, local on the other, or even asymmetric, express one direction, local the other and the inverse on other) and then connects at the Don Valley with present GO RoWs north and east, and in Parkdale to the Georgetown corridor north, and some continuing along the Queensway to connect just past the Humber to the Lakeshore corridor west.

This would take a change in regs by Transport Canada, but the US FRA has already offered this in some locales, and TC has done so in the case of Ottawa's OC Transpo. It would also truncate some of the connecting TTC gauge streetcar routes, but that can be dealt with, it's far from being a new challenge. One of the biggest challenges this city is facing is Union Station saturation and the inability to distribute incoming loads into the city core without congestion. Instead of building an extremely expensive tunnel under King and/or Queen, this approach would be vastly faster to build, cheaper, and a chance to remake both avenues. It would not preclude tunneling under either street at a later date when financing would become available, and a change of express/local status of the surface route at that time.

Comments?

Resource reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/tramtrain-the-interurban-of-the-21st-century/
http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP RPT 52-F.PDF
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sncf-pioneers-the-tram-train-concept.html

 

[crs1026]

The one reservation I can't shake is about what happens to cyclists if they are heading to a destination mid-block.

With at-curb bike lanes, the cyclist pulls in tight, likely rubbing wheel against the curb, dismounts onto sidewalk (raised, so like a step), lifts bike against rack, and is parked.

With mid-road lane, cyclist has to find a gap in the "fence", stop (in the path of faster moving cyclists), look over shoulder for streetcar, dismount without curb to assist, possibly stand (in path of cyclists) while streetcar passes, push bike over streetcar tracks, climb onto sidewalk. If the 'fence' is too solid, cyclist will have to go to end of block, then backtrack on the sidewalk, pushing bike through the pedestrian lane (or, in worst case, riding it on the sidewalk, pedestrians be damned).

No disrespect to cyclists, but the King mall was conceived as a way of improving streetcar flow and creating an interesting streetscape. Cycling is part of the mix, but that doesn't imply creating a cycling "escape lane" from the Downtown. That's a worthwhile thing in itself, but maybe it's one agenda too many for this street and this project.

I'm at the lumbering, overweight, casual end of the cycling spectrum. The appeal of the bike lane on King is in going for coffee, not commuting to Port Credit. I find the fast, aggressive cyclists are as much a danger (and as impolite) as many motorists. Perhaps I'm in the minority and expressing a bias - but maybe the cycling part of the design should be winding and ambling rather than high-performance.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

With mid-road lane, cyclist has to find a gap in the "fence", stop (in the path of faster moving cyclists), look over shoulder for streetcar, dismount without curb to assist, possibly stand (in path of cyclists) while streetcar passes, push bike over streetcar tracks, climb onto sidewalk. If the 'fence' is too solid, cyclist will have to go to end of block, then backtrack on the sidewalk, pushing bike through the pedestrian lane (or, in worst case, riding it on the sidewalk, pedestrians be damned).

This is a challenge in the concept, doubtless. Given the centre reservation being wide enough (and this already exists as a challenge on many present cycle-lanes), stopping to dismount to cross the tracks *at a demarcated and signalled crossing*, of which there would be many aligned with local streetcar stops, shouldn't be too much of a problem. It's not fully detailed as to whether a raised curb that you can safely step on is do-able or not, but that would add to slower cyclist dismounting safety.

No disrespect to cyclists, but the King mall was conceived as a way of improving streetcar flow and creating an interesting streetscape. Cycling is part of the mix, but that doesn't imply creating a cycling "escape lane" from the Downtown. That's a worthwhile thing in itself, but maybe it's one agenda too many for this street and this project.

It could well-be one too many, in fact, I have doubts it would be included with the present civic mindset. But bear in mind, more cyclists now commute downtown than motorists by expressway from the east. It would be unreasonable to make *every* major artery downtown bike-lane inclusive, but if you are making King and/or Queen bike accessible, then you're back to examining the best way possible to do it, transit mall or otherwise.

I find the fast, aggressive cyclists are as much a danger (and as impolite) as many motorists.

Absolutely! There's a minority of serious riders who completely realize that, and it has been a point of huge rancour in the cycling strings that I raise the issue. I've been accused many times of being "holier than thou" for raising it and stating that I follow traffic rules. That alone indicates how out of hand a lot of cyclists are. (Edit: In this and some other nations. It's not a problem where good infrastructure and social mores exist, Holland and Denmark being two cases) If it's bad protocol for a car/truck, then how can it be acceptable for a cyclist, save by degree of possible personal injury? Most cyclists refuse to see it that way. "That doesn't apply to me, I'm a cyclist". It's a very real problem, one that society isn't going to change, evidently, and that brings us back to a central reservation for cyclists. At least the design and infrastructure minimizes the consequences of that mindset. As to the dangers a slower cyclist would encounter in such a situation? You're faced with that now in the present poor cycling lanes.

 

[TrickyRicky]

steveintoronto, I appreciate your enthusiasm for transit malls and you probably know 10 times more about transit then I do; however, after taking a look at that San Diego transit mall I don't see it as a good example for King Street. The discussion here is focusing on the alignment of the lanes on King street but I think the much more important discussion is the viability of the project given the context of King Street within the street Grid of the area. Eyeballing San Diego's grid using google maps it seems that they have a rigid linear grid of blocks that aren't even 50 meters long. Furthermore, the residential density on King is (not even considering current and future development) off the scale of anything in downtown San Diego.

I'm open to the City experimenting with street car prioritization on King and am certain they will do so but I sense there is this kind of transit mall -for-the-sake-of-transit-mall sentiment in this discussion. We basically have to prioritize the streetcars on King because the City screwed up so royally by allowing unfettered development on and around King without any grade-separated mass transit. So you got to do what you got to do. I do not however see on grade transit that eliminates transportation capacity for cars and trucks as progressive. I see it as perhaps a necessary and hopefully temporary botch job of city planning.

 

[steveintoronto]

after taking a look at that San Diego transit mall

Which one? They have more than a few. In fact, Commercial Street is being eyeballed for another makeover, almost forty years later. Note that the SD Trolley runs through many cities.

Eyeballing San Diego's grid using google maps it seems that they have a rigid linear grid of blocks that aren't even 50 meters long.

Odd claim.

As to King's present density, it was less forty years ago than downtown SD's Commercial St is today, when SD took the initiative to create her transit malls. Whatever, there's the case of the forty or so other cities who've established transit malls. Shall we start with Melbourne?

Many examples with pics and descriptions here:

Light Rail, Pedestrian Zones And 'Transit Malls'
[...]
'Transit Malls'
A variant on a pedestrian zone is the transit mall, which is basically a road which is primarily reserved for public transport and emergency vehicles, although sometimes there is limited local access for other traffic too.

In Croydon, England, part of the transit mall uses residential roads so local access is allowed in this section. To reduce the through traffic other roads have been upgraded, road direction signs altered, street maps re-drawn to minimize this route in favour of the alternatives and at each end of the road there are bus and tram "gates" which are effectively short bus / tram only sections of road which are monitored by closed circuit television. As the road signs in the two pictures show, these 'gates' only actually operate Monday-Friday morning and evening rush hours.

A transit mall along a residential road in Croydon, England.
With the main traffic flows diverted along a parallel route this road is designated as being for trams, buses and local access only. See text (above) for full information.
In Calgary, Canada, most of the stores form part of fully enclosed shopping centres located around the transit mall, which is restricted to light rail, buses and emergency vehicles only.

Incidentally, this also part of the free (ie: fare less, no charge) travel zone. Several North American cities have 'Free Travel Zones', the idea being to encourage city (office) workers not to use their cars when travelling about the city centre. Such zones often benefit local traders because these city workers will take advantage of the free travel and visit local stores for their shopping instead of using car-based out of town shops.

The argument against these 'Free Travel Zones' is that car commuters end up not paying for the transport, while those people who use public transport to commute will have season tickets which already provide them with city centre travel at no extra cost.

Calgary's 'C-Train' system was built on windfall profits from oil... whereas when we (in Britain) became the lucky recipients of windfall oil money we squandered the money on -- er? -- apart from some extra employment in Aberdeen where did the money go?? - for sure it wasn't spent on our public transport infrastructures...
funding is looked at on the Enough Stick How About some Carrot? page.

​

Click the speaker symbol or here to download a 150kb soundclip (named Calgary.mp3) which was sourced from a video clip and is of a 'next station' announcement that also tells passengers that the free fare zone ends at the next station.

Transit mall, Calgary, Canada.

Transit mall, Zwickau, Germany. To discourage pedestrians from walking over the tracks the road is flanked by near continuous shrubs and hedges.

Almost a transit mall shared with cyclists and local traffic in Gent, Belgium.

A road reserved for trams and local access on tramline T1 in Paris, France.

​

Click either the projector icon or here to see a 98 second video clip named 'Paris_access_only320.mpg' showing the above location.


Direct links to other Light Rail Fits In pages.

• 
  
  
  • Light Rail And Compatibility With Parked Vehicles.
  • Road Junctions, Level Crossings And Traffic Signal Priority.
  • Lawn Track - Creating Green Corridors.

Return to Main Light Rail Fits In page.

http://citytransport.info/Zones.htm

Here's a better pic of Melbourne's transit mall:

http://www.orchidphotos.org/images/australia2009melbourne/large-22.html

Note crs1026's reference to 'cobblestones' in many of these examples, even with mixed cycle use.

 

[muller877]

Here's my alternative configuration for a transit mall along King St. This drawing is configured for a 20m ROW, but it can be expanded to a 23m ROW by increasing the amount of sidewalk space on either side.

View attachment 97291

The main advantage to this configuration is that the pedestrian and cyclist traffic is physically separated. In most transit mall configurations I've seen, the bike lane is right next to the sidewalk, which greatly increases the potential for cyclist-pedestrian collisions. It also means that whenever a streetcar lets passengers off, the cyclists have to stop and wait. With the bike lanes in the middle of the road, that isn't an issue. Cyclists can access the sidewalk at any cross street, just as a pedestrian would if they wanted to get from one side of the road to the other. Also, the centre bike lanes are wide enough together to be the width of a general traffic lane, allowing the middle to be used for emergency vehicles without disrupting transit operations.

With this configuration, the streetcars pull right up to the edge of the sidewalk, which makes it easier for wheelchair/stroller access. The bike racks on the edge of the sidewalk serve a dual purpose. They have their intended use as a bike rack, but also double as a visual and semi-physical barrier between the sidewalk and the street. They effectively become a fence if placed at the appropriate intervals.

I realize that this configuration wouldn't be appropriate for the pilot project, since it involves removing and replacing the streetcar tracks. I do however think that if King St is permanently turned into a transit mall, that this configuration should be examined.

Thoughts?

There is a huge risk to bikes not looking over their shoulder and veering in front of a fast moving LRT. Or veering to get to their destination and the wheel gets caught in the track, they fall and get run over by the LRT.

Another concern is for pedestrians right beside a fast moving LRT. Better they get hit by a cyclist if they are not looking than the LRT (we have to look at the most vulnerable users of the road first and foremost).

In the long term I expect that King St would be dedicated to only transit and pedestrians (Bathurst to Yonge). The sidewalks are already jammed and they need more room. If there are bike lanes on Wellington and Richmond/Adelaide giving King over to pedestrians is the ideal solution (bars with patio's, buskers, etc).

The side streets just before King can be blocked off (except for 1 emergency lane/nighttime delivery lane) and the rest of the street can be used for high-density bike parking and/or food trucks. A good example of where this could happen is Duncan