King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[steveintoronto]

From a contact in the Planning Deptartment:

- They'll be pushing hard for Option 1 in tonight's presentation.
- Option 2 is a backup Trojan horse. If chosen and once implemented, they'll be able to restrict or close the busier blocks to car traffic and eventually eliminate cars in those blocks, freeing the road completely for streetcars.
- Option 3 exists in case their efforts fail to convince City Council. A compromise that still helps transit flow but does nothing for the neighbourhood.

That all makes perfect sense tactically. What doesn't add-up still is "Whose agenda is it?" Who are "they"? Planning? Staff altogether? The Cmte?

I favour option one, if I had to make a choice, it *appears* (with caveats, not detailed) to be the most effective. But without detailing how traffic is going to be restrained in the allocated lane, it's meaningless.

If there are separated streetcar lanes and on street parking is removed completely, I don't mind mixing with the cars, like we do in the rest of the city.

Agreed, and I haven't driven in this province, this nation, for decades. I cycle, but if a cycling lane can't be done properly, it's far more hazardous than being in traffic if you have your wits about you. Ostensibly that limited flow and speed of the vehicle lane will render pretty benign risks, other than door prizes, which is a huge problem, if not worse now, on the Bloor cycle lanes.

Further to that, if they do allow 'motorized vehicles' in a lane, ostensibly single, I don't see how they'd have the jurisdiction to ban bikes. (They can on expressways, not streets) Edit: In fact cycles will get through when the cars are inevitably jammed due to stopped vehicles. There's always the 'sharrows' for what they're worth.

 

[steveintoronto]

In case this was missed earlier:
View attachment 98799

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is my understanding of scenario 1.. not sure why people are so upset about this, or how they think it will fail to improve streetcar operations.

View attachment 98795

Under Option 1, the streetcars would never conflict with the movement of other vehicles. I don't understand what people are complaining about here. This should be the model for streetcar service in Toronto

 

[innsertnamehere]

They apparently would conflict when a car stopped in its single lane, as other cars would be allowed into the streetcar lane to go around it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I like to think of myself as a fairly progressive person, but IMO the first two preferred options are completely stupid. What's the point of having cars on King street when they are forced to turn every block? Its going to be a confusing disaster that will make the new Queen's Quay look as straightforward as a Dora the Explorer map in comparison.

It's because there are driveways on King that people need access to.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Option 2 has three steps:

Step one: Narrow the road
Step two: ???
Step three: Profit

It's pretty crazy how little it does in the way of relieving streetcars from obstructions. Streetcars will be forced to share a much smaller road with the same amount of cars, and wait forever for the cars to make right turns, once all the pedestrians have finished crossing. It could turn out even worse than status quo.

Cars get their own right turn lanes. The streetcars won't have to wait for cars to turn right.

 

[steveintoronto]

Under Option 1, the streetcars would never conflict with the movement of other vehicles. I don't understand what people are complaining about here. This should be the model for streetcar service in Toronto

I was just reviewing the exact language of the release. "Physically separated" only occurs as a phrase in Option 2: (They state "separated" but lack the caveat "physically" in One and none at all in Three)

Alternating Loops
In the alternating loop model streetcars are given priority, with separated lanes in the centre of the street for both eastbound and westbound streetcars.

It is referred to as an alternating loop because every other block vehicle access is limited to local traffic, meaning delivery vehicles, taxis and people who work and live on the block. The alternating blocks will have full public access. No vehicles will be able to make a left hand turn, crossing the streetcar lanes.
Separated Lanes
In this model there is also extended "bump outs" on the sidewalk on the alternate side of the street being used for vehicle access, giving pedestrians more space.

As the title suggests, this design provides physically separated lanes for streetcars. This model keeps vehicles on King Street moving in both directions, but vehicles still won't be able to turn left and stopping curbside will be forbidden.

Unlike the alternating loop design, this model doesn't include additional space for pedestrians, instead keeping the sidewalk portion of King Street as it is now.

"This option means that you have servicing and loading happening right along the street side," said Keesmaat. "You no longer have street-side parking but you in fact, might run into a scenario where one car stops to drop someone off and all the other cars are stopped behind it because they don't have a way out."
Transit Promenade
With the transit promenade proposal, pedestrians would be given preference on the King Street corridor stretching from Bathurst Street to Jarvis or Parliament Streets.

"Imagine the sidewalk doubling," Keesmaat said.

It also includes accessible curbside boarding for streetcars at all stops along the street, and dedicated streetcar lanes, though they won't be physically separated.[...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ng-street-design-streetcars-transit-1.3980055

Edit: Note that these three proposals differ from the three in other media releases.

Ever more confusion...

They apparently would conflict when a car stopped in its single lane, as other cars would be allowed into the streetcar lane to go around it.

Whether any of us agree with that or not (I certainly don't) that is what the release indicates!

And *still* no reference I can find as to what constitutes "physical separated". If it's to be bollards, as one poster has suggested, at least for the 'trial', then this is doomed. "Physically separated" must mean exactly and *completely* that, or this is worth less than dirty doo doo.

 

[Cobra]

I was just reviewing the exact language of the release. "Physically separated" only occurs as a phrase in Option 2: (They state "separated" but lack the caveat "physically" in One and none at all in Three)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ng-street-design-streetcars-transit-1.3980055

Edit: Note that these three proposals differ from the three in other media releases.

Ever more confusion...
Whether any of us agree with that or not (I certainly don't) that is what the release indicates!

Ans *still* no reference I can find as to what constitutes "physical separated". If it's to be bollards, as one poster has suggested, at least for the 'trial', then this is doomed. "Physically separated" must mean exactly and *completely* that, or this is worth less than dirty doo doo.

Only option 2 fully segregate streetcars from cars. Option 1 and 3 allows véhicules to go on the tracks to go around an obstacle

 

[MetroMan]

Through cyclists can take Richmond or Adelaide, and they can take the cross-streets, and be walked along the improved sidewalks.

Thats very optimistic of you. If there isn't room for cyclists, they're not going to walk their bikes. They'll cycle on the sidewalks like they already do on one way streets today.

 

[steveintoronto]

Thats very optimistic of you. If there isn't room for cyclists, they're not going to walk their bikes. They'll cycle on the sidewalks like they already do on one way streets today.

This is a real problem that becomes a shism between even us cyclists. The Melbourne Bourke Street Transit Mall, and many others around the world, ban cyclists. Many of these bans are due to cyclists who can't 'play fair'. As an avid cyclist in phenomenal shape for my age (the cycling is responsible for a large amount of that) it never ceases to miff me how reckless many cyclists are. You are correct in your observations, but be assured some of us do get off and walk when mingling with pedestrians, whether we have right of way or not. (Queen's Quay is a prime example)

I don't see how anything short of Gweed's (Andrew Johnson's) excellent proposal last week for cycling lanes in the centre of the road with tracks either side will allow cyclists into this particular model, save for sharing the vehicle lanes, if and where in the various models, and the use of sharrows (not a separate cycle lane) on them.

Shot Tron is right, so are you, but for both of you to be right, it means cyclists themselves in aggregate must follow protocol. It ain't gonna happen. Cyclists will have to make do with the lanes on Richmond and Adelaide for through traffic. Otherwise, like Shon states, they're going to have to walk through the pedestrian areas on King.

 

[salsa]

I like to think of myself as a fairly progressive person, but IMO the first two preferred options are completely stupid. What's the point of having cars on King street when they are forced to turn every block? Its going to be a confusing disaster that will make the new Queen's Quay look as straightforward as a Dora the Explorer map in comparison.

Sorry, but drivers better get used to the idea that King will not be a through Street for traffic.

 

[amnesiajune]

This is a real problem that becomes a shism between even us cyclists. The Melbourne Bourke Street Transit Mall, and many others around the world, ban cyclists. Many of these bans are due to cyclists who can't 'play fair'.

To roughly quote Keesmaat in an interview this morning, "you can't do everything on every road". It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with how space is allocated. Bikes have space allocated to them on Richmond and Adelaide, so you don't need separated bike lanes on King Street. Same with Sherbourne and Jarvis, same with Spadina and Peter/Beverley. The point of this project is to make King Street pedestrian- and transit-oriented, not to make it a jack-of-all-vehicles road.

 

[salsa]

To roughly quote Keesmaat in an interview this morning, "you can't do everything on every road". It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with how space is allocated. Bikes have space allocated to them on Richmond and Adelaide, so you don't need separated bike lanes on King Street. Same with Sherbourne and Jarvis, same with Spadina and Peter/Beverley. The point of this project is to make King Street pedestrian- and transit-oriented, not to make it a jack-of-all-vehicles road.

I agree, though I hope that cyclists could at least be accommodated west of Bathurst (unless there are better alternatives). That's where the Richmond/Adelaide lanes end.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sorry, but drivers better get used to the idea that King will not be a through Street for traffic.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this discussion, and offset to one side, but you may have missed Bob's point, no matter where he stands:

Option 3 I can definitely get behind. Let the frustration of single lane traffic naturally redirect cars. Don't do it by making the direction of the lanes change every block.

What Bob might be missing is that the alternating blocks dictate right turns only if there is to be no crossing of the track reservation, and that dictates contra-flow each block. I've seen exactly this and working very well in San Diego.

Bob also has a very good point, albeit it is open to examination on specifics in stating: "Let the frustration of single lane traffic naturally redirect cars. ". Drivers are going to have to learn that these vehicle lanes become like rear alleys. If a truck is delivering, you wait. It's an excellent point. What *must not happen* is 'going around' by using the streetcar clearway, and that will require a lot more than bollards. (Edit: I might have to point out that many drivers, out of frustration, will just drive over them, and some don't even realize it. Take a close look at Bloor West cycle lane, and the now missing ones on Ronceys. They haven't even bothered to replace them lately, they last such a short amount of time marking where the raised sections come out to meet the tracks at stops)

I agree, though I hope that cyclists could at least be accommodated west of Bathurst (unless there are better alternatives). That's where the Richmond/Adelaide lanes end.

Actually not, as long as you can zip up or down a block. I come through there a number of times a day on average in warmer weather, and the Railpath West (sic?) is being pushed through too. There are points to be made, lack of alternate good routes won't be one of them.

 

[muller877]

Thats very optimistic of you. If there isn't room for cyclists, they're not going to walk their bikes. They'll cycle on the sidewalks like they already do on one way streets today.

Means that a police can get his quota of tickets in an hour. I expect there will be aggressive ticketing and tow-trucks for both stopped cars (in front of Starbucks) and cyclists ignoring the law. Needs to happen to show how it will work effectively.

I'm all for some social justice. We need to have informational people stopping bikes to ensure that they follow the law. Walking out in front of them at stop signs, linking arms and blocking sidewalks, etc. Then take their picture for a website to shame them and give them a pamphlet to tell them the rules.

Like stop a douchebag group in Russia (check it out on youtube)

Ideally with facial recognition so we can post to their facebook accounts to shame them in front of their friends.