King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[amnesiajune]

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.

Sort of. Cars would be allowed to drive on the streetcar tracks in their direction, so that taxis, delivery trucks, etc. can stop on King Street.

Streetcars will be forced to share a much smaller road with the same amount of cars

Not true at all - through traffic will be banned under option 2. All cars would be forced to turn right at each block, so that would result in a huge drop in car usage. The idea of that plan is to maintain access for taxis and people who want to park in garages on King while maximizing the space available to pedestrians (who account for half of the road's traffic)

 

[44 North]

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.

Hey, cool. I've been playing around with those LRVs as well. But my optimal scenario is an unstudied Option 5: none of the above surface solutions, rather a below-grade streetcar.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Did you make that? Great visual

yea not that hard. Took me 5 minutes in Sketchup.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

yea not that hard. Took me 5 minutes in Sketchup.

The Felxity is really well done - was that you too or did you get that from somewhere??

 

[innsertnamehere]

^sketchup has a warehouse of various models available that other people have done.. All I did was download what I wanted.

 

[steveintoronto]

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.

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.

One doesn't have to agree with your choice or not to completely agree that all of them present conundrums, and any conundrum that detracts from a streetcar *clearway* defeats the point of the whole exercise.

Here's one of the conundrums: "Let the frustration of single lane traffic naturally redirect cars. Don't do it by making the direction of the lanes change every block.". Either is fine by me, since when in the past has Toronto bowed to the local businesses when putting through subways or building the present new City Hall, the Gardiner, etc, etc? Whole sections of the city were eradicated. And they don't dare do anything to upset the merchants of King Street?

Now, suddenly, with a dreamscape of yesmaking wordcrafting scuttlbutcreating newspeak of placemaking and wayfinding, Salsa is absolutely correct:

Because Jennifer Keesmaat and the media hyped up the idea that a car-free King St was a viable option, until now.

There's a good dose of the surreal involved in this...and I get the awful feeling this is just another fantasy due to a City and council representatives who live in another dimension.

I read the UK newspapers (well, the five most significant) daily, and I'm *so* in envy of London at this time. They have massive problems in the UK, about to get far worse (Brexit) but the *will* to progress the transit system in London is generations ahead of us. And that's folks driving on the wrong side of the road yet...

Edit to Add: ROFL "Dora the Explorer" as per Bob's reference:

"Dora the Explorer" features the adventures of young Dora, her monkey Boots, Backpack and other animated friends. In each episode, viewers join Dora on an adventure in an animated world set inside a computer. The titular character seeks viewers' help in solving a puzzle or mystery she faces in each episode.

Bob nailed it!

 

[crs1026]

I thought the choice of options was pretty clever.

No one who has ever made executive presentations to a fickle and divided decisionmaking body would ever think of putting three equally appealing options in front of their principals. (If you ever sold for commission, you get it as well) The point is to forces people to get off the fence and make painful choices and set priorities. The more you make two options similar, or let people see comfort in the status quo, the more indecisiveness and circular debate you sow.

Option 1 discards through traffic (that's a key point for Councillors to get their head around), provides the transit priority, makes a nod towards public realm issues for those driving towards the 'urban' philosophy, maintains some realism about needing to provide vehicular access for deliveries etc. It's definitely viable.
Option 2 also discards through traffic but mingles streetcars and autos while choking the local access. That forces the point.... if there is no stomach for separating transit, then to vote for status quo, you must accept the public realm improvements and no through traffic. To me, this is the sacrificial "straw man" argument that hopefully nobody likes. (If it is preferred, then you have narrowed your pushback/dissenting debate to the one key issue....getting streetcars through).
Option 3 maintains through traffic, but discards public realm improvements while protecting the transit priority. To me, this is the "safe" option designed again to keep progress happening if the suburban councillors balk about the broader limitations on the auto. If they carry the day on this one, they can say they have "saved" the motorist.....while TTC gets its separate lanes.

My take - it's a pretty clever strategy that forces every faction to give up some aspect of the status quo. Our Council will mess it up, and may defer the whole idea rather than make these choices.....but that's the problem.

- Paul

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I thought the choice of options was pretty clever.

No one who has ever made executive presentations to a fickle and divided decisionmaking body would ever think of putting three equally appealing options in front of their principals. (If you ever sold for commission, you get it as well) The point is to forces people to get off the fence and make painful choices and set priorities. The more you make two options similar, or let people recognize the status quo, the more indecisiveness and circular debate you sow.

Option 1 discards through traffic (that's a key point for Councillors to get their head around), provides the transit priority, makes a nod towards public realm issues for those driving towards the 'urban' philosophy, maintains some realism about needing to provide vehicular access for deliveries etc. It's definitely viable.
Option 2 also discards through traffic but mingles streetcars and autos. That forces the point.... if there is no stomach for separating transit, then to vote for it, you must accept the public realm improvements and no through traffic. To me, this is the sacrificial "straw man" argument that hopefully nobody likes. (If it is preferred, then you have narrowed your pushback/dissenting debate to the one key issue....getting streetcars through).
Option 3 maintains through traffic, but discards public realm improvements while protecting the transit priority. To me, this is the "safe" option designed again to keep progress happening if the suburban councillors balk about the broader limitations on the auto. If they carry the day on this one, they can say they have "saved" the motorist.....while TTC gets its separate lanes.

My take - it's a pretty clever strategy that forces people to give up some aspect of the status quo. Our Council will mess it up, and may defer the whole idea rather than make these choices.....but that's the problem.

- Paul

I think you hit the nail on the head. Keesmaat is a smart political operator as well as a great planner. She knows exactly what she is doing and who she is dealing with, and how to get things done.

 

[robmausser]

A concrete curb, temporary ones for now, will be necessary, with all the complications that ensue from doing it!

Concrete curbs are desperately needed on the 509 too, as cars and pedestrians make their way onto the streetcar tracks. Because of this there is a permanent slow order of the streetcars through this section, and the TTC is blaming that its because the streetcars arent in the centre of the road. NO, its because theres nothing stopping or telling people or cars to not enter the tracks you idiots!

 

[steveintoronto]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Keesmaat is a smart political operator as well as a great planner. She knows exactly what she is doing and who she is dealing with, and how to get things done.

Remains to be seen. As someone agreeing with that take up until very recently, and then reading her tweets and contradictory claims over a year or so, I can no longer agree. Is she (or her org, to be more precise) presenting options? Absolutely, but each of them missing *crucial* details.

Can *anyone* find a City reference to bollards or curbs for any of the three options presented? They may exist, I can't find them. Without such details, every option is as valid as the next if it's unworkable.

Edit to Add: Rob, you are exactly right. I couldn't agree if this was being promoted as a "pedestrian mall"...but it isn't, and I quoted Keesmaat just today tweeting "it's a transit mall". And as such, streetcar clearway is supreme, as is the safety of boarding/exiting passengers, as well as the speed of doing it.

How did cars get to be considered as being as important as pedestrians and commuters? I'm not as extreme on this as some posters, who want cars banned altogether, that isn't going to happen in this compromised conurbation, but as a nod to businesses, access, albeit conditional, must be maintained, but even by Keesmaat's own words, that must be secondary to transit priority. It would help if she wasn't so incredibly contradictory, or others at City Hall.

Keesmaat also tweeted today (it's a few posts back) that cycle lanes are still in the options. Huh?

 

[MetroMan]

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.

 

[Dandy Horse]

Where are the bikes supposed to go?

 

[DSC]

Where are the bikes supposed to go?

On Adelaide and Richmond - and before you ask, I am a cyclist (Bixi & personal) - without a car. King is a narrow street, it really cannot be everything to everyone.

 

[ShonTron]

Where are the bikes supposed to go?

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

All that said, there's a good case for an improved cycling route along Wellington and/or Front between Strachan and St. Lawrence Market.

 

[Avenue]

Where are the bikes supposed to go?

If there are protected 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.