steveintoronto
Superstar
[...continued from previous pane...]
RE: 'Crossing the street to board streetcars'
Groan....yeah...."Is there a report with more meat on it, or is it only the slides?" Digging on the background of this, a year ago when this was announced, the City had a report, (I have no link, so this is hearsay) that named not one retained consultancy for this, but *four*! Where are their reports? You exactly describe my flummox on this. Without articulated detail, (like what are the "physical separation" barriers to be?), Plasticine has more definition to it. It's those details (pardon my engineering background) that make a project doable or not. They might as well state: "We've found a wonderful new vehicle to transform our transit system...but it's not been designed or built yet". Offering choices between *concepts* is not going to work, unless they've analyzed them in detail.Considering the impossibility of a car-free King was a known to most at the start, I'm left just as confused as before. Is there a report with more meat on it, or is it only the slides? I saw ridership and latent demand acknowledged, but nothing in the way of projected demand of the options. Or capacity of the options. Is it possible that even with the most transit-focused option we'll be left with speed/capacity/reliability no different than today?
RE: 'Crossing the street to board streetcars'
What about mid-block? I have yet to see any reference to light signalled crossings. The failure to mention such details tells me that they really haven't thought this through at all. On the basis of the cause d'etre, moving streetcars as rapidly and unimpeded as possible, you *cannot* have pedestrians crossing willy-nilly. So how is that to be marshalled? It has to be with lights that indicate safe crossing or not. I see absolutely no mention so far of that, let alone of restricting pedestrians from crossing where-ever their vacant minds tell them. It will only take a few fatal accidents to have this whole concept tossed if this isn't thought through first. Other cities have excellent experience on how to fence off the danger and provide crossing points safely. San Diego immediately comes to mind, and if they do it, other cities do it also (London, Paris etc). Paris and German cities use hedges to soften the streetscape, albeit space is limited on King. They can certainly have climbing flowering vines growing on fence screens.You're exaggerating here - crossing would certainly be with the lights at intersections, same as St Clair or Spadina.
"Essence"...good term, but the concept needs far greater articulation of detail.For those teased about about a car free King Street who are now afraid of cars taking back space that should be dedicated to exclusive streetcar use, consider that staff will not be presenting multiple options to city council. They will choose one and Council will decide Yes or No. One of them achieves the essence of that goal and Keesmaat clearly prefers it: the alternating loop with streetcar only lanes. She emphasized that fixing transit is the priority and has been tweeting #TransitFirst.
If he was right, this would be incredibly easy. The devil is in the unavoidable compromise.There was one guy complaining that this isn't a "transit first plan, it's a transit only plan" but the vast majority of the overflow crowd seemed to be in support.
Excellent points that I have not seen discussed in the many articles I've searched out and read. These are the kind of details that make or break a concept, and they're being overlooked.The alternating loop fixes the crawling King Streetcar, widens the sidewalks for the tens of thousands of pedestrians flooding the area every day and maintains access to cars who still have a place on King. This plan sets up the possibility of closing some blocks to car traffic on a schedule. For example, no cars other than taxis or those with local permits between Bathurst and Spadina during club nights. Or no cars between John and University during lunch hour when that block gets flooded with office workers.
I stated that months back, and the *potential* is certainly there, unfortunately, she's now playing for the cameras on it, and losing her objectivity in the cause of vanity. I'm sure Tory has realized that he'd best not cross her too many times. Her statements on the Yonge Street growth hormone overdosing are to be commended, albeit it remains unchecked. She has "All The Right Stuff", doubtless.Oh, and more more thing: Keesmaat is totally the obvious progressive champion in a run for Mayor. We can stop searching. She's articulate and charismatic and she obviously knows City Hall and policy inside and out. I don't know if she's planning to run but she definitely has what it takes. Whether she goes against Tory in 2018 or leaves her mark as City Planner and runs when Tory exits or is weak in 2022, she'd be an incredible Mayor.
Exactly my stance. Even in the 'test' stage, a concrete curb will be essential to judging the viability of the "dedicated lanes". For taxi drop-off, a regulation would be needed that only disabled passengers can be dropped on the loop. Fit ones have to be dropped at the closest intersection and off of King.Given that taxis show little regard for driving regulations, I'm sure they'll happily block the streetcars during their passenger drop offs. If there is not going to be physical separation between the LRVs and taxis, I'm inclined to ban taxis outright from the transit corridor to avoid this problem.
Last edited: