King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[steveintoronto]

Further to the previous post RE: Hong Kong and how King Street can adopt the approach of pedestrians *above* the transit mall:

Cities Without Ground: a guidebook to Hong Kong's elevated walkways
In Hong Kong, your feet need never touch the ground. But now, for the first time, a book can help you navigate the high-rise web of bridges, tunnels and lobbies that make up the city's fabric

A city without ground … one of Hong Kong's elevated walkways. Photograph: Oro Editions

• Oliver Wainwright @ollywainwright
  UK Guardian
• Friday 22 February 2013 14.59 GMT First published on Friday 22 February 2013 14.59 GMT
  
  In Hong Kong, it is possible to walk all day without ever having to set foot on the ground. In this super-dense metropolis, built on an implausible terrain of sheer-faced mountains and reclaimed land, you can go from your house to the office, via shops, stations and ferry terminals without once touching terra firma.
  
  It is a city built on an intricate network of elevated bridges and submerged tunnels, aerial walkways and suspended passages. The platforms of transport hubs meld into labyrinthine malls, which in turn bleed into office lobbies. Branches of stairs and escalators continuously connect onwards and upwards, to the extent that you're never quite sure what altitude you might be at, how far from the street you have risen – or if, in fact, there was even a street to begin with.
  
  This unique urban condition has now been mapped for the first time by a group of architects and academics, who have brought their findings together in Cities Without Ground: A Hong Kong Guidebook. The work of Adam Frampton, Jonathan D Solomon and Clara Wong, the book takes a systematic look at the layered topography of the city, drawing over 30 key areas in exploded axonometric diagrams to reveal the interweaving networks of pedestrian infrastructure.
  
  
  
  
  A map shows the interconnecting levels of the Shun Tak Centre and Sheung Wan – a hub that connects trains, ferries, helicopters, buses and taxis, alongside a neighbourhood of dried seafood shops. Image: Oro Editions
  The project claims to be "a manifesto for a new theory of urban form" and the authors argue that Hong Kong "demonstrates the viability and even robustness of public spaces that do not resemble a street or a square."[...]

• https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...b/22/cities-without-ground-hong-kong-walkways

Central–Mid-Levels escalator and walkway system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central–Mid-Levels_escalator_and_walkway_system

[...continues 10 pages...]
https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/SC06/SC06028FU1.pdf

Japan Railway & Transport Review No. 35 (pp.28–35)
Feature:　Urban Railways in Asia
Hong Kong's Future is Guided by Transit Infrastructure
Corinne Tiry
http://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/jrtr35/f28_tir.html

There's a lot of space *above* the streetcars on King!

 

[ksun]

Further to the previous post RE: Hong Kong and how King Street can adopt the approach of pedestrians *above* the transit mall:

• https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...b/22/cities-without-ground-hong-kong-walkways

Central–Mid-Levels escalator and walkway system

There's a lot of space *above* the streetcars on King!

I am not too familar with HK but Shanghai has tons of those elevated walkways and I deeply, deeply hate them everytime I have to cross one. One of the best things about north american (Europeans cities as well) is there is almost none of those monsters. It seems to be an Asian thing (Japan has plenty of them too) but please let's not copy that. The cars should just learn to stop and let pedestrians pass - not forcing people to go to the sky (or underground).

 

[steveintoronto]

One of the best things about north american (Europeans cities as well) is there is almost none of those monsters.

If you read the references I posted, you'd find the contrary. Minneapolis and Calgary just to name two. The author of one of the pieces posted is French, and there are examples in Europe that date back over a century.

You rather missed the point: King has very little room to play with, and to do what plans envision it's going to have to take creative measures to achieve, and cross-over pedestrian bridges/walkways, let alone longitudinal ones would do it, and host cafes and public areas doing it. The only one real challenge is accessibility access, but that's true for most businesses on upper floors. If they have elevators inside adjacent businesses open to public use, it would drastically simplify the need to build elevators. Just as many subway stations have concourses with views over the tracks, the same can be done over streetcar tracks.

For those able to embrace a vision...here's similar thinking:

Norman Foster unveils plans for elevated 'SkyCycle' bike routes in London
Plan for 220km network of bike paths suspended above railway lines could see commuters gliding to work over rooftops



Skyride … How the proposed SkyCycle tracks could look. Photograph: /Foster and Partners

• Comments
  523
  Oliver Wainwright @ollywainwright
  
  Thursday 2 January 2014 14.52 GMT Last modified on Thursday 15 June 2017 17.35 BST
  
  Gliding through the air on a bike might so far be confined to the fantasy realms of singing nannies and aliens in baskets, but riding over rooftops could one day form part of your regular commute to work, if Norman Foster has his way.
  
  Unveiled this week, in an appropriately light-headed vision for the holiday season, SkyCycle proposes a network of elevated bike paths hoisted aloft above railway lines, allowing you to zip through town blissfully liberated from the roads.
  
  The project, which has the backing of Network Rail and Transport for London, would see over 220km of car-free routes installed above London's suburban rail network, suspended on pylons above the tracks and accessed at over 200 entrance points. At up to 15 metres wide, each of the ten routes would accommodate 12,000 cyclists per hour and improve journey times by up to 29 minutes, according to the designers.
  
  Lord Foster, who says that cycling is one of his great passions, describes the plan as “a lateral approach to finding space in a congested city.”
  
  “By using the corridors above the suburban railways,” he said, “we could create a world-class network of safe, car-free cycle routes that are ideally located for commuters.”
  
  Developed by landscape practice Exterior Architecture, with Foster and Partners and Space Syntax, the proposed network would cover a catchment area of six million people, half of whom live and work within 10 minutes of an entrance. But its ambitions stretch beyond London alone.
  
  “The dream is that you could wake up in Paris and cycle to the Gare du Nord,” says Sam Martin of Exterior Architecture. “Then get the train to Stratford, and cycle straight into central London in minutes, without worrying about trucks and buses.” [...]

• https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...n-foster-skycycle-elevated-bike-routes-london

But you might be right ksun: It would take a society, an ostensible civilization to realize what's possible, what others are doing, to reach that high.

Unlikely to happen in this town, eh?

 

[pman]

I don't know, if suburban councillors read your post elevated infrastructure might get approved for King. Of course, it would be a Gardiner-like expressway, with the potential demolition of St. Lawrence Hall for a parking garage, this being Toronto.

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't know, if suburban councillors read your post elevated infrastructure might get approved for King. Of course, it would be a Gardiner-like expressway, with the potential demolition of St. Lawrence Hall for a parking garage, this being Toronto.

My proposal for elevated walkways is for *pedestrians* and to supplement the limited sidewalk space and allow passage to the other side of the street mid-block.

If they want to park pedestrians in St Lawrence Hall for market shopping...fine.

Here's Calgary's example: (which I mentioned a number of times in prior posts)

Calgary's Plus15 Skywalk

Overview
Grab your Calgary +15 Skywalk Map (Pocket Size) to view the hours of operation and location of all the +15 walkways.

Calgary's +15 Skywalk is a public pedestrian walkway system that links buildings throughout the Downtown and provides alternative routes for pedestrians to numerous and varied destinations.

The public access through private buildings enables pedestrians to travel in weather-protected walkways, approximately 15 feet above the street level. The +15 concept was intended to improve Downtown, providing additional pedestrian space and facilities, with no expense to the taxpayer.

Here are the +15 pedestrian counts:

• +15 Pedestrian Count Results (2012 January)
• +15 Pedestrian Count Results (2011 January)
• +15 Pedestrian Count Results (2011 July)

History
The years that followed World War II, many North American downtowns experienced a decline in pedestrian activity. This was a result of lack of investment in the inner city infrastructure during the war, improvements and innovation in transport - including a significant increase in car ownership and the loss of retail stores to suburbs.

Although this impact was less pronounced in Canadian cities, it did provide the impetus for skywalks and the underground walkways which provided a convenient and secure pedestrian environment.

In Montreal, the local conditions favoured an underground pedestrian system which was started in 1962. At the same time, Minneapolis-Saint Paul in Minnesota started what was to become recognized as the original pedestrian skywalk system. In Calgary, the skywalk was chosen over the underground pedestrian system because of the high water table, proliferation of existing underground services and the cost of excavation.

The origins of Calgary's +15 Skywalk date back to 1963, but the concept was not realized until a downtown renewal initiative (Urban renewal Scheme No.1) in 1965. However, it was Harold Hanen who recognized the opportunities for Calgary and championed the +15 Skywalk in Calgary.

Although The City's original design specifications allowed for an open deck format, they were required to be structurally capable of being enclosed at a later date. However, it soon became clear that to maximize the public benefit of the system, it had to provide protection in the winter.

The first +15 bridge was installed on January 21, 1970, connecting Calgary Place to the Calgary Inn (now the Westin Hotel). By 1984, Calgary's +15 Skywalk consisted of 38 bridges, 8 km of walkways and numerous public spaces. Today there are more than 62 bridges and 18km of walkways.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Centre-City/Calgarys-Plus15-Skywalk.aspx

I think being enclosed or not should be further discussed. For some used year-round, like the Eaton's/Sears Queen walkway, it would have to be the case, but for some extending longitudinally hosting open cafes, a mesh type floor might be more apt, allowing sight-lines beneath. In winter, snow and ice could be problematic.

Would the outdoor cafes elevated on an open walkway have to be seasonal? Yes, just as sidewalk ones are now, except being elevated, what little sidewalk there is on King can be used unobstructed for pedestrians.

 

[ksun]

My proposal for elevated walkways is for *pedestrians* and to supplement the limited sidewalk space and allow passage to the other side of the street mid-block.

If they want to park pedestrians in St Lawrence Hall for market shopping...fine.

Here's Calgary's example: (which I mentioned a number of times in prior posts)

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Centre-City/Calgarys-Plus15-Skywalk.aspx

I think being enclosed or not should be further discussed. For some used year-round, like the Eaton's/Sears Queen walkway, it would have to be the case, but for some extending longitudinally hosting open cafes, a mesh type floor might be more apt, allowing sight-lines beneath. In winter, snow and ice could be problematic.

Would the outdoor cafes elevated on an open walkway have to be seasonal? Yes, just as sidewalk ones are now, except being elevated, what little sidewalk there is on King can be used unobstructed for pedestrians.

No, pedestrians want to walk on the street, not 15 feet above ground. Pedestrians want to make turns wherever they want, not follow a fixed path between buildings. I have walked on many of those elevated ways, trust me, I don't feel like enjoying the "Additional pedestrain experience". I feel the cars are more important, which is why I am forced to walk up and down to leave space for them.

It is just unbelievable that for some, banning cars on King st is an unrealistic idea, when plenty of beautiful vibrant cities have large pedestrians-only city centres.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In Toronto, they don't know how to implement scramble intersections properly. Elsewhere, pedestrian DO NOT cross with the traffic, allowing vehicle turns. Watch this video, especially when the pedestrians cross. (Remember that in Japan, traffic moves on the left side.)

 

[steveintoronto]

No, pedestrians want to walk on the street, not 15 feet above ground. Pedestrians want to make turns wherever they want, not follow a fixed path between buildings. I have walked on many of those elevated ways, trust me, I don't feel like enjoying the "Additional pedestrain experience". I feel the cars are more important, which is why I am forced to walk up and down to leave space for them.

It is just unbelievable that for some, banning cars on King st is an unrealistic idea, when plenty of beautiful vibrant cities have large pedestrians-only city centres.

What you and I want, and what will actually happen are two completely different things. First off, this is to be a *TRANSIT MALL*! When do you get that? Secondly, it is impractical to ban cars altogether, as much as you, I or anyone else would like to. I'm an avid cyclist, haven't driven in this jurisdiction for generations. And I walk farther than almost anyone I know. But we're talking what can and will happen, not what your sentiments dictate.

What you expound is like the Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, and that is a failure as far as speeding transit transit through the centre of Melbourne. It's been discussed in minute detail prior in this string. Pedestrians *impede* the movement of trams, severely.

When this discussion becomes a *Pedestrian Mall* rather than a *Transit Mall*, then your wishes can become real. Now getting back to walking on the Moon...

Here's some very good comparisons and analyses of transit malls, why some have worked and others haven't: (and keep in mind that King Street is a very narrow width)
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/transit_mall_case_studies_sanfran.pdf

As per Lis' Shibuya Crossing posted above, two streets twice as wide as King St, note:
[Shibuya is symbolic as a center of youth culture. The northwest side of Shibuya Station, stretching from the Hachiko Exit, is the area's entertainment district. Hachiko-mae Plaza is probably the most popular meeting place in all of Japan. The scramble crossing nearby is so crowded, you might think it's a parade. This is also a popular spot for foreign tourists to take photos.]

There's three subways under there, two train lines/station steps away, and other subway stations within minutes: (Shibuya is to the bottom left of the map). King Street has streetcars.

No, pedestrians want to walk on the street, not 15 feet above ground. Pedestrians want to make turns wherever they want, not follow a fixed path between buildings. I have walked on many of those elevated ways, trust me, I don't feel like enjoying the "Additional pedestrain experience". I feel the cars are more important, which is why I am forced to walk up and down to leave space for them.

Tell that to the pedestrians getting to trains in the following instance:

Shibuya Station Map – Finding Your Way

Tokyo’s Shibuya Station has a magnetism that few can resist. Surrounded by high-rise buildings adorned with futuristic giant video screens, Shibuya has a fantasy quality that evokes comparisons to Blade Runner and anime films. It’s famous for its crowds of youth, fashion boutiques, music venues and a nonstop nightlife. It’s also one of Japan’s busiest rail hubs, serving commuters from the western and southern parts of the Tokyo region. It’s also a stop on the Narita Express service for Narita Airport.

Shibuya Station consists of a mix of railways and subways, so your experience will differ depending on the rail line you use. [...]

• 
  https://www.shibuyastation.com/shibuya-station-map-finding-your-way/
  
  

 

[ksun]

When this discussion becomes a *Pedestrian Mall* rather than a *Transit Mall*, then your wishes can become real. Now getting back to walking on the Moon...

I am afraid you are wrong here. All the pedestrian only downtowns I refer to allow trams to pass, just not cars (Bordeaux, Montpellier, Grenoble etc) and they work wonderfully.

This is how much space of a major thoroughfare is given to the car in a well functional city in terms of transit. Then compare that to University Ave, Eglinton, Ave, or Queen street. The trams lanes are empty 80% of the time, but sorry cars are just forbidden to run on it.

This is the tram passing a no-car zone. Are those people all on the moon? This is how King st should be like. What we have is simply backwards and inferior.

It is silly to compare with Shibuya. Tokyo has the population of entire Canada. Of course some of the major transit hubs are hard to navigate. Toronto doesn't have that kind of problem. Yonge/Bloor would be just a small interchange station in Japan.

 

[44 North]

I dunno. Those are quiet mountain towns in France. Where are the 70s office buildings and 60s condos? There's really no comparison to central King St. Obviously it'd be nice to have a pedestrian zone, or a transit zone. But I kinda agree with Steve that a combination of the two cannot work on central King St... I'd go even further to state that as standalone projects neither will work well on King. The streetcar needs to be underground - either as a subway or LRT. The narrow roadway combined with the high passenger volumes, pedestrian volumes, and traffic volumes ultimately dictate this.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is how much space of a major thoroughfare is given to the car in a well functional city in terms of transit.

I see. So do you suggest tearing down all of King Street to double the width? I leave it to you to provide the details.

The streetcar needs to be underground - either as a subway or LRT. The narrow roadway combined with the high passenger volumes, pedestrian volumes, and traffic volumes ultimately dictate this.

Ultimately, that's what it would take, and I've often wondered if the Relief Line shouldn't be run under King instead of Queen. But that's well over a decade away, if ever. We have to deal with the here and now.

Since I'm now answering a realist, I have to wonder if pedestrians should only be allowed to cross the tracks at marked intersections? I can't see any other way of keeping the streetcars at a reasonable speed unless their tracks are separate and fenced.

Here's the problem:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/176/372739399_409b319713_b.jpg

Speed limit is 5 mph. And accident rate is still high! I don't see how this will improve King car travel times.

Edit to Add: Btw for Ksun: Melbourne has the same population as Toronto, and the same density. You defeat your own argument. Toronto is to Calgary as Tokyo is to Toronto as per population. My point was that pedestrians aren't going to walk to King Street. They're going to have to take transit, since you wish for no cars.

I'd love nothing better than for King to be pedestrian only. It's not going to happen! So to get the pedestrian density desired, and allow transit to move at a reasonable speed, facility for pedestrian traffic is going to either be above or below the street as well as the present width of sidewalks now used. King is a very narrow thoroughfare akin to Bourke Mall in Melbourne, which allows limited car access by permit holders on most of the length, but not on the core stretch shown above. All discussed in great detail in this thread months back.

Tokyo has the population of entire Canada

Your sense of proportion is way off yet again. Canada is now over 36M and climbing. Tokyo is 13M and shrinking. Toronto's density is increasing, Tokyo's decreasing save for three wards.

 

[ksun]

I dunno. Those are quiet mountain towns in France. Where are the 70s office buildings and 60s condos? There's really no comparison to central King St. Obviously it'd be nice to have a pedestrian zone, or a transit zone. But I kinda agree with Steve that a combination of the two cannot work on central King St... I'd go even further to state that as standalone projects neither will work well on King. The streetcar needs to be underground - either as a subway or LRT. The narrow roadway combined with the high passenger volumes, pedestrian volumes, and traffic volumes ultimately dictate this.

WE both know a subway won't happen before 2040, if ever of course that would be ideal. The issue is how to make the pathetic King street car move faster NOW. That's all that counts.

Also speaking of pedestrian zones, I was not suggesting it for the financial district. More for west of Simcoe Street. Someone living in a condo at King/John should not expect to leave the apartment in a car every day to begin with. That's not the lifestyle for the area. Adelaide is right there for him to use too.

 

[ksun]

Speed limit is 5 mph. And accident rate is still high! I don't see how this will improve King car travel times.

Your sense of proportion is way off yet again. Canada is now over 36M and climbing. Tokyo is 13M and shrinking. Toronto's density is increasing, Tokyo's decreasing save for three wards.

The point is cars block streetcars every minute, with or without pedestrians. Banning cars will move people much faster. Plus I simply do not understand why cars can't run on Adelaide 100 meters away?? Why to they HAVE to be ON King?

Tokyo metro has a population of 38M and it is growing. Since when we apply city limit population for discussion (which will make Paris smaller than Toronto). Japan's population may be shrinking, Tokyo's is not.

 

[steveintoronto]

Plus I simply do not understand why cars can't run on Adelaide 100 meters away?? Why to they HAVE to be ON King?

You obviously haven't been following events, let alone reading the prior posts in this string.

Japan's population may be shrinking, Tokyo's is not.

I researched it before making the claim. You should too:

Populations in three Tokyo wards expected to keep swelling as capital shrinks
May 8, 2017

• Article history

The populations of three wards in central Tokyo are projected to keep growing after 2025 even as the capital’s overall population is expected to decline, thanks to a construction boom and convenient transport.

Chiyoda, Chuo and Minato wards have seen an influx of families and elderly people, and their populations are expected to continue growing through 2040. This could present the wards with problems in providing adequate child and nursing care.

According to a Tokyo Metropolitan Government estimate, the capital’s population is expected to fall after peaking at 13.98 million in 2025. But the populations of the three wards above are expected to rise further and reach a collective total of about 635,000 in 2040, up some 40 percent from January 2017.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...wards-expected-keep-swelling-capital-shrinks/

Any point you make about those three wards applies to the core of Toronto, especially King Street. It needs those streetcars to move unimpeded. Unfortunately, for various reasons made clear by the City and others, it's not *practicable* to totally ban vehicular traffic on King. Been discussed at length in this forum and elsewhere.

If pedestrians are allowed to walk wherever and whenever they like as a *Pedestrian Mall* infers, the streetcars will run even slower than they do now, which is exactly what has happened on Bourke Street in Melbourne. All been discussed at length here prior. That's why it's being approached as a *Transit Mall*.

As tweeted by:
Laurence Lui‏@larrylarry

Bourke Street Mall -- fully pedestrianized transit mall. Trams crawl through this short block but it works.

5:53 PM - 29 Dec 2016

https://twitter.com/larrylarry/status/814650551497412608

Laurence Lui‏@larrylarry 30 Dec 2016


Replying to @larrylarry

10pm trip through the mall and the tram is literally going 5km/h. Tipsy pedestrians on the mall means slow slow slow.

Meantime, here's how parking and owner access is dealt with on the rest of the Bourke Mall, and Toronto is going to have to consider same for not only merchants, but those residents whose only vehicular access is from King:

Swanston Street and Bourke Street Mall permits
SHARE
Businesses wanting access to Swanston Street or Bourke Street Mall can apply for vehicle access parking permits.
Vehicle access permits
The Vehicle Access Permit scheme controls vehicle access and parking in areas that are primarily for use by pedestrians:

• Swanston Street, between Flinders and La Trobe streets
• Bourke Street Mall, between Elizabeth and Swanston streets.

This scheme maintains reasonable access for vehicles that are required to service businesses within these areas.

Eligibility
To be eligible a business must be servicing properties in Swanston Street or Bourke Street Mall. The requirement to access these areas must be verified by providing a letter from your client. It must state the area to which you need access and the pick-up/drop-off points.

Vehicle Access Permits will not be issued to buses, coaches or taxis.

How the scheme works
When the vehicle is parked the permit must be displayed on its dashboard, near the registration label, for parking officers to view. To be legally parked, you must clearly display a valid permit with all inscriptions visible from outside the vehicle.

Where you can park
A vehicle displaying a Vehicle Access Permit is allowed to park:

• in areas marked 'Authorised Vehicles Excepted'
• during the times that the signs operate
• during the times that the permit is valid
• for no longer than the time limit on the permit.

Vehicle Access Permits for Swanston Street typically only allow parking for up to 30 minutes and are not valid between:

• 7.30am and 9.30am
• noon and 2pm
• 4pm and 7pm.

Vehicle Access Permits for Bourke Street Mall typically only allow parking for up to 30 minutes and are not valid between:

• 7.30am and 9.30am
• 10.30am and midnight.

Where you cannot park
This permit does not allow the holder to park in:

• 'No Stopping' areas
• 'People with Disabilities' zones
• bus stops or taxi ranks
• construction zones.

Interim permits
You can obtain an interim Vehicle Access Permit while your permit application is being processed.

A maximum of one interim permit per year is issued for applicants who do not wish to apply for the annual permit. The interim permit is valid for 14 days.

How to apply
Complete the application form:

• Vehicle Access Parking Permit application (PDF 88 KB)
• Vehicle Access Parking Permit application (DOC 70 KB).

Submit the completed application form by post, email, fax or in person.

Please read Conditions of issue and use (DOC 44 KB) before applying for your permit.

Post:
City of Melbourne Permits and Review Team
PO Box 488
Melbourne VIC 3001

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/par...s/swanston-street-and-bourke-street-mall.aspx

 

[UD2]

You have a awkward definition of works. In any sense this would be a text book example of a transit priority solution that didn't work.