[innsertnamehere]

You can't completely make a transit mall as there are various property access points along the street to parking garages and whatnot.

 

[BMO]

By not excluding cars, they have bowed down to the suburban single-occupant motorist.

So true then, so true today.

BTW. The annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the motor vehicle gods starts next week.

You say suburban single-occupant motorist, yet anecdotally, if you go anywhere near CityPlace it's a gongshow of residents coming and going using single-occupant vehicles. You'd be surprised how many people moving into these new condos in the core are primarily drivers.

 

[BMO]

...
As a snide personal reaction, I find 'planner talk' worse than computer nerds at parties talking 'bits and bytes':
[Keesmaat says. “It’s about being transformational, improving streetcar operations, and innovative placemaking.”] I like Keesmaat, a lot, for all her posing and pretty petulance, but she can't help but use words like "placemaking", "wayfinding" and the litany of the lingo planners love to use to impress the hoi-polloi as to how special they are...

I became allergic to the lingo from prior bouts of attending planning meetings in an earlier life...

...

Speaking of nerds....this is written for them to explain to themselves their own sense of self-importance in a language no-one but nerds could understand. Medical doctors long ago realized the need to speak in 'plain language' to those who needed most to understand the message.

...

Completely agree, the more time you spend reading material with these words and spending time at public information centres you begin to realize how hollow a lot of the words used really are. There's no substance behind them and a lot of the time are used to justify things that aren't able to be substantiated with numbers or other metrics. It's an easy out for getting what you want at a subjective level where it's really hard to argue that something ISN'T placemaking, nor is it hard to argue that it is.

 

[ADRM]

Super wary of similarities to the Gardiner East roll-out. I'll be shocked if Council doesn't vote in favour of the most conservative option, as it does.

 

[innsertnamehere]

You say suburban single-occupant motorist, yet anecdotally, if you go anywhere near CityPlace it's a gongshow of residents coming and going using single-occupant vehicles. You'd be surprised how many people moving into these new condos in the core are primarily drivers.

considering most new buildings these days have 30% parking ratios.. that isn't really true. Its just that the density is so crazy in that area that it looks like a lot. 5,000 units still means 1,500 additional cars. The majority of Cityplace condo dwellers likely do not own a car.

But yea, a lot of people in the city own cars. Its not some magical devil machine. Doesn't mean that if you own one that you are automatically opposed to a project like this however. The people who are opposed are the type to drive in every situation regardless of whether or not it calls for it.. people living in Cityplace tend not to behave that way.

 

[BMO]

considering most new buildings these days have 30% parking ratios.. that isn't really true. Its just that the density is so crazy in that area that it looks like a lot. 5,000 units still means 1,500 additional cars. The majority of Cityplace condo dwellers likely do not own a car.

But yea, a lot of people in the city own cars. Its not some magical devil machine. Doesn't mean that if you own one that you are automatically opposed to a project like this however. The people who are opposed are the type to drive in every situation regardless of whether or not it calls for it.. people living in Cityplace tend not to behave that way.

While I completely agree with your argument, it must also be noted that there are lots of people who can't get parking spots in their building and thus rent a spot in another public, or private building in the area, thus the ratio of 30% could still be debatable, although nothing compared to what we see in Vaughan, or Mississauga for instance. It's still disingenuous for anybody think that all traffic issues downtown pertaining to private automobiles is solely an issue stemming from suburban trip generation. (whether that was the intent of the original comment or not it came off that way).

 

[MetroMan]

Do you have a link for that? Unless it's different from the one discussed a week or so prior, it doesn't allow for public input, only from defined recognized organizations. The public 'participation' is passive from what I understand.

Here is the ostensible invite:
View attachment 98379
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Transportation Planning/King St Visioning Study/Consultation/King Street Public Meeting - Flyer_Final.pdf

That is the flyer I got. Why would I receive it in the mail if I weren't invited to go? I live at King and Spadina. I'm attending.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not so far discussed is how any of the three options are to be policed. Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall is similar to the 'first option' save that a *permit* is required to use it. But it has problems with enforcement. How is Toronto City Hall going to address that with the King Street model? In all fairness, none of the three options presented is as thorough as the core section of the Bourke St Mall, but allowing even "looping" (as described in the City's presentation) is a guarantee for grid-lock and spill into the streetcar lanes. It is essential to keep those streetcar lanes clear, or the basis of the exercise is defeated.

https://twitter.com/danielbowen/status/823716394202075136

 

[steveintoronto]

That is the flyer I got. Why would I receive it in the mail if I weren't invited to go? I live at King and Spadina. I'm attending.

I never questioned whether you were invited or not, the point was there is no public participation, thus my stating "passive participation". I was prepared to go myself until reading the fine print elsewhere only to realize it's public audience only, it's for invited groups to make presentations.

I'm more than a little miffed at how the City has presented it as a "Public Meeting". It isn't in the understood usage of the term. It's a a *presentation* open to the public.

"Get involved, find out more, *have your say*" Except you can't.

 

[ADRM]

Not so far discussed is how any of the three options are to be policed. Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall is similar to the 'first option' save that a *permit* is required to use it. But it has problems with enforcement. How is City Hall going to address that?
View attachment 98772

https://twitter.com/danielbowen/status/823716394202075136

It's a great point, especially considering how badly Toronto sucks at enforcement of virtually anything traffic-related.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's a great point, especially considering how badly Toronto sucks at enforcement of virtually anything traffic-related.

Indeed, and I edited in some more detail to the post. Option three is presented as essentially a 'back-up' for the first two options being found 'too radical' (my term)....but I see all of them being rejected on the minutiae of practicality since City Hall is presenting this in such a wishy-washy way. I'm loathe to state this too many times, but Toronto is so freakin' milquetoast on so many issues, and then call a "Public Meeting" at which the public can't speak! For some odd reason, I thought the city was run by democratic representation. This all comes down to the local businesses, not the Public.

Edit to Add: The Twitter discourse on the Bourke St Mall continues, and these have to be considered as logistical factors for King Street, no matter what is decided:

[...continues...]
https://twitter.com/danielbowen/status/823716394202075136

Here's one of the greatest challenges, as discussed above:

 

[Avenue]

Option two sounds near completely useless in speeding up the streetcars. I know Keesmaat as a bureaucrat wants a legacy and she's happened to adopt walking/pedestrians for that but that option kind of hijacks the main objective here.

 

[steveintoronto]

Option two sounds near completely useless in speeding up the streetcars. I know Keesmaat as a bureaucrat wants a legacy and she's happened to adopt walking/pedestrians for that but that option kind of hijacks the main objective here.

All three options are problematic as presented. This is *so* Toronto. Present all wishy-washy ideas and see which one might stick.

To achieve the task that underlies this exercise, it's going to take a bold vision. Melbourne doesn't have it perfect, as detailed above, but what they do have is something light years ahead of what's being proposed in all three options proposed for Toronto.

San Diego had this figured out decades ago, and it too may not be perfect, but far, far ahead of pedantic Toronto. It takes vision. And on that point alone we're screwed.

 

[ShonTron]

Option 3 - the most conservative option - is about as enforceable as the 1990s-era painted lanes and signs allowing only streetcars and taxis in the middle lanes during rush hours. It never really worked, and the police don't care to enforce it unless it's one of those once or twice a year blitzes.

 

[BMO]

Option 3 - the most conservative option - is about as enforceable as the 1990s-era painted lanes and signs allowing only streetcars and taxis in the middle lanes during rush hours. It never really worked, and the police don't care to enforce it unless it's one of those once or twice a year blitzes.

Unless, you know, the streetcar ROW has curbs like St. Clair, Spadina, Queens Quay where you see very few if any vehicles in the ROW even without enforcement. Don't see why it would need to be enforced? Unless I'm missing something?