innsertnamehere
Superstar
A reminder that a car free King is literally impossible. There are dozens of driveway access points along king that are legally required to be provided access to a public road.
|
|
|
It was always about giving space to the public realm as well as improving transit service. The only "hijacking" that occurred was when taxis were allowed to use it at night.I don't think anyone is really asking for fully car-free. The original idea was protected streetcar lanes with signaling priority at intersections... Once they opened up this starting point to debate it started to get hijacked by things like giving concessions to taxis, and widening sidewalks with street patios.
A reminder that a car free King is literally impossible. There are dozens of driveway access points along king that are legally required to be provided access to a public road.
We have to keep our eye on the ball and not overthink this.
If the velocity of the streetcars increases across that zone, the pilot is a success. Period.
That and that alone was the goal of the pilot.
- Paul
If this is the sole criteria for success. Then the project will succeed and transit riders from king west will lose. I foresee that transit time between Bathurst and Jarvis will indeed increase. however the journey time from points outside of the zone will increase at least in the west end as the Bathurst intersection will become a huge pinch point.
I suspect Jarvis and Bathurst will see significant no pedestrian times to clear large volumes of cars. Far longer than the existing advanced left you see today.
I The pilot is such a small step, but I hope it's a tipping point. People will scream, and say that it has to be undone.... but there really isn't any going backwards.
- Paul
If this is the sole criteria for success. Then the project will succeed and transit riders from king west will lose. I foresee that transit time between Bathurst and Jarvis will indeed increase. however the journey time from points outside of the zone will increase at least in the west end as the Bathurst intersection will become a huge pinch point. I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised and/or not killed by an impatient driver wanting to turn left or right at Bathurst. In the last 15 years the city has removed 4 lanes of personal and commercial motor vehicle traffic through the core. This Project will remove another 4 lanes. It will be interesting to see where that traffic ends up.
I doubt it, there's not that much traffic on King now - many will take advantage of streets like Frederick, George, Princess, etc. to head south.I suspect Jarvis and Bathurst will see significant no pedestrian times to clear large volumes of cars. Far longer than the existing advanced left you see today.
Are there any features precluding the transit mall all the way from Bathurst to Roncesvalles? I believe some sections of that route already have a "soft" transit priority during the peak hours. General traffic is supposed to avoid central lanes (= streetcar lanes) unless there is a blockage in the curb lane.
Getting rid of all the left turn lanes is the only solution. Effectively King meeds to cease to exist as a through street. Leave even one left turn point, and cars will block streetcars significantly at that spot. The impact will be lots of make three-rights-to-turn-left routings down sidestreets, which will be painful.
Personally, I'm OK with a transit mall along King end to end. It moves closer to a fairer sharing of the road network between cars and transit, and it builds a truer express corridor for streetcars. But - that's a lot of cars moved onto our other roads, and personally I doubt the road network can handle that. Certainly it will turn the 501 into an even slower ride. That's why I believe this pilot will lead to the more general conclusion that there are just too many cars going into downtown, period. Some jurassic Councillors from the burbs just won't get that, but more than 51% may. There must be a tipping point in there somewhere.
- Paul