[steveintoronto]

I really dislike the sign. Very confusing to drivers. I hope there is something behind the black sign to make it easier to understand.

If I did not know better I would interpret it as if
- Auto's could not go straight from 10pm-5am (similar to the no left sign shown below).
- Taxi's could go through any time.
- And transit and cyclists would have the same rules as drivers

Not only confusing to "drivers"...confusing to this reader. I'm not having one of my brighter days today, so perhaps that's the short-coming, but if I were driving, my aptitude would still be average or better. And that's the point. What in hell do they mean?

There's a massive context missing, and this is going to go wrong unless the intention *at a glance* is made clear.

I'm reminded of the "No left turn X AM to X PM" signs at major intersections as it is. I can hear drivers honking at others not to turn at Dundas W and Bloor even as I type, and that's a block away. I note *lit* signs downtown at some junctions. And drivers *still* turning at a wholesale rate.

And that's with *understandable* restrictions...

Amnesia states that MetroMan is being defeatist. I think he's predicting actions based on what's clearly established elsewhere.

 

[BMO]

Nobody is asking for street planters and patios. What’s needed are adequately sized sidewalks for people to get around. Transit improvements aren't what is taking away from pedestrians. Sidewalks are being kept narrow to maintain taxi stands, bus parking and car drop offs.

There are 60,000 transit riders per day on King Street, 20,000 drivers and more pedestrians than both of those put together — and growing with each new residential tower that’s completed. See the problem?

Of course we have to fix King Street for transit. But catering that redesign to appease cars when the sidewalks are already bursting at the seams is ignoring a much larger problem that is going to get much worse. The city is approving the density but failing to plan places for those people to walk. People don’t just fly out of their windows into the 504 or around their neighbourhoods to shop and get to work.

Once again, I’ll let this picture do the rest of the talking:

View attachment 125952
View attachment 125951
Taken around 4pm before rush hour. It gets much worse.

This decision was made to preserve taxi stands, bus parking and car drop offs across the street. This is only one of these decisions that cater to cars over people. Transit is not affected either way.

What’s worse, a lot of these problems are easy to solve. There is room on Duncan for dedicated taxi stands and bus parking. Unused transit shelters don’t need to be kept when new ones are going up across the street. Pedestrians are simply not being considered because they don’t have a loud lobby at City Hall.

It's funny, one of the rationales for building cycling infrastructure in the Ontario Traffic Manual states that traffic engineers and planners should acknowledge how a facility will likely be used. The rational was that just because you prohibit cyclists from using a roadway doesn't mean it will deter them if it is the most direct route to their destination. This is similar to what we see with walking paths on grass made by people taking the most direct route. I believe, based on my limited knowledge of AODA requirements that Wheel trans and other accessibility vehicles would still be allowed to drop off disabled passengers at the door even if you widened the sidewalk. This is a right that I imagine those people have and the buildings were designed for that type of accessibility. I'm not saying what you're proposing isn't reasonable for a bunch of people who are able-bodied, but we have to acknowledge that if you did extend the sidewalk you'd still have vehicles that I believe would still legally have the right to stop and block the lane while dropping off passengers. This would have greater impacts on transit, whereas retaining the existing sidewalk would have no further negative impacts on pedestrians (compared to existing conditions). By your own admission, there's ample pedestrian capacity on this stretch on the south side and thus maybe more pedestrians could be shifted to that side if they find it's way too busy. Overall I don't think it's a case of prioritizing vehicles over pedestrians but rather what they are proposing is likely to have the least overall impacts to transit users. I'll admit I'm not well-versed in AODA and maybe I'm wrong about the legal requirements to allow accessible pick-up and drop-off at the entrance.

 

[deep6ing]

I got the flyer for the King Street Pilot in the mail yesterday. When you read about in the Star it sounds ok. When you see the visual representation of what that actually means, it's complete craziness. This solution's going to make all your side streets off King... Portland, Peter, John, etc... traffic clogged. I don't see this working at all. Why not just streetcar right of way and one lane each direction with some selective left turn lanes at major intersections, Spadina, University, etc...

 

[DSC]

I got the flyer for the King Street Pilot in the mail yesterday. When you read about in the Star it sounds ok. When you see the visual representation of what that actually means, it's complete craziness. This solution's going to make all your side streets off King... Portland, Peter, John, etc... traffic clogged. I don't see this working at all. Why not just streetcar right of way and one lane each direction with some selective left turn lanes at major intersections, Spadina, University, etc...

Read the Report, it gives a good overview of why they decided to do what is happening.

I agree that it will be chaos for a day (or week?) or so but I think it will actually work quite well - if they make minor tweaks and, more importantly, that the police enforce the law!

 

[MetroMan]

I got the flyer for the King Street Pilot in the mail yesterday. When you read about in the Star it sounds ok. When you see the visual representation of what that actually means, it's complete craziness. This solution's going to make all your side streets off King... Portland, Peter, John, etc... traffic clogged. I don't see this working at all. Why not just streetcar right of way and one lane each direction with some selective left turn lanes at major intersections, Spadina, University, etc...

The left turns are what's causing the gridlock. As for a dedicated streetcar ROW, right now, officially cars are not allowed to drive in the centre lanes during rush hour. See how that turned out...

Ideally, there'd be one lane of regular traffic per block in alternating directions at each block. That way, when a car arrives at an intersection, they'd be faced with a sidewalk and would be forced to turn without having to read any signs or have any persistent police enforcement.

North-South streets should also be redesigned so that a car driving westbound on King would arrive at Peter, have to turn right, then head up to Richmond where there'd be a left turn priority signal to continue westbound. Right now, it's illegal to turn left on Spadina on to Richmond. That has to be changed. We have to funnel cars off of King and on to Richmond and Adelaide to drive across downtown. King needs to become a local only road, preferably paved in cobble stone to slow cars down whenever they do drive there.

 

[MetroMan]

North-South streets should also be redesigned so that a car driving westbound on King would arrive at Peter, have to turn right, then head up to Richmond where there'd be a left turn priority signal to continue westbound. Right now, it's illegal to turn left on Spadina on to Richmond. That has to be changed. We have to funnel cars off of King and on to Richmond and Adelaide to drive across downtown. King needs to become a local only road, preferably paved in cobble stone to slow cars down whenever they do drive there.

To follow up on this bit, I’ve contacted my councillor (Joe Cressy) to ask whether left turns will be enabled at Richmond and Spadina. Cars travelling westbound need a way to continue west after being forced off King. The signage as it is now on Spadina leaves no choice but to keep going northbound. I’d be shocked if they didn’t think about this, but not so shocked if they did but left it as is.

 

[amnesiajune]

To follow up on this bit, I’ve contacted my councillor (Joe Cressy) to ask whether left turns will be enabled at Richmond and Spadina. Cars travelling westbound need a way to continue west after being forced off King. The signage as it is now on Spadina leaves no choice but to keep going northbound. I’d be shocked if they didn’t think about this, but not so shocked if they did but left it as is.

It's impossible to change without a complete rebuild of Spadina. There's no left turn lane there, and no room to add one.

Want to go west on Richmond? Go up to Queen, make a (fully legal) U-turn, and turn right onto Richmond. Or turn right on Adelaide, left on Peter and left on Richmond. Or as a third option, make three right turns: Spadina -> Queen -> Peter -> Richmond. It's a pain if you need to drive from MEC to Brant Street, but you can probably count the number of people who make that trip each day on one hand.

 

[MetroMan]

It's impossible to change without a complete rebuild of Spadina. There's no left turn lane there, and no room to add one.

Want to go west on Richmond? Go up to Queen, make a (fully legal) U-turn, and turn right onto Richmond. Or turn right on Adelaide, left on Peter and left on Richmond. Or as a third option, make three right turns: Spadina -> Queen -> Peter -> Richmond. It's a pain if you need to drive from MEC to Brant Street, but you can probably count the number of people who make that trip each day on one hand.

That’s terrible foresight if the city doesn’t make this left turn possible. It’s not a matter of “wanting to go west on Richmond”. It’s a matter of being forced off King and having no choice but to continue on Richmond. Ignoring this is going to cause pile ups of traffic on Queen. The city doesn’t end at Spadina. Cars that are going Westbound have to be provided a viable route to continue westbound. That Queen U-Turn would be a bad solution for a temporary rerouting, let alone a year long pilot.

Eliminate that streetcar stop to put in a left turn lane. I’m a transit rider and that’s my stop but it’s the dumbest stop on the 510. King and Queen stops are less than a 60 second walk away.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Ah the poor single-occupant automobile driver can't make left turns. Too bad. Take the TTC, walk, bicycle or the GO train.

 

[MetroMan]

Ah the poor single-occupant automobile driver can't make left turns. Too bad. Take the TTC, walk, bicycle or the GO train.

If that's for me, I'm barely ever a driver. I live on King and walk everywhere.

But I recognize that the city has to work for everyone. Making a radical change like this, you have to adjust nearby streets to provide alternate routes. When you say "poor driver", you're actually saying "poor city". The city gains nothing by causing gridlock and that's what's going to happen if cars are forced off their path without a viable way of getting back on at another street.

 

[amnesiajune]

But I recognize that the city has to work for everyone. Making a radical change like this, you have to adjust nearby streets to provide alternate routes.

I strongly agree with the first part of this, but drivers still have three options and I don’t see how any of them are even slightly unreasonable, let alone “not viable”:

1. Go one block further north to Queen, make a U-turn, then turn right into Richmond

2. Make three right turns onto Queen, Peter and Richmond

3. Make a right turn onto Adelaide and left turns on Peter and Richmond

#1 is already how the city treats a lot of Spadina, St. Clair West, and parts of Yonge in North York and Bloor in Etobicoke.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If that's for me, I'm barely ever a driver. I live on King and walk everywhere.

But I recognize that the city has to work for everyone. Making a radical change like this, you have to adjust nearby streets to provide alternate routes. When you say "poor driver", you're actually saying "poor city". The city gains nothing by causing gridlock and that's what's going to happen if cars are forced off their path without a viable way of getting back on at another street.

We can always go the London, England route and charge a congestion fee (£11.50 daily) to enter the downtown.

 

[crs1026]

We can always go the London, England route and charge a congestion fee (£11.50 daily) to enter the downtown.

With our pols, who get squeamish with anything that looks like a tax increase? (Thanks to average citizens who react likewise?)

It will be at least one more whole mayoralty term before Toronto is even willing to debate this kind of move. It will be interesting to see if the average Torontonian can reach the same end point in the meanwhile, however, with convenience rather than economy being what gets their heads around the issue.

For the past 3-4 years I have rarely driven into the inner core, using transit instead. But I'm still habituated to the auto as the preferred mode when I want to run a quick errand etc. Recently I have attempted a couple of drives downtown when transit just seemed too awkward. So much for that! All my recent auto experiences in the city have convinced me, it's No Place for Old Men in Cars (and I'm not that old). The growth in auto and bike traffic even in the last 3-4 years on routes I have used for a long time is striking. I am rethinking ever taking my car downtown again.

Toronto is one place where people may simply gradually realise that quick trips by car in the core just aren't possible any more. And they may get on transit because it's the only answer. Removing parking from all the arterial roads will help. The Bloor Bike pilot may help that along. Reducing on street parking would be hugely inconvenient, but "How fast will I get there?" and "Will there be somewhere to leave my car when I arrive?" are the two anxieties that will get people out of their auto, perhaps better than a congestion fee which will just be seen as another tax grab.

- Paul

PS - Without taking a side, I have to observe that both cyclists and drivers are just getting stupid in the city.

 

[amnesiajune]

What would make a lot more sense to me is a tax or a surcharge on paid parking downtown. It also needs provincial approval (the city can put in a parking levy on its own, but it has to apply to the entire city), but it's a lot cheaper to set up than a congestion charge and has very similar effects.

 

[W. K. Lis]

With our pols, who get squeamish with anything that looks like a tax increase? (Thanks to average citizens who react likewise?)

It will be at least one more whole mayoralty term before Toronto is even willing to debate this kind of move. It will be interesting to see if the average Torontonian can reach the same end point in the meanwhile, however, with convenience rather than economy being what gets their heads around the issue.

For the past 3-4 years I have rarely driven into the inner core, using transit instead. But I'm still habituated to the auto as the preferred mode when I want to run a quick errand etc. Recently I have attempted a couple of drives downtown when transit just seemed too awkward. So much for that! All my recent auto experiences in the city have convinced me, it's No Place for Old Men in Cars (and I'm not that old). The growth in auto and bike traffic even in the last 3-4 years on routes I have used for a long time is striking. I am rethinking ever taking my car downtown again.

Toronto is one place where people may simply gradually realise that quick trips by car in the core just aren't possible any more. And they may get on transit because it's the only answer. Removing parking from all the arterial roads will help. The Bloor Bike pilot may help that along. Reducing on street parking would be hugely inconvenient, but "How fast will I get there?" and "Will there be somewhere to leave my car when I arrive?" are the two anxieties that will get people out of their auto, perhaps better than a congestion fee which will just be seen as another tax grab.

- Paul

PS - Without taking a side, I have to observe that both cyclists and drivers are just getting stupid in the city.

The major roadblock to the use of the TTC is the lack of the 2-hour transfer, if one does not have a pass of some kind. With the 2-hour transfer, one can stop off at one stop for banking, make another stop for shopping, and another for dry cleaning or whatever. With the prohibition against stopovers, people could still continue to do errands with their car, making the same stops on a single trip.