[MetroMan]

I think that the weak link with the King Street Pilot is that it's going to rely so heavily on voluntary compliance.

I'm already seeing the reality out there: people will do what's convenient for them, ignoring rules if it gets in their way of getting somewhere or wastes their time. The Spadina advance right signal is already operating albeit behind a covered traffic light. So for about 10 seconds, all the pedestrian crosswalks are red. When people see the oppposite sidewalk stopped, they just go. Then you get the lemmings effect where one person crosses on a red, a few follow, and before you know it, there's a rush of pedestrians walking across on a red and right turning traffic backs up, holding up streetcars down the road.

There's no doubt that things are going to improve at least a little. Removing parking on King street alone is a big step forward. But the issue with this pilot is that it was compromised to work for interest groups rather than follow a strict traffic planning model based on science.

 

[DSC]

[QUOTE="MetroMan, post: 1271955, member: 25"

There's no doubt that things are going to improve at least a little. Removing parking on King street alone is a big step forward. But the issue with this pilot is that it was compromised to work for interest groups rather than follow a strict traffic planning model based on science.[/QUOTE]

Of course there were compromises and its not perfect but there will be enforcement, there will be tweaks and if there had been a plan that was perfect for Group A then it would never have been approved. What I am worried about is that the traffic chaos that is almost inevitable on the first few days so scares the politicians that the pilot is stopped before things calm down and we can ALL see how it works and where there are things that should be changed.

 

[steveintoronto]

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.

"No Place for Old Men in Cars" Killin' me-self laffin' on that one. It's so incredibly true. I was just commenting on that yesterday being driven downtown yesterday with a friend. I was lamenting when I was younger, driving professionally (Cab and Truck, also had motorbike licence and what was then a 'Commercial' licence) that 'back then' it was getting wild, but at least you could pretty-much suss what people were going to do, even if they shouldn't. Now, it's just complete madness at times, completely illogical moves made by frantic drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

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

I'm a cyclist, an avid one, and in phenomenal shape for my age (the silver lining of thyroid cancer for decades, albeit it's no picnic, joints and connective tissue take a beating, like an old sports car with a muscle engine) and it's gotten to the point that I saw another cyclist indicate a turn today...and thought "that's exceptional". Some still do it! (Not many, let alone look over their shoulders to gauge what's behind them). It is crazy. The only saving grace is that 'Thank God they're doing that on a bike, and not in a car". I've been hit by other cyclists at an increasing rate lately. God knows how I kept my temper with some, their actions were so incredibly stupid. And they think somehow that wearing a helmet spares them being culpable for their actions.

I'm already seeing the reality out there: people will do what's convenient for them, ignoring rules if it gets in their way of getting somewhere or wastes their time.

Exactly, and this is an extension of Paul's points. It's the ME generation. I have some sympathy with the 'Distracted Walking' legislation, save that it would be completely unenforceable, and therefore over-reach.

When people see the oppposite sidewalk stopped, they just go. Then you get the lemmings effect where one person crosses on a red, a few follow, and before you know it, there's a rush of pedestrians walking across on a red and right turning traffic backs up, holding up streetcars down the road.

Time and again! To demonstrate this to the extreme, because I'm beginning to believe in Darwinian Justice for many of them, is parents pushing their baby-buggies *blindly* into traffic. They have *no ffffing idea* of what is on-coming, or if traffic is going to stop, so they test fate with their children. My God...

But the issue with this pilot is that it was compromised to work for interest groups rather than follow a strict traffic planning model based on science.

And this is where enforcement *must be sustained and effective*! 'Distracted Walking' could never be enforced, cars disobeying road rules can and should. In fact, it is the only way to make an already compromised project work.

I'm still convulsed on Paul's "No Place for Old Men in Cars"...that's a keeper! And now retired, I just don't get the point of subjecting myself to the ordeal. It's brutal! I still have my European and Californian drivers licences, my Ontario one long ago expired because I didn't send them money one year. Why in hell would I want one back here? It could be of use to relieve a driver on long-distance, but I just couldn't handle driving in Toronto or other Ontario cities again. I can admit that. I wish a lot of others would admit it too. We'd all be better off.

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.

This is so blindingly obvious that it's hard to know how to comment...except this is Toronto...

I became aware of this practice decades back in Southern California, *car universe* at that time, and yet it was such an incredibly obvious and highly civilized idea back then, it's even more-so now. It's where I first saw bike racks on buses too...

 

[deep6ing]

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...

That is news to me that you can't drive down the left lane in rush hour... you sure about that? It's not posted anywhere as far as I can see. I've been doing it my whole life. And I was suggesting left turn lanes like on St. Clair.

I remember reading the report but can't remember why they picked this solution. I don't think it's going to work. For anyone who drives downtown from the west in the morning, Adelaide is completely clogged. King is actually relatively quiet in comparison and more of a local road, not a commuter one. This is going to push drivers onto Queen I think more than Front.

Can someone remind me why they didn't go the St. Clair route? One lane of traffic each way and a clear path for streetcars? Or just ban cars if your just trying to make it driving hell.

 

[amnesiajune]

That is news to me that you can't drive down the left lane in rush hour... you sure about that? It's not posted anywhere as far as I can see.

There are overhead signs on every block between John Street and Dufferin.

Anyways, the reason the current streetcar lanes don't work is cultural. From the beginning, people would use the streetcar lane because a taxi was (legally) stopped to pick up passengers, or a car was stopped waiting to turn right. Pretty quickly that just became "use the lanes as through traffic lanes". The King pilot is different because (A) the city is making a huge deal out of it, (B) the rules are in place 24/7, not just a few hours on weekdays, and (C) those "excuses" to break the rules in the beginning aren't going to be there.

I think MetroMan is being pessimistic for no good reason. He's just assuming the project will fail and trying to spread the negativity to everyone else. It's obviously not a sure thing, but we don't have any reason to assume that it won't work.

 

[MetroMan]

That is news to me that you can't drive down the left lane in rush hour... you sure about that? It's not posted anywhere as far as I can see. I've been doing it my whole life. And I was suggesting left turn lanes like on St. Clair.

I'll take a photo of the signs. I believe that the city decided to stop enforcing this 20 years ago, but the signs are still there and as far as I know, it's still law.

The point is that they tried a no cars in streetcar lanes during rush hour and everybody simply ignored it... Worth repeating that: people just ignored the signs. What makes think City Council that people are just going to obey the "no through traffic" signs? Specially when traffic cops leave after their 2 week education period?

On my point about this pilot being designed in complete isolation without regard for the consequences it will cause on nearby streets, the Bathurst & Adelaide intersection was just rebuilt to allow cyclists to come from Adelaide and continue across the crosswalk and back on to Adelaide. You'd think that they'd do the same for cars. Nope... Cars driving on Adelaide towards Bathurst are still forced to turn south TOWARDS KING STREET. Isn''t the point here to avoid traffic on King? Even if you want to avoid King and are driving Eastbound on Adelaide, the current rules will force you off Adelaide and back towards King.

This pilot is being designed in complete isolation as if this has no affect on nearby roads. Like sticking their fingers in their ears "la la la la", the city simply ignores everything outside the pilot's boundaries. It would make perfect sense to redesign rules on nearby roads to better move along that traffic towards alternate routes and avoid King St. But nope. The only changes are on King itself.

 

[deep6ing]

I'll take a photo of the signs. I believe that the city decided to stop enforcing this 20 years ago, but the signs are still there and as far as I know, it's still law.

The point is that they tried a no cars in streetcar lanes during rush hour and everybody simply ignored it... Worth repeating that: people just ignored the signs. What makes think City Council that people are just going to obey the "no through traffic" signs? Specially when traffic cops leave after their 2 week education period?

I will look for that. I live a half block north of King. They must be the worst signs known to man... The ones on Bay generally work I would say. I'm very curious to see how this will work. I guess we will all stay tuned.

 

[MetroMan]

I will look for that. I live a half block north of King. They must be the worst signs known to man... The ones on Bay generally work I would say. I'm very curious to see how this will work. I guess we will all stay tuned.

They're hung on the streetcars' overhead wires every so often.

EDIT: @deep6ing Ok, they’re all gone. I remember seeing them as late as this Summer. Makes sense that they would be removed for the pilot since it’s required that cars drive in the streetcar lane.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

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.

The question is though how many people would actually use one this way? I'm guessing that not enough people used it enough on St. Clar to make it worthwhile for them to implement across the system.

 

[DSC]

The question is though how many people would actually use one this way? I'm guessing that not enough people used it enough on St. Clar to make it worthwhile for them to implement across the system.

No, it was quite heavily used and popular. It was not implinented due to cost, the TTC say $20 million. Having a simple 2 hour "pass" would make PRESTO very much eadier to impliment and avoid many confkicts between cystoners and TTC staff.

 

[LNahid2000]

With Presto, you can already have a 2 hour transfer, as long as you don't use the same route every time. I've been making good use of it on two trips that I make quite often:

Bloor-Yonge to Sheppard/Senlac - Take the subway to Sheppard-Yonge, walk to Senlac, tap on the 84 less than 2 hours after tapping on at Bloor-Yonge. Roundtrip for $3.

Bloor-Yonge to Costco Downsview - Take the subway to Wilson Station, walk to Costco, tap on the 29 less than 2 hours after tapping on at Bloor-Yonge. Roundtrip for $3.

 

[UD2]

I think that the weak link with the King Street Pilot is that it's going to rely so heavily on voluntary compliance.

I'm already seeing the reality out there: people will do what's convenient for them, ignoring rules if it gets in their way of getting somewhere or wastes their time. The Spadina advance right signal is already operating albeit behind a covered traffic light. So for about 10 seconds, all the pedestrian crosswalks are red. When people see the oppposite sidewalk stopped, they just go. Then you get the lemmings effect where one person crosses on a red, a few follow, and before you know it, there's a rush of pedestrians walking across on a red and right turning traffic backs up, holding up streetcars down the road.

There's no doubt that things are going to improve at least a little. Removing parking on King street alone is a big step forward. But the issue with this pilot is that it was compromised to work for interest groups rather than follow a strict traffic planning model based on science.

In case of padesstrian compliance to traffic laws, we are too easy on the people and too tough on cars. If a person walks out during a red crossing signal and gets killed by a car, who’s at fault? This is a very blurred line at the moment.

For traffic to work we can’t just say padestrian first, it has to be traffic rules first. If police officers stand at the spadina intersection and start handing out tickets, or if a couple of pedestrians crossing illegally gets hurt while being held personally responsible for the accident, things will change towards the better for everybody.

 

[MetroMan]

In case of padesstrian compliance to traffic laws, we are too easy on the people and too tough on cars. If a person walks out during a red crossing single and gets killed by a car, who’s at fault? This is a very blurred line at the moment.

For traffic to work we can’t just say padestrian first, it has to be traffic rules first. If police officers stand at the spadina intersection and start handing out tickets, or if a couple of pedestrians crossing illegally gets hurt while being held personally responsible for the accident, things will change towards the better for everybody.

I agree but don’t say that too loud or people will rip your head off saying that you’re “blaming the victim”. I say that as a 20km/day pedestrian. Everyone should obey the rules and laws should be enforced.

 

[LNahid2000]

too tough on cars.

Too tough on the cars? I barely see any enforcement downtown with motorists breaking the law. I live at Bloor/Yonge and I see motorists gun it through red lights multiple times per day because they don't want to wait for both the other direction of traffic and the pedestrian scramble before they can start speeding again. I should be able to cross without fear when the walk sign is on rather than having to check for cars running the reds before I start crossing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They tried PAINTING a streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West. Didn't work, the single-occupant automobile drivers just ignored the paint and drove on the streetcar tracks. That's why they had to put in a physical separated right-of-way on St. Clair.