[steveintoronto]

While it would be useful I can think of several projects I would prioritize above it.

Like extending the Relief Line westward from the touted University Av terminus to alleviate the crush on King, and Queen.

 

[nfitz]

The right of way on King exists for a proper design... We have 80 feet right-of-way to work with on King.

I don't think ANY of King is 80 feet wide. Most of it is the standard 66 feet. There are some opportunities west of Spadina where it's 75 feet - but that's only 650 metres of the pilot area! See the figure below.

The point of the comparison is that we can accomplish all the stated goals on King Street if we were brave enough to design it as such.

In a 66-foot right of way? No chance you can do it all. Perhaps if it really WAS 80 feet wide (24.4 metres). But it isn't.

Looking at the official plan, Front has more opportunities through the core (and expanding the ROW on Bathurst north to Queen - which is where you get the most congestion!)

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I don't think ANY of King is 80 feet wide. Most of it is the standard 66 feet. There are some opportunities west of Spadina where it's 75 feet - but that's only 650 metres of the pilot area! See the figure below.

In a 66-foot right of way? No chance you can do it all. Perhaps if it really WAS 80 feet wide (24.4 metres). But it isn't.

Looking at the official plan, Front has more opportunities through the core (and expanding the ROW on Bathurst north to Queen - which is where you get the most congestion!)

Property Data map shows it is 80 feet row west of Bathurst, and indeed 66 feet east of Spadina.

I don't think that is a deal-breaker. Eglinton changes ROW width multiple times throughout its corridor, and the Eglinton Connects plan just adds or removes public space accordingly.

 

[nfitz]

Property Data map shows it is 80 feet row west of Bathurst, and indeed 66 feet east of Spadina.

That mapping isn't entirely accurate - if you saw how they digitized it, you'd be horrified! It's listed at 75 feet - but there could be variations, and I haven't looked in detail. It's outside of the King Pilot area though. They key is the core.

But perhaps there is case for putting proper bike lanes on King west of Bathurst, which doesn't have the advantage of the adjacent corridors on Front, Adelaide, Richmond, and Wellington! But west of Dufferin it's back to 66 feet.

I don't think that is a deal-breaker. Eglinton changes ROW width multiple times throughout its corridor, and the Eglinton Connects plan just adds or removes public space accordingly.

Eglinton is a minimum of 88 feet through the core. There's a small bit east of Bayview that's only 75 feet - but they've also been expropriating where necessary. Which isn't an easy an option in the core.

Obviously adding safe bike lanes on King through downtown east of Spadina is not feasible, without removing one of the two traffic lanes. The bikes whizzing past now between the streetcars and parked cars, are not that safe, and if they increased significantly in numbers, it would become untenable.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the property data maps are generally fairly accurate - but even then, they are showing 23.75m, or about 78ft.

Regardless, it's semantics. There isn't space for real dedicated bike lanes on King. Richmond / Adelaide work great too because the bike lanes are super wide, allowing easy passing of other cyclists. This is especially important during peak periods in the summer when the cycling volumes can see over 50 cyclists pass through a single light cycle. Even if you could squeeze in some standard 1.8m wide cycling lanes on King somehow, the 3.5m lanes on Richmond and Adelaide would still be far better.

 

[44 North]

This will be a very expensive project on King. Just Spadina through Jarvis would probably be in the $2B range and doesn't really add much capacity to the line. $200M of that might be required just to move utilities; shifting the Enwave lake cooling pipes is a multi-year project by itself.

While it would be useful I can think of several projects I would prioritize above it.

Yeah no for sure, Spadina-Jarvis would be $2bn if we're lucky. Where would the portals go, getting under PATH, utils, storm drains, AODA-required station infrastructure in that narrow ROW. And with our Planning dept we can barely let a mouse sneeze without fearing a nimby uproar. Would never hold my breath on it.

With the capacity though I'd assume we'd advance to 2-car LRVs, maybe with bidirectionality. Which is something I think should've been built into projects like Spadina-Waterfront LRTs.

 

[Avenue]

I think the ridership and economic activity on King totally justifies a below ground portion from Spadina to Jarvis or hell, Bathurst to Parliament. It's the financial core of the country and extremely densely populated. Yes, even with an eventual subway underneath Queen East it's justified.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Although placing a part of King streetcar underground would be cool and would speed it up, the cost would be enormous. And the capacity of the resulting system would still be limited by the on-street, mixed-traffic sections east and west of the tunnel.

Expanding the "Pilot" east and west, staying on surface and just changing the usage priorities, is a lot cheaper and would still speed it up and make the service more reliable.

If we eventually get the "first" Relief Line completed, and then get extra funding to build another tunnel through downtown, then perhaps it should be used for the "second" Relief Line; again high-capacity / heavy rail.

 

[syn]

I think the ridership and economic activity on King totally justifies a below ground portion from Spadina to Jarvis or hell, Bathurst to Parliament. It's the financial core of the country and extremely densely populated. Yes, even with an eventual subway underneath Queen East it's justified.

There's a very sound argument for underground transit on the downtown portion of King.

Unfortunately we don't care to build underground transit where it's justified.

 

[steveintoronto]

There's a very sound argument for underground transit on the downtown portion of King.

Unfortunately we don't care to build underground transit where it's justified.

Who's going to fund it? And for the cost, vastly more productive outcome can be had by spending that amount elsewhere.

The challenge is what can be done NOW, or the immediate future. You don't have to spend $Bs to get a transit mall operating better.

 

[syn]

Who's going to fund it? And for the cost, vastly more productive outcome can be had by spending that amount elsewhere.

The challenge is what can be done NOW, or the immediate future. You don't have to spend $Bs to get a transit mall operating better.

Oh I agree completely.

Who's going to fund it? I have no idea. Even spending a few million on an important downtown transit corridor seems to be an issue for some politicians, while spending billions elsewhere isn't.

Personally I like the idea of removing all automobiles from King, with the exception of delivery vehicles.

 

[steveintoronto]

Personally I like the idea of removing all automobiles from King, with the exception of delivery vehicles.

And residents needing access. This can be instituted with minimum cost and in short time, well within a year. The sooner the King Transit Mall becomes that, the better. It's not like other cities haven't already done this to great success and huge amounts of documentation.

The real legal glitch remains in Queen's Park.

Steve Munro's latest installment on the King Car now up:
http://stevemunro.ca/2018/10/05/king-street-update-september-2018/

 

[syn]

And residents needing access. This can be instituted with minimum cost and in short time, well within a year. The sooner the King Transit Mall becomes that, the better. It's not like other cities haven't already done this to great success and huge amounts of documentation.

The real legal glitch remains in Queen's Park.

Steve Munro's latest installment on the King Car now up:
http://stevemunro.ca/2018/10/05/king-street-update-september-2018/

That's a given.

Fortunately a lot of auto access points for drivers who want to access these buildings are not directly on King.

I'd also like to see investment in updated signage/wayfinding and shelters.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'd also like to see investment in updated signage/wayfinding and shelters.

Shelters are well within the City's competence, but signs, other than larger ones or illuminated, aren't. It seems trivial, but this is one of a myriad of aspects that QP can trip Toronto on.

There's absolutely no doubt that better and more specific signals and signage are needed. That is up to the HTA, which has a section (Pilot Section) stating (gist)...
Best I quote this exactly:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK383

Why in hell this present Council and Mayor didn't apply to the past QP regime for unique inclusion under this section God only knows. It's going to be difficult if not impossible under a 'streetcar hating' despot.

Perhaps 'uploading of the subway' might offer some favour as a trade-off, we'll see.[/quote]

 

[ehlow]

It's amazing how much better this line is than a few years ago. The new trains, the pilot with new stops, POP combined together have made it so much more efficient, fast & reliable and subway-like. Of course, it could use more capacity and is sometimes packed full.

Once it's made permanent, I'd love to see more invested in the shelters at big transfer points like St Andrew station and have the curb extended out to the streetcar, with at least a roof & some walls for weather protection. With DRL so many years away and not going west of University, this will be the main way for people to get to Spadina-Bathurst to King, which is exploding as a tech hub and employment area with thousands of jobs coming. Spadina GO Station will hopefully help too but it seems years away.

https://business.financialpost.com/...n-presence-in-toronto-real-estate-development