T3G
Senior Member
Cities in Europe where this is the case allow deliveries and local traffic. They do not make up a significant percentage of the traffic and this is therefore a non issue.
|
|
|
evandyk
Senior Member
Somehow Ghent makes this work. There are lots more examples, that was just the first one that came to mind for me.
afransen
Senior Member
This is an entirely solved problem. Pedestrianized streets allow for deliveries, usually overnight.
Fred.S
Active Member
In the Netherlands, in pedestrian zones, it's typical to allow deliveries in the morning, usually before 11, which is a bit more reasonable than overnight. works well, and if anything makes it easier for deliveries, as larger trucks have more space to stop, and don't have to compete with other motor traffic or strict parking regulations.
Jimvee
New Member
I have always thought King Street between University and Spadina should be pedestrianized, the restaurants, bars and theatres make for the perfect location.
turbanplanner
Active Member
North America isn't Europe. Luckily individuals have a lot more rights when it comes to their property, as well as compensation.
Transit is a lot more useable in those pedestrian areas, vs here. Afransen the issue is also the residents. With parking spots costing close to 100k people will fight tooth and nail if you basically make those useless.
adys123
Active Member
Just circling back to @afransen 's point. Local residents would still have access to parking spaces that they have purchased. Buildings will still have limited parking that is accessible. In Europe they often use a permit system that enables access through retractable bollards. This is the same as for emergency vehicles and deliveries.
T3G
Senior Member
Yawn... "Toronto is not Europe", the time-honoured Torontonian argument against doing anything to make the city a more pleasant, dynamic, vibrant, or livable place to be or live. Got anything more interesting there? This argument was stale 15 years ago and it's stale now.
BTW, where exactly are these parking spots you're so up in arms about? Because last I checked, the King pilot has already happened and there's no parking spots along its length.
These two statement sare not compatible. On the one hand, you say transit is more usable in the European pedestrian areas compared to here, but on the other, you say that it's a good thing individuals have more property rights here? Ever stop to think it's these "property rights" that are the problem here?
BTW, where exactly are these parking spots you're so up in arms about? Because last I checked, the King pilot has already happened and there's no parking spots along its length.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
I'm pretty sure s/he means condos, offices, and building services, such as loading or garbage disposal. Many can only be accessed via King Street and there is no viable alternative. Also, people paid $100K for their underground parking spots.
So, you do have to maintain some car access. Perhaps there are solutions, such as retractable bollards for residents, or restricting deliveries to certain times. It certainly is easier to pedestrianize European roadways that existed before cars and garages were common, or if the pedestrianization is planned in advance.
Personally, I've never thought King Street was the best candidate for full pedestrianization. I'd be more in favour of eliminating lanes and expanding sidewalks, while maintaining limited vehicle access.
If it were me, I'd pedestrianize Queen Street from University to Victoria / Church. We're about to get the biggest pilot project of all time with the Ontario Line construction
evandyk
Senior Member
Many parts of the centre city in European cities - even small ones - have resident/delivery only vehicle access in large areas. It's quite common, and to just say "Toronto could never do that" is an answer that is not very intelligent. We can do a lot more things than we do, we just choose not to.
evandyk
Senior Member
If you want to defend the choice, go ahead, though you probably won't get much support around here!
evandyk
Senior Member
I would pedestrianize Queen from Dufferin to Church. Way more pedestrians use it than vehicles. Or even Lansdowne.If it were me, I'd pedestrianize Queen Street from University to Victoria / Church. We're about to get the biggest pilot project of all time with the Ontario Line construction
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
I wasn't defending anything, for the record.
LemonCondo
Active Member
Place A is not place B, therefore we have diffrent laws of physics and thus the same thing can not work.
We can't have serious discussions when such arguments are made.
Also, I just looked at King Street along the entire King Street Transit Priority Corridor, and I can't seem to find any parking entrances that are exclusive to King.
There is one for the Toronto Dominion Centre, but there is a bigger one on York Street and an even bigger one on Wellington Street, which I assume is all the same parking garage.
Every other entrance that looks necessary isn't. There are lots of alleyways that also connect to a side or back street.
Last edited:
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
Exactly! It's grotesque how Perks is lobbying for buildings on Queen at Jameson and Lansdowne to get heritage designation, but doesn't seem concerned about treating Jameson as a highway on-ramp where pedestrians have to wait two light phases to cross the street