[steveintoronto]

Option 3 - the most conservative option - is about as enforceable as the 1990s-era painted lanes and signs allowing only streetcars and taxis in the middle lanes during rush hours. It never really worked, and the police don't care to enforce it unless it's one of those once or twice a year blitzes.

Absolutely agreed. What is upside-down is City Hall's treading softly so as not to disrupt the 'commercial status quo' while completely ignoring good planning and, to use their own term, "placemaking" practice.

Here's how San Diego approaches it, and has for over two decades:

[A Right of Entry Permit is required when entering MTS/SD&AE right-of-way—including airspace—for any purpose. A permit is also required when working in public right-of-way occupied by MTS/SD&AE facilities.

We must approve project plans/specifications before we will issue a permit.

Questions/Inquiries
mtsrow@sdmts.com ]
https://www.sdmts.com/business-center-permits/right-entry

The SD Trolley, after NYC and Chicago, moves more people as a single route than anywhere else in the US.

Edit to Add: Trying to find reference for claim prior, this puts it in perspective:

[...]
By many measures, the region’s trolley system is one of the most successful light-rail systems in the country, with robust ridership and surprisingly low overhead. Local funding for transit comes from the half-cent sales tax Transnet, which voters approved in 1987 and extended in 2004.

Moving about 123,000 people a day over more than 54 miles of track, the San Diego Metropolitan System’s light rail is one of the largest in its class, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Only Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles have similar systems with higher ridership.[...]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-indepth-trolley-20160922-htmlstory.html

Note the difference in public attitude as per (gist) "tax voted for twice". Toronto is lame...

 

[steveintoronto]

Unless, you know, the streetcar ROW has curbs like St. Clair, Spadina, Queens Quay where you see very few if any vehicles in the ROW even without enforcement. Don't see why it would need to be enforced? Unless I'm missing something?

Curbs aren't stated in any of the proposals, or fences, or barriers, permanent or on-demand, like those for parking control. (where poles come up out of the ground to prevent cars entering areas and the streetcars automatically lower them for access)

 

[Avenue]

Option 3 - the most conservative option - is about as enforceable as the 1990s-era painted lanes and signs allowing only streetcars and taxis in the middle lanes during rush hours. It never really worked, and the police don't care to enforce it unless it's one of those once or twice a year blitzes.

What part of it is not enforceable? It proposes dedicated streetcar lanes, not too different from St Clair, I suppose. What's the enforcement problem with that?

 

[steveintoronto]

What part of it is not enforceable? It proposes dedicated streetcar lanes, not too different from St Clair, I suppose. What's the enforcement problem with that?

St Clair has curbs.

Option 3 - “Separated Lanes”: Less enthusiastically presented by Keesmaat and Gray, which offers no enlargement of public realm pedestrian space. Instead, it dedicates the centre lanes to streetcars, and gives the remaining one lane in each direction to car and truck traffic, forbidding left turns and stopping, but allowing through traffic. Staff notes suggest this option would still facilitate faster streetcar movement while offering no change in “public life” elements. Keesmaat notes this option may also wind up more frustrating for motorists who expect to be able to drive through along the street, but get held up for deliveries, cab pickups, or fender benders in the only lane available to them.

But there's a problem with the way Toronto has dealt with this, as St Clair and Spadina show:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...etcar-torontos-deadliest-for-pedestrians.html

Why is Toronto having such a problem with pedestrians? San Diego, Melbourne, Paris and many other cities have nowhere near the incidence of pedestrian fatalities as Toronto has on dedicated streetcar lines.

Why is that?

 

[BMO]

Curbs aren't stated in any of the proposals, or fences, or barriers, permanent or on-demand, like those for parking control. (where poles come up out of the ground to prevent cars entering areas and the streetcars automatically lower them for access)

Then I don't get how Option 3 would be different than the status quo? Is it just the removal of on-street parking? Separated lanes to me would indicate, physically separated or distinguished, which is not what we currently have, IMO.

 

[dowlingm]

I hope the pedestrian extension option in Option 1 is taken, implemented on the north side of King between John and Widmer, and TIFF then told - that's the last time we are closing King for your festival.

 

[steveintoronto]

Then I don't get how Option 3 would be different than the status quo?

Read the proposals.

Why is Toronto having such a problem with pedestrians? San Diego, Melbourne, Paris and many other cities have nowhere near the incidence of pedestrian fatalities as Toronto has on dedicated streetcar lines.

Why is that?

Here's a study that closely examines the St Clair model:

Abstract
Background and Objectives
The frequency of pedestrian collisions is strongly influenced by the built environment, including road width, street connectivity and public transit design. In 2010, 2159 pedestrian collisions were reported in the City of Toronto, Canada with 20 fatalities. Previous studies have reported that streetcars operating in mixed traffic pose safety risks to pedestrians; however, few studies evaluate the effects on pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions (PMVC). The objective of this study was to examine changes in the rate and spatial patterning of PMVC, pre to post right-of-way (ROW) installation of the St. Clair Avenue West streetcar in the City of Toronto, Canada.

Methods
A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate changes in PMVC rate, following implementation of a streetcar ROW. Collision data were extracted from all police-reported PMVC, complied and verified by the City of Toronto, from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2011. A zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis estimated the change in PMVC, pre to post ROW. Age and injury severity were also examined. Changes in the spatial pattern of collisions were examined by applying the G function to describe the proportion of collision events that shared a nearest neighbor distance less than or equal to a threshold distance.

Results
A total of 23,607 PMVC occurred on roadways during the study period; 441 occurring on St. Clair Ave, 153 during the period of analysis. There was a 48% decrease in the rate of collisions on St. Clair [Incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37–0.74], post ROW installation. There were also decreases noted for children (IRR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04–0.44), adults (IRR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38–0.97), and minor injuries (IRR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40–0.80). Spatial analyses indicated increased dispersion of collision events across each redeveloped route segment following the changes in ROW design.

Conclusions/Implications
Construction of a raised ROW operating on St. Clair Ave. was associated with a reduction in the rate of collisions. Differences in pre- and post collision spatial structure indicated changes in collision locations. Results from this study suggest that a streetcar ROW may be a safer alternative for pedestrians compared to a mixed traffic streetcar route and should be considered by city planners where appropriate to the street environment.
[...]
5. Conclusions
This study further elucidates pedestrian safety issues related to different light rail designs, and particularly platform designs. Construction of a raised ROW operating on St. Clair was associated with a reduction in the rate of collisions, particularly the rate of collisions involving children and minor injuries. Results from this study suggest that a streetcar ROW may be a safer alternative for pedestrians compared to a mixed traffic streetcar route and should be favored where appropriate to the street environment. Increased pedestrian safety may result in increased walking and use of public transit as mode of transportation (Lightman et al., 2012).

Further research is needed that can account for differences in pedestrian and motor vehicle volume, and explores similar transit interventions in different environments. A time series analysis which controls for natural trends in collisions rates could help to clarify the association between implementing a streetcar ROW and pedestrian collisions. In addition, research should explore behavioral and additional environmental changes related to streetcar ROWs, to clarify what factors contribute to a reduction in rates. In particular, further research should explore if the installation of the right of way resulted in risk migration, relocating collision incidents to neighbouring roads. Lastly, the differential effectiveness of the ROW by age should be explored further.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Michael P Brady (City of Toronto) for providing the data, in addition to his assistance with this project.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751400164X

I'd say Toronto had best learn from her own lessons.

 

[BMO]

Read the proposals.

Gee, thanks for telling me to read something I've already read and yet remains to be seen whether it is 100% what will be presented tonight.

Option 3 - “Separated Lanes”: Less enthusiastically presented by Keesmaat and Gray, which offers no enlargement of public realm pedestrian space. Instead, it dedicates the centre lanes to streetcars, and gives the remaining one lane in each direction to car and truck traffic, forbidding left turns and stopping, but allowing through traffic. Staff notes suggest this option would still facilitate faster streetcar movement while offering no change in “public life” elements. Keesmaat notes this option may also wind up more frustrating for motorists who expect to be able to drive through along the street, but get held up for deliveries, cab pickups, or fender benders in the only lane available to them.

Still seems like it'll be a "separated lane". I don't see any documentation stating that it won't have separation features...similar to how you're implying that it doesn't state anywhere that it will.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Option two sounds near completely useless in speeding up the streetcars. I know Keesmaat as a bureaucrat wants a legacy and she's happened to adopt walking/pedestrians for that but that option kind of hijacks the main objective here.

Was the objective of this ever to only speed up streetcars?

Option 2 speeds up streetcars and improves pedestrian experience. I don't see any problem with also improving the pedestrian experience.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Option 3 - the most conservative option - is about as enforceable as the 1990s-era painted lanes and signs allowing only streetcars and taxis in the middle lanes during rush hours. It never really worked, and the police don't care to enforce it unless it's one of those once or twice a year blitzes.

It'll only work with physically separated lanes.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Curbs aren't stated in any of the proposals, or fences, or barriers, permanent or on-demand, like those for parking control. (where poles come up out of the ground to prevent cars entering areas and the streetcars automatically lower them for access)

Staff have said many times that they'll be using cheap, physical modifications during the trial. We'll likely see flexi-posts, or something similar , installed to separate the tram and car lanes. That'll be good enough as long as the posts are installed a small distance from each other

 

[salsa]

Very disappointed that we won't be getting a transit mall... Option 1 "I hope" will prevail...

Yes it feels pretty disheartening after Keesmaat hyped up that possibility until now, and tweeted so many lovely pictures of transit malls in other cities.

 

[steveintoronto]

Gee, thanks for telling me to read something I've already read and yet remains to be seen whether it is 100% what will be presented tonight.

Still seems like it'll be a "separated lane". I don't see any documentation stating that it won't have separation features...similar to how you're implying that it doesn't state anywhere that it will.

Then I don't get how Option 3 would be different than the status quo? Is it just the removal of on-street parking? Separated lanes to me would indicate, physically separated or distinguished, which is not what we currently have, IMO.

There's absolutely no mention so far of curbs. I agree with your initial surmise, curbs will be necessary. But if curbs are installed, gridlock for the vehicular lanes is guaranteed.

So why not just ban cars altogether unless they have a permit to deliver, unload, or service the affected business in some manner?

 

[steveintoronto]

Staff have said many times that they'll be using cheap, physical modifications during the trial. We'll likely see flexi-posts, or something similar , installed to separate the tram and car lanes. That'll be good enough as long as the posts are installed a small distance from each other

In all three proposed options? I don't doubt your claim, I just can't see this working. It's going to make the Bloor Bike Lanes look like Nirvana.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes it feels pretty disheartening after Keesmaat hyped up that possibility until now, and tweeted so many lovely pictures of transit malls in other cities.


View attachment 98783

King Street has many buildings that require vehicle access to King, so that their driveways on King Street can be used. I don't understand why anyone closely following this proposal would've expected a car-free King Street. It was never going to happen, unless we told these buildings to abandon their driveways and garages.