[Palma]

At the recent openhouse for the Richmond/Adelaide cycle tracks, the planners and consultants said that King and Queen were off the table for bicycle facilities because they would have too much impact on (car) traffic. But I suspect that closing King or Queen to through car traffic would shift enough people onto streetcars, bicycles and electric scooters to offset the larger reduction in automotive capacity.

I think people don't realize what a small proportion of transportation on King and Queen is by car. For instance that graphic on the previous page suggests that there are twice as many people carried by streetcar, and I'd venture a guess that the number of pedestrians would be double that again. Based on data and correction factors from the August 2010 bicycle count, Queen and King also carry approximately 1500 and 1700 cyclists per day respectively, at Spadina during the summer months. It's probably much more now, given the general upward trend and Bixi introduction.

Though we may be comparing apples and oranges, since the 43500/day figure is for the entire 501 route, not at a given point.

I think that rather than building a Montreal-style cycle track on Richmond or Adelaide, we should do something like this on King or Queen:

From Steven Vance on flickr

I like this a lot

 

[Dan416]

True. There are many different proposals for the DRL, so it's bound to mimic one of them. Personally, if the DRL needs to be a completely separate line, I favour Wellington. But the point of this BRT proposal is to use the existing one-way streets to create a 2nd layer of E-W service through downtown that doesn't mess with the streetcar routes, and doesn't affect car traffic too much (and thus cause a flip-out on the right). It also acts as a temporary and immediately implementable precursor to the DRL.

Richmond and Adelaide are 4 lanes for their entire length from Bathurst to Parliament, yet they don't carry anywhere near the volume that a 4 lane one-way should carry. That's because a lot of the time lanes are used for parking and turning lanes. Redesign the street to be more efficient with 3 car lanes + 1 BRT lane, and they would be much more useful streets for everybody, instead of simply being the vehicular back alleys of King and Queen.

I think this is a really good idea, in fact.

 

[sixrings]

Why stop at Bathurst. Why not to Dufferin., I don;t know why all posts I see always say Sherbourne to Bathurst when talking about traffic. As if traffic stops at Bathurst. Have you seen what its like at Queen and Dufferin even all the way up to Bloor and Dufferin and all the pedestrian traffic

I think it's because those are the North south streets that most people identify as the borders of downtown. That being said with liberty village maybe you are correct and it should be extended to differing. It would be a definate plus if it had a side effect of causing suffering to get its own streetcar line. You've convinced me even though the longer the ROW the more car drivers will be enraged and will fight such a proposal.

 

[calimehtar]

A lot of the discussions about transit downtown have a narrow focus on moving people regardless of the impact to the downtown itself. On the one hand there are those saying that once we have a DRL we can rip out all the streetcars. Then there are people saying we need busses - Rob and Doug suggesting they go on King St., gweed123 with his downtown BRT.

I am not saying these are bad ideas, least of all the DRL, but the particular genius of the King St right of way idea is the potential to simultaneously improve transit and make the downtown more of a destination by maximizing the pedestrian space. King and Queen are already, typically, bursting at the seams with pedestrians and provide a pretty decent experience for people walking around, shopping, sitting in restaurants and bars.

It would be a great missed opportunity to substitute the King or Queen streetcars with something that works for moving people around but diminishes the quality of the downtown.

 

[TOareaFan]

Wow, I didn't realize that Ottawa and Calgary were hundreds of years older than Toronto! I guess you learn something new each day.

Neither of those cities, though, took a main road with buisness, garage openings and condo entrances and closed it to traffic for a stretch of over 2km.

Okay I'm being needlessly sarcastic, but the point is that there's nothing delusional about the idea of pedestrian streets, woonerfs, and transit malls in Toronto. I don't get how the age of the city means anything when I see so many people walking around the city all year round. I can think of quite a few places in Toronto that could function like this street in Ottawa.

Not sure if you were continuing on your sarcasm there but comparing a short street within the Byward Market to the stretch of King Street we are talking about in this thread is a bit like going to Montreal with an image of the Distillery District and saying "this is what you could do with St. Catherine Street between Guy and Univeristy".

Looking at other cities is fine (actually good) but plucking examples like this one is so out of context that it takes the discussion backwards (IMO).

A strange Canadian trait I've noticed is that a lot of us think that we have winters that are uniquely cold and harsh. It's just not true but it contributes to "it would never work here" defeatism.

I don't think our winters are as harsh as we sometimes think (particularly in the GTA/S. Ontario) but we do have to consider climate when we look at the need/value of certain things. So, yes, Melbourne is a wonderful example of a city with pedestiran streets and cafes, but you have to consider that part of the reason that it works there is that their harshest weather months are, roughly, late march/early April here.

That is not to say we can't do pedestrian streets/areas...but I do wonder if it doesn't mean that we should not be taking a 2km stretch of a important road and closing it to automobiles 365 days of the year.

I continue to believe that the right thing to get the King Streetcar working better (which I think was the impetus behind this thread) is a relaunching of the diamond lanes.

1. New, bigger/brighter signs, telling people that can't be in those lanes between 6 and 10 in the a.m. and 3 and 7 in the p.m.
2. New, bigger/brighter signs, telling people they can't stop (never mind park) in the right lane in those hours (including - importantly - telling the Hyatt that cab service to their guests has to be off of Widmar not King)
3. New, bigger/brighter signs, telling people that they cannot turn left off of King during those hours.
4. New, bigger, fines for offending
5. A 3 month enforcement blitz by the police to get the message through
6. Ongoing enforcement after the blitz

This will get the Streetcars moving. Over the past week I have made it a point to raise the restrictions on King with people (including last night as I drove along King to get out to Liberty Village for a pre-show dinner). Not one person that I have mentioned it to had ever heard of the restrictions and, in fact, most think I am making it up.

 

[gweed123]

THats a crazy idea - the bus on those streets. One or two lanes should be separated bike lanes or one lane and widen the sidewalks for people

So you want to take away at least 2 general traffic lanes and put in bike lanes and wider sidewalks on streets that are one-ways and that have a fraction of the pedestrian traffic that King and Queen do? The type of redesign you're talking about would not only face stiff opposition, it would run into the tens of millions, if not a hundred million, dollars.

It also does nothing to improve the situation on King or Queen. Nothing for transit. Nothing for vehicular traffic (makes it worse in fact). Practically nothing for pedestrian traffic (very few people would choose to walk down Richmond over Queen simply because Richmond has marginally wider sidewalks). The only people who this would benefit are cyclists.

Turning 1 lane on each of Richmond and Adelaide into BRT lanes on the other hand would only have a marginal effect on vehicular traffic. It would have a positive effect on transit on King and Queen, because it would draw longer haul riders off those streetcar routes, allowing the TTC to reduce headways to maintain a more reliable service. And if this service was to become very crowded as well, it would only be a stronger indication that a DRL is needed.

 

[gweed123]

A lot of the discussions about transit downtown have a narrow focus on moving people regardless of the impact to the downtown itself. On the one hand there are those saying that once we have a DRL we can rip out all the streetcars. Then there are people saying we need busses - Rob and Doug suggesting they go on King St., gweed123 with his downtown BRT.

I am not saying these are bad ideas, least of all the DRL, but the particular genius of the King St right of way idea is the potential to simultaneously improve transit and make the downtown more of a destination by maximizing the pedestrian space. King and Queen are already, typically, bursting at the seams with pedestrians and provide a pretty decent experience for people walking around, shopping, sitting in restaurants and bars.

It would be a great missed opportunity to substitute the King or Queen streetcars with something that works for moving people around but diminishes the quality of the downtown.

But see the thing is, even if cars were banned from King, it would still only have a minimal effect on the quality and reliability of the service, because of the number of traffic lights and stops that the streetcar makes. It doesn't matter if it has a ROW or not, if it's stopping every 300m it isn't going to be a very fast service.

By introducing a parallel express (or quasi express) service, you give riders the choice of which service they want to take. You draw riders off the King and Queen routes, allowing the streetcars to be further apart, increasing service quality and reliability.

I understand the improved pedestrian experience angle, but I think that King and Queen Streets are already pretty desirable streets to walk down. The only way I can see King St realistically being closed down to cars or being reduced to one lane is if Wellington and Front become opposing one-ways, like Richmond and Adelaide are.

 

[calimehtar]

That's why I argue for ending the right of way at Bathurst in the West, or before that - because we already have Richmond and Adelaide for cars. Council made a similar argument for removing bike lanes on Jarvis - that bikes can go out to Sherbourne if they want a good experience. The net result was fewer cycling lanes, but a better experience.

I'll leave discussions about whether there are too many stops or traffic lights on King St. for others to take up. I think there's a thread for that.

I realize that in this case we are in fact talking about about less space for automobiles *but that's the point*. As long as car drivers can ultimately get to where they need to go, this is a good tradeoff: a vastly improved downtown - enhancing the best aspect of King St, which is the vibrant pedestrian experience - and better public transportation in one small project.

 

[BurlOak]

But see the thing is, even if cars were banned from King, it would still only have a minimal effect on the quality and reliability of the service, because of the number of traffic lights and stops that the streetcar makes. It doesn't matter if it has a ROW or not, if it's stopping every 300m it isn't going to be a very fast service.

By introducing a parallel express (or quasi express) service, you give riders the choice of which service they want to take. You draw riders off the King and Queen routes, allowing the streetcars to be further apart, increasing service quality and reliability.

I understand the improved pedestrian experience angle, but I think that King and Queen Streets are already pretty desirable streets to walk down. The only way I can see King St realistically being closed down to cars or being reduced to one lane is if Wellington and Front become opposing one-ways, like Richmond and Adelaide are.

Between DVP and Bathurst, I think this is a brilliant idea. It is getting up to the Bloor line from Eastern/DVP and Adelaide/Richmond\Bathurst that concerns me.

I guess if this bus just went back and forth between DVP and Bathurst (maybe Niagara Street) it would not really relieve the King and Queen streetcars very much at all.

 

[BMO]

Wow, I didn't realize that Ottawa and Calgary were hundreds of years older than Toronto! I guess you learn something new each day. Somebody should tell Harbin, a city much colder and snowier than Toronto (and 95 years newer) that their pedestrian malls don't work.

Okay I'm being needlessly sarcastic, but the point is that there's nothing delusional about the idea of pedestrian streets, woonerfs, and transit malls in Toronto. I don't get how the age of the city means anything when I see so many people walking around the city all year round. I can think of quite a few places in Toronto that could function like this street in Ottawa.

BTW, the PATH is mostly confined to the financial district. Prague may not have a cozy PATH system, but neither do St. Lawrence, Kensington, and Yorkville.


A strange Canadian trait I've noticed is that a lot of us think that we have winters that are uniquely cold and harsh. It's just not true but it contributes to "it would never work here" defeatism.

I think it's worth considering that there are pedestrian areas intended to promote a social interaction aspect, albeit seasonally (such as Willcocks St), and others designed mostly as a way of keeping traffic out of an area that doesn't particularly need it or where the intent is to direct traffic onto major routes/prevent shortcuts (Gould St, arguably, and part of Simcoe). Those both have a place in a city like ours, but yes, the intent and the effect need to be considered.

I think what MisterF was getting at was the ease with which some people reach for 'it's too cold' or 'we have winter' as an excuse not to do anything that deviates from the status quo, especially an idea that originates elsewhere. I've seen it used countless times as an argument against LRT - 'They want us to wait out in the cold for hours!' - even though we surely know how to dress for winter, check transit schedules and we're used to waiting for buses outdoors as well. That, and the notion that it somehow doesn't work in other cold climates.

The reason that Prague doesn't have a PATH system is more likely that there isn't the population or the commercial density to warrant it, the city is smaller and the winters are generally less severe than ours. The expense of tunnelling didn't preclude a subway there.

Fair enough, I can concede that it is an excuse that is tossed around far too much, but I think there needs to be a realist approach to these things. I agree that we shouldn't just toss ideas out the window on account of these excuses, but I think they should form a pillar upon which we can mould these ideas around to make them work in their own unique way here in Toronto, and what I was trying to convey was that, sure pedestrian malls would be nice to have, but one must realize that they will by no means be the same as the Melbourne products, and even argue that we shouldn't strive for them to be the same.

 

[gweed123]

Between DVP and Bathurst, I think this is a brilliant idea. It is getting up to the Bloor line from Eastern/DVP and Adelaide/Richmond\Bathurst that concerns me.

I guess if this bus just went back and forth between DVP and Bathurst (maybe Niagara Street) it would not really relieve the King and Queen streetcars very much at all.

The two "arms" going up to the Bloor line wouldn't technically be BRT, they would be limited stop semi-express service. They wouldn't be a replacement for the Dufferin and Pape buses, but they would just overlap with them.

If it's possible, I'd like to see peak period buses only lanes for the right lanes. Especially on Dufferin, given the frequency of every couple of minutes, I think buses only lanes would help immensely.

Unfortunately, there aren't really very N-S routes that would easily connect to the subway. I know it's far from ideal, but hopefully some decent ridership on those routes would push the need for an entire DRL U from Dufferin to Pape.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Neither of those cities, though, took a main road with buisness, garage openings and condo entrances and closed it to traffic for a stretch of over 2km.

Actually, I jogged my memory and then took a trip down Google streetview and, with the exception of an entranceway to the TD Centre parking lot, there isn't a single parking or service entrance that turns off/into King street between Jarvis and Spadina. Apart from this, the only other obstacles to a full closure to non-transit vehicles would be that some streets would become difficult cul de sacs: Toronto St., Jordan St., Charlotte St. and Widmer. Other streets, like Duncan, would become cul de sacs, but since service vehicles use Pearl, the only reason anyone would travel down Duncan in a car is to get to King, anyway.

In other words, I don't think that closing King to cars poses that many challenges.

 

[Johnny Au]

The Spadina streetcar uses Charlotte St. for short turns.

 

[MisterF]

Neither of those cities, though, took a main road with buisness, garage openings and condo entrances and closed it to traffic for a stretch of over 2km.

Actually if you look at pedestrian streets in general, those are exactly the types of streets that tend to be closed off to traffic successfully. Usually for shorter lengths though, at least in the case of full car free zones. But transit malls can be in areas like that too. The one in Minneapolis is apparently a high end shopping district.

Not sure if you were continuing on your sarcasm there but comparing a short street within the Byward Market to the stretch of King Street we are talking about in this thread is a bit like going to Montreal with an image of the Distillery District and saying "this is what you could do with St. Catherine Street between Guy and Univeristy".

Looking at other cities is fine (actually good) but plucking examples like this one is so out of context that it takes the discussion backwards (IMO).



I don't think our winters are as harsh as we sometimes think (particularly in the GTA/S. Ontario) but we do have to consider climate when we look at the need/value of certain things. So, yes, Melbourne is a wonderful example of a city with pedestiran streets and cafes, but you have to consider that part of the reason that it works there is that their harshest weather months are, roughly, late march/early April here.

That is not to say we can't do pedestrian streets/areas...but I do wonder if it doesn't mean that we should not be taking a 2km stretch of a important road and closing it to automobiles 365 days of the year.

I was speaking in general terms about different kinds of pedestrianization, not about transit malls specifically. But if we want to talk about transit malls, a quick Google search turns up cities like Minneapolis, Gothenburg, Vancouver, Portland, and Winnipeg. None of which are particularly warm. Oh yeah, and since we were talking about Calgary, they have one too.

Fair enough, I can concede that it is an excuse that is tossed around far too much, but I think there needs to be a realist approach to these things. I agree that we shouldn't just toss ideas out the window on account of these excuses, but I think they should form a pillar upon which we can mould these ideas around to make them work in their own unique way here in Toronto, and what I was trying to convey was that, sure pedestrian malls would be nice to have, but one must realize that they will by no means be the same as the Melbourne products, and even argue that we shouldn't strive for them to be the same.

My point was that cold winters don't prevent pedestrian streets from working. No need to keep talking about Melbourne, they exist in lots of cold cities on both sides of the Atlantic. Ottawa and Calgary were just off the top of my head, and that city in China makes Toronto look almost tropical. And it's not like they're completely unheard of in Toronto, there's a section of Market Street that's already car free. The success of the Distillery District should be all the evidence you need that they can be a huge success, even in winter.

 

[RC8]

I took this picture in January or February of 2012, near Trinity Bellwoods.

It's ridiculous to suggest that pedestrian/transit/cycling oriented streets wouldn't be a hit in downtown Toronto. Maybe not out in the suburbs, but downtown they would probably still outperform drive-to destinations in winter.

Now more than ever with the influx of new residents, our streets are alive for most if not all of the year.