[steveintoronto]

It's also worth mentioning that Toronto - City, not Metro - was going to make Yonge and Bay one-way streets for a pilot project in 1988. A judge blocked the proposal right before it would've gone into effect on the basis that the city needed provincial approval to make this change, and the city never ended up pursuing it.

Fascinating...you will provide reference of course? If anyone had to the power to intervene, it would have been Metro, not the Province. The major arteries were Metro roads, their competence.

Besides which:

Yonge, Bay to go one-way?
Minnan-Wong says it would improve traffic flow

By Don Peat, City Hall Bureau Chief

First posted: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:40 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 08:32 PM EDT

TORONTO - Could Toronto drivers one day be rolling only one way along Yonge and Bay Sts.?

Public Works chairman Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong wants to study the idea of turning two of downtown’s busiest north-south routes into one-way roads.

“It would, I think, improve traffic flow and you’d have the ability to, I think, also include some sort of separated bike lanes — and possibly add transit, as well,” Minnan-Wong said Tuesday.

“I think it would be a really interesting approach or study ... I think we need to look at innovative approaches to dealing with gridlock and congestion in the downtown core.”

Last year, the public works committee gave the green light to a yet-to-be completed downtown transportation study to look at ways to improve the flow of traffic.

“We do have a congestion and traffic problem; I would hope that council would be looking at ways ... of improving traffic in the downtown core and not making it worse,” Minnan-Wong said.

Councillor Adam Vaughan blasted the idea and warned the change, if it ever happened, would “wipe out every small business” along those streets.

“One-way streets destroy commercial activity on them,” Vaughan said.

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, whose ward includes Yonge St., said there should be research and studies before Yonge and Bay Sts. are turned into one-way streets.

“We can’t necessarily do it because of the whim of a councillor,” she said.

Wong-Tam has her own changes in mind for Yonge St. — at least temporarily.

She will ask the Toronto and East York community council next week to approve closing two of the four lanes on Yonge St. — between Gerrard and Richmond Sts. — from Aug. 17 to Sept. 16 for a Celebrate Yonge St. event. The plan would widen the sidewalks during the closure and allow around 12 business operators to bump out patios.

“This is not first street in Canada to go through this intervention,” Wong-Tam said.

Asked if she’d ever push for the change to be permanent, Wong-Tam said she was taking the issue “one step at a time.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/08/yonge-bay-to-go-one-way

Ah yes, the great champion of streetcar corridors...not.

Toronto’s deputy mayor is pushing for the city to set clear targets for the pilot project that would prioritize streetcars over car traffic on King St., in order to prevent its supporters from “declaring victory” without any clear evidence.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ilot-project-that-prioritizes-streetcars.html

 

[amnesiajune]

That link mentions Dallas, Denver, Sacramento, and Tampa as "models" for the problems with one-way streets. They're not exactly the first (or any of the) cities to come to mind when I think of major or thriving cities. They're also not doing it on any wide scale or on any major streets.

Now let's look at the thread that was linked:

Drive a couple of kilometers through Hamilton, Oshawa or Kitchener-Waterloo

Again, not really applicable. Find me one city half the size of Toronto in the developed world that's decided to abandon one-way streets en masse.

 

[amnesiajune]

Fascinating...you will provide reference of course?

Toronto Star, July 31 1988, Page A3. The library has it available online.

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto Star, July 31 1988, Page A3. The library has it available online.

How's this?
[Toronto resisted further pressure to switch to a one-way traffic grid, although as late as 1988, Mayor Art Eggleton vigorously promoted a scheme to turn Yonge and Bay Streets into one-way thoroughfares. Writer Margaret Atwood described the plan at the time as Mr. Eggleton's "worst idea since he got his hair permed."]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...e-one-way-rides-to-frustration/article730879/

And TorStar:
[...]
Minnan-Wong said he’s open to all possibilities, but one idea could be to remove one of the existing four lanes between Bloor and Front Streets, extend the sidewalks, and add proper bike lanes. Then there would be three lanes of traffic all flowing in the same direction, removing the friction of left-hand turns and easing gridlock.

Across North America, from St. Catharines, Ontario to Lexington Kentucky to St. Petersburg Florida, cities are taking the opposite route.

But Minnan-Wong said there’s no comparison.

In those cities, the idea is to slow traffic in order to create a more walkable city. Toronto already has a vibrant downtown with a healthy retail sector. What it also has is a serious congestion problem.[...]
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2012/05/08/one-way-for-yonge-and-bay-streets.html


Your link, please.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The reason for one-way streets was for the automobile, not for transit and not for pedestrians.

From this link, for New York City, came...:

According to Clay McShane, author of ''The Automobile: A Chronology of Its Antecedents, Development and Impact'' (Greenwood Press, 1997), one-way rotary traffic was imposed on Columbus Circle in 1905, followed by some one-way rules in Times Square in the same year. The New York Times reported that Oscar Hammerstein and David Belasco thought the new rules were fine, but that cabdrivers protested.

By 1916 The Times reported that 27 streets had been designated one-way, especially narrow ones like Cortlandt, Thomas and Dey Streets, ''to find a solution to the vexing traffic problem'' caused by the increase in the number of automobiles.

In 1920 the Real Estate Record & Guide reported that Fifth and Park Avenues would become one-way from 34th to 57th Streets, with Fifth running south and Park running north, during the daytime. But it appears this was only a temporary experiment.

In 1924 the one-way system was extended to almost all narrow cross streets south of 57th. The success of that rule sparked a suggestion in 1925 by a real estate broker, Aaron Herrmann, that one-way sidewalks be imposed, along with rules discouraging ''those men or women who greet a friend and chatter on and on in the middle of crowded sidewalks.''

In February 1927 the one-way regulation was extended in Manhattan up to 110th Street. The major north-south Manhattan avenues were not converted to one-way traffic until after World War II, over the period 1951-1966.

The reason, traffic caused by the automobile.

 

[steveintoronto]

Again, not really applicable. Find me one city half the size of Toronto in the developed world that's decided to abandon one-way streets en masse.

I guess amnesia forgets...or just can't remember...

[You might say that a number of cities are heading the other direction on one-way streets. Dallas, Denver, Sacramento, and Tampa are just some of the places that have converted one-ways into two-way streets in recent years. Any number of reasons are cited for the shift:][...]
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/01/case-against-one-way-streets/4549/

Not to mention the pejorative "decided to abandon one-way streets en masse". Not claimed, and doesn't need to be. We're talking specific instances.

Dallas: The city is the largest economic center of the 12-county Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex metropolitan area (commonly referred to as DFW), which had a population of 7,246,231 as of July 1, 2016, representing growth in excess of 807,000 people since the 2010 census.

Tampa: Tampa Bay in top 20 of metro population ranking. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater is one of the top 20 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., according to national estimates released Friday. That area's population is 2,823,938, putting it at No. 19 among 942 U.S. metropolitan and micropolitan areas, as of July 1, 2011.Jun 24, 2011

Denver: The 10-county Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area had an estimated 2015 population of 2,814,330 and ranked as the 19th most populous U.S. metropolitan statistical area.

Sacramento: The metropolitan area experienced a growth of nearly 20% in the last decade. In the 2000 census, the Sacramento MSA had a population of 1,930,857 (though a July 1, 2009 estimate placed the population at 2,458,355).

 

[aquateam]

This my first post here and I'm curious to know your thoughts. Please be gentle.
It seems the city wants to accompany everyone, yet tick all off - equally.

That's the impression I get too, the city is making so many accommodations and concessions that they've managed to turn a simple and intuitive concept for transit priority into a confusing mess. We will see what the result is when the data comes, but I doubt it will be much of an improvement on transit times, since that seems to have taken a back seat to other goals like "placemaking" and doubling the number of taxi stands.



I don't think one-way streets are problematic per-se. Any city of size has a number of them downtown, including Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal. There's a good article here arguing for them. In particular, St. Laurent and St. Catherine in Montreal are both one-way and those are two lively streets.

The advantages of one-way streets are:
-pedestrians only need traffic to stop in one direction to be able to cross
-the most dangerous maneuver (left hand turn with oncoming traffic) is eliminated
-more traffic capacity for the same amount of road means that more space can be given over to bike lanes/sidewalk extensions.

Disadvantages are:
-higher traffic speeds
-makes bidirectional transit service impossible (moot point for streets that are serviced by underground transit lines)

 

[steveintoronto]

That's the impression I get too, the city is making so many accommodations and concessions that they've managed to turn a simple and intuitive concept for transit priority into a confusing mess. We will see what the result is when the data comes, but I doubt it will be much of an improvement on transit times, since that seems to have taken a back seat to other goals like "placemaking" and doubling the number of taxi stands.

Mostly agreed on that.

I don't think one-way streets are problematic per-se. Any city of size has a number of them downtown, including Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal. There's a good article here arguing for them. In particular, St. Laurent and St. Catherine in Montreal are both one-way and those are two lively streets.

The advantages of one-way streets are:
-pedestrians only need traffic to stop in one direction to be able to cross
-the most dangerous maneuver (left hand turn with oncoming traffic) is eliminated
-more traffic capacity for the same amount of road means that more space can be given over to bike lanes/sidewalk extensions.

Disadvantages are:
-higher traffic speeds
-makes bidirectional transit service impossible (moot point for streets that are serviced by underground transit lines)

From the very article you link:

The reasons why certain streets have been made one-way
First, let's get a particular case out of the way. Certain residential streets in dense areas have been made one-way not for any traffic engineering reasons, but only because the street is relatively narrow and the planners wanted to have parking on both sides of the street, which didn't leave enough room for more than one travel lane in the center of the street.

Well that's obviously inapplicable to King, not to mention the *streetcar tracks* and the point of the exercise to get those vehicles moving unconstricted.

OK, so what is the main point explaining why an arterial would be made one-way?
You might have expected it, it's about throughput capacity mainly. The main reason why one-way streets perform better capacity-wise is that what limits street capacity is intersections, and left turns especially can have a deleterious impact on capacity due to the conflict with vehicles coming from the opposite way. Left-turning vehicles therefore have to either wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, or have a separate phase (during which the flow of vehicle coming the other way will be interrupted). This is especially bad when the number of left-turning vehicles is high and when they share a lane with vehicles going straight.
With one-way streets, there is no issue with left-hand turns, they have the equivalent of a permanent priority phase.

etc, etc. Except this has been dis-proven by other studies. And again, *this isn't for cars*! It's for streetcars.

The purpose of this exercise is for a streetcar corridor or 'mall', and no amount of pandering to cars, let alone taxis, will work towards that end.

Article goes on to discuss the impact on trucks!

What is a WB-20? It is the term used to describe the design vehicle for which all roads that receive Federal funding in the US have to be designed. It represents a semi-truck pulling a 53-foot trailer behind it. This is the usual truck size in the US, and since Canada is the US' toy poodle, the US standard has also been adopted north of the border.

I think it can be safely assumed that this has little to no bearing on a transit mall.

In reader comments to the above article, the author himself answers the point that Aquateam attempts to make as a case for King and ostensibly parallel streets becoming one-way in addition to Adelaide and Richmond, except note again, the model used is for *buses*...not streetcars:

UnknownMarch 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM
After your photos of Sainte-Catherine and your map of dangerous intersections, how do you come to the conclusion in your last sentence that two-way is better for commercial main streets?

simval84March 9, 2016 at 7:55 PM
Two-way streets increase accessibility and favor lower speeds, so commercial main streets that depend at least somewhat on consumers coming by car are likely to benefit more from a two-way street. One-way streets are more appropriate for streets that serve primarily for through traffic, not for shopping. If most customers come by transit, on foot or on bikes, then one-way streets are fine. Indeed, Ste-Catherine street is one-way but is full of people because it is very well served by the metro system.

• 
  
  sonamibMarch 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM
  What about surface transit? Jarrett Walker argues that one way streets are bad for surface transit because people have to use two stops for any origin/destination and it's thus less likely that their origin/detination within walking distance of both stops.

• 
  
  simval84March 10, 2016 at 9:43 PM
  I can see how it could be good and bad for transit. As you say, on the bad side, it could force people to walk one more block to get to their stop and somewhat complicate transfers. On a positive side however, one-way streets would likely result in faster bus speeds, so though it would take more time to get to the stop, travel time in the bus could be shortened. Furthermore, if we compare it to the scenario of two two-way streets each with its own bidirectional bus line, the one-way streets would likely have shorter headways because the two lines would be condensed into one. Meaning that instead of having bus lines heading west on street A and street B, everyone who would have been using them would have to use buses on street A.
  
  Jarrett has probably access to specific data, so maybe he has analyzed similar cases and found a reduction in transit use, the negative overwhelming the positive, but I would be interested in data, if it existed.
  [...]

• http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2016/03/the-case-of-one-way-streets.html?_sm_au_=iVVSM0qj7nHZZRFP

 

[aquateam]

I was talking about making Yonge/Bay one-way, not King/Queen. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think making Queen/King one-way is a good idea because:

1. Transit service should be in both directions on the same street, instead of making people walk 400 meters if they want to go the opposite direction
2. Combining Toronto's two busiest surface routes into one route is a recipe for disaster, since a delay/crash going in one direction would hold up twice as many people (loss of redundancy).

 

[amnesiajune]

I was talking about making Yonge/Bay one-way, not King/Queen. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think making Queen/King one-way is a good idea because:

1. Transit service should be in both directions on the same street, instead of making people walk 400 meters if they want to go the opposite direction
2. Combining Toronto's two busiest surface routes into one route is a recipe for disaster, since a delay/crash going in one direction would hold up twice as many people (loss of redundancy).

In some European cities (London for example), they do this by having one-way car traffic with a contraflow transit+bike lane. On Queen/King that would mean three lanes for cars in one direction and a reserved streetcar lane in the other. It requires tearing out and rebuilding the streetcar tracks (so it's not feasible) but it's not impossible.

 

[steveintoronto]

I was talking about making Yonge/Bay one-way, not King/Queen. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think making Queen/King one-way is a good idea because:

1. Transit service should be in both directions on the same street, instead of making people walk 400 meters if they want to go the opposite direction
2. Combining Toronto's two busiest surface routes into one route is a recipe for disaster, since a delay/crash going in one direction would hold up twice as many people (loss of redundancy).

OK! The point of discussion got waylaid by a poster bringing Bay and Yonge into the discussion.

Btw: For cyclists, I'd like to clarify my stance on "no exceptions for anyone" (which some of us adhere to, even if we ourselves are inconvenienced)(I'm just about to cycle through there now to get to Mountain Equip Co-op):

If cyclists wish to proceed through the intersections to the next block, they can do as is required for most pedestrian crossings ('crossovers' the terms are misleading): Get off the bike and walk through the intersection as a pedestrian, re-mount the other side, and continue. If unfettered speed is the objective, Adelaide and Richmond are the choice to take.

 

[MM1964]

Thanks to all for the informative and civil discussion.

I still believe that in the absence of an efficient, wide spread and multi-line subway, investing in streetcars is still a 1900 concept.

I get that digging tunnels is expensive, but has anyone measured the actual costs of maintaining streetcars?
How many times has the TTC dug up the roads because of the wear n tear those slow moving trains have done to the surface?

I hope that one-day maybe my great grandchildren will be proud of a subway network that rivals....Montreal ?
That's sad.

Hopefully the Leafs will win the cup before then.

Thanks again for informing me.

 

[amnesiajune]

I hope that one-day maybe my great grandchildren will be proud of a subway network that rivals....Montreal ?

I don't see anything particularly great about the Montreal Metro. It was built more for tourists than residents. Their system has the equivalent of a Yonge Line to Sheppard, a University-Spadina line to Lawrence West, a Bloor-Danforth line from Islington to Victoria Park and an Eglinton line from Keele to Don Mills.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm just so shocked, shocked I tell you...

 

[Avenue]

What? There are enough cops to cop sporting events, condo constructions. and school crossings but not King Street? Public transit gets no respect in this city, and I can cite many other examples...