News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

ubers do have to display a small sticker in their rear windsheild - but also, anyone could stick one back there then get free rides right down King street.
 
In the real world class cities, like London, England, they are actually doing much, much more to get the automobile out of the downtown. See link.

London clamps down on 'toxic' vehicles with daily fee on older diesel cars

The fee is in addition to the city's existing congestion charge, meaning motorists will pay a total of 21.50 pounds ($36) to drive an affected vehicle

Drivers of the most polluting diesel vehicles will pay a charge to enter central London starting Monday in the latest attempt by the city’s mayor to crack down on air pollution.

The 10-pound ($16) T-Charge targets older, more polluting vehicles that are causing London to have some of the worst air in Europe. Almost 8 million people live in parts of the city where air quality breaches World Health Organization guidelines, according to the office of Mayor Sadiq Khan.

“The shameful scale of the public health crisis London faces, with thousands of premature deaths caused by air pollution, must be addressed,” said Khan in an emailed statement. “Today marks a major milestone in this journey with the introduction of the T-Charge to encourage motorists to ditch polluting, harmful vehicles.”...

So the 905ers should be happy they don't pay any fee to get to downtown Toronto.
 
As expected, they’ve listened to none of what citizens asked for during the public “consultations”. The plan is nearly identical to what they proposed before asking citizens for input.

For example, residents asked for pedestrian enhancements since King St sidewalks are generally too narrow for the rush hour crowds. But instead of widening the narrowest sidewalks in front of the theatres, they gave that lane to cars for drop offs and taxi stands and instead widened the already wide sidewalks across the street at David Pecaut Square. This makes no sense. Pedestrians will continue to have to deal with crush capacity sidewalks.

97625D03-638A-4F4F-BB08-928A7318415B.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 97625D03-638A-4F4F-BB08-928A7318415B.jpeg
    97625D03-638A-4F4F-BB08-928A7318415B.jpeg
    63.9 KB · Views: 433
Perhaps they didn't do enough for the pedestrians; but that could be adjusted in a few months. They aren't building any massive structures that would be too expensive to remove in the near future.

Just from the transit flow point of view, the plans looks reasonable. However, they should provide advanced green for the left turns to northbound Bathurst, and to southbound Jarvis. Otherwise, cars waiting to make those turns will block the streetcars.
 
This project would really benefit from Streetcar stop islands like on College etc, so that the right turning cars would not obstruct the passengers getting on and off the streetcars.

13953186676_b84f7a2996_h.jpg
 
This project would really benefit from Streetcar stop islands like on College etc, so that the right turning cars would not obstruct the passengers getting on and off the streetcars.

13953186676_b84f7a2996_h.jpg


There’s no room. Islands would mean pushing right turning cars into a cut out in the already narrow sidewalks. The same stop behind doors rule will be in effect. I don’t see this as a problem. Cars will have to wait which is part of discouraging them on King to begin with.
 
Perhaps they didn't do enough for the pedestrians; but that could be adjusted in a few months. They aren't building any massive structures that would be too expensive to remove in the near future.

Just from the transit flow point of view, the plans looks reasonable. However, they should provide advanced green for the left turns to northbound Bathurst, and to southbound Jarvis. Otherwise, cars waiting to make those turns will block the streetcars.

The fact that they didn’t listen (at least a dozen people brought this up during the group consultations) doesnt build any encouragement that they will during the pilot or after. This was such a simple item in the overall scheme of things and they failed it. Why widen an already wide sidewalk when the sidewalk on the other side along the theatres is desperately overcrowded?
 
The fact that they didn’t listen (at least a dozen people brought this up during the group consultations) doesnt build any encouragement that they will during the pilot or after. This was such a simple item in the overall scheme of things and they failed it. Why widen an already wide sidewalk when the sidewalk on the other side along the theatres is desperately overcrowded?
The sense I got from the consultations, and the project overall, is that the city did not want to spend any money on permanent infrastructure during the pilot, but instead wanted to just use paint, planters, and signage to set up the scheme, things that can easily be undone. And I'm not sure that's necessarily the wrong choice for a pilot.
 
The fact that they didn’t listen (at least a dozen people brought this up during the group consultations) doesnt build any encouragement that they will during the pilot or after. This was such a simple item in the overall scheme of things and they failed it. Why widen an already wide sidewalk when the sidewalk on the other side along the theatres is desperately overcrowded?

I think you may be overstating the consultations and the outcomes. They did consult both with residents and business. They decided that the chartered bus stop by the theaters were important. And would provide the best use of the space. Just because they did not agree with your point of view doesn't mean they did not listen.

Toronto needs tourist revenue. Whether it is the person that comes for a weekend or on a bus tour for a day (many of which are seniors and have a hard time walking). I would not want anything that would hinder the ability for them to see a play and have dinner. And I applaud the final design that does not restrict this ability.
 
The sense I got from the consultations, and the project overall, is that the city did not want to spend any money on permanent infrastructure during the pilot, but instead wanted to just use paint, planters, and signage to set up the scheme, things that can easily be undone. And I'm not sure that's necessarily the wrong choice for a pilot.

No permanent infrastructure would be needed to improve the walking realm during the pilot. It was a deliberate decision to give the north side (westbound) car lane along the theatre row to cars for taxi stands and drop offs and instead widen the already wide sidewalks on the south side along David Pecaut Square. They have that completely backwards.

97625d03-638a-4f4f-bb08-928a7318415b-jpeg.125101

Blue: drop offs
Yellow: taxi stands
Green: pedestrians


That stretch from around Simcoe to John are the narrowest and most crowded sidewalks because of the cumulative traffic from the financial district, theatre patrons, and nearby residents. By giving the closed off lane on that block to pedestrians, they would have solved this with no permanent infrastructure. There is plenty of room on Ed Mirvish Way (Duncan) for taxi stands and drop offs to serve each of the theatres on either side of that street.

To make matters worse for pedestrians, it's been reported that existing TTC shelters will not be dismantled during the pilot. In fact, they're adding new ones for the new far side stops while keeping the old ones in place. This pilot is turning out to be pedestrian hostile. Yet again, the quietest group is getting shafted. We're all pedestrians. It's time for #WalkTO to make just as much noise as #BikeTO if walking conditions are going to be improved in this city.
 
I think you may be overstating the consultations and the outcomes. They did consult both with residents and business. They decided that the chartered bus stop by the theaters were important. And would provide the best use of the space. Just because they did not agree with your point of view doesn't mean they did not listen.

Toronto needs tourist revenue. Whether it is the person that comes for a weekend or on a bus tour for a day (many of which are seniors and have a hard time walking). I would not want anything that would hinder the ability for them to see a play and have dinner. And I applaud the final design that does not restrict this ability.

Buses don't need to park on King Street to serve the theatres. Ed Mirvish Way is right there, on a dead end rarely used street between both theatres. It's right there, perpendicular to the allocated space on what could become wider sidewalks to accommodate the crush capacity.

I wasn't the only one talking about pedestrians. At least a dozen residents in the area brought up the crowded sidewalks in the consultation groups and wrote notes on the maps. City staff leading the groups recognized the problem. Yet, here we are and nothing was done to address it when the solution is obvious and available. Rather than dedicate 2 blocks to parking buses on King Street, create bus parking zone on Duncan to serve both theatres. When we have such limited space, parking buses in that space makes no sense, specially with an alternative available immediately next to it.
 
No permanent infrastructure would be needed to improve the walking realm during the pilot. It was a deliberate decision to give the north side (westbound) car lane along the theatre row to cars for taxi stands and drop offs and instead widen the already wide sidewalks on the south side
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't widening the sidewalks actually require construction, at least if you want them at the proper grade?
 
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't widening the sidewalks actually require construction, at least if you want them at the proper grade?
Toronto has widened sidewalks in the past by just fencing off a traffic lane and allowing people to walk in them.....not far south of King, York Street has a sidewalk widened in this fashion just now (runs from Wellington south to Front).

It may not be ideal but certainly you could widen a sidewalk at low cost during a pilot project.....if you chose to.
 
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't widening the sidewalks actually require construction, at least if you want them at the proper grade?

What @TOareaFan said.

They’re widening the already wide sidewalk across the street by adding barriers and planters. The sidewalk that is too narrow and overcrowded, they’re making into taxi stands and bus parking.

BF4111F9-E0E5-4D09-B7BA-D9FD06C82E2B.jpeg
5D674F67-F207-4D96-B325-2AEFAAF92D66.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • BF4111F9-E0E5-4D09-B7BA-D9FD06C82E2B.jpeg
    BF4111F9-E0E5-4D09-B7BA-D9FD06C82E2B.jpeg
    335.8 KB · Views: 487
  • 5D674F67-F207-4D96-B325-2AEFAAF92D66.jpeg
    5D674F67-F207-4D96-B325-2AEFAAF92D66.jpeg
    261.8 KB · Views: 469

Back
Top