[nfitz]

You have a awkward definition of works. In any sense this would be a text book example of a transit priority solution that didn't work.

A quick google search though shows little discussion of the "problem" and lots of photos of full trams moving on the street.

 

[44 North]

I see. So do you suggest tearing down all of King Street to double the width? I leave it to you to provide the details.

Ultimately, that's what it would take, and I've often wondered if the Relief Line shouldn't be run under King instead of Queen. But that's well over a decade away, if ever. We have to deal with the here and now.

Since I'm now answering a realist, I have to wonder if pedestrians should only be allowed to cross the tracks at marked intersections? I can't see any other way of keeping the streetcars at a reasonable speed unless their tracks are separate and fenced.

Here's the problem:


https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/176/372739399_409b319713_b.jpg

Speed limit is 5 mph. And accident rate is still high! I don't see how this will improve King car travel times.

WE both know a subway won't happen before 2040, if ever of course that would be ideal. The issue is how to make the pathetic King street car move faster NOW. That's all that counts.

Also speaking of pedestrian zones, I was not suggesting it for the financial district. More for west of Simcoe Street. Someone living in a condo at King/John should not expect to leave the apartment in a car every day to begin with. That's not the lifestyle for the area. Adelaide is right there for him to use too.

Oh right, sometimes I get ahead of myself and forget the issue at hand (near-term transit improvement on King). I think regardless of what's chosen, fencing will be the way to go - with proper crossings at set locations. Just to reduce the slow orders. Also think we should do this on QQW/QQE.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here

Oh right, sometimes I get ahead of myself and forget the issue at hand (near-term transit improvement on King). I think regardless of what's chosen, fencing will be the way to go - with proper crossings at set locations. Just to reduce the slow orders. Also think we should do this on QQW/QQE.

It's still one of the great unanswered questions with the proposed King Mall. I presume pedestrians will be 'Jay Walking' if they don't cross at marked and/or signalled crossings. It's going to raise hackles, but fencing might be needed. Both merchants and public alike will be averse, but there are conditions necessary to making this work.

Here's some background on the Bourke Street mall, since it is the one most analogous to King St that I can find, and this is from twelve years ago!

[...]
The renewed debate is timely. It was this week 27 years ago - long before Charles and Diana did the official honours - that Melbourne City Council closed Bourke Street. That first closure was done without fanfare, and as a trial.

Bourke Street was not the first choice - that was Collins Street - but trader uproar forced the council to look for an alternative. There were certainly doomsayers. The management of the former Buckley and Nunn, the current David Jones store, feared the worst.

Melburnians, however, got used to the idea, despite having to wait until 1984 for anything like landscaping to take place. The retailers liked it, and it provided a new performance space.

But Melbourne University historian Andrew Brown-May believes Melburnians have never embraced the mall as a place to spend time.

"From an historical point of view, it is a bit of an odd fish, really," he says. Being a "transit mall" - in effect, a giant tram station, split by one of the busiest city routes - is "its blessing and its curse".

"Although it has the advantage of bringing people in ... it means that it's never been a true pedestrian space."

Brown-May says that although much can be done to obliterate the memory of Bourke Street being a former main road, "it's still a pretty scary place for a pedestrian".

Buckland puts a first-hand spin on the same idea.

"I've seen numerous near misses, I've seen trams going twice the speed they should be, I've helped someone that was almost crushed to death" .

He says that tourists in particular, among the mall's big users, are oblivious to the danger.

"The trams should have been diverted many years ago," Buckland says.

The tram question has come up repeatedly. A 1984 plan put forward several ideas, among them putting the trams underground, moving the tram line to Lonsdale Street, and breaking the Bourke Street line at Swanston and Elizabeth streets.

More recently, council election candidates have put forward similar ideas. Nothing so radical is part of the current plans, although moving the two tram stops in April is expected to free up the crowded Swanston Street end of the mall.

Lord mayor John So is typically upbeat. He says the paving and the tram stop changes will make the mall safer. He believes trams bring people into the city heart, and are part of its flavour. "They are an asset," he says.

Driving the mall redevelopment is the need to adapt to the increased number of people coming into the city each day - 50 per cent more than a decade ago.

"I want to turn the mall into a space that embraces diverse activities, including the uniqueness of the trams running through it," Cr So says. [...]

https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p228698.htm

More discussion here:
Trams in malls (such as Melbourne's Bourke St)
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27200

Oz is a generation ahead of us in dealing with this issue, and Melbourne, having more trams than any other city in the world, has lessons to be learned.

One of them is going to have to be how to deal with the push for 'pedestrianization' of the mall. There's a massive difference not normally noted between King and Bourne: King is meant to ferry through-traffic, Bourne is the destination. The King car carries more passengers than any other streetcar and the Sheppard subway line. King is also a destination, but the streetcars, due to a lack of subway along or near that alignment, must act as a major conduit.

 

[salsa]

Executive committee has approved the King pilot, (councillor Shiner and Pasternak opposed), along with a few shitty motions:

 

[steveintoronto]

Executive committee has approved the King pilot, (councillor Shiner and Pasternak opposed), along with a few shitty motions:

View attachment 112637yada, yada

View attachment 112636yada, yada

View attachment 112635This one really concerns me. NO! This would be the beginning of the end. The rule has to apply to *everyone*! Build loading/unloading bays if need be, (swages into the sidewalk)but the flow must not be blocked. Those 'swages' can also be decked over with an upper level sidewalk, but of course, some posters find the use of the air space an imposition. (God knows why, there's no space to waste on King, even with only one lane of vehicles )

 

[Megaton327]

Executive committee has approved the King pilot, (councillor Shiner and Pasternak opposed), along with a few shitty motions:


View attachment 112637

View attachment 112636

View attachment 112635

I don't understand Tory's motion--aren't taxis already exempt from turn restrictions and all other road rules?

 

[ksun]

Any point you make about those three wards applies to the core of Toronto, especially King Street. It needs those streetcars to move unimpeded. Unfortunately, for various reasons made clear by the City and others, it's not *practicable* to totally ban vehicular traffic on King. Been discussed at length in this forum and elsewhere.

If pedestrians are allowed to walk wherever and whenever they like as a *Pedestrian Mall* infers, the streetcars will run even slower than they do now, which is exactly what has happened on Bourke Street in Melbourne. All been discussed at length here prior. That's why it's being approached as a *Transit Mall*.

Toronto is going to have to consider same for not only merchants, but those residents whose only vehicular access is from King:

There is no "various reasons". Other cities such "various reasons” too but they just decided to deal with them, so could Toronto if it wants to. Thing is it doesn't want, it want to compromise with drivers each time. I am sure the reason is not because of "those residents whose only access is from King", which would be a small issue that is easy to fix, but that people elsewhere feel entitled to drive on King unimpeded. The idea that they can't drive on an important street downtown is simply unacceptable to many, including many politicians, as if some basic human rights are taken away.

I don't support a pedestrain mall where people can walk and cross the street wherever they want. They cross at intersections at green lights on King like they do today. When there is a streetcar with 150 people on board, of course those 12 pedestrians should give priority to the streetcar. What troubles pedestrians are the endless cars, not the 504 which are not only rather quiet, but only appear every 5-10 minutes. It is far less annoying than those omnipresent personal cars which change lanes, honks, cut each other.

 

[UD2]

A quick google search though shows little discussion of the "problem" and lots of photos of full trams moving on the street.

memory would also recall that TTC has slowed down streetcars on Queens Quay due to the dangers of the tracks directly adjacent to a bike/padestrian row.

 

[steveintoronto]

I am sure the reason is not because of "those residents whose only access is from King", which would be a small issue that is easy to fix,

Well fire away. Let's hear how you'd "fix" that...I'm all ears.

 

[ksun]

Well fire away. Let's hear how you'd "fix" that...I'm all ears.

Do you really think King can't be car free because of some condos whose only vehicle access is King st? That's our dilemma?

 

[steveintoronto]

Do you really think King can't be car free because of some condos whose only vehicle access is King st? That's our dilemma?

I asked for you to detail your "easy fix". And yes, for some odd reason, depriving residents of their only vehicular access to where they live is a "dilemma".

 

[ksun]

I asked for you to detail your "easy fix". And yes, for some odd reason, depriving residents of their only vehicular access to where they live is a "dilemma".

since it troubles you so much, I will just try something extremely simple: to allow cars registered with a King st address to run temporarily on King st, but not too far? And those cars will always be on the right lane trying to GET OUT King so they will never interfere with the 504.

Again, do you really think we can't have King car free because of some condos only have car access on King st? That's our problem? That's why they can't agree with the plan??

Not sure where you have lived. Those skywalks offer horrible pedestrian experience and few people would be willing to do that. It just make the car beneath run faster.

 

[rbt]

since it troubles you so much, I will just try something extremely simple: to allow cars registered with a King st address to run temporarily on King st, but not too far? And those cars will always be on the right lane trying to GET OUT King so they will never interfere with the 504.

Again, do you really think we can't have King car free because of some condos only have car access on King st? That's our problem? That's why they can't agree with the plan??

Just so I understand, your version of a "car free King" allows cars to run on King? That's great news! I'm going to go eat a slice of "calorie free cheesecake".

You might choose to relabel your plan as restricted access King or something less misleading.

 

[ksun]

Just so I understand, your version of a "car free King" allows cars to run on King?

It is not my version. I am not an urban planning so I just propose something that fix the problem that seem to make the whole plan "impossible".

Not allow cars, but allow a very limited number of cars for a very short of period (500 meters max) and only on right lanes. Does it bother you? Tell me how it can't work. I am sure real planners can come up with something better.

In fact it doesn't have to be "Car free". I am fine with delivery trucks during certain hours of the day, which is done in many other cities as well. No need to be bound by the idea of "car free" in literal terms. The purpose to make the 504 run more efficiently, and give pedestrians a much more pleasant experience by dramatically reducing the number of personal cars on King street. It is not an issue of cars run freely vs zero cars.

 

[steveintoronto]

You might choose to relabel your plan as restricted access King or something less misleading.

I'd already detailed the permit system Melbourne uses a few posts back for him/her, but it appears to be argument for the sake of being obstinate. We must press on in discussing fencing the streetcar corridor or not. This is especially pertinent in discussing walkways or tunnels mid-block, and whether they should be part of a longer grade separated pedestrian network?

That will of course be the next step after the trial period. What must be established even for the trial is loading/unloading stopping bays and no stopping strictly enforced along the one vehicular lane.