[Avenue]

This really should have been a St Clair style separated+physically protected streetcar lanes type of solution. Insisting on widening sidewalks really undermined the concept and made it vulnerable to more concessions, which shows itself in the taxi exemption thing. Streetcars should have been given a hundred percent separation from other vehicles, period. The resultant iteration we have is extremely disappointing.

 

[steveintoronto]

I believe Beck and other taxi companies are very well-known to be financial contributors to, at least, Councillor Karygiannis. There was a big hubbub about the obvious conflict of interest during the Uber debates but nothing came of it.

I bring up the issue of the initial vote, with just four dissenters. (35 to 4) They were completely overwhelmed. And then:

But in a last-minute amendment seen as a compromise aimed at winning over the pilot’s council critics, Mayor John Tory moved to exempt taxis from the prohibition on through-traffic between the hours of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. The motion passed 38 to 1.

“There’s no question in my mind, and, I think, many of the minds in this room, that the cab industry does represent an important part of the overall transportation system to get people around, especially at that time of night in that part of town,” said Tory in a speech to council.

Tory said his motion, which also instructed staff to double the number of planned taxi stands, would improve the pilot, which he praised as “something that a 21st Century city must do to move people effectively and to protect the livability and the economy of the city.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ize-streetcars-but-bows-to-taxi-industry.html

What? Could you imagine something like that happening at Queen's Park or on The Hill? A 9:1 vote and the need to "compromise"? Only in Toryland. The fix was in.

Insisting on widening sidewalks really undermined the concept and made it vulnerable to more concessions,

No matter how you slice the economy cake, the whole point of the exercise was to move the King car "faster than walking speed". I don't see how that can happen with this 'pilot project'. It was a massive compromise to begin with, being whittled down even more.

Streetcars should have been given a hundred percent separation from other vehicles, period.

It's the only way the object of the exercise can be achieved. A "transit mall" with very few exceptions, means just that: 'transit priority'. Unless they plan to impose 10 kph speed limits on streetcars like they do in Melbourne's Bourke Mall, and require the trams to flash their lights and ring their bells incessantly.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I bring up the issue of the initial vote, with just four dissenters. (35 to 4) They were completely overwhelmed. And then:

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ize-streetcars-but-bows-to-taxi-industry.html

What? Could you imagine something like that happening at Queen's Park or on The Hill? A 9:1 vote and the need to "compromise"? Only in Toryland. The fix was in.

No matter how you slice the economy cake, the whole point of the exercise was to move the King car "faster than walking speed". I don't see how that can happen with this 'pilot project'. It was a massive compromise to begin with, being whittled down even more.

It's the only way the object of the exercise can be achieved. A "transit mall" with very few exceptions, means just that: 'transit priority'. Unless they plan to impose 10 kph speed limits on streetcars like they do in Melbourne's Bourke Mall, and require the trams to flash their lights and ring their bells incessantly.

Municipal council is nothing like provincial or federal counterparts. Given the limited levers a mayor has, compromise and horse trading is the rule, not the exception. To expect the city to operate as senior levels of government given the system we have in a jurisdiction as fractious as ours is pure fantasy.

AoD

 

[Megaton327]

This really should have been a St Clair style separated+physically protected streetcar lanes type of solution. Insisting on widening sidewalks really undermined the concept and made it vulnerable to more concessions, which shows itself in the taxi exemption thing. Streetcars should have been given a hundred percent separation from other vehicles, period. The resultant iteration we have is extremely disappointing.

I agree. I absolutely 100% sympathise with the need for larger sidewalks, I know it can get pretty tight at peak with all of the new condos adding walkers, but I think the 504 has to be a much bigger priority given the volume it carries. Walkers can always go up to Adelaide or down to Wellington, the round trip north+south assuming their origin+destination are even on King in the first place should only add about 1 minute to their walk at most. Compare that to how much time is added to the streetcar commute without a separated ROW...

It's unfortunate that we can't get rid of cars on King entirely, but many blocks have garages/laneways and it's simply impossible to completely close them legally. I agree with what many others have posted which is that many blocks of King should have cars 100% banned since they don't have laneways/garages, those stretches should be streetcar-only centre lanes with sidewalks expanded to fill the curb lanes. The remaining blocks, given the unfortunate realities of King, should be centre-lane streetcar ROWs with curb lanes for traffic as needed. Narrow sidewalks are unfortunate but there are alternatives, unlike streetcars.

 

[MetroMan]

I always thought the better solution for King was to change the tracks to ROW, ban all left turns and eliminate on street parking where necessary. Throw in a bike lane if it'll fit.

This really should have been a St Clair style separated+physically protected streetcar lanes type of solution. Insisting on widening sidewalks really undermined the concept and made it vulnerable to more concessions, which shows itself in the taxi exemption thing. Streetcars should have been given a hundred percent separation from other vehicles, period. The resultant iteration we have is extremely disappointing.

The WalkTO lobby needs to get louder. Nobody seems to understand the crush of pedestrians shoehorned into the narrow sidewalks on King Street, specially between Peter and Simcoe.

When we're talking about prioritizing streetcars over cars because 65,000 riders use King Street vs 20,000 drivers, what do pedestrians have to do to get adequate space when their numbers are over triple of those streetcar riders?

King Street must be redesigned to create a smooth route for the 504/514 streetcars but a major priority should be in widening the sidewalks and removing obstacles on those sidewalks to fit the already large daytime and weekend population of combined residents, workers and entertainment goers. It's going to get worse, much worse when the newest residential towers are built in that neighbourhood and the city isn't doing nearly enough to address it.

We can't shut down the centre lanes for a streetcar row while keeping the outer lanes for cars because that would leave no room to expand sidewalks. Cars need to be shut out completely if we're to create an exclusive streetcar ROW. Luckily, that entire stretch I mentioned has no garage entrances or driveways and all the businesses are serviced by back alleys on both sides.

 

[amnesiajune]

This really should have been a St Clair style separated+physically protected streetcar lanes type of solution. Insisting on widening sidewalks really undermined the concept and made it vulnerable to more concessions, which shows itself in the taxi exemption thing.

There's not enough room to do that. It was only possible on St. Clair because virtually the entire street was a six- or seven-lane ROW. King Street is only four lanes, so there wouldn't be room to build a separated streetcar corridor unless you banned all left turns, heavily restricted pedestrian street crossings while cars have a green light, and banned *all* pickups & dropoffs along King Street, including for disabled people. And even if you did all that, there wouldn't be any room for trackside streetcar stops, and I doubt that the wheelchair ramp would work from a slightly-elevated streetcar track.

 

[rbt]

Walkers can always go up to Adelaide or down to Wellington, the round trip north+south assuming their origin+destination are even on King in the first place should only add about 1 minute to their walk at most. Compare that to how much time is added to the streetcar commute without a separated ROW.

Streetcars also could be moved off King onto Wellington with an even smaller impact in travel time to them than the walkers.

 

[Megaton327]

Streetcars also could be moved off King onto Wellington with an even smaller impact in travel time to them than the walkers.

Wellington is a one-way street. It would need to be changed back to two-way, and there would need to be a massive construction project to build two tracks all the way from Church to Peter St, where it would need to go back up to King unless you want to cut through the park to get to Spadina, and then Peter needs a ROW as well, as does Church, and the stretches of King west of Peter and east of Church. That sounds like a labyrinth. Also, the streetcar would no longer connect to Line 1.

Also, I'm not sure by what measure the travel time impact would be smaller than walkers. With the sidewalk capacity of King, I'm not saying make it illegal for people to walk there/tear up the sidewalks, I'm saying if the sidewalks are busy some small percentage of the walkers (vs. 100% of the streetcars) could divert. And if the people on the north side of King go to the south side of Adelaide/south side of King to north side of Wellington, they don't have to cross at a crosswalk. Compare that to at least 2 right turns and 2 left turns for the streetcars to get to/from wellington.

 

[rbt]

Wellington is a one-way street.

I'm not sure how that matters if you're rearranging the street (whatever street) to add transit lanes. Switching around a few signs is the cheap part.

Also, I'm not sure by what measure the travel time impact would be smaller than walkers

You suggested walking to Wellington, then across, then back up would only cost them a couple of minutes. Streetcars on a Spadina/Simcoe bypass trip will almost always be faster than a pedestrian on a Spadina/Simcoe bypass trip.

I'm saying if the sidewalks are busy some small percentage of the walkers (vs. 100% of the streetcars) could divert

And this doesn't, if you assume it doesn't, already happen today already because? Perhaps we just need the city to hire someone to hand out leaflets advertising the wonderful alternative sidewalk space available nearby?


Sigh, I'll try not to make silly responses in the future; as I find I'm now knee deep in muck.

 

[Rainforest]

I don't think "reasonable" is the right word; it's profoundly dumb that we're even having this debate, given the modal splits on King.

Perhaps, in the frame of how poorly Council functions and how incomprehensibly dim most suburban councillors are, we can classify it as "acceptable." But I absolutely don't want to normalize Council's warped and antiquated view of reality.

If the only issue with the Council's approved plan is that little concession to taxi drivers, then their view of reality is very practical, the exact opposite of warped. Make a minor concession and neutralize a powerful opponent, while still getting 98% of the projected benefits as most of the congestion problems occur during daytime.

I did not follow the whole King project very closely, thus it is possible that I am missing some more significant issues with the current plan; but I don't see any reference to other issues on the last couple of pages.

 

[ksun]

I did not follow the whole King project very closely.

Because there is no "project" to speak of. Do we really call all this drama a "project"? All the 86 pages of discussion is about what? Nothing. What we see now as a "pilot project" is something that could have happened by the end of 2007, the year this thread started, without wasting so much of taxpayers' money for all the discussions and meetings.

It is laughable we talk so long and so much about so little.

 

[crs1026]

Because there is no "project" to speak of. Do we really call all this drama a "project"? All the 86 pages of discussion is about what? Nothing. What we see now as a "pilot project" is something that could have happened by the end of 2007, the year this thread started, without wasting so much of taxpayers' money for all the discussions and meetings.

It is laughable we talk so long and so much about so little.

Well, 'drama' is what it takes to move an idea from planners' reports and transit geeks' posts in online forums to widespread acceptance across a voting constituency of three million people. That's how politics works.

@steveintoronto makes a key pont when he questions how we ended up with a 35-4 vote on the topic. How often do we see the motley crew at Council achieving this kind of consensus? Personally I expected the vote to be 22-20ish, and I wasn't sure which way it would fall.

@steve theorised some sort of big back room deal to whip councillors into shape. I'm sure there was indeed a lot of whip activity, but even so - what would John Tory have to offer that would get this many councillors to set aside the suburb-downtown schism and fall in line? And is this really the hill that he would stake that much credibility and commit that much political capital on? With all the other issues facing the city in transportation, let alone other things? Even if he wanted this plan to succeed, why not save the capital and be happy with a 24-20 win?

A lot of the woolier councillors (no one expected Ford or Karygiannis to support it, but there were others who might have opposed and didn't) must have decided that they wanted to be seen as being on side with this one.

Possibly, just possibly, some pennies actually dropped here. If so, something positive has indeed happened beyond the pilot for King.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

@steveintoronto makes a key pont when he questions how we ended up with a 35-4 vote on the topic. How often do we see the motley crew at Council achieving this kind of consensus? Personally I expected the vote to be 22-20ish, and I wasn't sure which way it would fall.

The press certainly indicated it would be a 'rough ride' (my gist)...and that was so widely reported that I suspect a deal was made to swing a few votes to ensure a majority, but when that majority ended up being an absolute landslide, the basis for the deal became moot. Suddenly, Tory was left 'holding the fix bag'. Tory then realized those who he'd used as (I'll be diplomatic, and use the term 'fodder') were left empty handed, he saved 'face' by adding on a motion that made absolutely no strategic sense as that pertains to winning the vote. Realizing Tory was left 'holding the fodder bag' the rest of Council also realized they'd been drawn into a back-room deal, and felt compelled (for whatever reason, perhaps guilt) to then vote 38-1 for something that had been rendered totally moot by a vote that was 9:1. It defies logic, and it stinks. This issue isn't going to go away...TorStar is already sniffing around on it, as their headline intimated: "Bowed"

@steve

theorised some sort of big back room deal to whip councillors into shape. I'm sure there was indeed a lot of whip activity, but even so - what would John Tory have to offer that would get this many councillors to set aside the suburb-downtown schism and fall in line? And is this really the hill that he would stake that much credibility and commit that much political capital on? With all the other issues facing the city in transportation, let alone other things? Even if he wanted this plan to succeed, why not save the capital and be happy with a 24-20 win?

You've nailed it. Glad it wasn't just me. I suspect someone behind the scenes at City Hall will spill the beans on this one.

Possibly, just possibly, some pennies actually dropped here. If so, something positive has indeed happened beyond the pilot for King.

Yeah...the vote was overwhelming. The inertia is clearly behind this, but the matter of the 'incentives' to achieve it are troubling. What incentives will it take to maintain the inertia when the problems start showing with the taxis et al?

I'm amazed that the planners and TTC spoke up as vehemently as they did. Vested interest? Of course, but Byford usually toes the line lest he be whipped. He felt compelled to call this for what it is: A 'sop' (and again, I'm being diplomatic).

Possibly, just possibly, some pennies actually dropped here.

Or Pounds.

This is the taxi industry's to lose, and they will.

To you or I and Joe Public, perhaps, but they've got grasp on the 'inside'. Where's the "crackdown" on taxis that's habitually promised over the generations?

I hope you're right, and logic is clearly on your side, but some things never seem to change.

I'm reminded of Houlihan's Law: He thought Murphy was an optimist...

 

[crs1026]

Ouch. My "the penny dropped" line backfired on me. I wasn't suggesting anyone was given a tangible inventive, quite the opposite. My meaning was that some Councillors who are normally unsympathetic to, or opposed to, the 'downtown' vision seem to have all blessed this deal all on their own.

I don't see Tory wanting that unanimity enough to be worth scratching everyone's back. He still has to get the Scarborough subway, the Relief Line, the Rail Park, and SmartTrack advances through Council. And, likely some tough budget/ revenue measures. Is he going to use his political capital on King Street?

My theory is that the suburban councillors figured out that all of Toronto, including their wards benefit from having downtown work better, and they accepted (finally) that the strategies to build downtown are different than the strategies to develop the suburbs.

That suggests they are now more willing to say to their own voters 'look, if you are going downtown to King, you need to take transit, there just isn't room for everyone to take their own vehicle'.. I suspect they would still fight tooth and nail if the planners proposed something similar in their own wards, but they can accept it for downtown.

That's one small step on the road to their accepting similar solutions in their own wards.

If the fix was in - well, I wonder what he has left to offer or threaten with when those other deals come up for a vote.

- Paul

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I have a feeling that a plan would come forward in the future from City Hall for streetcars to go underground within the downtown core and then wider sidewalks + bike lanes.