[Bruno Republic]

Catering to minority special interests to net very marginal gains for that group while the majority gets it worse. There's a word for that: communism.

There are plenty of words for that, but communism isn't one of them.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Is that really the definition of communism? I always saw that as a doctrine the put the rights of the collective above any individual rights....but I might have that wrong.

Well it's a complex definition, but yes. What forgotten described is very much so a more capitalist ideal.

 

[cbrown2009]

Better idea: someone mentioned it before. One (or both) of King or Queen should close to cars between Bathurst & Jarvis. (Or maybe Parliament.) Then do enhanced bike lanes on King and Queen. Deliveries only at night between say 11pm and 6am. Or something like that. And then leave Adelaide & Richmond to the cars.
When NYC closed Broadway through Times Square to traffic in 2008, people said it would be an unmitigated disaster. But when they tried a three week experiment, it went well. Traffic in the area actually got better. They made it permanent immediately. Copenhagen did the same many years ago. Merchants complained that they needed the car traffic to survive. Long story short, it went so well on a few streets that those same merchants begged the city to do the same on more streets. But I say let's just try a few things out and see what works.

 

[JasonParis]

Yeah, it's sad, the conversion of Adelaide and RIchmond into one-way really killed the vibrancy that once defined those streets.

Only I don't think history suggests they were ever THAT vibrant to be honest. They always played a back-seat role to Queen & King.

On the plus side, I think an argument against one-way streets can be made in a city that is going through tough times (i.e., Hamilton for the last 30 years) as it can harm street life somewhat and make sidewalks unpleasant. However, in a city as big and successful as Toronto, it's probably not too much of a concern as the sidewalks will be animated regardless. Basically, we are closer to the NYC example than the Hamilton.

Admittedly, there may be some room for street rationalization through our core (north-south too!) that could free-up extra sidewalk space for bike lanes, wider sidewalks, too. However, unless transit continues to run bi-directional on these streets, it will be a non-starter for most. And I think we need a DRL prior to doing any of this as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Toronto's car lanes are unusually wide, typically around 3.5 meters. you could easily rebuild most streets and give almost a meter extra to sidewalks. Personally I think they should just repaint streets with a slightly skinnier centre lane and a wider side lane with bike sharrows, it would give bikers a lot more free space. So instead of two 3.5 meter lanes you would have 1 3.2 or 3 meter lane and the outer lane would be 3.8 or 4 meters wide, giving lots of space for bikes. Probably can't do this on streets with streetcars though, but on places like Bloor and Bay street it would be easy to do and make our streets much safer for bikes.

 

[doady]

Only I don't think history suggests they were ever THAT vibrant to be honest. They always played a back-seat role to Queen & King.

On the plus side, I think an argument against one-way streets can be made in a city that is going through tough times (i.e., Hamilton for the last 30 years) as it can harm street life somewhat and make sidewalks unpleasant. However, in a city as big and successful as Toronto, it's probably not too much of a concern as the sidewalks will be animated regardless. Basically, we are closer to the NYC example than the Hamilton.

Admittedly, there may be some room for street rationalization through our core (north-south too!) that could free-up extra sidewalk space for bike lanes, wider sidewalks, too. However, unless transit continues to run bi-directional on these streets, it will be a non-starter for most. And I think we need a DRL prior to doing any of this as well.

I was just joking about Richmond and Adelaide beign vibrant.

Hamilton, the streets are 4-5 lanes wide, no parking. Whether one-way or two-way, the sides should have parallel parking, calm traffic and act as buffer between pedestrians and cars.

Hamiltonians says one-way killed those streets, but it's actually the lack of parallel parking that killed them, from what I can see.

Look at Ste-Catherine in Montreal: one-way with parallel parking, no problem... of course, Ste-Catherine remains a transit corridor too. Hamilton lost a major transit corridor in King or Main.

I think making King and Queen one-way doesn't necessarily have to mean removing parallel parking, or killing transit. Even without subway, I think you keep two-way Streetcar service on both King and Queen while making rest of it own-way. Or two-way bike lanes. There are lots of those in downtown Montreal too.

 

[TOareaFan]

^I don't know if King/Queen work as one way but I am always amazed when people opposed to it point to Hamilton when, as you say, there is a very good example of success in Montreal. StCath is one of the most vibrant streets in this country. There is hardly a time when it is not bustling with people and activity...and yet it is one way.

Different horses for different courses and everything that works in one place won't necessarily work elsewhere (the inverse is also true) but the automatic dismissal (or support) of an idea because of one example elsewhere baffles me sometimes.

 

[DSC]

^I don't know if King/Queen work as one way but I am always amazed when people opposed to it point to Hamilton when, as you say, there is a very good example of success in Montreal. StCath is one of the most vibrant streets in this country. There is hardly a time when it is not bustling with people and activity...and yet it is one way.

Montreal also completely shuts many blocks of Ste Catherine each year to provide a better pedestrian environment and room for sidewalk (or roadway) cafes. Not something we could ever do here, I fear!

 

[howl]

One very important thing to remember in this discussion is that these streets were never designed to move cars. They were designed to move people. The car came after these streets were built and we've tried to retrofit cars in to the point that other modes of transportation have suffered. Rather than making Queen Street one way I'd suggest getting rid of the cars altogether except for local traffic and return the majority of the street to pedestrian, cyclists and streetcars.

 

[Filip]

One very important thing to remember in this discussion is that these streets were never designed to move cars. They were designed to move people. The car came after these streets were built and we've tried to retrofit cars in to the point that other modes of transportation have suffered. Rather than making Queen Street one way I'd suggest getting rid of the cars altogether except for local traffic and return the majority of the street to pedestrian, cyclists and streetcars.

What is local traffic? How would anyone know that my car is not 'local traffic' even though it isn't...?

Either you close it to traffic or you don't. Nobody will respect it otherwise (like the diamond lanes on King).

 

[junctionist]

Local traffic includes vehicles making deliveries and residents. Streets can be essentially pedestrianized but kept open to local traffic. For instance, only those with permits could enter the traffic-restricted zone, perhaps with a sticker on the windshield. Even then, the cars would have to yield to pedestrians and drive 10 kmh at most. They wouldn't spend a lot of time on that road. It would require some police enforcement, but ordinary drivers wouldn't want to drive down a street packed with pedestrians with the anyway because it would be slow and difficult.

 

[junior43]

Local traffic includes vehicles making deliveries and residents. Streets can be essentially pedestrianized but kept open to local traffic. For instance, only those with permits could enter the traffic-restricted zone, perhaps with a sticker on the windshield. Even then, the cars would have to yield to pedestrians and drive 10 kmh at most. They wouldn't spend a lot of time on that road. It would require some police enforcement, but ordinary drivers wouldn't want to drive down a street packed with pedestrians with the anyway because it would be slow and difficult.

So, how would this help then? I thought the point was to make the streetcars move faster? If the streets are instead covered in pedestrians, there's no use even running the streetcars, since you can now walk faster.

 

[dunkalunk]

So, how would this help then? I thought the point was to make the streetcars move faster? If the streets are instead covered in pedestrians, there's no use even running the streetcars, since you can now walk faster.

I imagine the streetcars would be in a right-of-way barred to everything except maybe taxis and passing vehicles, that is if it were pedestrianized.

You can create a similar effect by limiting intersection access for through traffic.

 

[gweed123]

On the plus side, I think an argument against one-way streets can be made in a city that is going through tough times (i.e., Hamilton for the last 30 years) as it can harm street life somewhat and make sidewalks unpleasant. However, in a city as big and successful as Toronto, it's probably not too much of a concern as the sidewalks will be animated regardless. Basically, we are closer to the NYC example than the Hamilton.

Exactly. Manhattan, aside from a few streets, is almost exclusively one-ways. I don't think that anyone can claim that there's no animation on Fifth Ave.

Sure there are ways to improve the streetscape and the feel of the street, one of those is removing a one-way, but I don't think a one-way can be blamed for a decline, unless that reconfigured road is now feeding a freeway into or out of the area (Richmond and Adelaide come to mind, I'm sure they were much more pleasant streets prior to being connected to the DVP). King and Queen wouldn't be directly feeding any major highway, so that fear wouldn't be an issue.

 

[TOareaFan]

One very important thing to remember in this discussion is that these streets were never designed to move cars.

I don't want to come across as "car is king" (cause I'm not) but I hate this argument....for anything! The world changes, we have to find a way to make old things adapt and work as it does so. Those streets that weren't built for the car also weren't built for 40+storey buildings and the amounts of people that live and work in them.

there may be good reason(s) for making some streets pedestrian only....but "that's what they were built for" is not one of them.