[Dichotomy]

Whether certain people like it or not, the auto is here to stay. To make every single major street bicycle/pedestrian friendly is neither desirable or attainable.
Despite the constant taxi/delivery truck parking that chokes movement and the incesssant lane closures due to the new tower of the week going up, Adealaide and Richmond are the only E-W streets south of Eglinton that can move at all.
As with University and Jarvis, the city needs to set aside at least a few streets that can function as traffic movers. King, Queen, College and Dundas are a nightmare for all forms of traffic: streetcar, bicycle and vehicular.
We have to tread very carefully with respect to what is done with Jarvis (plans to plant pretty trees up the middle ), Adelaide/Richmond and the Gardiner. Any one of these have the potential to become the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and could launch an exodus of tenants from the core.
Toronto has so little viable traffic space as it is. I watch in horror as Wellesley becomes choked, year by year, yet more 40 story condos pop up like mushrooms. Eventually, nothing will be able to move along Wellesley either.
You have to remember one very important thing: where do the decision makers on Bay St. live - and how do they get to work every day? As I work out at Good Life on Bay St. nearly every day, I can count the shiny Porsches, Lexi, Caddys and Beemers going to their offices. Certain people on this board may resent their wealth, but if we make it too difficult for them to get to their 50th floor office, they may opt to move to Mississauga or Calgary - and take with them their 15 floors of office space that their company has rented.

 

[androiduk]

Whether certain people like it or not, the auto is here to stay. To make every single major street bicycle/pedestrian friendly is neither desirable or attainable.
Despite the constant taxi/delivery truck parking that chokes movement and the incesssant lane closures due to the new tower of the week going up, Adealaide and Richmond are the only E-W streets south of Eglinton that can move at all.
As with University and Jarvis, the city needs to set aside at least a few streets that can function as traffic movers. King, Queen, College and Dundas are a nightmare for all forms of traffic: streetcar, bicycle and vehicular.
We have to tread very carefully with respect to what is done with Jarvis (plans to plant pretty trees up the middle ), Adelaide/Richmond and the Gardiner. Any one of these have the potential to become the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and could launch an exodus of tenants from the core.
Toronto has so little viable traffic space as it is. I watch in horror as Wellesley becomes choked, year by year, yet more 40 story condos pop up like mushrooms. Eventually, nothing will be able to move along Wellesley either.
You have to remember one very important thing: where do the decision makers on Bay St. live - and how do they get to work every day? As I work out at Good Life on Bay St. nearly every day, I can count the shiny Porsches, Lexi, Caddys and Beemers going to their offices. Certain people on this board may resent their wealth, but if we make it too difficult for them to get to their 50th floor office, they may opt to move to Mississauga or Calgary - and take with them their 15 floors of office space that their company has rented.

Sorry but I think you've got it backwards, people are here to stay and the auto's days are numbered, especially in big city cores. Cities like London, Athens and Mexico City and others are leading the way by either restricting or outright banning autos. People like living downtown and there is major revitalization of downtown cores all across North America. Employers will follow. And your friends who move to Calgary & Mississauga, go ahead, they'll run into the same problem there in a few years. When it comes to big cities, the auto is on a dead end road.

 

[ShonTron]

I still think that Richmond and Adelaide are a necessary evil. While there are some improvements to the streetscape in Spadina and the east end, they are still back-roads to King and Queen. I would be up for discouragement of auto traffic as a transit/pedestrian/bike mall on King (like what was planned and shot down by David Mirvish and a few other influential businessmen) or Queen, but to do that, Richmond and Adelaide must remain as they are, perhaps with some minor amendments. But Queen Street, where I can't see many businesses losing out to demotorization between Spadina (or even Bathurst) and say Jarvis, might be the place where efforts should be concentrated.

Though Montreal isn't suffering when they put the two-way full-width bike lane in on de Maisonneuve, which seems to work great, even in winter, where it is plowed. I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but I don't oppose the general status quo for the two one-way streets, at least in the short term, as long as a proper east-west bike corridor goes ahead somewhere around there.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Maybe they should stay one-way, maybe they should revert to two-way. My take on the subject is that you have two strongly divergent objectives. One-way streets kill local vibrancy, period. You can find many examples of vibrant streets that are one-way, but my opinion is that they are vibrant despite the fact they are one-way. It just isn't a neutral influence and Manhattan is no exception. It was very evident to me in Manhattan that the one-way system was negative from this perspective and much of the island's one-way grid is composed of traffic sewers of necessity. Which brings me to the next objective, traffic flow. One-way street grids are unequivocally better for the flow of large volumes of traffic. So, basically all streets should be two-way until such a time as one-way volumes are required. I doubt traffic is bad enough anywhere in this city to grant 24hr one-way status on any street. Perhaps select routes during rushhour.

 

[unimaginative2]

TrickyRicky, you really should check out streets in Montreal. All their main retail and commercial streets are one-way (except most of Saint-Denis) and they're extremely successful. Incidentally, the one major two-way street downtown (Rene Levesque) is by far the least animated. I just can't see how the direction of traffic has any bearing whatsoever on pedestrian appeal.

 

[Dichotomy]

Sorry but I think you've got it backwards, people are here to stay and the auto's days are numbered, especially in big city cores. Cities like London, Athens and Mexico City and others are leading the way by either restricting or outright banning autos. People like living downtown and there is major revitalization of downtown cores all across North America. Employers will follow. And your friends who move to Calgary & Mississauga, go ahead, they'll run into the same problem there in a few years. When it comes to big cities, the auto is on a dead end road.

We need a 'beating a dead horse' smily for this website.

Sorry, Andro: we've heard it all before. This ain't Mexico City (4 times the size of us and desperately poor), nor London (twice the size and 5 times older) or Athens (????)

People like you think we should have cafes on every corner and have troglodytes pushing carts of goods through tunnels only after dark, because we wouldn't want to see the icky parts that make the city work.
This city has to function FOR EVERYONE, not just Mennonites.

Let's have this conversation again in 20 years, because we've been hearing this tired old tune for the past 30.

 

[Whoaccio]

It would be neat to reduce Richmond/Adelaide to 3 lanes (one way, still) while we put a limited stop express route underneath (in the same direction). It could lead directly from the DVP, with exits on Parliament, Jarvis, Yonge, University. Spadina and Bathurst. To save money and space, exits could only lead to the upper, local, level. Having dedicated E/W express routes in the downtown core could free up road space and maybe let us do some fun stuff with King and Queen.

 

[RedRocket191]

It would be neat to reduce Richmond/Adelaide to 3 lanes (one way, still) while we put a limited stop express route underneath (in the same direction). It could lead directly from the DVP, with exits on Parliament, Jarvis, Yonge, University. Spadina and Bathurst. To save money and space, exits could only lead to the upper, local, level. Having dedicated E/W express routes in the downtown core could free up road space and maybe let us do some fun stuff with King and Queen.

I've been supporting an idea like that for quite some time. My vision always had the tunnel under Queen, but Richmond and Adelaide would be much better. The onramp issue i came across would be solved by your idea.

It's a long term solution, but I would support it.

 

[Chuck]

Stupidity is running rampant in this thread. Wake up people and realize that Adelaide and Richmond are back alleys. The buildings that back (not front) onto them contain nothing but ramps to parking garages and fire exits at street level. This is how it has always been. Even 100 years ago during an era that predated cars, properties turned their backs so badly to these streets that even then you could not find pedestrians.

Stop and think real hard about what makes a street pedestrian friendly. You need buildings that embrace the sidewalk, wide sidewalks, people oriented storefronts, mixed land uses, and a population density high enough to complement all of the above. How many of these qualities do Adelaide and Richmond posses? How many of these qualities did these streets ever posses, historically speaking? Is it even possible to install storefronts in the warehouses that line these streets? Ever stop to think these are the reasons why they are dead?

For the majority of you who still believe that Adelaide and Richmond's fatal flaw is their one way traffic, I challenge you to explain how New York City has grown to become the only true pedestrian city in North America, even with its 7 lane one way streets that, in terms of road design, have more in common with Lakeshore Boulevard than Queen St.

 

[samsonyuen]

Has anyone heard of express lanes in arterial roads? I came across these in the NW suburbs of Chicagoland (an example being Palatine Rd). It used to be an 8-lane road, but has been divided into Palatine express lanes and local lanes. You can only get onto the express lanes from certain intersections, and they have priority crossings. It's kinda confusing, but seems to work over there. Does anyone know where these started and where they are located, and whether they work?

 

[nfitz]

Has anyone heard of express lanes in arterial roads?

Sure, but in Toronto we restrict them to streetcars and emergency vehicles.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"For the majority of you who still believe that Adelaide and Richmond's fatal flaw is their one way traffic, I challenge you to explain how New York City has grown to become the only true pedestrian city in North America, even with its 7 lane one way streets that, in terms of road design, have more in common with Lakeshore Boulevard than Queen St."

I for one would never suggest that traffic direction is Adelaide or Richmond's fatal flaw. Yet my opinion stands that one-way traffic suppresses street activity. I'm going to side-step unimaginative's Montreal example in order to avoid Montreal comparisons, suffice to say observing Montreal I still stand by the hypothesis. As for New York I don't have sufficient evidence. I would suspect that every street was at one time during the development of Manhattan (I assume you are refering to Manhattan as opposed to New York when you refer to it as a true pedestrian city) two-way and evolved to a one-way system to accommodate the shear volume of traffic. Anecdotally, by the way, I have driven in Manhattan and have to say that one-way is a vastly superior system to travel in because you can always circle the block left or right every second intersection. I'll finish with what will likely turn into a controvertial opinion, that is that very few of the streets I walked down in Manhattan were pedestrian friendly in the same manner as say Queen Street. There are high volumes of pedestrians and traffic, but very few streets lined with small interesting or independent businesses.

 

[TKTKTK]

But Queen Street, where I can't see many businesses losing out to demotorization between Spadina (or even Bathurst) and say Jarvis, might be the place where efforts should be concentrated.

To Jarvis?! A better demarcation would be University (or Yonge) to Strachan.

Queen East would be scary as a pedestrian-only space. Give it a couple more years.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The direction of traffic has little to do with urban vibrancy. Toronto designates certain roads as traffic funnels that parallel more established and vibrant commercial strips. Thus, Bay and Jarvis are to Yonge as Richmond/Adelaide are to Queen/King, despite the fact that Bay and Jarvis are two-way streets.

I think one of Richmond or Adelaide would be a great place for a contra-flow bike lane. Just remove one surface parking lane and voila. Who needs surface parking on Richmond, anyway?

 

[Dichotomy]

The direction of traffic has little to do with urban vibrancy. Toronto designates certain roads as traffic funnels that parallel more established and vibrant commercial strips. Thus, Bay and Jarvis are to Yonge as Richmond/Adelaide are to Queen/King, despite the fact that Bay and Jarvis are two-way streets.

I think one of Richmond or Adelaide would be a great place for a contra-flow bike lane. Just remove one surface parking lane and voila. Who needs surface parking on Richmond, anyway?

There are 2 flaws with that argument:

1) For all intents and purposes Richmond and Adelaide are only TWO lanes, due to the interminable construction of highrises on both those thoroughfares. I see the debacle that Richmond has become in the morning when it is jammed from Jarvis as far as I can see in both directions because of lane restrictions.
2) Jarvis' fatal flaw is that even when 3 lanes are going in the same direction (green arrow), traffic bunches up at every 2nd intersection where left turns are allowed. Effectively, at those intersections, only one lane can keep moving. With the inevitable choke points, it is dangerous and traffic slows to a crawl. Richmond and Adelaide at least have the possibility (construction notwithstanding) of having 2 lanes move cleanly through each interersection as the far right and far left lanes become choked with turning traffic.

There are only 4 streets downtown that can handle any amount of traffic and those are Jarvis, University, Richmond and Adelaide. To tamper with any of those is only going to worsen an already desperate mess.