Adjei said:
Yeah right no one said that: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/06/06/queens_quay_to_become_torontos_champs_elysees.html

“The goal is to make (Queens Quay) the signature street for Toronto†— this city’s version of Barcelona’s Rambla, or the Champs Elysees in Paris, said Chris Glaisek, vice-president, planning and design for Waterfront Toronto.
Click to expand...

key difference: Rambla and Champs Elysees both are lined with shops and restaurants in beautiful architecture on both sides of the street. QQ is lined by glass condos 70% of which are downright ugly, and very little retail. It is the difference between the AGO and le Louvre.

Of course one may say QQ is never intended to be a retail street but for waterfront recreation, but even in that it is a disappointment to whoever have been to a real pleasant pedestrian friendly grand boulevard. Improvement over the previous condition? Of course. Impressive? No. Its quality is comparable to Aura, so much fanfare, so little presentable result.
 
How can you even judge how impressive it is when construction is still taking place. Looks like a mess to me still. Let them finish construction and how about we give the trees a few years to grow.
 
I walked past the parking garage at harbourfront center last night and again this morning and it looks like there's a significant amount of confusion from drivers trying to get out. There's a lot of space between the exit from the garage to the turning point onto the road. Some didn't know where to turn, and some, used to stopping right at the edge of the asphalt until there's room to turn were stopping right on the streetcar tracks. One guy got spooked when a construction worker started yelling at him to get off the tracks and ran the red.
 
ttk77 said:
I walked past the parking garage at harbourfront center last night and again this morning and it looks like there's a significant amount of confusion from drivers trying to get out. There's a lot of space between the exit from the garage to the turning point onto the road. Some didn't know where to turn, and some, used to stopping right at the edge of the asphalt until there's room to turn were stopping right on the streetcar tracks. One guy got spooked when a construction worker started yelling at him to get off the tracks and ran the red.
Click to expand...

I think what is leading to a lot of the confusion is the mixture of road surfaces throughout the project. People are assuming that asphalt and concrete = road and brick = sidewalk.

The transition areas are likely confusing people since they are not familiar with driving on cobblestone here in the city. They probably see the asphalt ahead and automatically think that is where their car needs to be. They begin to drive towards it and are too occupied with trying to determine where they are supposed to be before they realize they are now stopped on the ROW.

I can also see this being an issue at the service entrance to Harbour Square. They drive south, and then realize it switches over to cobblestone. The first instinct is to not be on that surface, so they will turn onto the concrete ROW instead of using the cobblestone portion of Queens Quay.

To go from roads where everything is literally lined up for you in black and white, to cobblestone where all modes of transportation suddenly blend is a shock to many when they aren't expecting it. Im sure things will improve over time as people get used to it though. It may have been a bit easier had the entire road surface been paved with similar granite, forcing drivers to start paying attention BEFORE they get to a confusing section.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
I've seen this done in Amsterdam for their streetcars. It looks rather strange when you first see it, but it definitely prevents any confusion for cars as to whether they should drive on the streetcar ROW.
Long-time lurker…just decided I might start chiming in a bit.
Click to expand...

Grass is actually not all that common here in Amsterdam. Mostly out in the "suburbs".

Taxis are allowed to drive on the streetcar ROWs here, which doesn't work well when there's grass.

That said, there are plenty of modern LRT systems in Europe which use grass. It's quite common. Just not in Amsterdam. :)
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Absolutely nuts! So out of curiosity, how many hours were you there taking pictures? This tells me, that especially at night, signage is going to be problematic. If this many cars accidentally end up on the ROW, some mods will have to be made.

Once a year back in SF, you'd read about a car that ended up on the ROW and then tried to drive into a tunnel and got stuck...usually alcohol was a component. I don't think I've ever read about that happening in Toronto.
Click to expand...

My first and last pics in that album were a mere 46 minutes apart, and there were a few things I missed due to having put my phone down for a second.

Actually yes, we've had cars drive into the tunnel either at Spadina Station or on Queen's Quay and get stuck! This is just one example, but it probably happens once every year or two.
 
Tuscani01 said:
They really needed grass on the ROW. It would have eliminated any confusion at all. There's absolutely no reason why EMS and Toronto Fire can't use the regular roadway like every other damn car. If EMS/Fire can be fine with a single lane of traffic each way on Sherbourne, there is no excuse here.
Click to expand...

I agree with the grass on the ROW. As for emergency vehicles, I would have them use the bicycle path, with flexible or retractable bollards to allow them passage.
 
Tuscani01 said:
I think what is leading to a lot of the confusion is the mixture of road surfaces throughout the project. People are assuming that asphalt and concrete = road and brick = sidewalk.

The transition areas are likely confusing people since they are not familiar with driving on cobblestone here in the city. They probably see the asphalt ahead and automatically think that is where their car needs to be. They begin to drive towards it and are too occupied with trying to determine where they are supposed to be before they realize they are now stopped on the ROW.

I can also see this being an issue at the service entrance to Harbour Square. They drive south, and then realize it switches over to cobblestone. The first instinct is to not be on that surface, so they will turn onto the concrete ROW instead of using the cobblestone portion of Queens Quay.

To go from roads where everything is literally lined up for you in black and white, to cobblestone where all modes of transportation suddenly blend is a shock to many when they aren't expecting it. Im sure things will improve over time as people get used to it though. It may have been a bit easier had the entire road surface been paved with similar granite, forcing drivers to start paying attention BEFORE they get to a confusing section.
Click to expand...
You have it right on. It's a case of aesthetic over practicality. Such as the bike path should've been placed between the roadway and streetcar ROW - with a curb separating it from the road, and tall planters from the ROW. That way the eastbound streetcar platforms can be integrated into the pedestrian sidewalk.
 
Megaton327 said:
I spent a good deal of time down on Queen's Quay today, and I saw an incredible amount of stupidity on the parts of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians at the Lower Simcoe, Queen's Quay Terminal, and York intersections now that two-way traffic has been reopened. I took a lot of pictures, anyone interested can see the album here.
Click to expand...
Not trying to excuse the bad driving, but to be honest, signs and signals are shockingly awfully designed. Not sure if it's a Toronto, Ontario or a Canadian thing.
I mean if I'm waiting at this location wanting to turn I am confronted with 8(!!!) traffic signals pointing my way. They're all round, red-amber-green, and have about the same size.

Some quick fixes:

1. Get rid of redundant signals. Why are there double lights near the bike trail and on the pole? What are they for? I have no idea cause it's nighttime and the red light is glaring in my face so I can't read the tiny little sign.

2. Make TTC-specific signals stand out as transit signals. They're directed at TTC drivers, so they don't have to be big and round and can be more subtle. Make them another color, put in letters or shapes. It's not that hard. Same for bike signals. How hard is it to just put in a bike logo. Not that hard I can assure you. It needs to be understood at first glance;

3. Traffic lights for turning-only lanes need to be arrows. Obviously.

4. Put every signal directly in above/in front of the lane it's meant for.

Now, I know many of these lights go green and red at the same time, but it's still important to place and design the traffic lights as obviously as possible. That absolutely does not mean I have to read a tiny little sign at nighttime.

[/europeanhighhorse]
 
Last edited:
Agreed 100%. And that's a post after WK Lis's heart, too.

Switching TTC signals over to the transit signal standard that it used in many other places would make things safer as it would guarantee that things would not be interpreted.

I'm a believer that a sign can be an admission of failure. If things are intuitive, signs are unnecessary. Changing the standard to permit red arrows for left turn signals and bike-shaped traffic lights would reduce the need for signs and remove a lot of clutter at our intersections.
 
QQ.jpg

The issue is apparent right here in the concept rendering. Notice how all the white safety markings - for pedestrians, bicycles, and cars - sort of disappear in that crucial area in front of the driveway, apparently for the sake of continuity of the maple-leaf cobblestones. I would hate to see a tragic result when cars, buses, cyclists, pedestrians, etc. all try to figure out how to navigate this unmarked yet heavily-trafficked area, which is just next to the ROW where streetcars are whizzing by.
 

Attachments

  • QQ.jpg
    QQ.jpg
    127.6 KB · Views: 674
Last edited:
CDL.TO said:
Grass is actually not all that common here in Amsterdam. Mostly out in the "suburbs".

Taxis are allowed to drive on the streetcar ROWs here, which doesn't work well when there's grass.

That said, there are plenty of modern LRT systems in Europe which use grass. It's quite common. Just not in Amsterdam. :)
Click to expand...

Seems to be more common in places like The Hague (which is less densely built than A'dam):

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/De...s!3m1!1s0x47c5b16ab621b8fd:0x1329092e7c6f871b
 
I have a dumb question about the transit signals. Why is it that there two identical transit signals always right next to each other. I don't think I've ever seen them indicate anything different…always double green or double red. I did some googling, but came up short.
I agree that systems that use transit signals are better…that's what you see in SF when streetcars run in both ROW and often in mixed traffic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top