King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[innsertnamehere]

there are rumours that Yonge is going to be pedestrianized soon. The City is starting an EA looking at changes to the street, and from what I know, the local councillor is pushing for full pedestrianization. Don't think Dundas will go car free any time soon though.

 

[ShonTron]

there are rumours that Yonge is going to be pedestrianized soon. The City is starting an EA looking at changes to the street, and from what I know, the local councillor is pushing for full pedestrianization. Don't think Dundas will go car free any time soon though.

Even if Yonge goes down to one lane in each direction, even with a bike lane, there will be 25% more sidewalk on each end side, providing more room at intersections. I prefer this over full pedestrianization of Yonge.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Even if Yonge goes down to one lane in each direction, even with a bike lane, there will be 25% more sidewalk on each end side, providing more room at intersections. I prefer this over full pedestrianization of Yonge.

What about 3 lanes at intersections for left turns?

 

[steveintoronto]

And the suggestion to remove bike tracks in Richmond & Adelaide is not reflective of their poor performance at all. On the contrary, I think they have performed very well. The suggestion is, we can optimise traffic for all modes by bringing the bike lanes to King, and recovering a lane on Richmond&Adelaide for cars.

Why in the world would you do that?

Cycling along King with zero space to spare between streetcars and street installations is fffing crazy. I've seen it go wrong, with just oversized straight-bars! The guy was incredibly lucky to have regained his balance. He was behind me, and like a lot of idiot cyclists, on his bell behind me for me to take the lead. Ffff him. I slammed on brakes, and said "After you, jerk" and the fool did exactly that. And almost paid severely for it. Even if the streetcar had slammed on brakes, it was too late, he was already caught. And the fool kept on going after regaining balance...he had no idea of the warning just given him.

It *IS NOT SAFE!* to cycle along King the way it is. The set-up is going to cost a cyclist's life sooner or later, or even worse, half dead with useless legs.

Richmond and Adelaide have their shortcomings, hopefully soon to be greatly improved, but why put cycle lanes on King where the space doesn't exist to do so safely when Adelaide and Richmond, imperfect as they are, are vastly safer?

I just don't get it. But then I'm a lot older than most, done distance cycling while resident in three nations, and visited more in Europe, and have lived this long by sizing up risks, and knowing when not to take them.

I put a fair amount of blame on the City for keep talking about King as a 'cycling route'. I could only wish.

 

[WislaHD]

but why put cycle lanes on King where the space doesn't exist to do so safely when Adelaide and Richmond, imperfect as they are, are vastly safer?

The right of way on King exists for a proper design. We just are not creative and/or brave enough to come up with an actual solution.

We have 80 feet right-of-way to work with on King. I am confident that a proper design could accommodate streetcar, cyclists and pedestrians. Perhaps not with the traditional transportation mode street hierarchy, but I would like to move away from traditional North American thinking about streets.

 

[steveintoronto]

Even if Yonge goes down to one lane in each direction, even with a bike lane, there will be 25% more sidewalk on each end side, providing more room at intersections. I prefer this over full pedestrianization of Yonge.

Even if for the cause of diplomacy alone, this is the way to go. Yonge vehicle traffic needs to be tamed, not eliminated, and if the vehicle lanes aren't single lane one way each direction (with a cycling lane adjacent) then a bi-directional cycling lane is a good call, physically separated from the vehicular lanes. Even Yonge Street hasn't a lot of width to play with, all the more reason to ration it for all three modes, with pedestrians getting the emphasis. With cycling lanes on Bay, (diamond lanes actually) I really don't see the need for cycle lanes on Yonge. It would be nice, but many cyclists would bomb down there too fast for the safety of the zombie pedestrians.

 

[steveintoronto]

The right of way on King exists for a proper design. We just are not creative and/or brave enough to come up with an actual solution.

We have 80 feet right-of-way to work with on King. I am confident that a proper design could accommodate streetcar, cyclists and pedestrians.

Already been discussed, mapped and measured in this forum with @gweed123 taking the initiative.

All you have to do is look as QQ to see how well cyclists mix with pedestrians, and look at Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne to see how well trams mix with pedestrians.

The prime purpose of this exercise if for a *Transit Mall* along King. Pedestrians come next, and then cyclists.

You draw the diagrams, indicate traffic flow, measure the widths, and post them. My trained eye says "There's no way" unless either vehicle traffic is made one way, the cycle lane a bi-directional one the other (alternate) side, and the streetcar tracks are moved off-centre to accommodate all of this.

Good luck on that...Oh...and I forget to mention, pedestrians screened physically off the streetcar tracks between signalled crossing points.

 

[steveintoronto]

A fully pedestrian area is the worst possible situation if you actually want to move people in the streetcar.

It's required the imposition of a 5 mph speed limit of the central core section of Bourke Street Mall, and the requirement for trams to flash their lights, and ring the bell (this requirement was relaxed recently I believe to only every ten seconds or so) and *still* pedestrians are getting hit! Cyclists are also banned from the core section, I've posted pics of it a few pages back in this string.

It's that "5 mph" (8 kph) speed limit that was the final straw for doing the King Pilot! It cannot be forgotten that King is the *third busiest transit route* in Toronto, second only to Line 1 and 2 subways.

That is the imperative, and already, ridership is increasing. It only stands to reason that until alleviated elsewhere, that King be the host to that ridership.

 

[WislaHD]

Already been discussed, mapped and measured in this forum with @gweed123 taking the initiative.

All you have to do is look as QQ to see how well cyclists mix with pedestrians, and look at Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne to see how well trams mix with pedestrians.

The prime purpose of this exercise if for a *Transit Mall* along King. Pedestrians come next, and then cyclists.

You draw the diagrams, indicate traffic flow, measure the widths, and post them. My trained eye says "There's no way" unless either vehicle traffic is made one way, the cycle lane a bi-directional one the other (alternate) side, and the streetcar tracks are moved off-centre to accommodate all of this.

Good luck on that...Oh...and I forget to mention, pedestrians screened physically off the streetcar tracks between signalled crossing points.

Indeed, we have a tendency to rehash debates on this site.

I don't need to draw diagrams. Instead, I'll link to a post I made a year ago about how an industrial European city with comparable population to Toronto handled the conversion of a downtown street with identical ROW width as King Street into a transit mall.

Wider sidewalks easily accommodate pedestrian traffic. They can spill over onto the street if necessary, but never in conflict with the streetcar. Since this is Toronto and our pedestrian IQ is evidently lower than in Europe, perhaps introducing some sort of streetcar curb would be desirable.

I think we can improve on the above design still to accommodate cycling lanes. You just need to squeeze in bi-directional cycling lanes. Or alternatively, forget about King altogether and preserve the bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide.

 

[steveintoronto]

^In a city of 250,000 or so. There's absolutely no comparison with the peak loading of that city compared to Toronto, that route, and that time of day to what King has to host.

Or alternatively, forget about King altogether and preserve the bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide.

Or alternatively realize King is all about "Transit Priority".

Here's a challenge: Present the present bicycle rider numbers on King to those being carried in streetcars, with an emphasis on peak. We've already seen the numbers a day or so in this string for transit passengers v pedestrians, and the point was clear. Passengers, by a wide margin. And increasing.

 

[WislaHD]

^In a city of 250,000 or so. There's absolutely no comparison with the peak loading of that city compared to Toronto, that route, and that time of day to what King has to host.

Check again. It is a de-amalgamated region, but it is the centre of an urban area of 3 million and a metropolitan area of 5 million people.

 

[steveintoronto]

Check again. It is a de-amalgamated region, but it is the centre of an urban area of 3 million and a metropolitan area of 5 million people.

• City 297,197[1]
• Urban 2,710,397
• Metro 5,294,000[2]

Now is that street host to the third busiest transit route in the "metropolitan area"? And where are the cycle lanes?

Here's what shows on-line accredited to Urban Toronto:

-: WislaHD

I see a cyclist on the sidewalk...

For those wishing to see more detail and the context of the above, it's "Maja Street". Googling for just that brings up many pics and details. It's lovely, but it's no "transit priority" or "transit mall" street.

It bears very little resemblance to King in context, arterial intersections and traffic.

 

[44 North]

Looks pretty quiet. Even if stretching the imagination I can't see the comparison of this main drag in a Polish town to King Street. We have the headquarters of four of the top 100 banks in the world on King practically within spitting distance of each other. Five if you want add in Royal Plaza a few footsteps to the south. Very large and very tall towers, with obscene amounts of commuters, many cars on the road even if we offered their drivers a teleporter to their doorstep. Why I think the ultimate solution is to put the 504 below-grade through the core stretch, and maybe the 505. This on top of the Queen Subway/RL.

Apt comparison of the right solution should be with cities that LRT-ized their tram systems through their main CBD and put them underground. Stadtbahn style. Or actually converted them to a subway.

 

[rbt]

Why I think the ultimate solution is to put the 504 below-grade through the core stretch,...

This will be a very expensive project on King. Just Spadina through Jarvis would probably be in the $2B range and doesn't really add much capacity to the line. $200M of that might be required just to move utilities; shifting the Enwave lake cooling pipes is a multi-year project by itself.

While it would be useful I can think of several projects I would prioritize above it.

 

[WislaHD]

The point of the comparison is that we can accomplish all the stated goals on King Street if we were brave enough to design it as such.

Yes there is a cyclist on the sidewalk, @steveintoronto , which is why in the above post I mentioned improving upon the design. I think a bi-directional cycling lane could fit on that sidewalk, but it might not even be necessary with Richmond/Adelaide remaining intact.

As for pedestrian volumes... I am on King Street a fairly regularly and the present volumes are contained on the sidewalk as is. It is crowded but not spilling over into the roadway like Yonge Street between Gerrard and Dundas does. The comparison in the photo above would more than accommodate the pedestrian volumes we see on King Street.