King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

[44 North]

Per this tweet from Jennifer Keesmaat, "June 16th we are formally launching the King St transit priority corridor pilot". Does this just refer to the public consultation/media articles/a study, or has something actually been put in place as of today? I haven't been able to find any information on it. Surely the transit mall hasn't gone live today, but have left turn and parking restrictions and enhanced TSP gone live? Or is this just more big talk exaggerating a mere study?

I'd like to know what's going on with this too. As in concrete plans. Granted I think it'll be much more difficult than a simple conversion, considering the nature of the street and businesses along it. This is the heart of the financial district - the largest in the nation and 4th(?) largest on the continent. Keesmaat comparing it to smaller CBDs like Melbourne isn't very apt imo.

What I'm hoping is that we're not repeating history and using a King transit mall as just one of many tactics to delay the RL. Thirty-some years ago a bunch of ideas were proposed to improve transit in/out/within downtown. An RL was obviously the ultimate solution, improved GO and surface transit upgrades were second rate. But instead we got virtually nothing in the end (save for the Spadina LRT). All the while building and arguably overbuilding elsewhere.

Not that I don't support an E/W transit and pedestrian mall downtown, but the time for ad hoc alternatives and underbuilding is over. The only way to truly fix the situation is a subway across the south end of Old TO, and to get started ASAP. That, and probably tunneling a short stretch of the either the 504, 505, and 506 through the core.

It's going live today. I'm out on Queen with a bucket of paint to paint the ROW. Please tell the police to leave me alone

Going rogue, I like it. Time to take back our streets.

 

[Zach6668]

As long as the city is committed to the permanent Richmond-Adelaide cycletracks - meaning better separation, especially on Adelaide - I don't see the need for bike lanes on King. Better as a long-term goal is a continuous east-west bike route via Wellington Street from the Market to Strachan (where it would connect to the Railpath extension).

In other news, Richmond Street is going to be closed - including the cycletrack - between Church and York for several months this summer and fall for watermain work and TTC trackwork. The old eastbound track will be removed. Getting across any diversion on a bike will be fun (King or Queen Streets?), expect lots of sidewalk riding.

How do you envision cyclists moving to destinations along King if it's closed to cars and there are no bike lanes?

 

[ShonTron]

How do you envision cyclists moving to destinations along King if it's closed to cars and there are no bike lanes?

Side streets and cross streets, like Pearl, Simcoe, Duncan, John, Peter, Brant, Portland. And walking a bike for a block if necessary shouldn't have be a big deal. Walk your bike.

 

[Zach6668]

Side streets and cross streets, like Pearl, Simcoe, Duncan, John, Peter, Brant, Portland. And walking a bike for a block if necessary shouldn't have be a big deal. Walk your bike.

I'm just wondering if people will actually do that....

 

[ssiguy2]

This really isn't a conversation. This plan of getting rid of car lanes to say nothing of making it a transit only route will never fly. Period.

Think about it folks. Yonge has a subway under it and the city can't even manage to take away just 2 lanes to widen the sidewalks and still allow 2 car lanes. If they can't do that on the busiest pedestrian street in the city, what the hell makes you think they will do it on King?

 

[andrewpmk]

Time to build the DRL. Closing King to cars is a bad idea and I hope that city council rejects this. It is a poor substitute for building the DRL.

 

[ADRM]

Side streets and cross streets, like Pearl, Simcoe, Duncan, John, Peter, Brant, Portland. And walking a bike for a block if necessary shouldn't have be a big deal. Walk your bike.

You wouldn't say that about cars, so why do you feel comfortable saying it about bikes? The side and cross street "solution" is so perfectly illustrative of the all-too-pervasive troublesome thinking when it comes to intra-city non-vehicular transportation.

If King is to become closed to cars in some stretches, it makes absolutely perfect sense to include provisions for cyclists as a part of that redesign. The notion that somehow having duplicative infrastructure that enhances both the safety and speed of users of all modes of transport is a bad idea is unfortunately perfectly emblematic of the ass backwards tenor of Toronto's transit debates.

Hear, hear for the longest possible priority transit stretch of King in the shortest amount of time to approval possible. Alas, I doubt it has much of a shot with the current selection of statesmen on Council.

And the notion that this somehow delays or even remotely affects the DRL is truly bizarre.

 

[nfitz]

Time to build the DRL. Closing King to cars is a bad idea and I hope that city council rejects this. It is a poor substitute for building the DRL.

Why would anyone want to drive down King between Parliament and Bathurst? Richmond/Adelaide are faster

The problem on King downtown isn't so much tons of cars, but blocked lanes from parking and people turning.

Given how few cars use King, restricting cars on it is the only reasonable approach.

 

[ShonTron]

You wouldn't say that about cars, so why do you feel comfortable saying it about bikes?

Because it's a lot easier to walk a bike than it is to walk a car?

The side and cross street "solution" is so perfectly illustrative of the all-too-pervasive troublesome thinking when it comes to intra-city non-vehicular transportation.

If King is to become closed to cars in some stretches, it makes absolutely perfect sense to include provisions for cyclists as a part of that redesign. The notion that somehow having duplicative infrastructure that enhances both the safety and speed of users of all modes of transport is a bad idea is unfortunately perfectly emblematic of the ass backwards tenor of Toronto's transit debates.

Hear, hear for the longest possible priority transit stretch of King in the shortest amount of time to approval possible. Alas, I doubt it has much of a shot with the current selection of statesmen on Council.

And the notion that this somehow delays or even remotely affects the DRL is truly bizarre.

I'm not necessarily arguing against bikes, but as a through route, we need to ask if King makes the most sense, or do we maintain the Adelaide/Richmond lanes, and perhaps add a new cycle route on Wellington and/or Front?

Do we allow some vehicular access on King, like older proposals, or ban cars altogether? And if we make it a transit mall, do we permit bikes, or ban them? All legitimate questions.

 

[ottbike]

Per this tweet from Jennifer Keesmaat, "June 16th we are formally launching the King St transit priority corridor pilot". Does this just refer to the public consultation/media articles/a study, or has something actually been put in place as of today? I haven't been able to find any information on it. Surely the transit mall hasn't gone live today, but have left turn and parking restrictions and enhanced TSP gone live? Or is this just more big talk exaggerating a mere study?

 

[leopetr]

As long as the city is committed to the permanent Richmond-Adelaide cycletracks - meaning better separation, especially on Adelaide - I don't see the need for bike lanes on King. Better as a long-term goal is a continuous east-west bike route via Wellington Street from the Market to Strachan (where it would connect to the Railpath extension).

Perhaps I'm overestimating the extent of a probable King Transit Mall, but Richmond-Adelaide aren't useful east of Parliament or west of Bathurst/Strachan. King extends to River and to Roncesvalles.

 

[Towered]

The only acceptable solution of course is option 4, but Toronto is not bold or progressive enough to implement it. City hall will either keep the stupid status quo, or make some half-assed, watered down, compromise effort under the guise of a "pilot project" that won't dare to ruffle the feathers of the Almighty Car Driver.

 

[ADRM]

My point in response to the "walk your bike" comment was (quite obviously) focused on accepting diversions for bicycles but not for cars. We need a change in mindset in this city about how we move large volumes of people and I found that post (and many others on this thread) perfectly emblematic of that.

We shouldn't have to be content with bike lanes on Richmond or Adelaide; if they make sense to implement on a redesigned King St., then we should do them there as well.

Also, worth noting that the Richmond and Adelaide bike lanes are extremely sorry excuses for protected bike lanes. Even where we do have protection in this city, in many cases, it's woefully inadequate - yet another example of the pervasive outdated thinking that prevails in the city's transportation planning.

Let's reorient transportation in parts of the city, where it makes sense to, in such a way that moves the greatest number of people in the least amount of time possible in a manner that accounts for projected population, density growth, changes in mode share, and accounting for corollary health and safety considerations. A no cars transit priority corridor on King would be an important first step in that direction.

 

[gweed123]

My preference would be for a transit ROW, wider sidewalks, and one lane of alternating one-way traffic (at every side street it flips directions, so it's useless for thru traffic, but maintains local access).

This would allow this space to be used for vehicles at certain times, but would also provide a public space for street festivals, etc.

My worry with a total transit ROW is that it will be placed down the middle of the street, which makes it virtually impossible to shut the street down for any kind of parade or street festival.

The ideal setup IMO would be:
(Wider sidewalk)(single traffic lane)(bike lane)(bike lane)(walkway to access transit stops)(transit lane)(transit lane)(wider sidewalk)

 

[ksun]

Time to build the DRL. Closing King to cars is a bad idea and I hope that city council rejects this. It is a poor substitute for building the DRL.

Seriously, you expect the DRL, which is not even approved and won't be anything real before 2030s, to solve the congestion King st has now and use it as a rationale for not having a transit only street?

Why does it have to be a substitute? Even if there is a DRL under King, it can be pedestrian only too. Plus, there will not be a King DRL.