News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.3K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.2K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

Has there been any movement on the Crosstown RER? I can see that influencing corridor choice.
 
Forgotten said:
The city's idea is to put a big fat subway tube under here. Most of the areas here will not be changing much thanks to our wonderful heritage laws.
Click to expand...

Queen is not dense enough to provide a sufficient number of trip generators for a transit mall. We also need more immediate relief on King than on Queen. In that lens, it makes sense.

I'd also argue that encouraging foot traffic between Queen and King due to the RL will allow for new commercial activity and opportunities in the blocks in between.
 
torontologist said:
Queen is not dense enough to provide a sufficient number of trip generators for a transit mall. We also need more immediate relief on King than on Queen. In that lens, it makes sense.

I'd also argue that encouraging foot traffic between Queen and King due to the RL will allow for new commercial activity and opportunities in the blocks in between.
Click to expand...

Is trip generation the right criterion to determine the need for a transit mall? 501 ridership is heavy, and the delays due to traffic are significant. That's enough reason to give streetcars a dedicated lane, even at current ridership levels.

- Paul
 
ADRM said:
It's not been decided, but ultimately it will be up to council. And I certainly am not holding my breath for anything impressive, with this lot.
Click to expand...

Every once in a while John Tory pleasantly surprises me, and Council will follow him like a pack of obedient dogs. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
torontologist said:
Queen is not dense enough to provide a sufficient number of trip generators for a transit mall. We also need more immediate relief on King than on Queen. In that lens, it makes sense.

I'd also argue that encouraging foot traffic between Queen and King due to the RL will allow for new commercial activity and opportunities in the blocks in between.
Click to expand...

Trip generators can generate trips via foot, cycling, auto, or transit. A pedestrian mall makes sense where there is high levels of foot and cycling traffic. Not to mention way fewer needs for commercial vehicle activity along Queen Street. Without any hard data, observations would have one believe that Queen would be more apt than king for a pedestrian mall with the wealth of on-street retail, institutional facilities like City Hall, Osgoode Hall, Numerous parks as well as the Eaton Centre. Right?

I have to believe that the trip patterns along Queen see much shorter distance trips than what we see on King St (which I would believe to be longer distance trips originating and destined for King).
 
Last edited:
BMO said:
Trip generators can generate trips via foot, cycling, auto, or transit. A pedestrian mall makes sense where there is high levels of foot and cycling traffic. Not to mention way fewer needs for commercial vehicle activity along Queen Street. Without any hard data, observations would have one believe that Queen would be more apt than king for a pedestrian mall with the wealth of on-street retail, institutional facilities like City Hall, Osgoode Hall, Numerous parks as well as the Eaton Centre. Right?

I have to believe that the trip patterns along Queen see much shorter distance trips than what we see on King St (which I would believe to be longer distance trips originating and destined for King).
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Queen is such a vibrant street already. A transit mall can only enhance that. If Toronto made the street pedestrian-only, it would cement the street as one of the most attractive destinations in Canada. The same mall would also speed up streetcar service, no doubt making it more attractive and generating ridership.... but that's a second benefit after the street enhancement.

The case for transit mall on King is the reverse. It's moving the huge ridership volume much better as the first priority, and probably making the street nicer as a result. Not that it's a bad street now...it's just not as shop-after-cafe-after-shop awesome as Queen. And the ridership is mostly trying to get somewhere further along the line.

- Paul
 
BMO said:
Trip generators can generate trips via foot, cycling, auto, or transit. A pedestrian mall makes sense where there is high levels of foot and cycling traffic. Not to mention way fewer needs for commercial vehicle activity along Queen Street. Without any hard data, observations would have one believe that Queen would be more apt than king for a pedestrian mall with the wealth of on-street retail, institutional facilities like City Hall, Osgoode Hall, Numerous parks as well as the Eaton Centre. Right?

I have to believe that the trip patterns along Queen see much shorter distance trips than what we see on King St (which I would believe to be longer distance trips originating and destined for King).
Click to expand...

On Queen I think the detractors are the institutional spaces. City Hall and Osgoode both turn their backs on Queen St (with a mini-Gardiner walkway barrier and a fence respectively). Eaton Center tries to keep people indoors with the 2nd floor and underground walkway to the Bay. And then St Mike's is also not very friendly. When I walk along Queen I do not feel it's that busy in the financial district.

Assuming it goes from Bathurst to Jarvis Queen is ideal from Bathurst to University. Then there is a void of pedestrian potential the rest of the way east.

King St does have similar institutional. Metro Hall, TIFF and Roy Thompson Hall all all there. But they also have the financial district whose landlords and employers would most likely put on events outdoors if there was additional room. Just look at the "food truck" event all summer at 150 York. There are also very few commercial vehicle requirements in the commercial district. Most if not all of the parking garages have access via another street.

King W also has lots of foot traffic (more on a weekday night than Queen W...Queen W has more on the weekends). It also has some great restaurants and bars that with patio expansions will make the street look even more busy.

Overall I beleive the key difference is east of University (and even more so east of Yonge). King through the entire strip will have pedestrian traffic where Queen has some stretches which are not as busy.

Plus of course the capacity issues....King has so much demand already plus there is a huge pent-up demand in Liberty Village for a viable streetcar line to get downtown.
 
In the long term, if the transit mall is a success, this could be an opportunity to introduce rampless level boarding once all the new streetcars rolls out. Basically, extend & raise the curb to be flush to the new streetcars. Like a mini-subway (and a real LRT).

Remove a few too-closely-spaced stops, and add transit priority lights, and the King streetcar could actually become rapid transit. Imagine!

Might be a decade before this happens, but it is possible.
 
mdrejhon said:
In the long term, if the transit mall is a success, this could be an opportunity to introduce rampless level boarding once all the new streetcars rolls out. Basically, extend & raise the curb to be flush to the new streetcars. Like a mini-subway (and a real LRT).

Remove a few too-closely-spaced stops, and add transit priority lights, and the King streetcar could actually become rapid transit. Imagine!

Might be a decade before this happens, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

Inshallah!

I'm super pro-priority corridor, but it is worth remembering that there may be servicing considerations for buildings along any potential corridor that could affect the feasibility in at least some stretches. That's one part of the kind of in-depth analysis that would of course need to be undertaken before any decisions were made permanent.
 
Reecemartin said:
I'm always optimistic about things like transit and technology. They can actually be pretty rapidly deployed if there's a need. If we ended up with a very progressive city council we could have this plan done as soon as there is enough streetcars to run on king which is likely only a year away Im guessing. With the lack of alternatives on King itself a full transit mall is pretty much the only option and once we get something I think it will be quick to expand.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there is zero prospect of a progressive city council anytime in at least the next half decade or so.

This is the lot that just voted down a motion that would make ridership and future anticipated demand key criteria for future transit planning decisions.

Best thing we can all do is to become thorns in the side of our local councillors, show them we care and care a lot, and demand better from them.
 
Last edited:
Reecemartin said:
I'm always optimistic about things like transit and technology. They can actually be pretty rapidly deployed if there's a need. If we ended up with a very progressive city council we could have this plan done as soon as there is enough streetcars to run on king which is likely only a year away Im guessing. With the lack of alternatives on King itself a full transit mall is pretty much the only option and once we get something I think it will be quick to expand.
Click to expand...
I admire your optimism but just because a solution exists to a known need does NOT mean that Toronto Council will accept it. God knows our current transit system's woes are proof of that. Much as I would like to see 'action' that is not what has happened in the past 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top