News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 99     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 851     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 978     1 

King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

The point is made as it pertains to the King Project: Many Cdns presume railed vehicle must operate as the slowest of speeds, because they're not given priority. There's lots of rail in and around Toronto. Just look at the map, Toronto is very well served by radially converging lines into the core, as well as two crosstown ones. The same for streetcar routes (and the Crosstown LRT one being built), but try and get the heritage streetcar routes moving at a suitable speed, and every excuse possible is made to stymie that.

The almighty automobile rules more in this city than almost any other in North Am. All the US ones that used to be ruled by the car are well ahead of us, even LA. It's not a case of a "war on cars". It's a case of undoing the "war on pedestrians, cyclists and transit". And the King Street Project is a rabid microcosm of that. As an avid cyclist, I'm more than willing to forgo cycling on King to allow it to become a 'transit corridor'. So why can't drivers?
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
The point is made as it pertains to the King Project: Many Cdns presume railed vehicle must operate as the slowest of speeds, because they're not given priority. There's lots of rail in and around Toronto. Just look at the map, Toronto is very well served by radially converging lines into the core, as well as two crosstown ones. The same for streetcar routes (and the Crosstown LRT one being built), but try and get the heritage streetcar routes moving at a suitable speed, and every excuse possible is made to stymie that.

The almighty automobile rules more in this city than almost any other in North Am. All the US ones that used to be ruled by the car are well ahead of us, even LA. It's not a case of a "war on cars". It's a case of undoing the "war on pedestrians, cyclists and transit". And the King Street Project is a rabid microcosm of that. As an avid cyclist, I'm more than willing to forgo cycling on King to allow it to become a 'transit corridor'. So why can't drivers?
Click to expand...

I think most drivers are willing. The issue is that the city is not selling it to drivers very well.

They really should have re-jigged both the 504 and 501. Have them both go along King (Don River to Roncey) so they can get the riders from the outer 416 downtown faster. And then introduce a new service (515?) that serves Queen from Roncey to Broadview/Parliament

This would mean there would be more transit along the transit corridor and less in mixed traffic (Queen). This would mean FASTER vehicular traffic along Queen.

But instead they are taking away from the auto and not promising them anything in return.
 
steveintoronto said: ↑
...As an avid cyclist, I'm more than willing to forgo cycling on King to allow it to become a 'transit corridor'. So why can't drivers?
Click to expand...
muller877 said:
I think most drivers are willing. The issue is that the city is not selling it to drivers very well

They really should have re-jigged both the 504 and 501. Have them both go along King (Don River to Roncey) so they can get the riders from the outer 416 downtown faster. And then introduce a new service (515?) that serves Queen from Roncey to Broadview/Parliament

This would mean there would be more transit along the transit corridor and less in mixed traffic (Queen). This would mean FASTER vehicular traffic along Queen.

But instead they are taking away from the auto and not promising them anything in return.
Click to expand...
My option is the same for drivers, use Adelaide and Richmond instead. The limitation of that being the western ends of both being short of Roncesvalles. For the initial project, that's not a problem, and for local access, although I'd be loathe to use it, is the lane(s) left to loop around the block on King, the option for cyclists is to walk the bike through the stoplights (although there may be an exemption, like cabs, open to abuse), but unless a car (or bike) has a reason to enter the core of the transit-way, it should be banned. As in Melbourne and other cities, those who need access can apply for permits.

Studies have been done to model if the parallel street capacity is suffice to take *all* of the present car traffic off of King, and it is, let alone partial load.

The "re-jig" of the Queen car is an interesting topic. *IF* King becomes an *expedited* transit corridor, I agree, it could/should host a 'Queen By-Pass Express' and Queen remain as/is for local stops. A point to add to that though, as if this becomes the case, the DRL should terminate at University and King, not Uni and Queen as is now touted.
 
Last edited:
muller877 said:
They really should have re-jigged both the 504 and 501. Have them both go along King (Don River to Roncey) so they can get the riders from the outer 416 downtown faster. And then introduce a new service (515?) that serves Queen from Roncey to Broadview/Parliament
Click to expand...

Good point.

There are multiple possibilities for rearranging the downtown streetcar service. For example, they could run 501 between the Beaches and Roncey only, and extend the 514 to run between the Cherry Street loop and Long Branch. That would result in more service on King, and shorter / more manageable routes.
 
WislaHD said:
Back in January, I posted about how Katowice, Poland pedestrianized it's main downtown thoroughfare for people and streetcars as an example of how King and Queen Street can look like, as their street width is only 2 metres difference.

Today, I am actually in Katowice and decided to snap some photos to provide better context.

View attachment 116416

View attachment 116417
Click to expand...

Notice especially the use of cobblestones between the streetcar (tram) tracks. That should be provide a small nudge for the wondering motorist that they do not belong on the streetcar (tram) tracks. Unfortunately, here in Toronto, the auto-addicted bureaucrats and politicians want a smooth ride for their gods, the motor vehicles.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Notice especially the use of cobblestones between the streetcar (tram) tracks. That should be provide a small nudge for the wondering motorist that they do not belong on the streetcar (tram) tracks. Unfortunately, here in Toronto, the auto-addicted bureaucrats and politicians want a smooth ride for their gods, the motor vehicles.
Click to expand...
Yes, the last of the cobble-stones (actually they are square-setts) surrounding TTC tracks - at the corner of Victoria and Dundas (under the archway) - were finally removed a couple of weeks ago.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Notice especially the use of cobblestones between the streetcar (tram) tracks. That should be provide a small nudge for the wondering motorist that they do not belong on the streetcar (tram) tracks. Unfortunately, here in Toronto, the auto-addicted bureaucrats and politicians want a smooth ride for their gods, the motor vehicles.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with snow removal equipment having a hard time with it, plus it's easier for the TTC to just pour concrete between mhe rails when they do repairs rather then mess around with cobble stones every time they remove the tracks.

DSC said:
Yes, the last of the cobble-stones (actually they are square-setts) surrounding TTC tracks - at the corner of Victoria and Dundas (under the archway) - were finally removed a couple of weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Spadina has a few sections where they stamped it into the concrete but they don't seem to be keeping it around too much.
 
DSC said:
Yes, the last of the cobble-stones (actually they are square-setts) surrounding TTC tracks - at the corner of Victoria and Dundas (under the archway) - were finally removed a couple of weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Instead of removing cobblestones (square-setts), Toronto should be installing them. Especially for pedestrian crossings. See link. (I understand that it does snow in Iceland.)

Photo-25-10-2014-11-41-12-e1415059634352.jpg


Not recommended by the suburban Councillors.
 
How about installing foam mattresses?

Streetcars would still run on rails, but anything else...

There would be a tripping hazard, but pedestrians and cyclists shouldn't be there anyways.

Foam mattresses can absorb water well.

Foam mattresses are very inexpensive in the grand scheme of materials to use and are easily replaceable.

Before anyone here says that it's absurd, take a look at the trampoline path in Russia: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/trampoline-road-russia_n_2232538.html
 
MetroMan said:
While numbers like 65,000 streetcar riders to 20,000 cars are being used as justification for this pilot, pedestrians outnumber both of them by a factor of 3 or 4 times cars and transit combined. Yet, despite being the overwhelming majority of users, pedestrians get something like 15% of the space.

King Street has outgrown its sidewalks and downtown growth is just getting started. In the coming decade, the daytime population of downtown Toronto is going to double. Most of those people get around on foot so the King Street redesign must take pedestrians into account. The narrow sidewalks have to be expanded.
Click to expand...

If true why are you so enthusiastic about wasting big parts of that precious space by handing it over to restaurant row for free?

steveintoronto said:
Even if King and Queen were matched on that, and other factors, there's a massive one not being considered: If the Relief Line is built and terminates at Ossington/Queen, it makes sense to have a surface transitway west from there, that being Queen unless the terminus is located at King and University, in which case the King Transitway makes sense.

Given, as planned by the City (I'm a skeptic on this, but I digress), the Relief Line as planned as Phase 1 is a decade or more away, it's time to start planning ahead for once, and this must be an important consideration taken at this time unless Phase 1 is extended westward under Queen from Osgoode. Is this the left hand not knowing what the right is doing? If passengers wish to continue along an east-west alignment past University, then why make it difficult and a terrible use of infrastructure to force them to shuttle on the University subway to do it?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. This talk might be better in the subway thread but what happens there is intertwined with this. The very presence of the King concept looks like it helped deflect the subway to Queen yet both projects still look like they're being managed in their own silos as if one shouldn't have anything to do with the other.

Make no mistake though, tt's a fact demand on King in the shoulder zones greatly exceeds the corresponding demand on Queen. If you work at a building looking out over St. Andrew or King station you can see the people flow west and east on King from downtown over the entire day. Unlike on Queen which is common to see lightly used TTC during off hours, the line of people exiting the subway to go to King West and King East is almost continuous all day long. That's why TIFF shutdowns are always such a disaster. That's why the TTC takes the bigger streetcars off Queen and uses them on King when they're not supposed to. That's why King is full of cabs at night. That's how King sees 50% more ridership than Queen every day on a route which is 50% shorter.

As per current plans the destination areas means transfer hell or year round outdoor hikes in all conditions. Maybe that's why the University of Toronto modeling showed a King line resulting in higher diversion from Bloor Yonge? Unsure if posted but another reminder the city is directing more growth to areas far south of the subway and south of the transit mall-lite, which makes a mockery of all the talk about densifying around subways.

Sadly the bureaucrats were fixated on getting a city hall station or McCowan line so they made up fake studies to get what they wanted. No different from Tory throwing his weight around to get his ShamTrack station at Lawrence or Liberal ministers pushing to get stations in their personal ridings or Toronto council's resident communist Paula Fletcher vote buying with hundreds of millions in money that's not hers. They are all textbook examples of fradulent planning.

Showing Kessmaat the door is a good start. Send the communists, Liberals, Tory, and their collection of terrible decision making to the abattoir next year and the city might get the transit it actually needs.

steveintoronto said:
I'm just so shocked, shocked I tell you...

View attachment 114846
View attachment 114847
Click to expand...

lol

A couple a months ago I said the now former Chief Planner was delivering a compromised transit scheme on King and compromised subway a few blocks north. Too soon to say I told you so?
 
Forgotten said:
If true why are you so enthusiastic about wasting big parts of that precious space by handing it over to restaurant row for free?
Click to expand...
As with all 'boulevard cafes' (which are on public property) the City charges businesses for the space (downtown ca $80 sq/m ) and these fees are likely to be increased quite substantially when the new Boulevard cafe by-law is approved later in the fall.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top