Yonge and Bay one way?

[Jonny5]

If they do this, they need to do it as a complete review of all streets, not just picking two at random.

Ultimately, I can't see how this is going to get anyone where they want to go faster. It just moves bottlenecks to another place.

 

[gweed123]

?? The tracks on Church get regular use and were recently rebuilt. You think they should just be abandoned?

Semi-regular use at best, and there's no revenue route that runs along Church. Yes, they do get used as a connection between the different routes.

If needed, they can keep 1 track on Church and put a single track on Mutual to serve them going the other way.

Ultimately, I can't see how this is going to get anyone where they want to go faster. It just moves bottlenecks to another place.

It's not about the cars, it's about the people. Take away 1 lane on each street from cars and give it to cyclists and pedestrians. It just so happens that a 1-way street is the most effective way to do that and still maintain some kind of traffic flow.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I agree with ShonTron.

We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand like Adam Vaughan has, but evaluate it in a more pragmatic way. Right now, I mildly oppose it because of the exact reasons Shon has listed: difficult to divert southbound traffic north of Bloor; renders the offramp of the Gardiner useless, and makes northbound streetcar diversion impossible.

Anyway, I find that outright dismissals of one way streets, like Vaughan's, are based on a misinterpretation of Jane Jacobs' observation that after Manhattan streets were one-way-ized, bus ridership dropped. In our era, where we practically worship Jane Jacobs, it's easy to forget that a lot of her conclusions were anecdotally-derived and should be taken with a grain of salt. Could it have been that things like a drop in Manhattan employment, white flight, increasing suburbanization, and rising transit fares had more of an effect on bus ridership than converting main streets to one way?

 

[Jonny5]

It's not about the cars, it's about the people. Take away 1 lane on each street from cars and give it to cyclists and pedestrians. It just so happens that a 1-way street is the most effective way to do that and still maintain some kind of traffic flow.

I'm being realistic here. Cyclists and pedestrians are not being considered in this proposal at all. There will be no bike lanes. There will be no wider sidewalks. It's fine to point out the benefits of them, but there is no possibility of them being considered here, so there is no point wasting time to discuss them.

 

[gweed123]

I agree with ShonTron.

We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand like Adam Vaughan has, but evaluate it in a more pragmatic way. Right now, I mildly oppose it because of the exact reasons Shon has listed: difficult to divert southbound traffic north of Bloor; renders the offramp of the Gardiner useless, and makes northbound streetcar diversion impossible.

Anyway, I find that outright dismissals of one way streets, like Vaughan's, are based on a misinterpretation of Jane Jacobs' observation that after Manhattan streets were one-way-ized, bus ridership dropped. In our era, where we practically worship Jane Jacobs, it's easy to forget that a lot of her conclusions were anecdotally-derived and should be taken with a grain of salt. Could it have been that things like a drop in Manhattan employment, white flight, increasing suburbanization, and rising transit fares had more of an effect on bus ridership than converting main streets to one way?

Front St becomes a 1-way going eastbound at Yonge, so theoretically they could have Yonge be two-way south of Front, and then have the northbound traffic turn east on Front to Church, and then go up Church, and then meet Yonge again in Yorkville.

I'm being realistic here. Cyclists and pedestrians are not being considered in this proposal at all. There will be no bike lanes. There will be no wider sidewalks. It's fine to point out the benefits of them, but there is no possibility of them being considered here, so there is no point wasting time to discuss them.

Pessimist much?

 

[car4041]

If needed, they can keep 1 track on Church and put a single track on Mutual to serve them going the other way.

Yes, it's needed. It's regularly used for short turns and diversions. They wouldn't have rebuilt it (including several intersections) if it wasn't needed. Building new track on Mutual would add a hefty pricetag to your proposal (and Mutual doesn't go south of Queen).

 

[Jonny5]

Pessimist much?

Pretty much until Ford is gone. He still pretty much controls the agenda by having the executive council. It would be almost impossible to get bike lanes on Yonge while he is around.

 

[typezed]

It's not about the cars, it's about the people.

Maybe to you and people discussing here it is about people. But to Denzil Minnan-Wong, who actually has a vote and influence as head of the Infrastructure Committee, it's about cars.

 

[taal]

As much as we all hate cars here; Putting on the automotive hat for a second a couple comments:

1) I drive on this street south in rush hour at least once a month. I will attest to the fact that in either direction, Yonge is NOT a busy street at all ... it could easily handle many more cars. Likely for the reasons cited.

2) Would increasing the sidewalk really make the area feel more vibrant or less so ? While it does tend to get busy around Dundas, I wouldn't say Yonge is extremely busy pedestrian wise, on nice weekends the entire stretch can get fairly busy, with choke points at the major intersections but on a regular basis, would extending the sidewalk make it feel dead ?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Check out this link reference to one-way streets at this link, One-Way vs. Two-Way Streets: Let the Debate Begin.

Another reference on Studies Refute DOT’s Claim That One-Way Avenues Are Safer at this link.

And a Canadian reference on Are child pedestrians at increased risk of injury on one-way compared to two-way streets? at this link. The last reference has this conclusion:

CONCLUSIONS:

One-way streets have higher rates of child pedestrian injuries than two-way streets in this community. Future risk factor and intervention studies should include the directionality of streets to further investigate its contribution to child pedestrian injuries.

 

[Chuck]

I am a big proponent of one way streets, but don't think that we really need our north-south streets to operate as such, both because traffic already flows well, and we already have Jarvis and University to carry the bulk of traffic. Reducing the width of Yonge to two lanes from the lake to St. Clair would do the trick, and provide a nice on-street bike lane. I'd even start biking to work I think!

This topic really enforces the fact that I very much dislike our farthest left leaning, and farhest right leaning councillors. They're both out to lunch on this one! I think that Wong Tam is pretty level headed though.

 

[Solid Snake]

Just came back from Chicago and having experienced their rush hours, their one ways is a huge factor for their traffic to run so smoothly in the Loop.

I always thought that both King and Queen should be in their own ROW and car traffic run as one-ways between the DVP and Roncesvalles.

 

[nfitz]

Semi-regular use at best, and there's no revenue route that runs along Church.

The 503 runs down Church between King and Wellington, and is a revenue service.

504 very frequently short-turn at Church, and are in revenue service as they short-turn. I'm less clear on how much it's used north of Queen - but I don't spend as much time around there.

It's certainly very heavily used by streetcars though.

 

[Dan416]

I definitely think this is worthy of consideration.

I am definitely NOT against one-way streets, seeing how great Ste-Catherine is in Montreal.

That said, when I drive downtown I get off at Jarvis to get to the village, whereas going home I take Yonge to get back on the Gardiner. So I'm not sure how I feel about losing bidirectionality on Yonge.

 

[gweed123]

The 503 runs down Church between King and Wellington, and is a revenue service.

504 very frequently short-turn at Church, and are in revenue service as they short-turn. I'm less clear on how much it's used north of Queen - but I don't spend as much time around there.

It's certainly very heavily used by streetcars though.

I was just speaking mainly from my experience of living at Ryerson for 3 years, and crossing Church an average of about 4 times a day. The number of times I saw a streetcar on Church was next to none. My anecdotal evidence may be off though.

And good point Toronto1 about the condo projects. But the flip side of that is shutting off 1 lane of a 3 lane road for condo construction is less of an impact that closing 1 lane of 2 lanes in a given direction. It's a double-edged sword no matter how you look at it.