[max]

The question now is will the city take this opportunity to install permanent King Street Transitway infrastructure (sidewalk bump outs) at this intersection like they are allegedly asking developers to do? There's are stops and "temporary" jersey barriers just east and west of Church where all this work is taking place. The sidewalk here should bump out into the curb lane where the jersey barrier is.

View attachment 657274

The scope of the work:

The entire intersection needs to be rebuilt so the city is going to rebuild the sidewalks in the new format, rather than the old pre-King Street Pilot format with "temporary" jersey barriers, right... right?

The pre-construction notice (at https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...ingChurch-ttc-track-pre-con-dateFINALAODA.pdf) states:

Crews will also complete sidewalk replacement and tactile plate installation.

I suspect that is just the corners, but maybe it does include new platforms. Helpfully the notices also contain the contact information for two people who likely have the answer to your question: Mark De Miglio and Michael Vieira.

 

[bearcat]

On King Street, the streetcar tracks will be up against the sidewalk, when the sidewalks are eventually widened as has always been the intention of the King Street Pilot. See GIFs below.

Since the city is relying on developers to restore the sidewalks to a new format, looking at UT's development map on King Street, the first big opportunity for this developer-led permanent King Street transitway infrastructure will be the KING condo. Once the condo is finished, (at this rate of cladding installation, in the year 2045 — poor Elton John) its sidewalk should be rebuilt to extend into the current curb lane to leave only the streetcar ROW. This will help formalize this section of King Street as a transit priority corridor and give back space to pedestrians so it doesn't feel like a windswept empty road.

Rough GIF for visualization:
View attachment 657270

Another excellent opportunity would be 460 King West at the corner of King and Spadina. Closing the curb lane would make it more obvious to westbound drivers that they can't go straight through the intersection. There's a streetcar stop in front of this development so widening the sidewalk into the curb lane will make that stop permanent without the need for the temporary lego blocks they've been using.

View attachment 657272

There are also two developments east of this intersection between Charlotte and Peter and then Ghery's Forma, all of which could formalize the curb lane as pedestrian space. The financial district between University and Yonge is largely frozen in place so the city will have to widen these sidewalks itself. The King-Yonge intersection is a clusterpluck of idiot drivers who clog up the streetcar lane every time I go through here and needs the most urgent work to get cars to turn right.

I'll end by saying that I don't have much hope that the city will get their act together and coordinate with developers. Recent developments in restaurant row (John to Peter) were finished with their sidewalks kept in the old format despite years into the King Street transitway, missing an opportunity to replace the temporary streetcar stop and restaurant patios with permanent sidewalk.

View attachment 657273

If the intention is to extend the sidewalk and curb to take over the whole right lane then cycling should perhaps be formally banned on King in those areas as it would be very unsafe. Some people cycling will try and squeeze between the streetcar and curb potentially getting clipped a streetcar, and streetcars will not be able to safely pass someone on a bicycle potentially slowing streetcars down. Also you would have to cycle way too close to streetcar tracks which are a death trap in rain or wet snow. The only times I injured myself in Toronto cycling is riding over streetcar tracks and falling.

Though perhaps things will just sort themselves out and no formal ban is needed. I would certainly never bike on King again. And I am happy with it being pedestrian only.

I think my biggest concern is the mixed messaging of the piecemeal approach to the street. With the recently installed raised platforms being explicitly designed to accommodate cycling, but if in the future as you suggest there are some areas where the curb is moved right to the edge of the current right lane, there will be segments where cycling is actually very dangerous as mentioned above.

I am not a huge fan of the cycling setup on Roncy, but there with the cars parked against the curb there is still room in the left side of the right lane to cycle.

 

[nightstreak]

The pre-construction notice (at https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...ingChurch-ttc-track-pre-con-dateFINALAODA.pdf) states:

I suspect that is just the corners, but maybe it does include new platforms. Helpfully the notices also contain the contact information for two people who likely have the answer to your question: Mark De Miglio and Michael Vieira.

They’re not supposed to be platforms, just a sidewalk that occupies the current curb lane which by use of jersey barriers has been closed off. Rebuilding the road only to block it off makes no sense of course.

A second lane is only supposed to exist at the end of a block as a right turn lane. Everything else is to be made into a sidewalk that in front of restaurants can be used as patio seating.

 

[max]

They’re not supposed to be platforms, just a sidewalk that occupies the current curb lane which by use of jersey barriers has been closed off. Rebuilding the road only to block it off makes no sense of course.

A second lane is only supposed to exist at the end of a block as a right turn lane. Everything else is to be made into a sidewalk that in front of restaurants can be used as patio seating.

At King & Church the "sidewalks" would be extended into the curb lane at the North-West & South-East sides of the intersection where they coincide with the existing streetcar stops, making them de facto platforms. IMO it's a distinction without a difference.

As for the rest of your statements, I cannot make sense of how they apply to my comments as I never suggested blocking roads. I'm also quite clear on the fact that the right lane will be maintained at intersections to provide a turning lane and never suggested otherwise.

 

[nightstreak]

the intention is to extend the sidewalk and curb to take over the whole right lane then cycling should perhaps be formally banned on King

It is the official position of the city and the city councillors along that stretch that King Street does not support cyclists any more than it supports cars. Cyclists are of.course allowed on the road but there isn’t nor will there be a bike lane. The city acknowledges that cyclists will use the berm and having a sudden curb with no ramp would end up hurting people.

I sat in on several King Street Pilot community meetings and I witnessed that debated to hell and back and every time the planners demonstrated convincingly why it’s designed this way. In fact there was a bike lane option and it was rejected by planners, city councillors and the community.

The Cole’s Notes: King Street was redesigned to speed up cross town transit and to accommodate the large volume of people moving into the area and the hospitality uses in high demand. Adding a bike lane wasn’t compatible with the priorities without diminishing them and there are protected bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide for cross town commuting. Cyclists are still welcome to frequent the street but it’s not going to be a formal bike route.

Even über progressive cycling advocate and then City Councillor Joe Cressy argued against it. I agreed with him and I’m a cyclist. I'm aware that this is probably going to spark that very same debate here. Have fun with it, I've heard every argument under the Sun and I sided with the city on this.

 

[bearcat]

It is the official position of the city and the city councillors along that stretch that King Street does not support cyclists any more than it supports cars. Cyclists are of.course allowed on the road but there isn’t nor will there be a bike lane.

I sat in on several King Street Pilot community meetings and I witnessed that debated to hell and back and every time the planners demonstrated convincingly why it’s designed this way. In fact there was a bike lane option and it was rejected by planners, city councillors and the community.

The Cole’s Notes: King Street was redesigned to speed up cross town transit and to accommodate the large volume of people moving into the area and the hospitality uses in high demand. Adding a bike lane wasn’t compatible with the priorities without diminishing them and there are protected bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide for cross town commuting. Cyclists are still welcome to frequent the street but it’s not going to be a formal bike route.

Even über progressive cycling advocate and then City Councillor Joe Cressy argued against it. I agreed with him and I’m a cyclist. I'm aware that this is probably going to spark that very same debate here. Have fun with it, I've heard every argument under the Sun and I sided with the city on this.

In no way anywhere am I arguing FOR cycling infrastructure on King! I want less of it!

What I am against is SOME parts of King being currently seemingly designed to encourage or at least accomodate cycling by including ramps for bikes to go over the raised platform, and current temporary patios, curb extensions and bus platforms NOT extending all the way to the left of the curb lane (leaving room to cycle along the left 1/3 to 1/4 of the lane (where a car wont fit). It works okay now.

There are also bicycle lights at some intersection. Bicycles are allowed to drive straight at every intersection. At this time it's not true that King Street does not support bikes more than cars.

Where the problem will be if random parts start being built out to take up the whole curb lane. So someone cycling will have to merge across one of the tracks to go round it, which is imo the most dangerous maneuver a bicycle can do on a road.

So I think once any of these permanent curb extensions start to appear (which won't have any bike ramps) then the ramps on the current platforms should be removed as well to signal King is not designed for bicycles.

Perhaps banning bicycles on King as I suggested is too much, but any accommodations for bicycles need to be removed as soon as the buildout with the whole right lane being taken over begins, to discourage bicycles from using King.

Ideally I would want all except TTC vehicles to be banned from the center lanes with the streetcar tracks on King, and only allow bicycles and cars wherever the curb lane has to be maintained for building access only, with the rest of the curb lane being converted to sidewalk space.

 

[DSCToronto]

In no way anywhere am I arguing FOR cycling infrastructure on King! I want less of it!

What I am against is SOME parts of King being currently seemingly designed to encourage or at least accomodate cycling by including ramps for bikes to go over the raised platform, and current temporary patios, curb extensions and bus platforms NOT extending all the way to the left of the curb lane (leaving room to cycle along the left 1/3 to 1/4 of the lane (where a car wont fit). It works okay now.

There are also bicycle lights at some intersection. Bicycles are allowed to drive straight at every intersection. At this time it's not true that King Street does not support bikes more than cars.

Where the problem will be if random parts start being built out to take up the whole curb lane. So someone cycling will have to merge across one of the tracks to go round it, which is imo the most dangerous maneuver a bicycle can do on a road.

So I think once any of these permanent curb extensions start to appear (which won't have any bike ramps) then the ramps on the current platforms should be removed as well to signal King is not designed for bicycles.

Perhaps banning bicycles on King as I suggested is too much, but any accommodations for bicycles need to be removed as soon as the buildout with the whole right lane being taken over begins, to discourage bicycles from using King.

Ideally I would want all except TTC vehicles to be banned from the center lanes with the streetcar tracks on King, and only allow bicycles and cars wherever the curb lane has to be maintained for building access only, with the rest of the curb lane being converted to sidewalk space.

Banning bikes on King seems overkill to me. You need to remember why most vehicles cannot (legally) drive through on King. This was done to speed up transit and it was (and is) successful - though certainly not terribly well enforced. Do bikes slow down transit? I think not, so why try to ban them too. If the police are 'too busy' to enforce the law for motor vehicles, do you really think they will try to stop bikes?

Do I think King is a good route for cycling? No, it is terrible and cycling should not be encouraged there - but that's fine as both Richmond & Adelaide are close by.

 

[bearcat]

Banning bikes on King seems overkill to me. You need to remember why most vehicles cannot (legally) drive through on King. This was done to speed up transit and it was (and is) successful - though certainly not terribly well enforced. Do bikes slow down transit? I think not, so why try to ban them too. If the police are 'too busy' to enforce the law for motor vehicles, do you really think they will try to stop bikes?

Do I think King is a good route for cycling? No, it is terrible and cycling should not be encouraged there - but that's fine as both Richmond & Adelaide are close by.

Yes I think bikes can slow down transit if the street is designed such that the transit vehicle cannot overtake a bike even if they are right against the curb AND there is enough people cycling on the street. If bikes can't slow down transit why am I not allowed to cycle on the Spadina streetcar ROW?

This is purely based on vibes at they say and not hard data, but I think bicycles being forced to share a single lane with street cars is both unsafe for the cyclists, and can potentially slow down the streetcars. Thus cycling should ultimately be banned on King.

Adelaide and Richmond and eventually Wellington are right there

 

[DSCToronto]

Yes I think bikes can slow down transit if the street is designed such that the transit vehicle cannot overtake a bike even if they are right against the curb AND there is enough people cycling on the street. If bikes can't slow down transit why am I not allowed to cycle on the Spadina streetcar ROW?

This is purely based on vibes at they say and not hard data, but I think bicycles being forced to share a single lane with street cars is both unsafe for the cyclists, and can potentially slow down the streetcars. Thus cycling should ultimately be banned on King.

Adelaide and Richmond and eventually Wellington are right there

Of course a slow cyclist in a streetcar lane would slow the streetcar but have you actually seen this happening? The number of bikes on the transit zone on King is tiny and for good reason, it IS dangerous to cycle near tracks!

 

[bearcat]

Of course a slow cyclist in a streetcar lane would slow the streetcar but have you actually seen this happening? The number of bikes on the transit zone on King is tiny and for good reason, it IS dangerous to cycle near tracks!

It doesn't happen currently because the bicycles aren't in the streetcar lane, they are in the left part of the curb lane (with which the ramps at the raised streetcar platform are aligned). From my own anecdotal experience of cycling on King, the number of people cycling is small but not insignificant. It's significant enough that they installed the ramps. As it stands right now there enough of the left lane that's not occupied by curb extensioms, patios, jersey barriers that cycling I can stay far enough to the right of the tracks to feel safe and for a streetcar to pass me on the left.

 

[DSCToronto]

As promised, the TTC seem to be making progress on repairing the margins (the concrete between the rails and the asphalt road surface) along the currently closed sections of King. They appear to have finished most of the bad areas between Spadina and Yonge and have painted out some sections east of Church to identify where they plan to repair.

If the City website is right, they should also have done Parliament to River - though I have not yet wandered over to look.

I also noted that they seem to be installing a couple of new/replacement poles around Leader Lane.

It is unfortunate that the fact the TTC is doing this kind of work while the diversion is on is 'news' but .....

 

[nightstreak]

I also noted that they seem to be installing a couple of new/replacement poles around Leader Lane.

Are they replacing the poles in the existing spots or in the new places they would be in an expanded sidewalk? If they're rebuilding the a road that is only temporarily blocked with paint and jersey barriers, then King Street is not safe from being reverted back to full automobile traffic on the whims of future mayors or current Premiers.

That reminds me of yet another development that was recently finished on King St at Leder Ln. that rebuilt the sidewalks at their pre-King Street Pilot configuration even though cars aren't supposed drive in that lane and the city's policy is to rebuild sidewalks in the King Street Transitway configuration.

 

[GameOnBrad]

As promised, the TTC seem to be making progress on repairing the margins (the concrete between the rails and the asphalt road surface) along the currently closed sections of King. They appear to have finished most of the bad areas between Spadina and Yonge and have painted out some sections east of Church to identify where they plan to repair.

If the City website is right, they should also have done Parliament to River - though I have not yet wandered over to look.

I also noted that they seem to be installing a couple of new/replacement poles around Leader Lane.

It is unfortunate that the fact the TTC is doing this kind of work while the diversion is on is 'news' but .....

View attachment 658253

I'm in that area, I can easily check.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not just a Toronto thing, the overwhelming majority of cities that have mixed traffic running put their tram tracks in the middle of the road, and the practice predates the widespread adoption of cars. The reason this is done is because if you put the tracks in the curb lane, their larger turning radius might not permit them to turn right without necessitating the destruction of various items on the sidewalk to build the turning track.

Concerns about using the accessibility ramp are a red herring. If they wanted to, they could raise the actual road at car stops and thus eliminate the need to deploy the ramp, like so:

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Was nearly hit by a driver that didn't stop for a streetcar this past week on Dundas, so happy to see eventual automatic enforcement. You have to really mess up to ignore the streetcar driver signalling, honking, and the doors opening for the full length of the car.

urbantoronto.ca

Raised platforms don't eliminate the need to deploy the ramp, they just enable the short ramp to be deployed instead of the long ramp.

Our current streetcars are not capable of maintaining a constant ride height so it is impossible to build level-boarding platforms for them.

 

[Northern Light]

It's not just a Toronto thing, the overwhelming majority of cities that have mixed traffic running put their tram tracks in the middle of the road, and the practice predates the widespread adoption of cars. The reason this is done is because if you put the tracks in the curb lane, their larger turning radius might not permit them to turn right without necessitating the destruction of various items on the sidewalk to build the turning track.

You reminded me of a favourite photo.............trains with tight corners and all....

An Oshawa streetrunner from .... a few decades back......

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/g780c7/a_canadian_national_sw1200_streetrunning_or