17 thoughts on “Many Meetings on the Waterfront (Updated)”

1. The city lacks one-ways in many areas where they should otherwise be. Queen’s Quay should DEFINITELY be turned into a one-way so that turning movements are reduced, a minimum two lanes are maintained and pedestrian flows are improved.

   Also, Harbour Street is just north of it to take traffic the other way so there should be no problem at all.

   One-way is the only way!

   LikeLike

2. In reading the description and seeing the images of Alternative 5, I couldn’t help but think of the tram line in Oslo that passes by Aker brygge (somewhat like our Harbourfront), though the two lanes of traffic are not one-way. I have a photo of what this looks like just west of Rådhusplassen, facing west, at http://lrt.daxack.ca/Oslo/hires076.jpg

   Like Queens Quay, the harbour is to the left, just out of the photo.

   One thing in the presentation material that had me chuckle is the occasional image showing TTC streetcars on a green right-of-ways (sides 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, and 65). This is used in a number of cities around the world (including Oslo), but I don’t see it happening in Toronto. An inside contact of mine has told me that their track maintenance people are not big fans of ballasted tie construction (it’s not just emergency vehicle operators who push for concrete), and would probably have an even lower opinion of track work encased in vegetation.

   LikeLike

3. Joseph C Says:

   “The city lacks one-ways in many areas where they should otherwise be. Queen’s Quay should DEFINITELY be turned into a one-way so that turning movements are reduced, a minimum two lanes are maintained and pedestrian flows are improved.

   “Also, Harbour Street is just north of it to take traffic the other way so there should be no problem at all.

   “One-way is the only way!”

   It is interesting that many Cities have converted one way streets back to two way to make the area “friendlier” to pedestrians and shopping. Cambridge got rid of their two North-South one ways and Hamilton has eliminated some. One way is the only way if you are only interested in designing for cars except in a few select areas. I believe that Queen’s Quay could be a justifiable exception because of its uniqueness. In most places in Toronto the use of one ways to improve car traffic is not justifiable. Richmond and Adelaide are okay but I believe that Wellington and Front should be redone to two way traffic as well as most of York Street. It would improve Street car short turns.

   LikeLike

4. On one-way streets.

   It is important where and why we have them. They can move more than their fair share of traffic. What does that mean? Richmond and Adelaide will, as two streets with 4 lanes each, move more vehicles per hour as one-way streets, than they could as two-way streets with the same number of lanes.

   So why not cover the city with one-way streets?

   A few reasons. First, its not transit or pedestrian friendly. Secondly, the streets need to be close enough together to work properly. Outside the core, streets are not close enough (IE, you cannot make Eglinton and Lawrence one-way streets, they are just too far apart)

   So which streets should be one-way?

   The streets that should remain one-way are those streets leading into the heart of downtown that need to handle excess traffic loads. Hamilton has a true “downtown” and still has one-way streets in the core. Cambridge has a much smaller “downtown” and has been able to eliminate one-way streets. Size matters.

   So what about Toronto?

   Streets like Wellington and Front do not need to be kept one-way for traffic reasons. Both have space limitations that, if dealt with properly, could open them up to being two-way streets. Adelaide and Richmond, however, are extensions of the DVP, and need to remain as one-way streets. Why? If we make them two-way streets, traffic on King and Queen will become as bad east of yonge as it currently is west of dufferin. This would have a very negative impact on transit in the area. It also may make sense to make Yonge and Bay one-way streets. Three lanes for each street could, as one-way streets, carry as much capacity as four lanes on each, thus allowing us to open-up both streets to more pedestrian traffic by taking away a lane of traffic.

   LikeLike

5. Robert Wightman Says:

   “It is interesting that many Cities have converted one way streets back to two way to make the area “friendlier” to pedestrians and shopping. Cambridge got rid of their two North-South one ways and Hamilton has eliminated some.”

   Correct. Another problem with those cities is the lack of proper transit and the wide width of those streets. Hamilton has 5 lane one-ways. But it’s also important to look at this angle of thought. A downtown street has to have minimum of 4 lanes, 2 each way at the least. There was a study done in the 1980s that would have made Yonge/Church St one-ways from Front up to Davenport (That is why the existing one-way setup of Wellington/Front is in place).

   Steve: Actually, Wellington and Front were one-ways long before that 1980s study.

   What is interesting is today, we can use that idea and make it even better. If anyone has seen de Maisonneuve ave in Montreal? It has 1 dedicated lane taken out of traffic for two-way bicycle lanes! Imagine having a dedicated bicycle lane on Yonge St and then maybe a parking lane on the other end during off-peak. You will maintain 2 lanes and it will be even easier to cross the street then it is now.

   Steve: Converting Yonge, Bay or Church to one-way operation is just not going to happen, and advocating changing the road in the name of establishing cycling lanes is political chicanery. If we want more space for cyclists, then we have to take space away from cars, moving or parked.

   “One way is the only way if you are only interested in designing for cars except in a few select areas. I believe that Queen’s Quay could be a justifiable exception because of its uniqueness. In most places in Toronto the use of one ways to improve car traffic is not justifiable. Richmond and Adelaide are okay but I believe that Wellington and Front should be redone to two way traffic as well as most of York Street. It would improve Street car short turns.”

   Many streets in Toronto should remain status quo such as King and Queen but Yonge has a subway line and could use bike lanes so a one-way pair would be nice.

   Also, I feel that one-ways tend to be bad for small towns/cities but they are a major asset to big cities as they allow for smaller streets and better pedestrian environments and still maintain a decent car flow. By no means should Yonge St become a throughfare for cars but I feel that crossing 3 lanes at Dundas Square instead of 2 makes it even better for the busiest pedestrian intersection in the city!

   Queen’s Quay can be a perfect all-around street but make sure it is one-way or there will be way too much car idling in many key points.

   Steve: Front Street is going to become much different in front of Union Station under plans that will go through an EA in 2009. The street will be one-way eastbound from York and have only two through lanes. The median will be removed. The road will open out to four lanes for taxi laybys on the north and south sides, and the sidewalks will be widened.

   The intent is not to make Front a high-speed street, and indeed the trend in downtown will be to become more aggressively pedestrian oriented given the huge volume of transit riders who will arrive in the core by subway and GO.

   LikeLike

6. Stevesays:
   “Front Street is going to become much different in front of Union Station under plans that will go through an EA in 2009. The street will be one-way eastbound from York and have only two through lanes. The median will be removed. The road will open out to four lanes for taxi laybys on the north and south sides, and the sidewalks will be widened.

   “The intent is not to make Front a high-speed street, and indeed the trend in downtown will be to become more aggressively pedestrian oriented given the huge volume of transit riders who will arrive in the core by subway and GO.”

   If Front is to be come one way east bound from York to Church then it would seem to make sense to make York two way to get traffic on to Front west bound from York St. University Ave. What are the plans for the entire area or are they doing it piecemeal?

   Steve: I have not heard of any plans to change York to two-way. It’s a stub street ending at Queen, and University Avenue, immediately to the west, provides the two-way north-south route.

   LikeLike

7. There’s an interesting conflict of meetings for the West Waterfront Master plan – how did that happen on Tues?

   3rd Public Meeting and Open House for the Master Plan
   December 9th at 7.00pm
   St. Joseph’s Health Centre (30 The Queensway, Toronto)

   With Front St. and the EA in 2009 – it seems there’s already a plan in place eh? And what about restoring transit to Front St.? – I still think it makes sense instead of the WWLRT, and pushing a somewhat expedited into-core route from the Beach and Parkdale on railtrack/Front/Eastern.

   There’s a Real Need for a safe, functional, high-quality east-west bike lane in from Parkdale to the core. The city’s finally beginning to move on doing a bit, (but it has to be simple, quick and cheap to reduce their liability in one year), so they are avoiding doing a thing about the more complicated issue of the main streets with the streetcar tracks that are both hazards to cyclists and anchors to the street lanes so repainting streets isn’t possible.

   I’ve been suggesting a deMaisenneuve “fix” for one of these bigger roads of King, Queen, Dundas or College where a huge number of bike hazards exist, but I think Queen is best for a few reasons.
   Yes, taking away a curb lane and putting in two way bike lanes would be a big switch, but we have some pretty ugly bike friction going on in the area and if we had a single good bike lane, could a lot of TTC load be diverted onto it? Could that save a streetcar purchase or two? If there were fewer intense rush-hour loadings, would that speed up service some?

   If we showed political will to install a good bike lane, could that political will be extended to advantage transit somehow too? as there might be some resistance to squeezing car traffic into the same lane as a streetcar.

   But if we want to move folks in from Etobicoke, and could do a Queen St. transitway and bikeway with paint or something with $5 to $50M, isn’t that better than a $550 to $700M WWLRT?

   Steve: While I do agree that the WWLRT has all the earmarks of an out-of-control project due to the piecemeal nature of its planning and construction, I don’t agree that Front Street is the place for a new transit corridor, nor that cycling will save on the need to buy new streetcars. Transit has to provide service on all those days the cycles stay at home thanks to the weather, and we need a fleet capable of handling those days.

   LikeLike

8. First of all, one-way streets work only in the downtown core where the street grid allows close one-way pairs of course.

   Nick wrote:

   “Three lanes for each street could, as one-way streets, carry as much capacity as four lanes on each, thus allowing us to open-up both streets to more pedestrian traffic by taking away a lane of traffic.”

   Exactly my point, if you make Yonge St a one-way, you can reduce the lanes and increase the pedestrian area of it.

   “Steve: Front Street is going to become much different in front of Union Station under plans that will go through an EA in 2009. The street will be one-way eastbound from York and have only two through lanes. The median will be removed. The road will open out to four lanes for taxi laybys on the north and south sides, and the sidewalks will be widened.”

   That just demonstrates my point even more. A two-way street would be so wide because it would be 4 lanes + 2 parking lanes which is a wide pedestrian barrier. By turning it one-way, you make the barrier a lot smaller. The city should keep this in mind when looking at the existing 4 lane lakeshore one-way vs the “new” 8 lane lakeshore two-way.

   That’s perfect! 2 Through lanes and the side lanes for parking/taxi’s is perfect. Thats what the entire downtown montreal looked like! 4 Lane One-ways with 2 Through lanes and 2 parking lanes.

   Now imagine that on Yonge St. It would be perfect! However we make it even better by making it 3 Lane + Two-Way Bicycle Lane and 1 parking lane on the other side. Church St would be 4 lane with parking on both sides. This would totally make the street much more calm because there will only be 2 active lanes instead of 4.

   Yonge and Church were destined to be one-ways it seems. On the south end, traffic would head east on front and then north on Church. On the north end Church st curves and meets Yonge and turns into Davenport. At that point the one-way configuration would end.

   It maybe hard to understand how such a configuration would work until you check out Montreal’s pair of one-ways: Maisonneuve Ave & St. Catherine St. You’ll see that both streets only have 2 active lanes with St. Catherine having 2 parking lanes and Maisonneuve having 1 parking lane and a two-way bicycle lane.

   And it looks amazing! Theres even a concrete barrier to seperate automobile traffic from the two-way lanes.

   I spend my life around Yonge & Dundas and the north east and west corners of that intersection are SO narrow. No standing area. By making it one-way, you can make it more safe for pedestrians.

   Make Yonge Street the perfect street! Subway, Bicycles, Pedestrians, and Cars.

   LikeLike

9. Re WWLRT Park Lawn to Long Branch:

   Does it really matter that much whether this section gets its own ROW?

   I am wondering whether the biggest benefit for us Lakeshore residents is what happens east of Roncesvalles. The streetcars (sorry LRT vehicles) would run in their own ROW (wherever that might be) instead of in mixed traffic.

   In terms of staging for the various Transit City lines does this mean that this segment could probably be the last part built well after the downtown section is completed?

   Steve: It’s hard to say. The downtown part is a real challenge because of the complexity of the Bremner LRT scheme and the changes needed at Union Station Loop. There is also the question of how the line is going to get from Dufferin to Parkside. Depending on what is done, there may be very little change from the Long Branch point of view for years.

   As I have said before, simply running dependable service will save a lot of trip time, probably more than can be achieved by any LRT scheme. Also, I feel that if service comes in from Long Branch via King, it should just keep going straight into downtown. I suspect that the extra farting around to use an interim route down Dufferin, through the CNE and then who-knows-how to get to Union will offset any benefits from not being on King Street.

   LikeLike

10. There are posters up along Roncesvalles Avenue promoting the Tuesday night meeting at St. Joseph’s Hospital as an opportunity to “stop the TTC from ruining Parkdale,” which they allege will happen when it’s turned into a giant “parking lot for Mississauga commuters.” Adding to the ruination, “high speed trains.”

    LikeLike

11. Given the specious nature of the benefits of the Lake Shore ROW, why not simply paint it into existence and have done with?

    Steve: I suspect that they may want to have more generous safety islands and provide these at all stops. This will require some adjustment of the road layout. At least we can hope they won’t try to rebuild the entire street since the track is all recently reconstructed. Why this needs an EA is quite baffling.

    LikeLike

12. As a Lakeshore resident, I can testify to the truly unpredictable 501 service west of Humber Loop. It’s such that most residents will avoid this route, and take a bus north to the subway or the GO Train. For our family, to get to Long Branch loop & GO station, it’s a 30 min walk, or 30 min headstart to try and catch a westbound 501 car to get to the GO. Which negates all of the GO Train advantage to get downtown. The 5 minute car ride to the station’s the only real alternative.

    Then there are those thousands of Lakeshore residents who have to rely on the 501 line and who have no alternative other than walking. The WWLRT reserved lanes along Lakeshore Blvd will be a blessing for them, and reintroduce, one hopes, scheduled and reliable local streetcar service.

    In addition, the Blvd’s wide enough in almost it’s entire routing for a dedicated streetcar lane. The street’s a dedicated Avenue for growth in the City Plan, and has many amenities like banks, libraries, schools, GO transit connexions, community centres etc.

    In times of the Gardiner being repaired or jammed with traffic, the overflow jams Lakeshore as well, really screwing those of us taking the 501.

    In the meantime, what we really need is the 507 Lakeshore route back, as Steve has been suggesting, though I’ve no confidence in the TTC’s ability to run cars on even a closed and separate car line like the 507 with any better reliability and service that they do on the 501.

    Certainly I do like the painted lines WWLRT implementation, though locals’ll ignore it. More streetcar islands are needed (a set of islands were built on the west portion near Long Branch about 10-12 years ago), and left turns’ll need to be dealt with, and hopefully not the far side stop requiring island rebuilding…

    LikeLike

13. At Roncesvalles/King/Queen, there are notices for a meeting today (Tuesday December 9) at St. Joe’s if I recall.

    According to the posters, the TTC is trying to ruin Parkdale! The “TTC/City” plan to run “high speed trains” “right through the neighbourhood” will turn Parkdale into a “parking lot for Mississauga commuters”.

    This would be a great meeting to attend if you’re not getting enough fruits and nuts in your diet….

    Steve: This sounds exactly like the BS that Jack Layton and friends were spewing about the original Spadina streetcar proposal that would divide the community with express trains racing from Bloor to the Waterfront. There are times that neighbourhood activists need a serious does of reality.

    I don’t mind people critiquing projects, but at least they should get their facts straight.

    LikeLike

14. I attended part of the Western Waterfront Master Plan presentation tonight, to discover, as the more clued-in among us no doubt already knew, that the plan has basically nothing to do with transit.

    The plan acknowledges that the TTC exists, since streetcars are shown running down a heavily forested LSB median in a couple of illustrations, but there was no TTC representative at the meeting and, I got the impression, wasn’t one involved in producing the master plan.

    There were some promising ideas illustrated to do with the waterfront, access to it, and things like beaches.

    Steve: That is correct. The TTC work on the WWLRT was on hold pending work on the master plan into which the TTC is expected to fit.

    LikeLike

15. The WWLRT presentation at James Bell was not promising.

    There were two big (7 or 8 metres in length) layout charts taped to the wall, and two big ones on the tables. Alas, they weren’t labelled as two alternatives (which some of the consultant/city/TTC attendeed complained about too), and the differences weren’t really noticeable.

    There was a City of Toronto planner who wasn’t sure how much of Lake Shore Blvd. W. was designated as an “Avenue”.

    The consultants and TTC staff were quite vague on signal priority, and when they started to explain that there’s priority already, they were using the hold-the-green-longer that is installed here and there. Of course, that doesn’t work with farside stops which are slated for the Lake Shore section of WWLRT.

    Some of the people insisted that the left turn arrow “must” be the first signal, and could not back it up beyond “someone says so”.

    Figures for vehicular traffic were not provided, nor stop usage. Vehicular traffic counts were provided in the Kipling and Islington /Gardiner interchange open house, so this sort of data is not impossible to provide. When I inquired further, I was told that it may be on the website, and if it wasn’t, don’t worry because all these had already been carefully considered anyway.

    Because the planner I spoke to didn’t know much, if anything, about south Etobicoke, I couldn’t get any idea of what zoning changes are being planned to support and complement the LRT.

    TTC service planner explained that current 501 service was bad, and change was coming, but it’s a “cultural change”, which seems to mean that it will take years and years to accomplish anything.

    Basically, the whole open house was prepared to handle questions about changes to parking and left turns, but the various attendees from the consultant, TTC, and city were not able or willing to get inot any details, which included an actual justification for LRT-ing Lake Shore Blvd W.

    Steve: The presentation materials are available on the project’s website. Just scroll down a bit to the two linked sets of display boards.

    I am really getting tired of “it’s TTC culture” as an excuse for inactivity on service quality. For years, “mixed traffic” was the mantra, and now it’s “TTC culture”. This will sound horrendously radical for me, but if the TTC can’t find management who can properly evaluate operating strategies and admit that the amalgamated service they have operated on the 501 for nearly two decades is a disaster, maybe it’s time to find some management who can.

    LikeLike

16. Steve, you write:

    “…. if the TTC can’t find management who can properly evaluate operating strategies and admit that the amalgamated service they have operated on the 501 for nearly two decades is a disaster, maybe it’s time to find some management who can.”

    Question: could competent line management make the amalgamated route run well?

    Your statement implies that the route must be de-amalgamated for the service to improve. But, from the experience south Etobicoke riders have had with the pseudo-507 runs last summer, and with the various bustitutions, service quality does not automatically improve by splitting the route. Instead of one random headway to deal with, now there are two (Long Branch and Queen). Therefore, the remaining separated routes must be well-managed in order to operate properly.

    According to the evidence, the TTC’s line management has gone to hell in a handbasket in the last twenty years.

    How much of the current Queen line’s travails are due to poor line management?

    How much of the current Queen line’s travails are due to the integrated route?

    To me, Occam’s razor suggests that good route management is a prerequisite for *any* route setup to work properly, so that should be done first. If the route still needs to be de-amalgamated after competent route management is in place, at least the separated routes will run reliably.

    Steve: I concur, but with the observation that the 501 as currently structured makes it even harder to manage even if you are trying to do this properly.

    The approach taken at Russell Carhouse with extra crews who ferry cars to and from Neville doesn’t work in the west end because Ronces is much, much further from Long Branch. Short turning operators to allow them to pick up, say 15 minutes on their time simply isn’t an option.

    The long Neville to Long Branch route creates a stronger need for long crew breaks at the terminals that on many other lines. Splitting the line would shorten a one-way trip and reduce some of the demand for long breaks.

    The basic issue is that the scheduling of drivers needs to change to build the breaks and the step-back crewing into the way the line is operated. The scheme now in use at Russell is a patch on the traditional TTC scheduling rather than a fundamental rethinking of how manpower is used on routes like the 501.

    LikeLike

17. I attended the Waterfront West LRT (WWLRT) open house at James Bell School on 31st Street in Long Branch. Fellow transit fan and fellow Lakeshore resident Ed Treijs was also there, we talked a fair abit there about our comments.

    “The TTC and City are recommending that a dedicated transit lane be constructed in the centre of Lake Shore Boulevard West to provide a fast, reliable, and comfortable way to travel between Park Lawn Road and Long Branch. When completed, continuous high-speed LRT service will be available from Union Station to Long Branch. The LRT vehicles will be low-floor and fully accessible with boarding at multiple doors to speed service and reduce wait times.” – the website

    Design

    As the streetcar track was redone in the past 10 years, this Environmental Assessment was recommending a curb be added alongside the existing track, to restrict autos from crossing it, but still allowing emergency vehicles to cross it. Also with the track rebuild the decision was made to stick with the side poles, as the track was built with a ROW in mind. The boulevard’s width did not allow for a wider ROW with centre poles.
    With Lakeshore Blvd being such a wide street, only minimal sidewalk space would be removed, though this was hard to actually measure given the larger scale of the maps displayed.

    Access from Alderwood

    Pedestrian/cyclist connections to the north need to be improved to allow Alderwood residents to use the WWLRT. The Brown’s Line bridge over the CN line is a large hill, and the 2 intersections at Lakeshore are not that pedestrian and bike friendly. The only other choices at the west end are 30th St, walk from Alderwood to the Long Branch GO train platform and through the station, or the Etobicoke Creek path just west, part of Marie Curtis Park.

    Stops

    Nine existing stops are initially being recommended to be removed, to speed LRT service about 5 kph. However it seemed to me that removing the stop at 10th Street would not be a good idea, as that would leave 6 blocks between stops, near the Goodyear Plant redevelopment (townhouses and apartment buildings). Otherwise the removed stops are typically only 2 short blocks from existing stops.

    The stop at Mimico Ave is shown as removed, which is odd as that’s the transfer to the Royal York South bus. We would add it in, and keep the stop at Superior as well, given the number of apartment buildings there. Stop spacing has to be a bit more sophisticated than just every 400m.

    Parking

    From what we could tell, most of the attendees were skeptical, because of left turn and parking restrictions. As well, the Humber College Lakeshore Campus attracts parking along Lakeshore, but from my own experience not a lot. The presentation material showed existing parking was only at 25% capacity, allowing for major loss of street parking with little actual impact. There are off street lots near Islington that are most empty, and the Toronto Parking Authority rep there said that additional properties could be acquired for additional parking if so needed, as they’d done along St Clair.

    Staff on Hand

    Our conversations with various TTC & City people about signal priority did not give us very much confidence that anyone knows what they’re talking about. We were told that “the left turn signal *must* come first”, but the consultant was unable to substantiate that beyond “they [Roads, TTC] say so”.

    We were not impressed by the level of knowledge shown by the City, TTC, and consultant staff there. The city planner was responsible for Agincourt (!) and had no idea how much of Lake Shore has been designated an Avenue. The TTC service planner, while pleasant, repeated the “culture change takes a long time” mantra about service changes to the 501 to get ridership up in advance. Figures for auto traffic on Lake Shore, which is where the lane “requirements” come from, are obscure, as are usage counts for the various stops.

    Nor did the City and TTC staff we spoke to have much knowledge of the problems with the other LRT implementations, Spadina and St Clair. There was very general mention of transit priority and the marvels of GPS technology, but no underlying understanding of existing implementation problems. The staff did mostly a selling job, explaining the best possible outcome to neighbourhood residents and business people.

    Residents and Business Owners

    Local were curious what LRT was, and how it was going to restrict their driving patterns and parking. The usual complaints of the city ruining the area by taking away parking and road lanes. I didn’t see many Lakeshore people there that actually rely on the 501 car to get around. They were probably stuck at Humber Loop or on a Long Branch car in a pack on Queen Street…

    Politicians

    The Ward 6 Councillor Mark Grimes’ rep was there, canvassing opinion. Apparently Grimes has decided whether to support this or not. Figures. Giambrone was rumoured to show up, but I didn’t stay long enough to see him.

    Utility

    Ed and I surmised that Gardiner congestion and/or construction backs up Lakeshore Blvd from Humber Loop to Mimico, but generally not farther than that.

    Personally, we believe this plan is a good long term investment, but not at the expense of other Transit City lines with far higher ridership.

    We mused that the streetcar ROW should be built from Park Lawn west to Mimico, as this is the main area of auto congestion when the Gardiner clogs up.

    Also the City & TTC should build the planned streetcar islands all the way to Long Branch, because many cars and big trucks barrel along Lakeshore, making boarding and alighting dangerous. Then as funding and need dictates, the ROW curbs and sidewalk cuts could be progressively implemented from the east to the west.

    Short Term

    There is a lot of potential for future growth on Lakeshore Blvd, many schools, community centres, banks, libraries, employment centres, rinks and pools along its length. Lakeshore the area has always been a self-contained community, but this community needs reliable transportation to grow. Lakeshore Blvd streetcar service is erratic and this established avenue and its neighbourhoods deserve to have its own, much more reliable service, delinked from the erratic Queen Street route.

    LikeLike

Comments are closed.