News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 704     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.2K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.3K     8 

King Street (Streetcar Transit Priority)

TOareaFan said:
Isn't the obvious solution, in a situation like this, to eliminate the stop farthest from the hospital and keep the one closest to the hospital.....the circumstance described here does not scream out "ah well, I guess we are forced to keep both stops"
Click to expand...

Well, the stop furtherest from the hospital is at an major intercestion ( Gerrard St ), so I guess remove the hospital stop.
 
rbt said:
Reading the attached PDFs I don't see any hint that Transportation Services (it's technically their project) is fighting against making it permanent.

That's a remarkable change from ~2004 when Miller had to order the department to count people and not vehicles (where a loaded streetcar or a single occupant in a BMW had the same score).
Click to expand...

Miller tried to make some great ideas, but, Ford killed them ( aside from the Pilot )
 
Jack Layton Way Stop needs to go since very few riders get off there in the first place and only 200'(?) from the Gearard Major stop. This is one of many stops that still need to go, regardless if add 200' walk to an already 1,500'+ walk to the hospital. Most people using this stop have no walking problems in the first place.

You already got a stop to the north that service the hospital that has a longer walking distance.

It would be nice for this extension time frame for King, that new LED signs go up at all intersections for no through traffic and better signage, as well enforcement. May try some red paint with markings to showing traffic is not allow past this point and have to turn right at the next intersection. Unless enforcement is out there, drivers will ignore all signs since its their god given right to drive unrestricted in this area and can read signs in the first place.
 
drum118 said:
Jack Layton Way Stop needs to go since very few riders get off there in the first place and only 200'(?) from the Gearard Major stop. This is one of many stops that still need to go, regardless if add 200' walk to an already 1,500'+ walk to the hospital. Most people using this stop have no walking problems in the first place.

You already got a stop to the north that service the hospital that has a longer walking distance.

It would be nice for this extension time frame for King, that new LED signs go up at all intersections for no through traffic and better signage, as well enforcement. May try some red paint with markings to showing traffic is not allow past this point and have to turn right at the next intersection. Unless enforcement is out there, drivers will ignore all signs since its their god given right to drive unrestricted in this area and can read signs in the first place.
Click to expand...

It baffles me that they don't have more enforcement out there. The amount of people who break the rules! They would make a fortune. Also, pedestrians are no angels either. So many times they just walk when cars turning right have a green light causing a back up, it infuriating on both sides.
 
drum118 said:
Jack Layton Way Stop needs to go since very few riders get off there in the first place and only 200'(?) from the Gearard Major stop. This is one of many stops that still need to go, regardless if add 200' walk to an already 1,500'+ walk to the hospital. Most people using this stop have no walking problems in the first place.
Click to expand...
It's used more than some stops - but yes, completely ridiculous. I measured the distance as 80 metres further up the thread (or is it in the Streetcar network thread). With 30-metre streetcars, that means it's only 50 metres from the front of the streetcar at Jack Layton to the back of the streetcar at Gerrard! With the back of the streetcar at Gerrard being closer to Jack Layton Way, than the front of the streetcar at the Jack Layton stop is to Jack Layton Way!

In morning rush hour, a lot of people changing at Gerrard/Broadview, just walk that extra 50 metres from where I am standing near the back door. This is literally 2 hydro poles.
 
nfitz said:
It's used more than some stops - but yes, completely ridiculous. I measured the distance as 80 metres further up the thread (or is it in the Streetcar network thread). With 30-metre streetcars, that means it's only 50 metres from the front of the streetcar at Jack Layton to the back of the streetcar at Gerrard! With the back of the streetcar at Gerrard being closer to Jack Layton Way, than the front of the streetcar at the Jack Layton stop is to Jack Layton Way!

In morning rush hour, a lot of people changing at Gerrard/Broadview, just walk that extra 50 metres from where I am standing near the back door. This is literally 2 hydro poles.
Click to expand...

Wonder if that distance is shorter than the distance people have to walk after getting off buses at a bus bay to the subway trains at some suburban mega-stations.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Wonder if that distance is shorter than the distance people have to walk after getting off buses at a bus bay to the subway trains at some suburban mega-stations.
Click to expand...
For sure - and compare to the long walking distances from mainline trains to subway at Union - even from changing from the UP Express to the Lakeshore GO line. 50 metre horizontal separation between the two streetcar platforms on Broadview Avenue is a joke!

And then there's the proposed Gerrard subway/Smart Track station. The sections show over 40 metres depth from ground to the subway platform at one entrance. I dread to think how long it will take to get from the subway platform to the GO platforms!

1544551564572.png
 
drum118 said:
Jack Layton Way Stop needs to go since very few riders get off there in the first place and only 200'(?) from the Gearard Major stop. This is one of many stops that still need to go, regardless if add 200' walk to an already 1,500'+ walk to the hospital. Most people using this stop have no walking problems in the first place.

You already got a stop to the north that service the hospital that has a longer walking distance.

It would be nice for this extension time frame for King, that new LED signs go up at all intersections for no through traffic and better signage, as well enforcement. May try some red paint with markings to showing traffic is not allow past this point and have to turn right at the next intersection. Unless enforcement is out there, drivers will ignore all signs since its their god given right to drive unrestricted in this area and can read signs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Agree with you, the people from hospital can go to the other stop to the north.
 
thettctransitfanatic said:
Agree with you, the people from hospital can go to the other stop to the north.
Click to expand...

The TTC stops, both bus and streetcar, at hospitals, as well as at nearby intersections where there is demonstrably more demand, are out of consideration for individuals with mobility issues, especially those whose issues result in their visits to the hospital. While the number of passengers boarding or leaving the TTC at these locations may not be the most, from an overall perspective, the greater good for all concerned, including the patrons using these stops, may be to have them continued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
AHK said:
The TTC stops, both bus and streetcar, at hospitals, as well as at nearby intersections where there is demonstrably more demand, are out of consideration for individuals with mobility issues, especially those whose issues result in their visits to the hospital.
Click to expand...
When the streetcar door from the Gerrard stop to Jack Layton Way is shorter than from the Jack Layton stop, perhaps this isn't a consideration issue.

Also, Southbound, TTC advises people using the hospital to get off at the Langley Avenue stop (why, I don't know, but the streetcar speakers blast it every time). I don't think that's consideration either.
 
While some restaurateurs and politicians who want more and more parking, the rest of the world is going in the other direction.

Minneapolis Moves to Eliminate Mandatory Parking

See link.

The Minneapolis City Council has approved a bold plan that would dramatically increase walkability and other hallmarks of urban living by eliminating mandatory parking that has encouraged car ownership for years.

As part of a larger rezoning that will erase decades of racially discriminatory housing policy, the plan will eliminate off-street parking minimums throughout the city — a reform that would make Minneapolis the third major U.S. city to eliminate such requirements, which are a hidden subsidy for drivers.

A goal of the so-called Minneapolis 2040 plan [PDF] is housing and transportation policy that reduces emissions by 80 percent by 2050. To achieve that, the city hopes to reduce the number of miles driven locally 40 percent.

“That drives us to making every investment that we can on the transportation side to reduce vehicle miles traveled,” Robin Hutcheson, the city’s director of Public Works, told Streetsblog. “We want to be able to develop the city and have developers be successful without having to overbuild on parking, which has happened historically in all cities.“

The elimination of mandatory minimum parking follows similar efforts in Buffalo and Hartford, Conn. The Minneapolis plan also calls for discouraging the construction of surface parking lots, and prohibits new gas stations or drive-throughs citywide.

Auto-oriented land uses — such as auto repair shops — will no longer be allowed near Metro stations.

Most of the discussion of the plan has focused on a rezoning that will allow triplex apartments in every neighborhood — even those formerly zoned only for single family houses, a zoning that exacerbated segregation and skewed the housing market. And there’ll be increased density and even stricter parking restrictions near transit stations.

The Minneapolis effort demonstrates that the issues of housing prices and parking are inexorably linked — and must be addressed together if cities want to be more walkable, more integrated and more affordable. Some studies have shown that mandatory parking spaces can add as much as 20 percent to the cost of an apartment.

“Parking minimums and parking ramps harm our efforts at achieving the elimination of racial disparities, addressing climate change and providing affordable housing,” Janne Flisrand, a volunteer and co-founder of the advocacy group Neighbors for More Neighbors, told Streetsblog.

The comprehensive plan doesn’t make the zoning change — eliminating parking minimums — official. But the law requires that the city’s zoning code match the comprehensive plan. Flisrand is confident that City Council will follow through on the zoning changes. The process of changing the zoning laws to align with the plan will take place over the coming year.

“We envision a future where we all find affordable and secure homes in the neighborhood where we choose,” Flisrand said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top