W. K. Lis
Superstar
Oh, so everything is set in stone. No point discussing this, let's close this thread, mods. This is a waste of UT's bandwidth.
There are other stops (streetcar AND bus) that should be dropped as well.
Oh, so everything is set in stone. No point discussing this, let's close this thread, mods. This is a waste of UT's bandwidth.
On the same topic, I noticed the TTC recently removed the near-side southbound stop for the 7 Bathurst at Wilson, with a notice on the removed stop saying this was due to the new artics on the route and as part of a larger stop rationalizing program. (The far-side stop on the south side of Wilson remains.) It's a slight inconvenience for passengers looking to connect between SB 7 buses and WB 96/165, or vice versa.
I wrote about it and got it up to Spacing's blog late last night (hat tip to CDL.TO for the heads up). Of course, I see a very similar article posted the next morning on another, bigger blog more known for hipster fashion and best-of lists.
They are looking at all stops (usually as road work is happening). They are proposing to drop stops on Sherbourne when Lower Sherbourne is re-built this summer. Last year they eliminated two at Howard Street, this year they want to get rid of the two at Front Street and the southbound one just north of the rail bridge. I had no problem with the Howard Street ones nor with the proposed elimination of the southbound one at the rail bridge but the two at Front are very heavily used. It is clearly not easy to balance customer convenience for getting on/off and customer convenience for fewer stops and greater potential speed.
If the thread was about the opportunity to leverage the change in stop spacing to switch to farside stops and install transit priority, then I'd agree with you.Oh, so everything is set in stone. No point discussing this, let's close this thread, mods. This is a waste of UT's bandwidth.
Yes, that's why I think they should be retained.The argument I got from a quite intelligent TTC person was that the new guidelines say stops should be more than 300 metres apart and that Front is 288 from The Esplanade and closer to King (which is (temporarily) removed. As I said in my first post, I can understand the need to look at stop spacing but one also needs to look at usage and 'geography'. In addition there is a (ghastly) proposal to put 1600 new condos on the Acura site and 300 on the ex-Greyhound one right beside these front street stops. P Apparently, Councillors will be consulted so perhaps a note to Pam McConnell?The Front Street ones are well used, and not ones that I'd like to see removed. They're also at traffic signals. Front Street is also the first stop on Sherbourne northbound (as it loops via Queen's Quay, Jarvis and Esplanade). The Howard Street stops were expendible, being so close to the main subway stop.
Yes, that's why I think they should be retained.The argument I got from a quite intelligent TTC person was that the new guidelines say stops should be more than 300 metres apart and that Front is 288 from The Esplanade and closer to King (which is (temporarily) removed. As I said in my first post, I can understand the need to look at stop spacing but one also needs to look at usage and 'geography'. In addition there is a (ghastly) proposal to put 1600 new condos on the Acura site and 300 on the ex-Greyhound one right beside these front street stops. P Apparently, Councillors will be consulted so perhaps a note to Pam McConnell?
One proposed stop to be removed is Victoria and Queen, one that I support the removal of. I ended up sucked into a Twitter flamewar with some gentleman who was quite upset that I should say that the Victoria St. stop, only 90-95 metres from Yonge Street, should be removed, because of the hospital there. This ignores the fact that this is one of the closest stops anywhere in the system (maybe the closest) and the new streetcars are going to be longer, with all door boarding that will mitigate an additional walk to the stop, especially westbound. Some people will argue for or against anything.
Yes, that's why I think they should be retained.The argument I got from a quite intelligent TTC person was that the new guidelines say stops should be more than 300 metres apart and that Front is 288 from The Esplanade and closer to King (which is (temporarily) removed. As I said in my first post, I can understand the need to look at stop spacing but one also needs to look at usage and 'geography'. In addition there is a (ghastly) proposal to put 1600 new condos on the Acura site and 300 on the ex-Greyhound one right beside these front street stops. P Apparently, Councillors will be consulted so perhaps a note to Pam McConnell?
Google says it's 170m to the stop on the Esplanade, and 110m to King once that stop is back in place. In total only 280m! I can't see what the issue is here!
"It's well used" isn't a very good justification. King and Esplanade will just both become a bit more busy.
This type of short-sighted thinking is why this exercise is likely doomed to failure. "Removing stops is OK as long as you don't expect ME to walk an extra 1-2 minutes!"
I would. I think you have a good argument to retain it.
One proposed stop to be removed is Victoria and Queen, one that I support the removal of. I ended up sucked into a Twitter flamewar with some gentleman who was quite upset that I should say that the Victoria St. stop, only 90-95 metres from Yonge Street, should be removed, because of the hospital there. This ignores the fact that this is one of the closest stops anywhere in the system (maybe the closest) and the new streetcars are going to be longer, with all door boarding that will mitigate an additional walk to the stop, especially westbound. Some people will argue for or against anything.