TTC surface stop spacing

[JayBeeGooner]

\We need to form a group to go out at night and totally remove redundant stops regardless if it a streetcar or bus route if TTC is unwilling to do so. You need to remove everything related to the stop unless there is a shelter there. Then put up out of service sign on them and tell them where the next stop is located.

Ha.

That's pretty funny.

You're kidding.... right?

 

[nhui06]

No offense but the line should at least be extended to VP in order to deal with the traffic nightmare at Fairview Mall.

Agreed. In fact, I think they should use the bulk of the Sheppard LRT money to extend the Sheppard Subway to Warden (say $850M out of the $950M), Vic Park and Warden are 2 of the busiest streets in Scarborough, and there are tons of residential areas between Finch and Sheppard along those 2 streets (and slightly east to Bay Mills/Birchmount). Use the rest of the savings to widen Sheppard from Vic Park to Markham Rd (where the Scarb LRT will end) and put a dedicated bus lane (during rush hour) on Sheppard - win win for drivers and commuters alike.

 

[nhui06]

Removing stops anywhere is likely a non-starter due to the nature of our public consultation methods. A small group of 20 locals will show up and speak on behalf of the 2,000 that didn't bother to show up. A councillor or planner will introduce the issue with language as loaded as possible to trigger an outcome of some of the 20 people screaming about how their service is being destroyed and how it was unacceptable. Of course, the city could just remove a surface stop without telling anyone and we'd accept it.

With rapid transit lines, stations needs to go wherever they need to go. If there's an intersection concession road with a bus route, obviously a stop goes there. For the most part, these obvious stops are 800m, 1000m, or 2000m. The question is how many stops should go in between. 800m or 1000m average spacing is fantastic. Everyone is then only a few hundred metres from a station. On the internet, every single person lives exactly halfway between stations and is an octogenarian needing a hip replacement who can't walk five feet. In reality, though, virtually all of the people, jobs, schools, and stores are at major intersections and probably 90+% of people are very well-served by 800m-1000m station spacing. If someone lives five or six blocks off the main road, they'll be five or six blocks from a station no matter how many stations you build, and building too many stations to try to improve upon that 90+% will only cost a fortune and start sapping the utility of a line.

But with a streetcar ROW, might as well have stops at least every 400m because vehicles will be stopping at mid-concession red lights, anyway...might as well let people on and off.



But really, the difference in the cost of vehicles is kinda trivial compared to the cost of actually building an underground transit line on Eglinton. It's kind of like worrying about when to cook dinner based on peak or off-peak hydro rates when you're cooking a meal of foie gras, truffles, and caviar.

Agree on the whole public consultation thing. Transit planners need to stick to their plan, and stop letting the public decide what is best. Public are bias (everyone wants a stop outside their house, or a subway in their community.

For streetcars, I think it should be mandatory that stops need to be at least 250-280m apart. With the new streetcars, it gives TTC the opportunity to re-examine all the stops and see which ones need to be taken out. Combing a (slight) decrease in unnecessary stops and priority lights can go a long way in improving traffic for both commuters and drivers (in a cost-effective method).

 

[DKsan]

You all say you favour the top-down approach. The problem is that top-down approach led to things like those freeways in NYC that Jane Jacobs opposed, or the original Allen Expressway, the mass towers in the park, etc. The great planning mistakes of the 50s.

Planners now strive to avoid at all costs these mistakes. It's taught in planning schools that public consultation all the time is key. You're not getting rid of PICs and other things ever.

 

[Johnny Au]

You all say you favour the top-down approach. The problem is that top-down approach led to things like those freeways in NYC that Jane Jacobs opposed, or the original Allen Expressway, the mass towers in the park, etc. The great planning mistakes of the 50s.

Planners now strive to avoid at all costs these mistakes. It's taught in planning schools that public consultation all the time is key. You're not getting rid of PICs and other things ever.

Agreed. Here is not China, where planners can tear down historic neighbourhoods and build whatever they want very quickly (including subways).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You all say you favour the top-down approach. The problem is that top-down approach led to things like those freeways in NYC that Jane Jacobs opposed, or the original Allen Expressway, the mass towers in the park, etc. The great planning mistakes of the 50s.

Planners now strive to avoid at all costs these mistakes. It's taught in planning schools that public consultation all the time is key. You're not getting rid of PICs and other things ever.

Public consultations are important, but we can't place too much importance on them. The idea that a rapid transit line could get an additional stop that we know will be underused just because a few dozen people complained is ridiculous.

 

[ShonTron]

Public consultations are important, but we can't place too much importance on them. The idea that a rapid transit line could get an additional stop that we know will be underused just because a few dozen people complained is ridiculous.

Of course public consultations are important. Stakeholders bring to the table issues that planners, engineers, consultants and politicans might overlook. Community input can often improve a proposal, rather than simply oppose. Adequate notice is also necessary before a decision is implemented. But to relocate or remove closely-spaced surface transit stops that pre-date the Toronto Transit Commission and placed to serve extinct routing patterns but never removed? I wouldn't say do it without any notice, but this isn't a big deal. Sometimes though the word "no" - with a reasoned explanation - must be used.

 

[DSC]

Public consultations are important, but we can't place too much importance on them. The idea that a rapid transit line could get an additional stop that we know will be underused just because a few dozen people complained is ridiculous.

Yes, public consultation is certainly important and also looking at 'stop usage'. In particular I suggest they look at the Sunday only stops. Not only is church attendance much reduced but some are probably obsolete. The one on College (westbound) just east of University was probably there to serve the Toronto General Hospital when Sunday visiting hours were the norm. As the TGH has moved (decades ago) to University Street this stop could probably go. Some others will be impossible to serve with the new longer cars as the car will block an intersection. In short, yes, some stops can go but only after looking at them carefully.

 

[TOareaFan]

The westbound King car stops on the east side of University to serve the link with the St. Andrew station......then travels a full 110 metres to the stop at Simcoe Street. There never was any logic to that Simcoe stop...but, certainly, with 30 metre long cars there has to be thought to eliminating that Simcoe stop....and others like it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Of course public consultations are important. Stakeholders bring to the table issues that planners, engineers, consultants and politicans might overlook. Community input can often improve a proposal, rather than simply oppose. Adequate notice is also necessary before a decision is implemented. But to relocate or remove closely-spaced surface transit stops that pre-date the Toronto Transit Commission and placed to serve extinct routing patterns but never removed? I wouldn't say do it without any notice, but this isn't a big deal. Sometimes though the word "no" - with a reasoned explanation - must be used.

I honestly think that the TTC has to go ahead and just scrap any stops that are within 400m of each other. It's incredibly frustrating having streetcars and busses stop every few seconds because someone decided to make stops so close. It will greatly improve travel times, especially along St. Clair and Spadina during rush hours and add less than 60 seconds to the time walked

 

[ShonTron]

I honestly think that the TTC has to go ahead and just scrap any stops that are within 400m of each other. It's incredibly frustrating having streetcars and busses stop every few seconds because someone decided to make stops so close. It will greatly improve travel times, especially along St. Clair and Spadina during rush hours and add less than 60 seconds to the time walked

I still have a more nuanced take than requiring specific stop distances, and I would argue that 400 metres is a rather high standard. Church and Jarvis are 220 metres apart on the 94, 506, 505, 501/2 and 504/3 routes. But I'm not terribly interested in removing either of those stops on any of those routes. I'd argue both are useful and should stay.

I am interested in removing or reorganizing stops that are less than 200 metres apart. Victoria/Yonge on the 505, 501/2, 504/3. York/University/Simcoe on on Queen and King. In that case, I suspect that the stops at York and Simcoe were placed before University Avenue was extended south of Queen, and made no sense when stops were added at University to serve the subway in 1963.

Bay Street is just over 200 metres from Yonge, and I can't see Queen/Bay cut. Huron at Dundas could be cut as especially there's no equivalent stop on College Street. I'd replace the stops on Queen at Peter and John with one new stop at Beverley (and keep Queen at McCaul but dump Queen and Simcoe, of course). That has WB Queen cars making two stops between University and Spadina instead of four, the equivalent to the number of stops the 506 makes on the same stretch.

 

[Johnny Au]

I still have a more nuanced take than requiring specific stop distances, and I would argue that 400 metres is a rather high standard. Church and Jarvis are 220 metres apart on the 94, 506, 505, 501/2 and 504/3 routes. But I'm not terribly interested in removing either of those stops on any of those routes. I'd argue both are useful and should stay.

I am interested in removing or reorganizing stops that are less than 200 metres apart. Victoria/Yonge on the 505, 501/2, 504/3. York/University/Simcoe on on Queen and King. In that case, I suspect that the stops at York and Simcoe were placed before University Avenue was extended south of Queen, and made no sense when stops were added at University to serve the subway in 1963.

Bay Street is just over 200 metres from Yonge, and I can't see Queen/Bay cut. Huron at Dundas could be cut as especially there's no equivalent stop on College Street. I'd replace the stops on Queen at Peter and John with one new stop at Beverley (and keep Queen at McCaul but dump Queen and Simcoe, of course). That has WB Queen cars making two stops between University and Spadina instead of four, the equivalent to the number of stops the 506 makes on the same stretch.

Dundas and Huron serves Chinatown. King and Simcoe serves Roy Thomson Hall and the Theatre District. Dundas and Victoria serves Ryerson University (and the east end of Yonge-Dundas Square). I am just saying.

 

[TOareaFan]

Dundas and Huron serves Chinatown. King and Simcoe serves Roy Thomson Hall and the Theatre District. Dundas and Victoria serves Ryerson University (and the east end of Yonge-Dundas Square). I am just saying.

Sure....but (using the RTH as an example) does it need a stop right at Simcoe? Or would signage directing people to the stops 110 metres away (can even walk the entire way underground in bad weather) not work just as well? I guess what I am asking is: does a stop have to be right at the door of an attraction to serve it or just reasonably nearby?

 

[enelemcee]

Speaking of King St W...there is a 110 metre span between Joe Schuster Way and Jefferson Avenue, right where the condos are being built. They're both across from Lamport Stadium, but I can't figure out why those two stops are so close.

 

[nfitz]

Speaking of King St W...there is a 110 metre span between Joe Schuster Way and Jefferson Avenue, right where the condos are being built. They're both across from Lamport Stadium, but I can't figure out why those two stops are so close.

Closer to 90 metres I think. Yes, that one is absurd. If you just miss the streetcar at Jefferson, you can sprint to Joe Schuster and have a good chance of catching it on the traffic light there. There's a few across the system, both bus and streetcar, that should go. The Mount Stephen stops on Broadview (I always just walk to Dundas anyway, as then you have a chance at catching a 504 short-turning into service). Even the southbound stop at Simpson, which is only 70 metres (literally 3 street lamps) north of the Gerrard stop. (The official Bridgepoint hospital stop is at Langley ... perhaps if the hospital is an issue for Simpson, they should merge the 2 stops into 1 at Victor).