Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Grand River Transit
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
If you have a value-based fare card (instead of the monthly) and you get on a bus that doesn't have the new terminal (like #2309, which yesterday and today was servicing route 11 in the mornings) you get a free ride on the bus.

I'm also seriously considering topping out my card value before the end of the month. I also mostly commute by bike in the summer, and buying $100 for $80 would last me a good long time.
(03-02-2018, 09:47 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]In Ottawa at least, their buses have (had?) a warning on the back left of the bus that yielding to their return to the traffic flow was the law. I believe they even installed cameras on select buses which enabled them to determine if a return-to-traffic signal was on, and to ticket the plates of cars who would continue to fail to yield to said bus.

I believe our buses have such a warning on the back. I think they were added when the law was changed. But of course it has little effect. It’s annoying because in principle bus bays are great — bus can pull out of traffic to load, then traffic lets it back in. But it requires cooperation, working together, which is apparently too much for some people. Ironic, because our roads are a huge example of cooperation: we all chip in via our taxes, and all then get to use them for free.
(03-02-2018, 09:47 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2018, 11:19 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone ever seen any statistics on the number of motorists charged under the section 142.1 of the HTA (yielding right of way to buses exiting from bus bays)? The law has been around for a while now, but I don't think I've ever seen or heard of anyone pulled over for this offense.

Anecdotally, it feels to that more and more drivers are not all yielding according to the law, let alone being plain old courteous, and are making unsafe choices. This results in the bus driver taking evasive action to avoid a collision that usually involves slamming on the brakes or accelerating hard to get back in to traffic after unsuccessfully waiting for a gap or someone to yield because they are getting behind schedule. Which then results in a poor experience for the passenger due to the delays and the jerky ride.

In a word...no.

On Hespeler Road, to the exclusive benefit of drivers, the region recently installed bus bays, so that stopped buses would not impede the flow of traffic at all. However, this was with the caveat that the buses could get back into the flow of traffic. I believe there were campaigns and signs exhorting this of drivers, and these new bays would have easily been a boon to WRPS if they wanted to enforce and educate on the matter...but after just a few months, the bus bays were removed because Hespeler drivers were so bad at letting the buses back into traffic that it disrupted the routes of all Hespeler-bound buses. So no, it is a law that is never enforced here.

In Ottawa at least, their buses have (had?) a warning on the back left of the bus that yielding to their return to the traffic flow was the law. I believe they even installed cameras on select buses which enabled them to determine if a return-to-traffic signal was on, and to ticket the plates of cars who would continue to fail to yield to said bus.

Well I'm glad they removed them, instead of simply continuing to allow service to be degraded.  But this whole thing bugs me very much.  A friend of mine suggested this idea, and I agree, enforcement should be a legally required piece of any new policy or legislation.  If you're putting in bus bays, the EA should include how you will enforce yielding. If you're putting in bike lanes, you must discuss how to enforce no parking. Etc.

(03-02-2018, 10:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2018, 09:47 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]In Ottawa at least, their buses have (had?) a warning on the back left of the bus that yielding to their return to the traffic flow was the law. I believe they even installed cameras on select buses which enabled them to determine if a return-to-traffic signal was on, and to ticket the plates of cars who would continue to fail to yield to said bus.

I believe our buses have such a warning on the back. I think they were added when the law was changed. But of course it has little effect. It’s annoying because in principle bus bays are great — bus can pull out of traffic to load, then traffic lets it back in. But it requires cooperation, working together, which is apparently too much for some people. Ironic, because our roads are a huge example of cooperation: we all chip in via our taxes, and all then get to use them for free.

Bus bays aren't great, largely because you will never get full compliance in yielding, so it will always slow buses. The real answer is to make loading faster, or to give buses a full right of way. Bus bays exist solely for the benefit of drivers at the detriment of transit passengers.
(03-02-2018, 10:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]I believe our buses have such a warning on the back. I think they were added when the law was changed.

It's not really a warning so much as a "Yield" sign. The buses here actually had signs requesting that drivers yield before the law was changed, but they were changed to match the standard required by law.

I was trying to find a picture, but it seems like most of the pictures on the Internet show the fronts of buses, not the back.
Before the law changed, our buses had a 'Please yield-thanks!' sign in the same place, to try to gain the understanding through courtesy. Now that it is the law, they don't have to be as nice.
As a driver, I notice busses are SUPER cautious when pulling out. Like ridiculously cautious, to the point of causing huge delays to the flow of traffic that could otherwise be avoided.

I always try to anticipate a bus pulling out - tell tales:

-if it’s been at a stop a while, it’s likely about to pull out, and I’ll ease up
-if I see the right turn signal go off, I know they’re about to put the left one on, and I’ll ease up

Etc... it’s all about being aware of your surroundings and anticipating others intentions (which I see so little off from all road and trail users - but mostly pedestrians who have their heads in their phones...)
(03-02-2018, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Well I'm glad they removed them, instead of simply continuing to allow service to be degraded.  But this whole thing bugs me very much.  A friend of mine suggested this idea, and I agree, enforcement should be a legally required piece of any new policy or legislation.  If you're putting in bus bays, the EA should include how you will enforce yielding.  If you're putting in bike lanes, you must discuss how to enforce no parking. Etc.

This is actually a really good idea. Done right, it would also require road design to match the intended speed limit. It’s really not OK to build for 60km/h and then put a 40km/h limit sign. Possible downside: adjusting a speed limit on an existing road might require an EA. But then again, maybe non-construction changes shouldn’t be privileged and should require just as careful consideration as construction.

Quote:Bus bays aren't great, largely because you will never get full compliance in yielding, so it will always slow buses.  The real answer is to make loading faster, or to give buses a full right of way.  Bus bays exist solely for the benefit of drivers at the detriment of transit passengers.

In practice you’re probably right. In principle I think they could benefit non-transit traffic without significantly affecting transit but it’s not clear how to get traffic to yield quickly enough to make this happen.
(03-02-2018, 01:07 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]As a driver, I notice busses are SUPER cautious when pulling out. Like ridiculously cautious, to the point of causing huge delays to the flow of traffic that could otherwise be avoided.

I’ve noticed this too. I think drivers have been over-conditioned for safety, to the point where they don’t interact naturally with the other traffic (a little like some self-driving vehicles). Once I had to detour around a bus that was stopped at the red light where the tracks cross University. They drove up to the tracks on the green, stopped as required at all crossings, then the light went red and they just sat there.

Which as anybody who has passed their driving test should know is incorrect driving: once you’re past the stop line, you proceed if the light goes red, rather than “blocking the box” as they say in Manhattan.
(03-02-2018, 01:29 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2018, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Well I'm glad they removed them, instead of simply continuing to allow service to be degraded.  But this whole thing bugs me very much.  A friend of mine suggested this idea, and I agree, enforcement should be a legally required piece of any new policy or legislation.  If you're putting in bus bays, the EA should include how you will enforce yielding.  If you're putting in bike lanes, you must discuss how to enforce no parking. Etc.

This is actually a really good idea. Done right, it would also require road design to match the intended speed limit. It’s really not OK to build for 60km/h and then put a 40km/h limit sign. Possible downside: adjusting a speed limit on an existing road might require an EA. But then again, maybe non-construction changes shouldn’t be privileged and should require just as careful consideration as construction.

Quote:Bus bays aren't great, largely because you will never get full compliance in yielding, so it will always slow buses.  The real answer is to make loading faster, or to give buses a full right of way.  Bus bays exist solely for the benefit of drivers at the detriment of transit passengers.

In practice you’re probably right. In principle I think they could benefit non-transit traffic without significantly affecting transit but it’s not clear how to get traffic to yield quickly enough to make this happen.

I don't mind having no bus bays and have learned to be more patient as passengers load and unload and try to be courteous in letting buses merge back into traffic.  But I do get POd where there are no bus bays and the buses are idling for 5 minutes.  Buses aren't going to make any fans of other drivers when alll they are is a roadblock.
(03-02-2018, 03:48 PM)NotStan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2018, 01:29 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually a really good idea. Done right, it would also require road design to match the intended speed limit. It’s really not OK to build for 60km/h and then put a 40km/h limit sign. Possible downside: adjusting a speed limit on an existing road might require an EA. But then again, maybe non-construction changes shouldn’t be privileged and should require just as careful consideration as construction.


In practice you’re probably right. In principle I think they could benefit non-transit traffic without significantly affecting transit but it’s not clear how to get traffic to yield quickly enough to make this happen.

I don't mind having no bus bays and have learned to be more patient as passengers load and unload and try to be courteous in letting buses merge back into traffic.  But I do get POd where there are no bus bays and the buses are idling for 5 minutes.  Buses aren't going to make any fans of other drivers when alll they are is a roadblock.

Yes, I'm definitely not suggesting there shouldn't be places for buses to layover.  (Although, irregularities in the schedule can also be solved by dedicated lanes Tongue)
I don’t think there is room for BRT lanes on many of the Region’s roads, like Frederick.

Time stops should always be at pull-off bays.
The fact that there are such lengthy layovers at all indicates there is too much slack in the schedule.


Glad to see GRT adding amenities to stops like the one below at Victoria and Westmount. What once was a grass patch (then a dirt patch), and is now a concrete pad, has recently had a bench added, but I can't think of anyone who would actually want to use the bench. Who would want to sit less than a metre from the curb, with their back to a very busy street and cars whipping around the corner?
[attachment=4878]
I've only ever seen that style of bench inside a shelter. Are they intending to build one here? Or was one built, but then removed (due to accident or design failure)?
One might argue that’s the better (less “hostile”) orientation for the bench...
But it would benefit from a glass wall behind it, which I'm certain was the intention.