(01-29-2019, 06:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2019, 06:40 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Idiotic. If the University wants to limit traffic on Ring Road they should look at all the single-occupant vehicles, not the buses.
Although as someone who spends a lot of time on campus, I consider it essential that it be possible for motor vehicles to get to the buildings for drop-off/pickup, even though I usually arrive from Uptown by bicycle or walking. So I’m not sure exactly what measures I would support to reduce traffic; but telling the transit service to stay away is definitely not on the list.
Pickup and drop off of what? It's entirely reasonable for ring road to be closed to everything but buses, service vehicles and delivery vehicles.
We've said this for years, but UW Admin has only ever moved the other direction (limiting buses, and creating more pedestrian crossings of Ring Rd., and limiting pedestrian access along Ring Rd.). My opinion of UW Admin is well known here, this is a major reason why.
Packages, family members, bringing things into the office, …
Especially off hours. There is simply no justification for not allowing a family member to drop me off conveniently close to a building.
I personally could walk from University Ave., but there are lots of people with less mobility for whom that is not a reasonable requirement. And I don’t mean disabled people, just people who don’t want to have to walk the equivalent of several blocks. Anybody who thinks it’s reasonable to close Ring Road must (if they are consistent) also believe it reasonable to close the area bounded by approximately Bridgeport, Caroline, Union, and Moore, or a similar-size area around Uptown, to motor vehicles.
And while in the past the traffic policies on Ring Road were not very pedestrian-friendly, with crosswalks being eliminated and pedestrians generally having to yield to vehicles at all but a very limited number of locations, right now there are many crosswalks where motor vehicles are to yield to pedestrians. In fact if anything now the issue is buses being excessively held up by an unrelenting stream of people walking. Generally speaking, I have no problem with Ring Road not being a fast road, but at a certain point all the traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) needs to get a chance to move. I wonder if it’s time to consider traffic lights at some locations.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. Off of Ring Road, I think we pretty much have it right: there are lots of service roads that go in to various buildings, but they are all dead ends so they are low traffic. Ring Road however sometimes feels busier than I would like. In the past I have mused about making it more of a zig-zag route, with shortcuts for buses only. The idea would be to slow down most motor vehicles but allow buses to move through more quickly.
I hope that regardless of what one thinks about traffic on Ring Road, however, it should be clear to everybody that cutting down on buses is not the way to address traffic levels. This reminds me of when the iXpress came in and the neighbourhood lobbied to keep them off of Central/Albert/Seagram if I remember correctly. Completely absurd to complain about a bus every few minutes on those streets, given the traffic level of general motor vehicles.
While he took transit ~75% of the time, I used to pick up or drop off my husband when he went to UW doing his Masters. Sometimes it was 10pm, sometimes it was raining or snowing, or sometimes he just didn't feel like taking an hour+ bus ride for a 5 minute car ride for me to come get him. Am I awful?
(01-29-2019, 10:22 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]While he took transit ~75% of the time, I used to pick up or drop off my husband when he went to UW doing his Masters. Sometimes it was 10pm, sometimes it was raining or snowing, or sometimes he just didn't feel like taking an hour+ bus ride for a 5 minute car ride for me to come get him. Am I awful?
I did the same for my wife, because why not?
(01-29-2019, 10:04 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2019, 06:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Pickup and drop off of what? It's entirely reasonable for ring road to be closed to everything but buses, service vehicles and delivery vehicles.
We've said this for years, but UW Admin has only ever moved the other direction (limiting buses, and creating more pedestrian crossings of Ring Rd., and limiting pedestrian access along Ring Rd.). My opinion of UW Admin is well known here, this is a major reason why.
Packages, family members, bringing things into the office, …
Especially off hours. There is simply no justification for not allowing a family member to drop me off conveniently close to a building.
I personally could walk from University Ave., but there are lots of people with less mobility for whom that is not a reasonable requirement. And I don’t mean disabled people, just people who don’t want to have to walk the equivalent of several blocks. Anybody who thinks it’s reasonable to close Ring Road must (if they are consistent) also believe it reasonable to close the area bounded by approximately Bridgeport, Caroline, Union, and Moore, or a similar-size area around Uptown, to motor vehicles.
And while in the past the traffic policies on Ring Road were not very pedestrian-friendly, with crosswalks being eliminated and pedestrians generally having to yield to vehicles at all but a very limited number of locations, right now there are many crosswalks where motor vehicles are to yield to pedestrians. In fact if anything now the issue is buses being excessively held up by an unrelenting stream of people walking. Generally speaking, I have no problem with Ring Road not being a fast road, but at a certain point all the traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) needs to get a chance to move. I wonder if it’s time to consider traffic lights at some locations.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. Off of Ring Road, I think we pretty much have it right: there are lots of service roads that go in to various buildings, but they are all dead ends so they are low traffic. Ring Road however sometimes feels busier than I would like. In the past I have mused about making it more of a zig-zag route, with shortcuts for buses only. The idea would be to slow down most motor vehicles but allow buses to move through more quickly.
I hope that regardless of what one thinks about traffic on Ring Road, however, it should be clear to everybody that cutting down on buses is not the way to address traffic levels. This reminds me of when the iXpress came in and the neighbourhood lobbied to keep them off of Central/Albert/Seagram if I remember correctly. Completely absurd to complain about a bus every few minutes on those streets, given the traffic level of general motor vehicles.
This is absolutely not true, if traffic on Ring Rd. is a safety issue, then there's absolutely a reason to remove that danger. You may disagree with that reason, or think it's not sufficient, I disagree, but absolutely there is reason.
There are plenty of places where you cannot drive to get dropped off including most of campus. Just because you can do so today, and we call it a "road" doesn't mean that it cannot change. And no, I would not have a problem making the uptown or downtown core pedestrianized, many cities do in fact have areas that large closed to general vehicle traffic and only open to transit/deliveries/service.
(Only on the east side does this apply, the west side is still a disaster). In fact, the crosswalks are the problem, before the crosswalks pedestrians crossed from one sidewalk to the other whenever there was space, now they are all funnelled into a few crosswalks, which creates more conflict. That being said, I have never once seen a serious traffic jam outside of special event days when UW Police direct traffic anyway. If there is a traffic problem, I think it is vehicle traffic which is the problem on our pedestrian campus.
(01-29-2019, 05:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care if GRT has a trip planner because I use Google Maps, but just having high frequency service doesn't help me plan a trip if I don't know which routes and transfers to use in the first place.
Exactly, trip planners aren't just about scheduling, but also routes, transfers, and stop numbers.
As long as there are multiple providers linked to from the GRT website providing directions, I'm fine with no app of our own. I don't like the idea of wholly relying on Google, no matter how much better their maps are.
One thing that may need a somewhat custom solution would be a route planning kiosk of some sort that could be installed at various terminals.
(01-29-2019, 11:14 PM)tvot Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2019, 05:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care if GRT has a trip planner because I use Google Maps, but just having high frequency service doesn't help me plan a trip if I don't know which routes and transfers to use in the first place.
Exactly, trip planners aren't just about scheduling, but also routes, transfers, and stop numbers.
As long as there are multiple providers linked to from the GRT website providing directions, I'm fine with no app of our own. I don't like the idea of wholly relying on Google, no matter how much better their maps are.
One thing that may need a somewhat custom solution would be a route planning kiosk of some sort that could be installed at various terminals.
I totally agree with this, and ironically, I will give Google credit here, their data feeds seem to be an open spec with open data, anyone can build an app and consume GRTs data directly, and many have.
This would be good too (although it doesn't necessarily require a custom route planner), but I'm pretty sure this is one thing we are NOT getting...but would have been a better use of money.
(01-29-2019, 10:44 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]This is absolutely not true, if traffic on Ring Rd. is a safety issue, then there's absolutely a reason to remove that danger. You may disagree with that reason, or think it's not sufficient, I disagree, but absolutely there is reason.
Remove the danger, yes. Entirely remove vehicles, no. Unless you are proposing a saturation-level coverage of public transit on campus running 24/7. Also you didn’t say anything about on- vs. off-peak. Even those no-car downtowns I understand are often open to vehicles overnight.
Quote:There are plenty of places where you cannot drive to get dropped off including most of campus. Just because you can do so today, and we call it a "road" doesn't mean that it cannot change. And no, I would not have a problem making the uptown or downtown core pedestrianized, many cities do in fact have areas that large closed to general vehicle traffic and only open to transit/deliveries/service.
Again, with saturation-level public transit, maybe. There is a Canada Post outlet in Shoppers’ Drug Mart at Waterloo Town Square. How are people to pick up and drop off large parcels other than parking their car close to the building? And of course there are places where you cannot drive to get dropped off, for example inside every building. But you can get dropped off near every point on campus. The same is true in Uptown. It’s much easier to close some streets (already done; except on campus they weren’t built in the first place) than all streets.
Quote:(Only on the east side does this apply, the west side is still a disaster). In fact, the crosswalks are the problem, before the crosswalks pedestrians crossed from one sidewalk to the other whenever there was space, now they are all funnelled into a few crosswalks, which creates more conflict. That being said, I have never once seen a serious traffic jam outside of special event days when UW Police direct traffic anyway. If there is a traffic problem, I think it is vehicle traffic which is the problem on our pedestrian campus.
Good point about the crosswalks. Agreed on the last sentence, just don’t agree that eliminating it entirely is a reasonable solution. We already don’t have many traffic routes on campus and we certainly don’t encourage through traffic.
The funny thing about this is that I’m the guy who would make King and Regina each one lane one direction, cutting traffic lanes between those two streets in Uptown in half, would make freeways entirely user-paid (and congestion-charged on top of that), would implement SFPark for all parking, would disconnect Caroline St. from the south side of the intersection with Erb, and would narrow almost every 4-lane road in the city to 2 lanes. But even I recognize that the problem with cars isn’t the concept itself, which is universally, even in places like Europe, recognized as useful, but with excessive numbers of them and with inappropriate design of conflict points with non-motor traffic.
(01-29-2019, 10:40 PM)Spokes Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2019, 02:37 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]Is Mayor Jaworsky really this out of touch with how to ride a bus?
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/914...d-for-lrt/
Is he just delusional?
I had a short twitter conversation with Jaworksy (starts with my tweet at
https://mobile.twitter.com/RobDrimmie/st...8370859009). Based on his responses I think that his quote was not presented entirely in context. He never blames the Record, a level of tact I have a lot of respect for, but he does elaborate a bit and it seems to me that there is more nuance to what he said than was included in the article.
Putting a lot of my opinion into it, my guess is that he was making a point that the system as it is today is impossible to navigate without an app, and the ideal state is a system that truly does have a level of frequency where it isn't required. If you look at a system like Manhattan, you can be reasonable assured during daytime hours that a train is going to come by pretty soon. There are almost certainly better systems around the world where that's true all day every day. I don't believe he intended to assert that GRT will be there once the Ion is running, just that the new routes are a meaningful step in that direction.
Edit to add: It looks like Jaworsky's response from this morning isn't showing in the thread? Just in case:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DaveJaworsky/...1547039744
I'd still very much prefer whatever money is being dedicated into the GRT mobile apps instead gets redirected into the sensors on the system and on improving the GRT site. Especially the EasyGO site, which features a ridiculously bad interface and, at present, is unable to process credit cards. My irritation at having to stand in line at the terminal to update my monthly pass is absolutely colouring my already poor opinion of eSolutions' work.
(01-30-2019, 10:45 AM)robdrimmie Wrote: [ -> ]I'd still very much prefer whatever money is being dedicated into the GRT mobile apps instead gets redirected into the sensors on the system and on improving the GRT site. Especially the EasyGO site, which features a ridiculously bad interface and, at present, is unable to process credit cards. My irritation at having to stand in line at the terminal to update my monthly pass is absolutely colouring my already poor opinion of eSolutions' work.
I just got an email a few minutes ago saying the card processing is fixed.
I haven't tried to load a pass before today, but is the error "Could not contact bank, please try again later" a normal occurrence?
(01-30-2019, 01:11 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't tried to load a pass before today, but is the error "Could not contact bank, please try again later" a normal occurrence?
I've been part of the beta program since the beginning and have both added specific value to the card and monthly passes, and I've not ever seen that error message. Overall the base functionality has actually been pretty reliable for me (though I know some who have had problems with the auto renew process). The announced problems were with payment processing, so it seems like it may not entirely resolved.
I haven't had auto-renewal work yet, so I've had to manually add value whenever I get below the threshold. But I had decided I was going to add a pass for February and it's not working.
(01-30-2019, 07:27 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2019, 10:44 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]This is absolutely not true, if traffic on Ring Rd. is a safety issue, then there's absolutely a reason to remove that danger. You may disagree with that reason, or think it's not sufficient, I disagree, but absolutely there is reason.
Remove the danger, yes. Entirely remove vehicles, no. Unless you are proposing a saturation-level coverage of public transit on campus running 24/7. Also you didn’t say anything about on- vs. off-peak. Even those no-car downtowns I understand are often open to vehicles overnight.
Quote:There are plenty of places where you cannot drive to get dropped off including most of campus. Just because you can do so today, and we call it a "road" doesn't mean that it cannot change. And no, I would not have a problem making the uptown or downtown core pedestrianized, many cities do in fact have areas that large closed to general vehicle traffic and only open to transit/deliveries/service.
Again, with saturation-level public transit, maybe. There is a Canada Post outlet in Shoppers’ Drug Mart at Waterloo Town Square. How are people to pick up and drop off large parcels other than parking their car close to the building? And of course there are places where you cannot drive to get dropped off, for example inside every building. But you can get dropped off near every point on campus. The same is true in Uptown. It’s much easier to close some streets (already done; except on campus they weren’t built in the first place) than all streets.
Quote:(Only on the east side does this apply, the west side is still a disaster). In fact, the crosswalks are the problem, before the crosswalks pedestrians crossed from one sidewalk to the other whenever there was space, now they are all funnelled into a few crosswalks, which creates more conflict. That being said, I have never once seen a serious traffic jam outside of special event days when UW Police direct traffic anyway. If there is a traffic problem, I think it is vehicle traffic which is the problem on our pedestrian campus.
Good point about the crosswalks. Agreed on the last sentence, just don’t agree that eliminating it entirely is a reasonable solution. We already don’t have many traffic routes on campus and we certainly don’t encourage through traffic.
The funny thing about this is that I’m the guy who would make King and Regina each one lane one direction, cutting traffic lanes between those two streets in Uptown in half, would make freeways entirely user-paid (and congestion-charged on top of that), would implement SFPark for all parking, would disconnect Caroline St. from the south side of the intersection with Erb, and would narrow almost every 4-lane road in the city to 2 lanes. But even I recognize that the problem with cars isn’t the concept itself, which is universally, even in places like Europe, recognized as useful, but with excessive numbers of them and with inappropriate design of conflict points with non-motor traffic.
I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this point. But I will point out to you, that plenty of people survive without a car. We pickup packages, we get around campus, we do groceries.
Our main point of disagreement is perhaps that aside from construction/paratransit requirements, I don't think cars are a required feature of an urban environment. Adding them has very real costs for everyone else, for the benefit of what you yourself describe as convenience.