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.
Why silly? Most reasonable transit systems have regular and express routes.
@Markster: Not sure if you've seen this yet but the 2015 GRT Preferred Plan now shows temporary 204 iXpress stops, including one at Charles St. Terminal. http://www.grt.ca/en/aboutus/resources/2...ll_map.pdf
(06-01-2015, 11:36 AM)Waterlooer Wrote: [ -> ]@Markster: Not sure if you've seen this yet but the 2015 GRT Preferred Plan now shows temporary 204 iXpress stops, including one at Charles St. Terminal. http://www.grt.ca/en/aboutus/resources/2...ll_map.pdf

Surprisingly yes, I do know of what I speak.

If going through Charles St Terminal, and not along Benton, was to be the plan in perpetuity, then I would have a different opinion.  As I said on Tuesday, if the plan is to always run through the terminal,  "then, well, it's not absolutely horrendous. Just bad. splitting the stop at Highland and Mill/Iron Horse Trail is a terrible experience."
(06-01-2015, 10:53 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]Why silly? Most reasonable transit systems have regular and express routes.

It's just a silly name for what they could have regular buses that say "204 crosstown express" or something. ixpress just looks like a spelling mistake to me. Actual express service is a good idea, even if it's not an express version of a regular route like the first ixpress bus was (mostly) Mind you, people that I used to work with when they started that out said it wasn't any faster to take the ixpress to Conestoga Mall than it was to take the 7C from the terminal, but that was back six or seven years ago now so I dunno if that's changed or not. I just think the name iXpress is silly, not the express service idea.
I don't know about going to the Mall, but to UW the difference was heaven and earth. The 7 Route used to stop literally every other block between King & Bridgeport and University & Phillip. Compare this to the iXpress which when it opened had exactly one stop in that entire section (I think the count is now up to 4).
The iXpress 200 has only added the King/Bridgeport in between those two points.  And that was added in anticipation of the Uptown stop closing due to construction.  GRT's been put through detour hell, with all these "closures" that don't end up coming true. I have eight bonus bus routes in front of my home because of two blocks of Charles that have been "closed" since March.
(06-01-2015, 10:27 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe it's time to get rid of the silly iXpress branding?

Yes!  Couldn't stand it when it came out, still can't today.
(06-01-2015, 03:36 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about going to the Mall, but to UW the difference was heaven and earth. The 7 Route used to stop literally every other block between King & Bridgeport and University & Phillip. Compare this to the iXpress which when it opened had exactly one stop in that entire section (I think the count is now up to 4).

So presently there are two stops there for the iXpress: WLU and King & Bridgeport. The number 7 had nine stops with the present count being seven(?), I think. The iXpress was really a world of difference and it's what got people riding buses again. 
(06-01-2015, 01:18 PM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]Mind you, people that I used to work with when they started that out said it wasn't any faster to take the ixpress to Conestoga Mall than it was to take the 7C from the terminal, but that was back six or seven years ago now so I dunno if that's changed or not.

The time penalty to take the 200 was there from the start. A couple of years ago I noted that it was usually at least 5 minutes faster to take Conestoga Mall to Uptown by 7C than by 200. I'm looking at the current crop of schedules and a rush hour trip from CM to King and Bridgeport is 15 minutes by 7C and 28 minutes (!!) by 200. With the various detours in place, a trip to the terminal from CM by 200 still takes 44 minutes compared to 7C's 33 minutes (this is based on a 5pm departure trip.)

Off-peak, the difference at the terminal is somewhat less (7 minutes). That helps show how 200 pays a penalty partially due to routing and loading/unloading time.

(06-01-2015, 03:36 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about going to the Mall, but to UW the difference was heaven and earth. The 7 Route used to stop literally every other block between King & Bridgeport and University & Phillip. Compare this to the iXpress which when it opened had exactly one stop in that entire section (I think the count is now up to 4).

Also true. While 200 pays a penalty to route from CM through UW, it does provide slightly faster service from UW to Uptown and to the terminal.

How will ION affect things? There is no stop timing schedule available yet, but the route from CM has rail spur from Northfield down to Uptown Waterloo, a direct corridor with 3 stops along the way and quoted speeds of up to 70km/h. That should save considerable time over the 200's need to wind along Parkside, the Tech Park, Ring Road and out along University. In addition, stop dwell time should be considerably shorter at the busy stops, saving an extra couple of minutes.

I'm guessing that we'll see a huge time savings between CM and Uptown for ION over the 200. But will it beat the 7C's direct King St. run? I'm not sure, it could be very close during rush hour. But I bet it'll be close enough that people bound for Uptown will opt for ION for comfort and certainty even if the 7C can shave a minute or two off the trip. Heading further down the line, ION should have the clear time advantage.
The initial savings in time for the Ion are rather modest. I surely hope that once they work out the bugs they will have the Ion running at faster speeds.
(06-02-2015, 10:06 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]The initial savings in time for the Ion are rather modest. I surely hope that once they work out the bugs they will have the Ion running at faster speeds.

What are your expectations?

The project agreement's baseline service plan lists 46 minute trips from Conestoga to Fairway, which is pretty conservative-- we've heard trip time estimates as low as 39 minutes, but that was before a number of additional stops were added. And while ION has traffic signal priority, project staff have said it'll be mostly for schedule adherence rather than trying to push trip time down.

Trip time has been an easy target for criticism, but you have to take it in context. ION has more stops and a more useful stop spacing in the urban core than 200. And the 200's schedule has eroded year after year. The 42 minute trip from Conestoga to Fairway is a thing of the past-- leaving before 7am now takes 45. Rush hour 200 trips were creeping up on 1 hour for this journey, now with construction detours they have actually hit that.

This schedule degradation was predicted by RT project staff back in 2009. The argument was never that there would be a huge time savings for ION over the iXpress of the day, but that the iXpress of the day would not be able to keep its speediness in the face of growing ridership and congestion.

I was a little put out that the ION project agreement trip time is 46 minutes. But my expectation is that will be a trip time that can be met all day long. If not, I'll be very disappointed.

Regardless, I think most of ION's time savings over the current 200 will come from the CM to Uptown section, which is also where ridership will be highest. That's a good benefit.
(06-02-2015, 10:23 AM)zanate Wrote: [ -> ]I was a little put out that the ION project agreement trip time is 46 minutes. But my expectation is that will be a trip time that can be met all day long. If not, I'll be very disappointed.

I had assumed that this would be the maximum trip time, and that trip times would be less than this at easier parts of the day. Anything beyond 46 minutes makes it slower than the iXpress at its worst.
(06-02-2015, 10:36 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I had assumed that this would be the maximum trip time, and that trip times would be less than this at easier parts of the day. Anything beyond 46 minutes makes it slower than the iXpress at its worst.

No, since the Ion will be running on a schedule it will stop for longer to waste time if it's ahead of schedule. I really hope they push the time to around 40 minutes. I think it is perfectly doable if it really speeds up north of Uptown and south of Downtown and travels at a max speed of 60km/h between stops in the core.
(06-02-2015, 10:47 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]No, since the Ion will be running on a schedule it will stop for longer to waste time if it's ahead of schedule. I really hope they push the time to around 40 minutes. I think it is perfectly doable if it really speeds up north of Uptown and south of Downtown and travels at a max speed of 60km/h between stops in the core.

I would expect that they would amend the schedule to make the trip shorter at times of the day when it's possible. I think you're right that it should be able to do better than the iXpress, given its ability to go much faster where it isn't in mixed traffic.
(06-02-2015, 10:36 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I had assumed that this would be the maximum trip time, and that trip times would be less than this at easier parts of the day. Anything beyond 46 minutes makes it slower than the iXpress at its worst.

iXpress at its worst, pre-construction, was 56 minutes, if I recall correctly. It is now 60 minutes.

But, if you assume ION can maintain a (fairly) constant trip time through the day, having that trip time be worse than 46 minutes would be extremely disappointing.

Whether schedules will be amended because ION can do 40 minutes with tuning, or during the lighter service parts of the day... I don't know. One area that could be amended is to make more aggressive use of signal priority at the cost of delaying cross-town traffic. Will the political will be there for it?