There seems to be a pattern with GRT of them publicly announcing their drivers are 'aware' of something and then at least a few drivers being very much not aware. Lots of reports on Twitter of people who paid for monthly passes being given a hard time when trying to board a bus and their pass hasn't shown up on their card yet. Even on the morning that free transit started last month, there were some people saying drivers made them pay. And I've given up on trying to use the 'group fare' option that GRT says is available, but no driver has ever heard of.
I overheard a conversation between a rider and an Ion fare inspector yesterday, when his card wouldn't scan properly. She advised it apparently had not updated properly, and directed him to use the 'validate card' option on a ticket machine once he got off. I don't know if that worked for him.
People are apparently still having problems with payments for their July passes made last month not being processed.
(07-12-2019, 12:49 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]D'Amato on the job trashing the Charles St terminal closure.
https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/...passenger/
Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong but I don't think she's trashing the closure. I thought it was a decent article showing how the closure affects one person in particular and a demographic of GRT terminal users in general. I hadn't even thought of the change from a full service terminal to "stick in the ground" stops for transfers.
Yeah that's not a bad article. It has some very valid points. The terminal provided shelter for people, regardless of age. When it's 30C-/+ outside, it was a great place to wait for a bus or just sit down while you waited, or even if you wanted to enjoy the old restaurant. Obviously it closed due to the logistical changes, but the article was mostly just being nostalgic for the old terminal.
(07-15-2019, 07:14 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah that's not a bad article. It has some very valid points. The terminal provided shelter for people, regardless of age. When it's 30C-/+ outside, it was a great place to wait for a bus or just sit down while you waited, or even if you wanted to enjoy the old restaurant. Obviously it closed due to the logistical changes, but the article was mostly just being nostalgic for the old terminal.
One of the things I don’t like about this city is that we nowhere have waiting areas for buses that are part of adacent buildings. Imagine how much more pleasant the bus would be, especially in winter but also on a hot summer day or in the rain if one could wait in an indoor room with a big window looking out to see the bus coming.
Not feasible at every bus stop, obviously, but anywhere that a bus stop is next to a large building it should be possible to do with some planning, and if the different groups involved would actually communicate with one another instead of each just blundering along doing what they do.
A similar comment applies to LRT stops. One of the goals of planning in this city should be to incorporate existing LRT stops into new developments. For example, a future UW building could be built right across the tracks, making the LRT stop an indoor part of that building. Similar types of development would be reasonable elsewhere when new buildings are built. And obviously the central terminal area should have been designed so that LRTs would stop under a roof that is part of the terminal itself. Imagine if I could leave my office, use a UW bridge to get to the building including the UW transit stop, take the LRT downtown, and transfer to a Go train without going outside. Or the people in the article could board a bus at a regular bus stop, then transfer to LRT and then to another bus, without getting rained on.
I don’t mind that LRT wasn’t built that way — obviously it would increase costs — but based on current practice, I don’t expect anything like this to happen for the foreseeable future. It’s just not on the radar of planners or developers, even when it doesn’t have to cost more.
ijmorlan Wrote:Quote:One of the things I don’t like about this city is that we nowhere have waiting areas for buses that are part of adacent buildings. Imagine how much more pleasant the bus would be, especially in winter but also on a hot summer day or in the rain if one could wait in an indoor room with a big window looking out to see the bus coming.
Not feasible at every bus stop, obviously, but anywhere that a bus stop is next to a large building it should be possible to do with some planning, and if the different groups involved would actually communicate with one another instead of each just blundering along doing what they do.
A similar comment applies to LRT stops. One of the goals of planning in this city should be to incorporate existing LRT stops into new developments. For example, a future UW building could be built right across the tracks, making the LRT stop an indoor part of that building. Similar types of development would be reasonable elsewhere when new buildings are built. And obviously the central terminal area should have been designed so that LRTs would stop under a roof that is part of the terminal itself. Imagine if I could leave my office, use a UW bridge to get to the building including the UW transit stop, take the LRT downtown, and transfer to a Go train without going outside. Or the people in the article could board a bus at a regular bus stop, then transfer to LRT and then to another bus, without getting rained on.
I don’t mind that LRT wasn’t built that way — obviously it would increase costs — but based on current practice, I don’t expect anything like this to happen for the foreseeable future. It’s just not on the radar of planners or developers, even when it doesn’t have to cost more.
This is a beautiful dream, but sadly I can't imagine this working anywhere here with the exception of the Universities. Even if a developer were forward-thinking and wanting to support transit, there would be such a high likelihood of property tenants and occupants getting a whiff of it and reacting with snobbery and fear ("they want to have bus riders use our lobby? You know what kind of elements that will attract. Why encourage people to loiter on our property?") that I don't think the idea would get very far anywhere.
That could work for Central Station
(07-16-2019, 07:24 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]This is a beautiful dream, but sadly I can't imagine this working anywhere here with the exception of the Universities. Even if a developer were forward-thinking and wanting to support transit, there would be such a high likelihood of property tenants and occupants getting a whiff of it and reacting with snobbery and fear ("they want to have bus riders use our lobby? You know what kind of elements that will attract. Why encourage people to loiter on our property?") that I don't think the idea would get very far anywhere.
Sadly, I agree with you.
I would say that if an apartment building were to participate, I wouldn’t suggest lobby-sharing: the idea would be a room on the ground floor with a separate door. It could have a door directly into the elevator lobby for residents, but it would typically be locked on a modern building just like any other elevator access.
There are also in-between possibilities. For example, there are not enough buildings with an overhang. Imagine how much better King St. would be if there was a 2m overhang in addition to the actual sidewalk. At a bus stop the overhang could just be extended further (and higher, for clearance) with glass to eliminate the gap between the covered area and the bus door.
Ironically, it might be apartment buildings targeted at a poorer demographic which would be more likely to participate. If the target audience is all using the bus anyway, it might be more of a clear plus to have a bit of space designated as a bus waiting room.
It would be nice to have climate controlled shelters for buses, but as mentioned, it is hard to get any developers to agree to that. Recall how much The Bay complained that people would wait inside their business when the buses stopped outside the one entrance. I think they even tried to ban it?
(07-17-2019, 06:52 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]It would be nice to have climate controlled shelters for buses, but as mentioned, it is hard to get any developers to agree to that. Recall how much The Bay complained that people would wait inside their business when the buses stopped outside the one entrance. I think they even tried to ban it?
This is in fact why the terminal was located away from the mall. This is why I will not shop at fairway mall.
(07-17-2019, 07:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (07-17-2019, 06:52 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]It would be nice to have climate controlled shelters for buses, but as mentioned, it is hard to get any developers to agree to that. Recall how much The Bay complained that people would wait inside their business when the buses stopped outside the one entrance. I think they even tried to ban it?
This is in fact why the terminal was located away from the mall. This is why I will not shop at fairway mall.
It may be the tenant (the Bay) more so than the landlord. Fairview Park keeps posting about iON on their social media. Conestoga tickets riders who park in their lot.