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.
(07-06-2023, 08:42 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The Toronto Board of Trade gave the region a B- grade on our transit system.

https://bot.com/Resources/Resource-Libra...port-Cards

They fairly reasonably analyze our transit system and correctly point out our strengths and weaknesses (like our LRVs operating too slowly).

Notably none of the regions was rated better than a B. Waterloo Region lost most of its points because of lack of (base and high-frequency) coverage: only 15% of residents are within walking distance of every-15-minutes transit service, and 85% of any transit at all. Frequency of service, not speed of LRT of buses, would be the big win on their score card.

[attachment=8557]
(07-07-2023, 05:52 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-06-2023, 08:42 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The Toronto Board of Trade gave the region a B- grade on our transit system.

https://bot.com/Resources/Resource-Libra...port-Cards

They fairly reasonably analyze our transit system and correctly point out our strengths and weaknesses (like our LRVs operating too slowly).

Notably none of the regions was rated better than a B. Waterloo Region lost most of its points because of lack of (base and high-frequency) coverage: only 15% of residents are within walking distance of every-15-minutes transit service, and 85% of any transit at all. Frequency of service, not speed of LRT of buses, would be the big win on their score card.

Generally I agree, 

I just thought it was interesting that they called out the LRVs travelling too slowly. And that's also something that costs the region nothing to fix...it's more waste than lack of investment.
(07-08-2023, 01:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2023, 05:52 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Notably none of the regions was rated better than a B. Waterloo Region lost most of its points because of lack of (base and high-frequency) coverage: only 15% of residents are within walking distance of every-15-minutes transit service, and 85% of any transit at all. Frequency of service, not speed of LRT of buses, would be the big win on their score card.

Generally I agree, 

I just thought it was interesting that they called out the LRVs travelling too slowly. And that's also something that costs the region nothing to fix...it's more waste than lack of investment.

That’s actually pretty impressive. I don’t necessarily expect a report of this nature to really dig into the details and identify specific issues correctly. But they call out the lower LRT speed limits that apply right next to faster motor vehicle traffic, when it should be the reverse: there is no problem with centre lane traffic running faster than the traffic that is right next to the sidewalk.

In the TTC section they also identify a huge TTC problem: bunching of vehicles, so that instead of maybe 15 minute service you instead have 2 buses every 30 minutes. TTC management has effectively given up on service management, and the drivers often don’t even make an attempt to do their part.
I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes? Or would it result in uncomfortable speed changes for passengers whenever the LRV hits a tight curve?

How easily could GRT achieve 15-minute service on all of its routes? What kind of a budget increase would that represent?
(07-10-2023, 06:50 AM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes? Or would it result in uncomfortable speed changes for passengers whenever the LRV hits a tight curve?

There are many areas where Ion could simply drive faster. Anywhere it’s parallel to motor vehicle traffic and in the middle between other vehicles, it should be doing at least the speed of uncongested traffic, typically 10km/h faster than the limit. For example, King St. near GRH. Southbound approaching Erb St. the only explanation for the snail like pace of the service is safety paranoia. We’ve discussed the section parallel to Courtland a few times.

In addition to the actual speed of travel, there is also the issue of signal priority. The LRT often does not get priority. For example, if an LRT is waiting to leave Allen northbound and Allen has the green, King St. motor vehicle traffic will get its green first when the LRT should instead.

Signalling in general has been poorly handled. I also have complaints about other traffic being held up, not because an LRT is going through (which is fine; there is no reason why a few motorists should go before an LRT with dozens of people on it), but because an LRT will be going through or has recently gone through or even is just nearby. Signals should clear faster after the LRT is gone, and should be designed only to stop conflicting movements. For example, when the southbound LRT crosses Erb St., Caroline St. traffic should get a green; at Allen St., only King St. traffic in the same direction as the LRT should be stopped.
(07-10-2023, 06:50 AM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes?

Thanks to a really, really, really stupid design that has it interacting with roads, driveways, sidewalks, pathways and the nonsensical signal priorities they can't safely speed it up for a lot of sections. It's not really about engineering challenges (though there are some, like the rdiculous turns near Hayward) or having passengers jerked around (which happens anyway...it can be going in a straight line and suddenly the thing feels like one of the wheelsets derailed, then the operator has to slow down for a second) and more due to a tiny budget.

Like across intersections is one thing (it's not ideal, but trains have done that for a century now), but that they thought it would be a good idea to run a rapid transit system across private single family home driveways is unbelievable. That would be like running Line 4 Sheppard down the middle of Sheppard Road rather than underground so that an entire subway was flying past driveways every 2-5 minutes and it doesn't take a transit engineer to tell you that would be a stupid idea. Or putting centre island platforms in the middle of a road...like what the hell is that?

Any issues with our system is due to us seeking to spend as little money as possible. It was cheaper for us to risk perpetual crashes into cars or literally running children over than it was to make a rapid transit system that doesn't risk, say, a little kid playing on a scooter in their driveway suddenly getting pulverized by a train.

Here's a funny YouTube comment I came across recently where someone was just as perplexed by the weird design choices:

Quote:This is the strangest rail line I've ever seen. First going next to the street against traffic with no guard rails then ''on'' the street against the curb, station stops on an island in the middle of the street? Some  intersections the train has to stop, others it don't? Who designed this anyway?  Some 9 year old?
(07-10-2023, 06:50 AM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes? Or would it result in uncomfortable speed changes for passengers whenever the LRV hits a tight curve?

How easily could GRT achieve 15-minute service on all of its routes? What kind of a budget increase would that represent?

There are three classes of places where the ION could speed up:

1) Near Hayward the limit for no reason goes down to 15 km/h for like 300 meters (over one minute). This is an off road segment, with no road conflicts, no bridges, nothing...I have seen no technical reason for this slow down...it seems...insane.

2) The segments where the LRV runs in the median could be faster, it is sometimes the car limit (but I think it could be higher still given the extra separation) and on Northfield it is below the car limit (50km/h instead of 60km/h and traffic speeds are 70-90km/h) for no reason (except possibly over the bridge where it was suggested there were engineering limits on the speed on the bridge...that should be fixed if there are however.

This could arguably increase the risk, these segments are very prone to crashes, with 100% of crashes being the result of a driver disobeying a traffic signal. Still, vehicle occupants would be in more danger being hit by an LRV going faster.

3) The side running segments, the trains go extremely slowly here, often 30km/h. This is because of the safety risk to pedestrians who are nearby. FWIW I would trade some low impact fencing (or shrubbery) here in order to improve the margins of safety so that the trains can go faster on these segments...of course that would take some space, which we should take from drivers...except that ship has sailed.

As for 15 minute service, I have no idea...it's pretty easy to determine the extra cost...I'd surmise it would be a significant increase in costs say 50-100% more (as well as massive capital expenses, it might not even be possible immediately because we'd have to buy new buses and build places to park them).

But the bigger problem is knowing what effect that would have on ridership...this is hard to predict and is likely to be highly inaccuarate...despite how confidently staff will put a number on it.
(07-10-2023, 02:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]3) The side running segments, the trains go extremely slowly here, often 30km/h. This is because of the safety risk to pedestrians who are nearby. FWIW I would trade some low impact fencing (or shrubbery) here in order to improve the margins of safety so that the trains can go faster on these segments...of course that would take some space, which we should take from drivers...except that ship has sailed.

If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

Now of course the example I gave is not OK, but I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to expect our transportation engineers to show some sign of consistency.
(07-11-2023, 12:18 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.
(07-12-2023, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2023, 12:18 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

Okay but if a transport truck can drive the speed limit or faster why can the LRT not go the speed limit or faster? A transport truck can't stop as quick as a car either yet it can go the speed limit so there isn't exactly a good justification on why the LRT can't go at least the speed limit if not faster.
(07-12-2023, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2023, 12:18 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.
(07-12-2023, 09:11 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2023, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.

I mean, half of his post is agreeing that he doesn't think they should be required to go slower.

And I know this discussion is mostly about the inconsistencies of engineers/planners, but it's really not useful to use transport trucks (or even personal vehicles) driving 50+km/h less than a meter away from pedestrians as a justification. It's an unacceptable arrangement.

Personally I have no issue with any speed for the train because it's on rails, and I don't step out into the street at random (those I suppose anything could happen by accident or emergency).
(07-12-2023, 09:25 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2023, 09:11 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.

I mean, half of his post is agreeing that he doesn't think they should be required to go slower.

And I know this discussion is mostly about the inconsistencies of engineers/planners, but it's really not useful to use transport trucks (or even personal vehicles) driving 50+km/h less than a meter away from pedestrians as a justification. It's an unacceptable arrangement.

Personally I have no issue with any speed for the train because it's on rails, and I don't step out into the street at random (those I suppose anything could happen by accident or emergency).

FWIW...I think all traffic should be moving more slowly in congested pedestrian areas.

If we want to increase speeds, we must increase separation.

(LRVs also cannot swerve, but also, LRVs cannot swerve ONTO sidewalks as drivers sometimes do).

That being said, the problem is that slowing LRVs below the speed of traffic again prioritizes driving over transit. It's harmful to pedestrians for the knockon effect of encouraging more driving.

But as far as I remember, most collisions have happened in areas where the LRVs run central...this has been surprising to me as those segments are fully controlled, every driver who has hit an LRV in this area has disobeyed a sign or a light. I don't know how to fix that...certainly if we actually enforced our traffic laws ever that would help, but given that they are now enforced, not by police, but by occasionally being run over by a train, I'm not sure how effective that would be. Probably consistency is more important than the severity of punishment though.
(07-13-2023, 04:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know how to fix that...certainly if we actually enforced our traffic laws ever that would help, but given that they are now enforced, not by police, but by occasionally being run over by a train, I'm not sure how effective that would be.

Perhaps we ought to award the LRVs with an honourary Constable title.
I've got a question about one part of the upcoming GRT fleet of buses.

They've ordered some Nova Bus LFS Artic buses set to enter service next year so maybe this hasn't been answered by GRT yet, but do we know whether or not they will be allowing rear door boarding? Or are they just going to have people enter by the front, then wander 60 feet to the back? They'll be running these on the busiest lines to start so to me it would make sense to allow passengers to enter in through the back doors and tap their card on a machine by the door (or wander to the front to pay with coins, if needed).

This is how many cities around the world who have busy routes and articulated buses work. In fact there are even some out there where you are allowed to board via the back door on a regular old bus as well. Of course allowing this would operate on trust...does our region trust us enough, I wonder? I just kind of hope you can hop on via the back door and tap your card once you're in there, rather than a slow ass single file line. Even now on regular buses, you can get held up a good while if you've got someone who has a card that barely works or an old lady paying entirely in nickles. Allowing more people to board at once and validate the payment after the bus is moving would allow for much greater headways, since you wouldn't have a line of people on the sidewalk all taking turns tapping their card while the bus driver waits to for everyone to get in so they can move.