I was very happy to see the stop for the 200 added to north end of Parkside, this should reduce my bus commute by at least 15 minutes!
(09-02-2015, 05:41 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]I was very happy to see the stop for the 200 added to north end of Parkside, this should reduce my bus commute by at least 15 minutes!
I think this makes a lot of sense given the proximity to the Northfield Ion station.
Conversely, it is a source of continued frustration that the Grand River Hospital station is still not being served, and the 200 has no stop between downtown and uptown.
(09-02-2015, 12:57 PM)timio Wrote: [ -> ]An update on the Electronic Fare Management System was posted this morning.
Implementation in 2016.
Thanks. Sounds like not-PRESTO although they don't go out and say that. Also, no bills is somewhat passenger-unfriendly, but not as much as in New York City. It really is inconvenient in NYC because they don't do dollar coins. It should be much less inconvenient in Canada.
(09-02-2015, 01:17 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2015, 05:41 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]I was very happy to see the stop for the 200 added to north end of Parkside, this should reduce my bus commute by at least 15 minutes!
I think this makes a lot of sense given the proximity to the Northfield Ion station.
Conversely, it is a source of continued frustration that the Grand River Hospital station is still not being served, and the 200 has no stop between downtown and uptown.
It's an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless. The only way to serve GRH would be to take the same route as the 7, which currently sees a good deal of boardings (during my trips) at GRH. This would result in the Bridgeport-to-Water segment of the trip going from 10 minutes to at least 16, an increase of 6 minutes or 60% for this segment.
In reality, the 7 still comes more frequently, and virtually the same points at which you would get onto the iXpress to get to GRH will get you to GRH via the 7. I'm not sure there's any be-all, end-all reason to serve GRH during construction, much as it would be great for consistency.
(09-02-2015, 01:20 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2015, 12:57 PM)timio Wrote: [ -> ]An update on the Electronic Fare Management System was posted this morning.
Implementation in 2016.
Thanks. Sounds like not-PRESTO although they don't go out and say that. Also, no bills is somewhat passenger-unfriendly, but not as much as in New York City. It really is inconvenient in NYC because they don't do dollar coins. It should be much less inconvenient in Canada.
I'm pretty confident based on a focus group I attended that GRT is going with non-PRESTO system. Partly due to roll-out hiccups, but I believe primarily to ensure that GRT retains control of pricing structures and options, rather than being stuck using PRESTO's options.
(09-02-2015, 01:57 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2015, 01:17 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I think this makes a lot of sense given the proximity to the Northfield Ion station.
Conversely, it is a source of continued frustration that the Grand River Hospital station is still not being served, and the 200 has no stop between downtown and uptown.
It's an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless. The only way to serve GRH would be to take the same route as the 7, which currently sees a good deal of boardings (during my trips) at GRH. This would result in the Bridgeport-to-Water segment of the trip going from 10 minutes to at least 16, an increase of 6 minutes or 60% for this segment.
In reality, the 7 still comes more frequently, and virtually the same points at which you would get onto the iXpress to get to GRH will get you to GRH via the 7. I'm not sure there's any be-all, end-all reason to serve GRH during construction, much as it would be great for consistency.
I actually do think the 200 taking Park over Weber would be the better solution, though it's not the only one. I think you're citing 16 minutes as the distance between downtown and Bridgeport because that's what the 7 is scheduled to take. It would be less than this as the 200 doesn't have the intermediate stops that the 7 does. If it's a four minute increase in the time between downtown and uptown, that's a trivial delay for anyone taking the service more than one stop.
Alternately, the 200 could be put back on King as it is now partially re-opened, but this would also result in delays.
Alternately, a temporary stop could be introduced on the current routing somewhere around Weber and Guelph (I believe this is the closest) to provide express service to riders who have come to depend on it in the surrounding areas, and the area east of King. And also to cultivate ridership for the Grand River Hospital station when Ion opens in 2017.
(09-02-2015, 01:59 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2015, 01:20 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. Sounds like not-PRESTO although they don't go out and say that. Also, no bills is somewhat passenger-unfriendly, but not as much as in New York City. It really is inconvenient in NYC because they don't do dollar coins. It should be much less inconvenient in Canada.
I'm pretty confident based on a focus group I attended that GRT is going with non-PRESTO system. Partly due to roll-out hiccups, but I believe primarily to ensure that GRT retains control of pricing structures and options, rather than being stuck using PRESTO's options.
It is decidedly not PRESTO.
There was an open RFP, to which Presto bid, but I seem to recall that, most notably, they couldn't meet the fare type flexibility that the Region asked for.
Read all about it here:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=45
204 stops are now up at queen and homewood (wb) and queen and Brock (eb) where the new concrete pad is. Are they moving the current eb stop for the current 8, 24, and 25 at queen and homewood to queen and Brock or leaving one stop for the 204 at Brock and another stop for the 8, the new 1 and new 2? All the other stops in the area have notices of either discontinuation or moving but strangely this one does not.
Maybe all buses will stop at the new one, without discontinuing the old one?
I hope we don't have a repeat of King St at Columbia northbound, where you have to stand at two different stops to get the next bus. (The 201 stops north of Columbia, the 7 stops south of Columbia)
I took a closer look. The new signs show the 1,2,8 and 204 at both Brock and at Homewood.
It just seems odd to move the stop from Queen at Homewood to Queen at Brock since the current stop already has a shelter and electricity.
No sign or platform yet at Highland and Westheights/Eastforest for the 204 that I could see this afternoon. They show as stops on the schedule, so I'm not sure what the delay is in getting the signage in.
(09-02-2015, 02:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2015, 01:57 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]It's an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless. The only way to serve GRH would be to take the same route as the 7, which currently sees a good deal of boardings (during my trips) at GRH. This would result in the Bridgeport-to-Water segment of the trip going from 10 minutes to at least 16, an increase of 6 minutes or 60% for this segment.
In reality, the 7 still comes more frequently, and virtually the same points at which you would get onto the iXpress to get to GRH will get you to GRH via the 7. I'm not sure there's any be-all, end-all reason to serve GRH during construction, much as it would be great for consistency.
I actually do think the 200 taking Park over Weber would be the better solution, though it's not the only one. I think you're citing 16 minutes as the distance between downtown and Bridgeport because that's what the 7 is scheduled to take. It would be less than this as the 200 doesn't have the intermediate stops that the 7 does. If it's a four minute increase in the time between downtown and uptown, that's a trivial delay for anyone taking the service more than one stop.
Alternately, the 200 could be put back on King as it is now partially re-opened, but this would also result in delays.
Alternately, a temporary stop could be introduced on the current routing somewhere around Weber and Guelph (I believe this is the closest) to provide express service to riders who have come to depend on it in the surrounding areas, and the area east of King. And also to cultivate ridership for the Grand River Hospital station when Ion opens in 2017.
Google would also suggest that the 1.6km walk from Weber and Guelph to GRH is 20 minutes, which would not be likely to build any ridership. They decidedly tried to avoid creating temporary stops, ones that would not be served by ION, and 1.6km through more than half a dozen turns is not a conducive travel pattern.
If someone were willing to walk for 20 minutes, they would also likely be willing to wait an average of 7.5 minutes for a transfer from an iXpress to a 7 for door-to-backdoor service.
The iXpress on Park would be very unlikely to exceed the 7 speed. Between King and Bridgeport and Joseph and Water, the nearest common stops, the iXpress takes 10 minutes, the 7 takes 16. As a daily 7Â rushhour rider of that stretch, many stops are still unoccupied, and since all but the Victoria segment is single lane, you can't leapfrog any traffic, or the 7s.
I work by Conestoga Mall, live near the intermodal terminal, and frequent areas as far south as Ottawa. By now, I know that I'll never take the iXpress for any of those trips due to detour delays. I also visit GRH regularly, and continue to use the 7 for speed and directness.
I agree it's an inconvenience for particular riders. For those who simply must use the iXpress (almost none) to get to GRH, they now have a transfer averaging 7.5 minutes off-peak, as low as 2 minutes during peak. To now delay every single iXpress ride by 6 minutes, in order to spare certain users a 2-7.5 minute delay, is a tradeoff I can understand, and personally accept when I have to make use of it.
(09-03-2015, 07:35 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]Google would also suggest that the 1.6km walk from Weber and Guelph to GRH is 20 minutes, which would not be likely to build any ridership. They decidedly tried to avoid creating temporary stops, ones that would not be served by ION, and 1.6km through more than half a dozen turns is not a conducive travel pattern.
That's not right: it's less than a kilometre-and-a-half, and does not involve more than half a dozen turns. The Ion will stop at Pine, and from Weber/Guelph it is a direct walk down Guelph through the cemetery to Pine Street. Guelph/Weber does seem to be much closer to the future Ion station than Union/Weber. For anyone living in Mount Hope neighbourhood, who would use the Grand River Hospital stop in addition to people using the hospital, this walk would of course be shorter.
It seems like you think the downside to adding a stop along Weber between downtown and uptown is that some people will be served who will not be able to practically use the Ion. I guess the downside is that they will receive good service in the interim, and might become accustomed to good service. The upside is that residents of Mount Hope who will be served by the GRH station will have the opportunity to set their travel routines now, in advance of Ion, instead of adopting travel patterns that might mean they won't use Ion in two years.
One other thought: how temporary is two-and-a-half or so years, really? Are we saying that this stretch of Weber and the surrounding neighbourhoods will never have improved service? Offering this area improved service for the next two years will not only build ridership for Ion in the area west of Weber, but might provide a case for improved service on the 6 or the 8 to serve the neighbourhood west of Weber.