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.
(08-05-2016, 10:14 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Is the 4 supposed to run between The Boardwalk and Grand River Hospital, and a separate service run Belmont-Union-Margaret?

Yes. The latter loop connects to Ion in two places - GRH and Frederick/Benton. It's basically designed as an easy connector for those neighbourhoods to Ion and the 204 (and the 4, 1, 7, Weber route, Courtland route...).
I'm glad to see that service will continue to the R&T Park in the form of a revised Route 9. I remain disappointed that there is no GRT connection to ION at Seagram.
Segram is a bit of a ridiculous stop location to begin with, so I'm OK with a walking transfer if it means not slowing down crosstown trips.

On one of the maps, there appears to be a shot-turn of Route 7 in Uptown using William, Regina, and Willis Way. Could this feasibly mean more service on King bewteen Uptown and Conestoga Mall?

I would expect the Margaret-Belmont loop to have 15 minute frequency for most of the day. The loop covers most of the heavily-used portions of Route 8's north loop and was supposed to get 15 minute frequency in the last major service change until Route 7 streamlining was delayed due to LRT construction.

I have mixed feelings about deadending Route 4 at Grand River Hospital.

On one hand, it would be shame to get rid of a potential crosstown route.
On the other, Route 4 isn't all that well-used between Downtown and King-Union except by local residents.
On the third, this may be a function of Route 4's poor frequency and better, straighter alternatives.

Ending Route 4 at Grand River Hospital also seems like a missed opportunity to serve the Cherry Park neighbourhood.

I was also kind of hoping for some sort of Belmont-King route to help improve service frequency on King between Conestoga Mall and Uptown. Here's what I'd do:
[attachment=1872]

There is still plenty of time for public feedback. Route consultations haven't begin yet and it's important we get routes in the CTC right the first time.
Having read the entire report finally (it is a long one!) I am pretty pleased with the overall changes. I found it hard to separate my feelings for how the changes will affect my options personally vs. what I know will be best for the greater good/network. I'm sure any flaws will be spotted amongst this group and brought to GRT's attention; still lots of time for feedback.

As for the 8's frequency and direction, from the report:
"operate as a smaller two-way loop connecting"
"Both the Belmont-Margaret and Westmount-Weber routes would have 15-minute frequency during weekday peak periods with 30-minute frequency at other times."

One brave admission in the report is that "the Region has endeavoured to provide fixed-route transit service within 450 metres to 95% of residents and jobs in the urban municipalities. This target has not been met." and that "The current network provides service coverage for 87.5% of residents in the urban area. There are several reasons why achieving 95% service coverage with fixed-routes is challenging and not necessarily desirable."

"implementation of iXpress routes on major corridors and streamlining of local routes to travel more directly and frequently on arterial and collector roads has proven to be a more effective ridership growth strategy than trying to increase service coverage by deviating routes on local neighbourhood roads."

"focusing service on existing high-ridership corridors and areas with high transit propensity results in higher ridership. This strategy is proposed to continue in the implementation of the draft 2021 Transit Network. However, this would have the impact of introducing longer walks to service in certain pockets of the Region"


So basically moving away from one long-standing goal in favour of another knowing full well it may mean longer walks from some people.
The upshot is, people will walk further so long as they know the bus they are walking to is frequent - so that walk will not be in vain if they miss one, another will be along soon. Makes sense and works with the goals they have set. I'll take it.
(08-06-2016, 02:28 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: [ -> ]Segram is a bit of a ridiculous stop location to begin with, so I'm OK with a walking transfer if it means not slowing down crosstown trips.

It is a ridiculous stop location. But it seems ideal to me that every ION station should have a GRT connection.
I'm just curious: Why is the Seagram stop ridiculous? I'd use it to get to Waterloo Park, and it's the closest one to Laurier, and the various residences and other university facilities on Seagram there between the stop and Albert. I guess what I mean is, I don't see it as being any less useful than some other stops... It's certainly not the least useful.
(08-06-2016, 09:41 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just curious: Why is the Seagram stop ridiculous? I'd use it to get to Waterloo Park, and it's the closest one to Laurier, and the various residences and other university facilities on Seagram there between the stop and Albert. I guess what I mean is, I don't see it as being any less useful than some other stops... It's certainly not the least useful.

Because a University Ave stop is just as close to Laurier and would intersect with a bunch of local and express routes.

The concrete is poured and it's too late to change, but it's still a ridiculous place for a stop given potential alternatives.
Perhaps better for the ion thread, but I'm curious - if there were no stop at Seagram, that'd be an awfully long stretch with no stations, between UoW and Waterloo Town Square, don't you think?
I think the locations are ill conceived in general along that stretch. Would have been better at University, Columbia and Old Albert, in my opinion.
(08-06-2016, 10:49 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps better for the ion thread, but I'm curious - if there were no stop at Seagram, that'd be an awfully long stretch with no stations, between UoW and Waterloo Town Square, don't you think?

I'm no transit planner, and all of this is anecdotal information based on personal experience and observation, so it is possible that studies show otherwise.

There really aren't any destinations between UW and Uptown. Waterloo Park isn't a destination for most, especially in the winter months when transit usage is highest. Student residences along University and Seagram certainly generate transit rides, but most of it is to UW or Laurier. Most students don't travel outside of a small bubble around the universities.

I think the station would be a bit better if you could take a bus to get there. At least then it could be a transfer point for people going from Waterloo to Uptown or points further south.
(08-06-2016, 05:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]So basically moving away from one long-standing goal in favour of another knowing full well it may mean longer walks from some people.

This does seem to be a goal of the plan, which is probably long term good, but short term, will be painful, and many will argue that this hurts certain groups of people, and they're likely right.

However, what is often missed in this, is that long term, what is best for everyone, is to make the city more walkable, have less need to own a car, and make it easier to serve by transit.  I'd rather see short term pain, so long as the land use plans dovetail to achieving this end.  But I'm in the privileged position of not being someone who would be seriously negatively impacted by the changes.
(08-06-2016, 10:49 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps better for the ion thread, but I'm curious - if there were no stop at Seagram, that'd be an awfully long stretch with no stations, between UoW and Waterloo Town Square, don't you think?

I think most would agree that's too far between stations. It's not about removing the Seagram stop, just moving it. Shift Seagram up to University, and shift the UW stop up to Columbia. Maybe also the R&T park stop to Bearinger, but that's less clear because neither is a transit/walking destination.

With the stations positioned at major cross corridors the network would be easier to understand. The University Ave iXpress would go straight on University Ave, and a stop named University would be on University Ave. It's a much friendlier system for those that aren't familiar with it. It also makes more sense for students to walk along University than Seagram to get to the Laurier campus, because it's the same distance but would promote the urban development of University Ave (there's no shops/cafes on Seagram, and it's not zoned for them).

The Seagram stop is only located there as a political concession to Laurier, so that there would be a UW stop and a Laurier stop, rather than one stop just called University (and a separate one called Columbia). Because then it would look like UW had two stops and Laurier had zero, despite it being the same distance from Laurier's campus.
(08-06-2016, 10:53 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I think the locations are ill conceived in general along that stretch. Would have been better at University, Columbia and Old Albert, in my opinion.

I think the current stop at Eng. 5 serves University & Columbia well enough. Waterloo Park - Seagram is a weird one, but it makes sense for the desires of the city and Laurier. I agree that they should try to have a bus connection, I just have a hard time imagining a good route.

The R&T Park vs. Old Albert is a weird one, probably also political, but makes little sense unless the R&T park intensifies much faster than planned -- I guess that's the hope. But the Parkside Drive - Albert McCormick iExpress stop is very busy and serves both the students & non students in that area better than the 9 ever has. Having a station on Old Albert would be great bringing people to & from McCormick (library + ice rinks). The upcoming changes to the 9 in route & frequency do help, but I still think Old Albert would have better-served more people than taking the 9 to the R&T park and transferring.
I keep hearing these stories about how the positioning of the Seagram stop was "political". Is there any actual proof of that, or is that just "how it looks" and an assumption was made that that's what happened?

The position of the UoW stop seems perfectly logical, and then when you pin the other stop at Waterloo Town Square, the natural stop in between is exactly where the Seagram stop is now. A stop at Columbia and then one again at University with the next stop being Waterloo Town Square is "lumpy" spacing. UoW doesn't need two stops. I'm probably going to keep sounding like a broken record, but I really don't see any issue at all with the stop placements here. If I were doing this from scratch, that's probably exactly where I would have ended up dropping them in.

I'm just not seeing that there was some malicious intent or otherwise to somehow pacify vocal groups. There were over a hundred public consultation meetings on this.