Nothing regarding updated service standards, fare strategy, etc?
(09-28-2016, 12:45 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]Bit disappointing to see routes being pushed to connect to downtown away from the transit terminal. Seems foolish way to push for better use of/support for intercity bus/rail service.
I don't understand the issue here. If you're talking about things like Route 2, it's a much more efficient routing than going over to the terminal. And the LRT is really what enables connectivity between most of the routes. I only count six routes now stopping at the terminal: it's a different model than before.
I'm mostly concerned about the 204, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong in the diagrammatic view. It passes right beside the hub, but while they show it stops at other LRT stations, they don't show it stopping at the hub, at least not in the same way.
@Viewfromthe42 It won't actually stop *at* the hub, in that it won't stop where the LRT will be, since it's going to turn onto Victoria and the LRT stop will be slightly north of Victoria.
What might be needed is one of the subway style map connected circles.
(09-28-2016, 12:55 PM)D40LF Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing regarding updated service standards, fare strategy, etc?
That's mostly in
the report proper.
The 204 will stop at King/Victoria for sure. I'd call that sufficiently at the LRT stop there.
What I've got more of a concern for is that the 202 doesn't connect with either ION or the 7 on King St! ION, I understand, because of the terrible station placement, but at least they should be putting in a stop at King!
(09-28-2016, 01:26 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]The 204 will stop at King/Victoria for sure. I'd call that sufficiently at the LRT stop there.
What I've got more of a concern for is that the 202 doesn't connect with either ION or the 7 on King St! ION, I understand, because of the terrible station placement, but at least they should be putting in a stop at King!
Yes it will, but I can understand why it would be improper to claim that it stopped "at the hub"...I'm pretty sure that is what the main use of the connected circles icon used on subway maps is for.
The 202 is frustrating! I wish it would also stop at the Laurel Trail to facilitate transfers there. Even there instead of UW would be fine for me, although I'm sure there are an equal number of people who would find that worse.
-Why does the proposed 205 deviate to Borden? Just so it connects to another ion station? It already connects at Mill station; once connected to Ion it is probably easier and faster to take the Ion between stations than the bus anyway. Keeping the 205 on Ottawa will mean fewer turns/faster service/shorter route time. Then you can move the borden stop to King for connections downtown on 7s; even then shops at Eastwood Square get jumped over left between stops.
-I wonder if the proposed stops at Strasburg and Alpine are too close together. Moving a stop closer to Homer-Watson would serve industrial area/Family Centre/F&CS; although I guess if you are continuing on to the Hanson area it does not really matter if you waiting for the new 22 at alpine or homer-Watson
-As i said before i think new UW transit plaza is going to introduce bus delays/schedule adherence with an Ion train crossing every few minutes. Buses will also block the laurel trail while waiting to turn or cross the ion tracks.
-the new 92 seems to be only serving UW/WLU students not the greater community; the only valuable part of that new loop is the section, Columbia-weber-university. The 92 seems redundant with increased frequencies and re-routing of other routes
-i am not not sure about the 8 going via traynor, although with the reduced walkability I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
-what are the ixpress symbols along route seven of the 2018 map supposed to represent?
-someone who edits Google maps please make the parking lot of the Aud something other than green space
(09-28-2016, 12:45 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]Wondering if the 12/18, 9/19 will cause confusion for folks, making them think there are transfers/layovers.
The diagram says that 12/18 are interlined. I'm not sure about 9/19.
(09-28-2016, 12:45 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]Curious if the new 28 makes Midtown(ers) happier.
No. I’m not really sure what that loop is supposed to do for whom. Better would be if the 4 was a crosstown, continuing along Union and Margaret as now and then continuing east on Guelph to Lancaster or beyond. I admit I’m not sure what would be the best way to serve Belmont Ave in that case, though.
(09-28-2016, 01:40 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Yes it will, but I can understand why it would be improper to claim that it stopped "at the hub"...I'm pretty sure that is what the main use of the connected circles icon used on subway maps is for.
By that measure, I believe
no city buses are planned to stop "at the hub". And neither is LRT. The 204 and the LRT will each have one on-street stop directly in front of the Hub, and one on-street stop across the street from the Hub. The transfer will be shorter than some transfers at Charles St Terminal are. The internal bus bay at the hub is intended for intercity buses.
If the 205 stayed on Ottawa St, then the transfer at Charles to the Borden LRT stop would
definitely call for one of those "connected circles".
My comments:
- Overhaul the 202 stops on University Ave between Westmount and Weber.
- Add King (connection to 7)
- Add Laurel Trail (connection to ION) (Add stop for 12/18, 29, 92 as well)
- Revisit Hazel/Philip vs. Albert
- 9 should stay on Hazel, as that is where the ridership is, now that the top end of the route has been split into the 19
- 205 Ottawa should stay on Ottawa. I've already written about that here: http://www.tritag.ca/blog/2012/05/18/ott...alignment/ (though... I'm not sure this is entirely a dealbreaker for me.)
- I like the removal of the 8/12 duplication on University Ave. Given they were always scheduled within minutes of each other it represented a lot of wasted capacity.
- Yay for a Weber-ish bus! Still, my goal for that one is to have it end at Northfield Station in the north.
For an express bus, the 203 certainly goes the long way around. They'd almost be better off running the 201 extension to Sportsworld and starting the 203 there.
(09-28-2016, 02:05 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2016, 12:45 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]Curious if the new 28 makes Midtown(ers) happier.
No. I’m not really sure what that loop is supposed to do for whom. Better would be if the 4 was a crosstown, continuing along Union and Margaret as now and then continuing east on Guelph to Lancaster or beyond. I admit I’m not sure what would be the best way to serve Belmont Ave in that case, though.
Why would Midtowners prefer to take the bus to Lancaster, rather than connecting with the LRT?
(09-28-2016, 01:51 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]-the new 92 seems to be only serving UW/WLU students not the greater community; the only valuable part of that new loop is the section, Columbia-weber-university. The 92 seems redundant with increased frequencies and re-routing of other routes
My guess is that the 92 will be one of the highest usage routes in the entire system. All routes tend to serve the local community only, i.e. those who live/work along them. So your comment seems to single out students for no good reason, I'm sorry to say.