Waterloo Region Connected

A surprisingly positive article on the GRT in The Record today (and thankfully, no comments section - has The Record finally dumped comments?): http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6...eet-chaos/

The interesting part is at the end, where the writer mentions the new GRT signs on King Street, but says "I'm told that it's there as a marker, and not to expect buses to come back to that part of King Street until next summer".

(10-04-2016, 04:36 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]This just popped up on Twitter - not sure how the user got it, as I can't find an official source.

This was featured in the most recent quarterly (?) Region of Waterloo publication that was distributed to households last week. Our comes with the Record or via Canada Post flyers. There is likely an online version somewhere.

I stumbled across this timelapse video today of the #200 iXpress route as of September 2014. It is good to remember how far much has changed.

There are also videos of the 201 and 35 by the same user.

(10-07-2016, 01:51 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]This was featured in the most recent quarterly (?) Region of Waterloo publication that was distributed to households last week.  Our comes with the Record or via Canada Post flyers.  There is likely an online version somewhere.

Indeed, I spotted it in my 'Region News' yesterday!

(10-04-2016, 05:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]204 bus shelter spotted in progress at Queen and Homewood:

Could this be a "baby LRT station" being cultivated for transplanting in the future?    Naw  JK

(10-06-2016, 12:56 PM)goggolor Wrote: [ -> ]A surprisingly positive article on the GRT in The Record today (and thankfully, no comments section - has The Record finally dumped comments?): http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6...eet-chaos/

The interesting part is at the end, where the writer mentions the new GRT signs on King Street, but says "I'm told that it's there as a marker, and not to expect buses to come back to that part of King Street until next summer".

I read until the end because you said it was positive, and that was surprising after a few of the first lines were "I enjoy travelling on the bus. Yes, it's slower than taking a car, which can be frustrating. With the construction creating so many detours, there are times when it's actually faster to walk. And in the winter it is very unpleasant to wait in the cold."

It's nice that Ms. D'Amato can tolerate taking GRT on a beautiful autumn day, though. I'm glad she doesn't have to all of the time.

With the Franklin Blvd construction winding down and new sidewalks in place, 203 iXpress stops at Stafford, Raglin and Lindsay will be removed to speed up service. There will also be new stops along Maple Grove at Fountain EB and Boxwood.

http://www.grt.ca/en/routesSchedules/res...Notice.pdf

Story in The Record today about GRT revenues being down $2 million. Between ION construction detours and delays, as well as continued above-inflation price increases, this isn't surprising. Wouldn't be surprised, either, to hear people calling for reductions to schedules, or slowing of investment plans.

As long as the region doesn't kowtow to such demands we'll be fine.

They've already kowtowed to the all-property-tax-increases-must-be-below-inflation but GRT-increases-must-all-be-multiples-of-inflation, so...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/chuttenc">@chuttenc</a> Hi Chris, this bus was within the schedule parameters. Best practice is to arrive at the stop 5 mins before the departure time.</p>&mdash; Grand River Transit (@GRT_ROW) <a href="https://twitter.com/GRT_ROW/status/789138756150431744">October 20, 2016</a></blockquote>

So I'm having a conversation with GRT on Twitter that started with my now-bog-standard complaint report of a bus zooming past a stop ahead (-2min) of schedule. Half kvetch (to make me feel better) and half data transfer (so GRT knows it happened and that it mattered to some random rider).

The GRT Twitter folk get back to me to get correct details (I flubbed the stop # in the original report. Good on 'em for catching that) and then say that the "Best practice is to arrive at the stop 5 mins before the departure time" to avoid this happening again.

Usually I commute by bicycle, so I'm familiar with victim-blaming. Blaming a passenger for a bus leaving a stop early is a bit new.

They're asking to follow-up in a method that isn't quite as hostile to nuance as Twitter is. We'll see how this goes.

(( and this is the service level from which they want to _cut_? What's even be left? ))

I thought they said three minutes, not five. Isn't a bus that reaches a stop two minutes early considered "on time" for GRT's purpose?

This is an annoyance, obviously, having to arrive for a bus two (or particularly five) minutes early, especially as the bus itself may well arrive after its scheduled time. But 100% schedule adherence is impossible.

Another problem that frequency goes a long way toward solving...

(10-20-2016, 02:20 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm having a conversation with GRT on Twitter that started with my now-bog-standard complaint report of a bus zooming past a stop ahead (-2min) of schedule. Half kvetch (to make me feel better) and half data transfer (so GRT knows it happened and that it mattered to some random rider).

The GRT Twitter folk get back to me to get correct details (I flubbed the stop # in the original report. Good on 'em for catching that) and then say that the "Best practice is to arrive at the stop 5 mins before the departure time" to avoid this happening again.

Usually I commute by bicycle, so I'm familiar with victim-blaming. Blaming a passenger for a bus leaving a stop early is a bit new.

They're asking to follow-up in a method that isn't quite as hostile to nuance as Twitter is. We'll see how this goes.

(( and this is the service level from which they want to _cut_? What's even be left? ))

I had a similar conversation a few years ago. I asserted that with the introduction of real-time tracking and the driver having the schedule adherence in front of them in real-time, 5 minutes was unreasonable, especially if they're trying to attract choice riders. I was regularly taking the 8 at the time, and it was often 5-10 minutes late. Expecting people to wait 15 minutes for a bus was a surefire way to keep people in their cars.

With GRT moving to a grid system, that'll increase the number of transfers. Soon people will spend half their time waiting for the bus than what they actually spend on the bus.

(10-20-2016, 03:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I thought they said three minutes, not five. Isn't a bus that reaches a stop two minutes early considered "on time" for GRT's purpose?

This is an annoyance, obviously, having to arrive for a bus two (or particularly five) minutes early, especially as the bus itself may well arrive after its scheduled time. But 100% schedule adherence is impossible.

Another problem that frequency goes a long way toward solving...

Now I have to kvetch a little: a few minutes after I wrote this, I went to catch the 200, and it passed by before I made it to the stop, about three minutes early.

But, because it's ten minute frequency, I only had to wait in the rain thirteen minutes, not eighteen...or thirty-three.