+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
RE: Grand River Transit - mpd618 - 12-20-2015
(12-20-2015, 09:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether? The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership. The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.
This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?
The foregone current farebox revenue plus the increased costs due to that increased ridership means this is a pretty expensive proposition.
RE: Grand River Transit - plam - 12-21-2015
(12-20-2015, 09:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Hey, off topic, but out of curiosity what makes you expect to use Ion if you're not using GRT now? I've had this conversation with people, and since Ion is not going to be massively different service, we've mostly been at a loss as to how Ion will attract new ridership in the short term. It seems to me that it won't be providing better coverage or frequency than the 200 and 7 services were, but I'm probably missing something there.
Me, I'm pretty sure I'll rarely take Ion. I prefer riding my bicycle these days. I used to take transit in Montreal and still do (but I did get in 46km on bicycle in Montreal today; I don't usually go that far in K-W but I have had days like that).
I agree with BuildingScout. Trains attract some riders who aren't just trying to get from A to B but who are looking for a certain level of comfort that they don't perceive to exist with buses. Or they've had actively frustrating bus experiences like riding from Waterloo to somewhere in Kitchener and having the bus wait at Charles St for 20 minutes for no apparent reason.
Trains often do provide a smoother ride than buses, although that's not universally true; the Montreal metro was at times as bumpy as I remember it being in my youth; and Zurich buses are sometimes quite smooth (but Zurich streets are also always better paved than Montreal streets).
It's also easier to figure out where the Ion goes than the GRT network. Sure, lots of people have phones that will tell them which bus to get on. But even so, I was in Toronto the other day and it wasn't that easy to navigate the TTC bus system (and I didn't collect a transfer so I had to double pay, sigh.)
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 12-21-2015
(12-20-2015, 10:00 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: The LRT experience on rails is radically different to a bus service. This has been repeatedly shown by studies. Also, I think people will use the LRT from Norhtfield/RT Park into Uptown as the lunch time express. There is a dearth of options for eating there and now you and your buddies can jump on the LRT, grab lunch at Nick and Nats or Beertown or Famoso and then head back to work in five minutes.
I hope the do a better job of creating connections in Waterloo than I have seen plans for so far. As I see it, point-to-point transit will be improved by ION, but without efficient transfers to GRT, overall it will be a worse experience than we currently have.
RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 12-21-2015
(12-20-2015, 10:58 PM)tomh009 Wrote: First thing, I am now living downtown, since November, after living first in the suburbs and then in Woolwich. We still have (two!) cars, but the idea of using the LRT to get groceries or go to the LCBO is definitely appealing. Maybe the bus would do the same (7?) but with the current construction it's a bit crazy anyway, so we're driving for now, maybe some bicycling once the weather improves in the spring.
We don't really go to the malls often enough for those routes to be relevant to us, though.
Thanks. No doubt it's a poor time to start trying to take transit in Waterloo Region.
Regarding what other posters have said about Ion's appeal, I'm not sure I "buy" that a train is inherently more comfortable. I think plam's right when he says it depends. He also makes a really good point about wayfinding- even if it's not significantly easier, maybe people will perceive it to be so (maybe the same with comfort).
I'm personally really interested to find out how much faster Ion will be than the 200. Without implying that I don't think we need Ion (the buses are destined to get slower, so we do), it's hard to see how it will be a significantly quicker trip, especially if you're going all the way to Conestoga Mall, and have taken a rather indirect way of getting there. But I'm hoping that Ion will achieve speeds higher than I expect on the Spur Line, and the trip is much faster than currently.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 12-21-2015
I'm very confident of better speeds. The Fairway - Mill section is also an off-road bit (it runs next to Courtland, not in the middle), and the on-road stuff should be no slower than a bus. All in all, a faster trip.
RE: Grand River Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 12-21-2015
In going to see Star Wars on Saturday, we took the 20 (coin flip between it and the 204) out to The Boardwalk. Only a 20 minute bus ride, and aside from the bad pedestrian experience at The Boardwalk, was otherwise convenient; having a café right at the bus terminal, from which to watch for your bus, is quite nice.
It also made me wonder how many people realize how easily, quickly, and directly they can get downtown - the reverse of our trip - from the suburban areas.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-21-2015
(12-20-2015, 11:58 PM)mpd618 Wrote:(12-20-2015, 09:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But seriously ... what would be the incremental cost to eliminate fares altogether? The taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the costs, and eliminating fares would simplify a lot of things -- not to mention substantially increase ridership. The cost per passenger might not change at all if this were to increase ridership by 50%.
This is a radical option, but is it really so crazy?
The foregone current farebox revenue plus the increased costs due to that increased ridership means this is a pretty expensive proposition.
For serious discussion, I was hoping for more detail than just "pretty expensive proposition". OK, so I can search myself, too, and I found GRT's business plan here (not latest, but has good detail):
http://www.grt.ca/en/aboutus/grtbusinessplan.asp
From here you can see that fares recover roughly 40% of the costs, and then calculate backwards to find the total cost of GRT to be about $79M, so the fares are bringing in about $30M. That's about 4% of the total regional property tax base (of $750M), or $70/household, using the region's average assessment value. Is $70/household really an outrageous amount to pay to make transit completely free?
Now, this doesn't include the cost savings of NOT collecting fares, nor does it include additional capacity, so some route might be fairly busy. In the above business plan, you can determine that GRT was delivering 550K hours of service for 20M passengers, or less than 40 passengers per service-hour. If you assume an average ride of 30 minutes, that's only an average of 20 people on a bus: clearly there is capacity to carry more people on many routes. Adding 20% capacity (should free transit become outrageously popular) would cost about $15M, or an additional $35/household.
RE: Grand River Transit - taylortbb - 12-21-2015
(12-21-2015, 09:12 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Regarding what other posters have said about Ion's appeal, I'm not sure I "buy" that a train is inherently more comfortable. I think plam's right when he says it depends. He also makes a really good point about wayfinding- even if it's not significantly easier, maybe people will perceive it to be so (maybe the same with comfort).
Having grown up in Toronto I can say there's a pretty huge difference. The number of people I knew that were perfectly happy on the subway, but refused to take the bus on principle is quite substantial. They'd gladly pay $5 in parking fees to drive to a subway station rather than take the bus for (effectively) free (free transfers). Even Toronto's old and overcrowded subway felt comparably fast and comfortable.
The reasons were varied, from feeling sick on buses with not enough to windows, to confusion about where one's stop was (automated stop announcements have helped this significantly). The service frequency and reliability was also significant. The TTC minimum service standard of every 5 minutes for the subway is huge. No matter the time of day, if the subway is open (and it is 6am-1:30am daily) then the trains run at least every 5 minutes, even if they're nearly empty. It means schedules for the subway don't even exist, because there's no need for them.
ION won't quite have the frequency advantages (7.5-15 minute headways depending on time of day), but the other points remain valid. I'd also really like to see ION upgraded to a 10 minute minimum service standard, a reasonable compromise for Waterloo Region's ridership.
RE: Grand River Transit - chutten - 12-21-2015
Mentioned earlier, ION will have "cachet" or a different feeling in the mind than the bus network. It is a single thing that is (in a simplified form) easy for the general public to understand and use. And it'll be new. And it's being touted as fast and safe and modern and comfortable and convenient... and we've been hearing about it for years (and will continue to for years to come).
Unlike the buses, which people generally only complain about (like the timing of the 201 and 204 interconnect at at F-H at Highland. Come on!), people won't start complaining about the ION's service until 2017
So, the 'novelty' will attract people to it, if nothing else. I don't expect it to be a large trend, but one that might be measurable.
That being said, running the numbers shows that cars are just too good in the Region at the moment to give up. Copious usually-free parking, cross-town traffic that is frustrating only at peak... if you already own a car, you aren't likely to use ION except for novelty's sake.
(( I hadn't thought about ION as lunch-time transit. So long as they implement fare collection properly enough that it's easy for occasional riders, I can easily see the tech people hopping on to transit to and from lunch. The level of service means you know you can get back to the office in time for that 1:30 someone booked that morning. Then we're getting hybrid passengers: ones who commute by car, but end up using transit during the day. ))
Ultimately I think ION is a part of the Region making the (safe) bet that traffic and parking will worsen in the future in the Region. Then someone considering a first, replacement, or second vehicle will finally have an acceptable alternative.
RE: Grand River Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 12-21-2015
Also, after seeing the traffic at the malls for Christmas shopping, some of those lunchtime Christmas shoppers might think about using ION instead of driving, even with traffic and parking likely to be slightly better when construction is done. I'm most hopeful of the introduction to ION coming from a campaign to get Canada Day patrons for both the cores to use offsite parking to reach the Waterloo and Kitchener events via ION.
RE: Grand River Transit - timio - 12-21-2015
(12-21-2015, 02:31 PM)chutten Wrote: (like the timing of the 201 and 204 interconnect at at F-H at Highland. Come on!),Or the 202/204 at The Boardwalk.
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 12-21-2015
(12-21-2015, 02:43 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Also, after seeing the traffic at the malls for Christmas shopping, some of those lunchtime Christmas shoppers might think about using ION instead of driving, even with traffic and parking likely to be slightly better when construction is done. I'm most hopeful of the introduction to ION coming from a campaign to get Canada Day patrons for both the cores to use offsite parking to reach the Waterloo and Kitchener events via ION.
The main Waterloo event for Canada Day is at Columbia Lake, which is not very close (over 1 km away) to an ION station. Mall traffic is mostly horrendous right now because of construction for ion.
RE: Grand River Transit - mpd618 - 12-21-2015
(12-21-2015, 10:33 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Now, this doesn't include the cost savings of NOT collecting fares, nor does it include additional capacity, so some route might be fairly busy. In the above business plan, you can determine that GRT was delivering 550K hours of service for 20M passengers, or less than 40 passengers per service-hour. If you assume an average ride of 30 minutes, that's only an average of 20 people on a bus: clearly there is capacity to carry more people on many routes. Adding 20% capacity (should free transit become outrageously popular) would cost about $15M, or an additional $35/household.
Just like roads, transit infrastructure needs to handle demand on peak routes at peak times. There may well be lots of capacity on average due to coverage routes, but routes like the 7, 12, 201, etc. probably don't have it in their peak sections. I don't know whether it would require 20% or 100% more capacity. The best comparison is with the effect of the U-Pass on transit ridership. And I would assume that the biggest latent demand would be for transit to and from the downtowns, where free transit would compete quite nicely with paid parking.
It's within the realm of feasibility and a reasonable question to consider, I think.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-21-2015
(12-21-2015, 02:31 PM)chutten Wrote: That being said, running the numbers shows that cars are just too good in the Region at the moment to give up. Copious usually-free parking, cross-town traffic that is frustrating only at peak... if you already own a car, you aren't likely to use ION except for novelty's sake.
We have two cars, and yet we'll use ION. We do live downtown, though, which makes a difference.
But don't you think eliminating the fares altogether would change that equation in a big way?
RE: Grand River Transit - white_brian - 12-22-2015
I think going forward it would make a dramatic difference, with the cost of living going through the roof people aren't going to be able to sustain an automobile. Between housing, utilities, food and all matter of things costing more unless your blessed with a high earning job it would pay you to take transit. With car sharing services, rental cars (for extended trips) and the right transit infrastructure you wouldn't need to own a car if you never got used to it...