+- 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 - KevinL - 08-06-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 08-06-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 08-06-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 08-06-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 08-06-2016
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?
RE: Grand River Transit - jamincan - 08-06-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 08-06-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 08-07-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - taylortbb - 08-07-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - tvot - 08-07-2016
(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.
RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 08-07-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 08-07-2016
I didn't realize it was already time for this semi-annual discussion again. :-)
Could we at least move it to the Ion thread or link it back to GRT discussion?
RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 08-07-2016
Back on topic, with the introduction of ION, the routing of the 201 iXpress between UW Station and Conestoga Mall becomes somewhat duplicative. To encourage those already on the 201 bus to transfer to ION, as well as facilitate trips between WLU and Conestoga Mall, I'd suggest shifting the 201 to University Ave between Philip and King to serve the existing 202 stops at Phillip and Hazel.
RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 08-07-2016
(08-06-2016, 02:28 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: 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.
All good points. I want more service in the midtown neighbourhoods, but realistically a crosstown route through this part of town would probably not attract a lot of ridership in the short term. 4 doesn't now, like you say, and I don't think it's just its frequency that's the reason. Very frequent crosstown service on Victoria should be the focus.
RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 08-07-2016
Some thoughts on how to make Route 4 more useful at the start of ION service.
In order of least to most optimistic:
1) Change the Routing of Route 4 so it follows Park and Victoria to serve Cherry Hill as well as connect to Central Station to connect with GO/VIA/Greyhound etc.
2) Combine Routes 4 and 34 into one route.
3) Extend Route 4 to Breslau and then down Woolwich/Fountain to Sportsworld to connect with various iXpress routes and GO/Greyhound. The route would initially serve the airport and Cambridge Industrial Park as well as eventually serve the Breslau GO/RER station.
At the very least, even if the route is only extended down Park St and terminates downtown, it already provides a more-useful connection and improves service coverage more than having it loop around the hospital.