Grand River Transit

[dunkalunk]

Not to be pessimistic, but I don't see willingness in the short term of GRT to place an iXpress route on Weber which has the potential beat the end-to-end run time of ION on opening day. While a trunk route running the length of Weber (possibly diverting to serve Hazel, WLU, and the Transit Hub) certainly makes a lot of sense and would serve a lot of trips, making this an iXpress route has the potential to draw ridership away from the ION corridor instead of to the ION corridor.

[MidTowner]

I think that's a good point, but also kind of a depressing one. It would be a bit sad to see a potentially successful route (I have no doubt a Weber route would be) overlooked because it would draw ridership from Ion (it probably would because it would be faster and more convenient for a lot of trips). I think a Weber route should have been a no-brainer for a long time now, and I've always wondered why one wasn't introduced. With the "chokepoint" between Guelph and Victoria (it was never that slow, but I understand that it would have become progressively worse) eliminated, it made even more sense.

[Markster]

I'd say it's largely been a victim of "conventional" transit planning. Focusing on hubs, with spokes radiating out from them. The existing hubs are already connected via King, so there's little "need" to connect them again via Weber.

[MidTowner]

I bet you're right. But another north-south crosstown would be called-for, and King and Weber are not too close together in most places.

[zanate]

I think that's a good point, but also kind of a depressing one. It would be a bit sad to see a potentially successful route (I have no doubt a Weber route would be) overlooked because it would draw ridership from Ion (it probably would because it would be faster and more convenient for a lot of trips). I think a Weber route should have been a no-brainer for a long time now, and I've always wondered why one wasn't introduced. With the "chokepoint" between Guelph and Victoria (it was never that slow, but I understand that it would have become progressively worse) eliminated, it made even more sense.

You could run a local service along Weber, instead of a limited stop service. That to me would make a fair amount of sense, because as a rapid service, Weber would be redundant. As a local service with ~4-500m stop spacing, it would provide the kind of destination access that various routes provide in dislocated parts (8, 4, another branch of 8, a few others). To me that would be taking the map shown above and filling in the gaps with one or two intermediate stops, maybe tweaking a few others.

Unfortunately, it lacks an easy opportunity to interface with ION unless you do make a detour off Weber. That could be justifiable at Victoria as shown, maybe also at Ottawa, and Northfield?

These tactical detours could make a big difference, because it makes switching to the Weber line from ION a one-transfer switch, and that in itself would make it worth taking ION to one of these interchange points, even if it means a certain amount of back-tracking.

[MidTowner]

Maybe you're right that Weber would make more sense as a local; it does seem to me to have a lot of potential detours. Too many detours will reduce its utility, and I'm not sure how important it would be that it intersect with Ion at multiple places. I know that two-connection trips are a big disincentive, but if Ottawa and others have very frequent service, it might not be such a hassle to get off the Ion, hop on a crosstown iXpress, and then connect to a Weber local to complete your trip. Weber and King are so close at Victoria that I think what Lens' proposal does there makes a lot of sense.

[timc]

Not to be pessimistic, but I don't see willingness in the short term of GRT to place an iXpress route on Weber which has the potential beat the end-to-end run time of ION on opening day. While a trunk route running the length of Weber (possibly diverting to serve Hazel, WLU, and the Transit Hub) certainly makes a lot of sense and would serve a lot of trips, making this an iXpress route has the potential to draw ridership away from the ION corridor instead of to the ION corridor.

I'll be pessimistic here too. I don't remember why I have the impression, but I've gotten the feeling that GRT was kind of meh with regard to aligning service with ION.

[Viewfromthe42]

At some point, it seemed that GRT decided that even with the eventual intermodal hub, they would want to keep the Charles terminal. So buses would be told to hub/spoke at Conestoga Mall, Fairview Park Mall, and Charles. ION itself would encourage a grid approach, and the intermodal hub would somewhat provide cover for doing both jobs, and hopefully not ending up with a worse system than either would be on its own.

[dunkalunk]

At some point, it seemed that GRT decided that even with the eventual intermodal hub, they would want to keep the Charles terminal. So buses would be told to hub/spoke at Conestoga Mall, Fairview Park Mall, and Charles. ION itself would encourage a grid approach, and the intermodal hub would somewhat provide cover for doing both jobs, and hopefully not ending up with a worse system than either would be on its own.

My understanding of GRT's rationale is that even with a shift to a more grid-like system and reorganization of routes to run to ION stations, there will still need to be a facility in downtown to terminate non-interlined routes and to schedule driver breaks and changeovers. There will still be a push to align GRT service with ION stations, but Charles St will still need to play a role for operations, at least until the intermodal hub is constructed.

[MidTowner]

At some point, it seemed that GRT decided that even with the eventual intermodal hub, they would want to keep the Charles terminal.

Do you mean by this that GRT will continue using Charles Street even after the King/Victoria terminal opens? I must be misunderstanding.

[Waterlooer]

At some point, it seemed that GRT decided that even with the eventual intermodal hub, they would want to keep the Charles terminal.

Do you mean by this that GRT will continue using Charles Street even after the King/Victoria terminal opens? I must be misunderstanding.

There's no solid plan as to what will happen with the terminal in the future. I suspect that gradually routes will move out of the terminal. Route 20 no longer goes there and and at least the 204 will not stop at the terminal either once ION launches in Fall, 2017.

[Pheidippides]

<RANT>My GRT commutes through Downtown Kitchener and Uptown Waterloo this week have left me believing it is time for a crack down on double parked vehicles (delivery/armoured cars/private cars etc.) and vehicles not yielding to the buses when they are trying to pull out from stops and bus bays to get back into traffic. It is particularly frustrating when there are nearby laneways and side streets within steps of the offending vehicles. It slows everyone down (transit users, motorists, cyclists) and makes for needlessly dangerous passing.</RANT>

[dunkalunk]

Midtown areas such as Cherry Hill and the Mt Hope neighbourhood are both quite dense by suburban standards yet seem to be underserved by local routes when compared with similar neighbourhoods in Kitchener. Part of the reason why is the lack of arterials the the disconnected nature of the road network caused by the organic merging of two cities and the location of the cemetery.

Those who live in these areas of the CTC might rely on private vehicles more than transit than they would otherwise need to with better access to high quality transit. Some things could be done to help this situation such as overlaying new routes, diverting existing routes, and/or adding frequency. If you were given a cart blanche on midtown, how would you restructure service?

[MidTowner]

I think that a service on Weber would help these areas a lot; I bet it would be fast and, if frequent, I suspect would provide popular. That might be a lot to ask, but in the shorter term 8 could be realigned to travel along Weber instead of taking the detour to Margaret. I know that exists to serve the Breithaupt Centre, but 4 could be realigned to continue along Union to Margaret, turning to terminate at the Breithaupt Centre or somewhere further.*

If relatively frequent service could be had on each of Belmont, King, Weber, and Lancaster; and Victoria, Wellington, Glasgow, and Union, I think the areas in between the two city's cores would be well-served. You're right that there are not good arterials on which to place buses, but if we're more interested in coverage than frequency, buses could be put on streets like Moore between downtown and uptown (part of Moore used to carry the 4), or Guelph to serve the new development at Victoria Common.

*As we move to more of a grid system, built-up areas neglected because they didn't happen to be in downtown will get better service naturally. I know there are good reasons for using terminals, but not everything needs to begin or end at the downtown terminal, and I think the GRT is increasingly understanding that.

[Markster]

To my surprise, with the 200 back on Super Detour, taking Weber all the way to Bridgeport before going to Uptown, they've finally decided to add stops on Weber St.

There are now 200 iXpress stops at Weber/Guelph, and Weber/Union.

This comes about 10 months into the detour, which started mid-March of last year.  I wonder what was finally done to convince them to add the stops?