Grand River Transit

[MidTowner]

I think it's as a result of the 4 being detoured off King starting Monday. The 4 is about to begin a detour to Joseph-Victoria-Park before taking Glasgow and proceeding normally. The 200 is taking Weber (as it has been) so it's stopping at Weber/Guelph and Weber/Union so there is at least some service at those stops. At the Weber/Guelph stop, the sign reads something to the effect of "the 4 won't be using this stop, but you can take the 200 instead."

I really have my fingers crossed that at least one of these stops continues to be used by the 200 after these (approximately) six weeks are up. Taking the 200 this week, it doesn't seem like there are that many people using them, though- never more than three or four boarding or disembarking.

[goggolor]

I wonder how much of the lack of use of the new stops is due to the lag in updating various online tools. Google Maps still doesn't know about the new 200 route (GRT keeps responding to people on Twitter that Google has the information and to ask Google why it's not up to date). 3rd party apps like Transit App don't have the new stops listed either.

Even the official EasyGo application was only updated today with the information about the detour stops. When I checked yesterday, EasyGo was still giving "real time arrival" information for the 200 iXpress stops that were no longer in service.

[zanate]

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?

Great to find this out! Living behind Mount Hope cemetery, I'd given up on the 200 (Weber/Union just too far) but Weber/Guelph is viable. In fact, it's just a few steps further away from my place than the old GRH stop was/future ION stop will be.

It's also a few hundred metres closer to the hospital than Weber/Union. Good. Still over a km, though.

[MidTowner]

Great to find this out! Living behind Mount Hope cemetery, I'd given up on the 200 (Weber/Union just too far) but Weber/Guelph is viable. In fact, it's just a few steps further away from my place than the old GRH stop was/future ION stop will be.

It's also a few hundred metres closer to the hospital than Weber/Union. Good. Still over a km, though.

There seems to have been an update to the GRT ‘Detours’ page, listing this detour (and I presume the temporary temporary stop at Weber/Guelph) as in place from January 11 through January 25. It had previously said 6 weeks. I’m unsure if they will keep the stop when the 200 can use (some of) King in a few weeks, but I doubt it.

If the stop at Weber and Guelph is useful to you, please let GRT know. Especially with both King and Waterloo closed, restricting access by foot to the service at King and Victoria, there are a lot of people between Victoria and Union for whom the utility of the iXpress is greatly diminished. It seems senseless not to have a stop somewhere between King and Victoria and King and Union (which is something like three kilometers along the Weber routing), but that’s the situation it’s been for the better part of a year, until last week.

[Markster]

I noticed that the Waterloo Spur at Weber has crossing arms now! Maybe they've been there for weeks/months, but I only just noticed them today. Are they active? Has anyone seen them in action yet?

My question is, how do we lobby GRT to drive through, without coming to a complete stop at, these fully controlled intersections?

[plam]

I noticed that the Waterloo Spur at Weber has crossing arms now!  Maybe they've been there for weeks/months, but I only just noticed them today.  Are they active? Has anyone seen them in action yet?

My question is, how do we lobby GRT to drive through, without coming to a complete stop at, these fully controlled intersections?

Sometimes the US has exemptions for railway spur crossings, but I don't see any such provision in Ontario's Highway Traffic Act. s174 is the relevant section: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08.

[Markster]

Direct Link

174. (1) The driver of a public vehicle upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,
(a) stop the vehicle not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway;
(b) look in both directions along the railway track;
© open a door of the vehicle and listen to determine if any train is approaching;
(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and
(e) not change gears while crossing the railway track. 1997, c. 12, s. 13.

That covers crossings that are not protected by gates or signal lights.

Ottawa, for one, allows buses to travel freely over signalized crossings.

[isUsername]

Ottawa, for one, allows buses to travel freely over signalized crossings.

Maybe not the best example.

Reference

[Markster]

That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals. If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.

[BuildingScout]

That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals.  If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.

Yet, if the bus needed to always stop at rail crossings the driver would have been decelerating in auto-pilot mode, rather than accelerating.

The way I heard it is that bus/train collisions are rare, but when they happen mortality figures tend to be very high, thus the extra caution.

[isUsername]

That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals.  If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.

Key issues in the investigation
...
Expectation and driver perception
Over the previous 12 months, the driver had dozens of shifts in a double-decker bus, and had driven over the Transitway crossing approximately 60 times. However, given the varied schedules of OC Transpo buses and VIA trains, the driver would rarely have encountered a train at this crossing. Drivers who are familiar with a crossing and who have a “no trains” expectation tend not to look in either direction while approaching a crossing and are less likely to reduce their approach speed than drivers who are unfamiliar with a crossing.

(Source: Collision between OC Transpo bus and VIA passenger train: Executive summary)

In other words, drivers developed habits (i.e. speeding around a blind curve) that relied on the assumption that no train would be present.

I think that the benefits of not having buses stop at protected crossings will typically far outweigh the risks, but the Ottawa accident showed what could happen when a driver was subjected to poor sight-lines and multiple distractions while approaching a rail crossing that they rarely needed to stop at. If the Region does move to eliminate this requirement, they'll need to ensure that the risks identified by the TSB are sufficiently addressed.

[Canard]

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with buses stopping at all railway crossings.  It adds like what, 10 seconds to a trip?  What's the difference between that and coming up to a light just as it changes to red, or having to stop for a pedestrian crosswalk if someone happens to press the button? Maybe buses should take also priority at pedestrian crossings, since 1 person at a pedestrian crossing holding up a bus full of 50 people doesn't really make much sense.

[chutten]

Railway crossings by buses are about to get a lot more common, and it is yet another thing that makes buses act differently than cars in traffic.

I'm in favour of buses being permitted to cross with the usual car-level of caution for signal-bearing crossings at the very least.

As for pedestrians, their life isn't hard enough in the region? :)

Traffic signals are too dumb to do anything as smart as delaying the change to amber based on an oncoming transit vehicle. Our infrastructure as a whole is too dumb for something even that simple.

[mpd618]

Traffic signals are too dumb to do anything as smart as delaying the change to amber based on an oncoming transit vehicle. Our infrastructure as a whole is too dumb for something even that simple.

What? No, they're not too dumb to do that. They're explicitly designed to be able to do this for transit and emergency vehicles. The trouble is that this functionality isn't used much for transit, for fear of impacting non-transit traffic in any way.

[MidTowner]

What? No, they're not too dumb to do that. They're explicitly designed to be able to do this for transit and emergency vehicles. The trouble is that this functionality isn't used much for transit, for fear of impacting non-transit traffic in any way.

Yep. We've had traffic signal preemption for a long time now. But around here, we haven't taken the logical step of using it for transit vehicles along with emergency services.