Hospitals in KW

[tomh009]

For those keeping score, that's a 1.41km walk from the ION station according to Google Maps. This site is not transit accessible as-is.

Shuttle service. And if that's what they will rely on, it doesn't much matter whether it's a 1 km or a 1.5 km walk.

Hopefully also GRT bus service to the entrance.

[danbrotherston]

For those keeping score, that's a 1.41km walk from the ION station according to Google Maps. This site is not transit accessible as-is.

Shuttle service. And if that's what they will rely on, it doesn't much matter whether it's a 1 km or a 1.5 km walk.

Hopefully also GRT bus service to the entrance.

A shuttle service is a very expensive very poor bandaid on an entirely artificial problem.

And it's something that'll easily be cut later on.

"Oh look, nobody uses our terrible, unadvertised, service, we can save money by cancelling"

The fact is this facility is designed to maximise the number of people that drive to it. Nothing more complex than that.

[neonjoe]

Could be a good research protect for UW to run an autonomous shuttle between the R/T station and the hospital. Most of the cost in bus transit is the operator. For a small circulator it may be a good use case for something automated.

[ijmorlan]

How hard would it be to realign the LRT route to take a detour after the R&T Station?

It would be expensive. I don't think it would be at all realistic given the much much cheaper alternatives of running a shuttle and re-aligning bus routes.

No, it wouldn’t be expensive.

It would be insanely expensive. You do not take an existing LRT line and re-route it awkwardly to a new destination nearly a kilometre away.

The shuttle is a better idea, but nowhere near as good as doing proper planning up front and putting the hospital on the LRT, preferably built over the tracks and incorporating the station directly into the hospital building, although that last part is a “nice to have”.

The writer of the article westwardloo posted suggested a spur. I don't think that's at all likely either.

[MidTowner]

If it goes west of Hagey instead of adjacent to Wes Graham Way, there will be no rerouting of the LRT and no spur or anything like it. Route 9 is the closest bus route, and it could be rerouted to Hagey and Bearinger.

That happens to be one of the routes that Regional Council just decided to cut to half-hourly frequency. We'll wind up having an expensive hospital just far enough not to be accessible from our expensive LRT system, instead serviced by buses with poor frequency and stops that aren't cleared of snow in the winter. Not ideal.

[panamaniac]

If it goes west of Hagey instead of adjacent to Wes Graham Way, there will be no rerouting of the LRT and no spur or anything like it. Route 9 is the closest bus route, and it could be rerouted to Hagey and Bearinger.

That happens to be one of the routes that Regional Council just decided to cut to half-hourly frequency. We'll wind up having an expensive hospital just far enough not to be accessible from our expensive LRT system, instead serviced by buses with poor frequency and stops that aren't cleared of snow in the winter. Not ideal.

A bold prediction for something that is a decade or more away.

[MidTowner]

If it goes west of Hagey instead of adjacent to Wes Graham Way, there will be no rerouting of the LRT and no spur or anything like it. Route 9 is the closest bus route, and it could be rerouted to Hagey and Bearinger.

That happens to be one of the routes that Regional Council just decided to cut to half-hourly frequency. We'll wind up having an expensive hospital just far enough not to be accessible from our expensive LRT system, instead serviced by buses with poor frequency and stops that aren't cleared of snow in the winter. Not ideal.

A bold prediction for something that is a decade or more away.

Hopefully the Region does push back and recognize that Ion accessibility is very important, and will try to figure out how to get that done. Otherwise that prediction is not a particularly bold one to make.

[danbrotherston]

A bold prediction for something that is a decade or more away.

Hopefully the Region does push back and recognize that Ion accessibility is very important, and will try to figure out how to get that done. Otherwise that prediction is not a particularly bold one to make.

The only thing bold is to assume the project will actually happen in our lifetimes. There's lots of people who expected to see an upgraded highway 7 who didn't.

It is not a bold prediction to think it will be badly designed for transit when built, that's based on solid track record. We can hope that it might be better, but that's not going to happen on it's own, it's going to take years of dedicated effort, and frankly...I don't see a lot of activism happening here so far.

[tomh009]

It is not a bold prediction to think it will be badly designed for transit when built, that's based on solid track record. We can hope that it might be better, but that's not going to happen on it's own, it's going to take years of dedicated effort, and frankly...I don't see a lot of activism happening here so far.

What the plans look like is that it is not close to the LRT station. LRT is not our only transit (nor do most GRT pax use the LRT daily), though, and I fully expect that there will be frequent bus service available. Saying that it's only every 30 minutes now (as another poster said) doesn't really mean anything as bus frequencies are easily adjusted based on ridership. The shuttle service would hopefully be synchronized with the LRT schedule to maximize convenience (or minimize inconvenience).

The hospital location ... yes, I fully agree that it would be better if it were next to (or even closer to) the LRT station, but if the land owner doesn't want to sell, and the parking lots are in the hydro right of way, then those options are problematic. Could they be overcome? Yes, with sufficient effort and money (and time), but I don't think the planners chose a location further away from the station just to make it less convenient, I expect they saw those hurdles as high enough that it made sense to avoid them. Their priorities are probably not the same as ours, but the reality is that building on either of those other two properties would not be as simple.

[danbrotherston]

It is not a bold prediction to think it will be badly designed for transit when built, that's based on solid track record. We can hope that it might be better, but that's not going to happen on it's own, it's going to take years of dedicated effort, and frankly...I don't see a lot of activism happening here so far.

What the plans look like is that it is not close to the LRT station. LRT is not our only transit (nor do most GRT pax use the LRT daily), though, and I fully expect that there will be frequent bus service available. Saying that it's only every 30 minutes now (as another poster said) doesn't really mean anything as bus frequencies are easily adjusted based on ridership. The shuttle service would hopefully be synchronized with the LRT schedule to maximize convenience (or minimize inconvenience).

The hospital location ... yes, I fully agree that it would be better if it were next to (or even closer to) the LRT station, but if the land owner doesn't want to sell, and the parking lots are in the hydro right of way, then those options are problematic. Could they be overcome? Yes, with sufficient effort and money (and time), but I don't think the planners chose a location further away from the station just to make it less convenient, I expect they saw those hurdles as high enough that it made sense to avoid them. Their priorities are probably not the same as ours, but the reality is that building on either of those other two properties would not be as simple.

I really cannot agree that locating >1 km from a mass transit station (one that was cited as a reason for the choice of site) is ameliorated in any way by the existence of a infrequent local bus service and the promise of running a shuttle.

I think the shuttle actually makes it more clear. They KNOW that what they are doing is badly designed for transit. They aren't overlooking it. And I really do believe for some people involved (this involves provincial politicians and staff remember) being inaccessible to transit is a feature.


The parking lots appear to be south of the hydro corridor, best I can tell from the map and the plan the hydro corridor separates the hospital from the parking. Even if shifting the hydro corridor slightly was not possible (which seems dubious on a project of this scale) the parking and the hospital could swap location, they are nearly the same size.

The only argument I find at all compelling that this is "incompetence" or "bad trade offs" vs. "malicious" (and I consider "not caring enough to try" as malicious) is that this site is actually relatively badly designed for car drivers as well. The irony of the "main" entrance being oriented away from literally both main transportation links (the parking, and the LRT station) is pretty insane.

[MidTowner]

This issue made me think of this blog post: Be on the way

A hospital is potentially a significant trip generator for transit, but I nevertheless believe that it will wind up getting poor bus service because Hagey Blvd is a 1200 metre long street and Bearinger isn't any more justifiable as a bus route. A lot can happen in a decade or two, but nothing that is likely to make this hospital site on the way between any other destinations.

Probably an existing nearby route winds up being diverted here (which does not make for a good bus route). Possibly not, but I think likely so.

[tomh009]

Probably an existing nearby route winds up being diverted here (which does not make for a good bus route). Possibly not, but I think likely so.

Routes 9 and 13 are both close. Even 201 could do that detour, not a lot of extra time since it doesn't make many stops.

[MidTowner]

Probably an existing nearby route winds up being diverted here (which does not make for a good bus route). Possibly not, but I think likely so.

Routes 9 and 13 are both close. Even 201 could do that detour, not a lot of extra time since it doesn't make many stops.

They could both make that detour for sure. They're also both underperforming routes, doubtlessly at least in part because they are circuitous, not at all direct. 31 is not too far, either, it could be diverted.

We should not be making what we want to be an express route to make a 2.4 kilometre (round trip) detour, but it's also possible.

Doubtlessly the hospital is going to wind up getting some transit service, but probably not good service. We're talking about "detours" after all. It's an afterthought.

[tomh009]

Doubtlessly the hospital is going to wind up getting some transit service, but probably not good service. We're talking about "detours" after all. It's an afterthought.

I don't see why it would not receive good bus service, whether it's through an extension of an existing route or a completely new route: in addition to the patients, the hospital will probably have more than 5,000 employees, many of whom will use transit. Why would GRT ignore the new hospital in their route planning?

[MidTowner]

Doubtlessly the hospital is going to wind up getting some transit service, but probably not good service. We're talking about "detours" after all. It's an afterthought.

I don't see why it would not receive good bus service, whether it's through an extension of an existing route or a completely new route: in addition to the patients, the hospital will probably have more than 5,000 employees, many of whom will use transit. Why would GRT ignore the new hospital in their route planning?

They will definitely not ignore it. It will doubtlessly up getting some transit service. Why not good service? Because it is not truly on the way between any other destinations, and will require a detour.

But I guess it depends what we mean by "good" service. Cambridge Memorial Hospital (a smaller hospital but still a major trip generator) has 20-minute weekday frequency from the 206 and half-hourly from the 50. That's not too bad. But part of the reason that can happen is because the hospital is on a logical direct route from Sportsworld through downtown Preston to downtown Galt. If it was the only thing on Coronation, and the bus diverted from Hespeler Road, I bet the service would be worse.